CHARACTERISTICS ASCRIBED TO MENTORS BY THEIR PROTEGES
by
ANN DARWIN
B.Ed., Flinders University, 1976 Grad.Dip.T., University of South Australia, 1978 M.Ed., University of South Australia, 1996
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
in
THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL STUDIES
We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
November 1998
©Ann Darwin, 1998 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.
Department of
The University of British Columbia Vancouver/Canada
Date Al' //• °JS
DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT
The benefit of mentoring as a strategy to improve workplace learning has been proclaimed in business and educational research literature for the past two decades. This study focused on the characteristics ascribed by proteges to their workplace mentors. This topic has received little serious attention despite the proliferation of research on mentoring.
Data were collected from 1,771 Canadians, most of whom were from Vancouver, British
Columbia. Initially, 1,011 people encountered in public places, such as markets and shopping centres, completed a pen-and-paper questionnaire in which they were asked to write three words to describe their mentors. One hundred of these words were put into a second questionnaire. This was administered to 760 people in various work settings and training venues. Data were factor analyzed resulting in eight factors: Authenticity,
Volatility, Nurturance, Approachability, Competence, Inspiration, Conscientiousness and
Hard Working. Standardized scale scores were then calculated from the factors and used to test for differences among various socio-demographic variables. Finally, individual, face- to-face interviews were conducted with 16 proteges in order to explore how these key mentoring characteristics manifested themselves in day-to-day work settings.
Irrespective of age, gender or status within their organizations, two-thirds of the respondents reported having mentors. Mentors were most often older than their proteges and more than half reported that their mentors were also their bosses. Three-fifths of these mentors were men. Statistical tests of differences on various socio-demographic variables and the Dimensions Of Mentoring Inventory (DOMI) highlighted differences between the perceptions of women and men proteges about their mentors. Women proteges attributed higher Nurturance scores to mentors than did men, whereas men attributed higher
Competence scores to mentors than did women. Most proteges were in single-gender relationships, however the 178 (one-fifth) of respondents in cross-gender relationships
it showed no differences in characteristics from single-gender relationships. Proteges in management positions attributed higher Competence scores to mentors than those in non- management positions. Mentoring relationships with bosses were reportedly of longer duration, with more bosses aware of their mentoring role than non bosses. Mentor/protege conflict was infrequent, but when it occurred, the mentors were characterized as Volatile and Hard Working. Interviews with 16 proteges yielded vignettes of their mentors as they recounted memorable incidents. Five themes were uluminated through interviews with proteges. The mentors' belief in their protege's capabilities; a desire on the part of proteges to be mentored; timing of the relationship; reciprocity; and affinity.
This was a study of mentor characteristics as seen from proteges' points of view.
Further studies utilizing confirmatory factor analysis are needed to verify the factor structure of mentor characteristics and to test alternative models. Further investigation into characteristics of mentors, particularly those in the dual role of mentor and boss, and differences in perceptions between women and men are advisable.
iii TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
Acknowledgements viii
Chapter One Mentoring in Work Settings 1 Purposes of the Study 3 Deflations 4 Significance of the Study 6 Research Design 7 Summary 9
Chapter Two Theoretical Perspectives 12 Emergent Trends in Mentoring 14 Perspectives 18 Learning 18 Development 20 Hierarchy, Power and Gender 22 Mentoring Functions and Workplace Relationships 26 Characteristics of Mentors 33 Summary 36
Chapter Three Methodology 37 Conceptual Considerations 37 Purposes of the Study 40 Issues of Trustworthiness 42 Procedures 44 Phase One: Describing Mentors 45 Phase Two: Dimensions of Mentoring 48 Phase Three: Mentoring in Context 56 Summary 59
Chapter Four Results: Describing Mentors 61 Respondents' Socio-Demographic Information 62 Mentors' Socio-Demographic Information 66 Discussion and Summary 70
iv Chapter Five Results: Dimensions of Mentoring 76 Key Words Ascribed to Workplace Mentors 7 6 Factor Structure of Mentor Characteristics 79 Scale Scores of Mentor Characteristics 89 Summary 92
Chapter Six Results: Correlates of Eight Dimensions of Mentoring 94 Socio-Demographic Differences Among Proteges 96 Socio-Demographic Differences Among Mentors 98 Socio-Demographic Differences Among Industry Groups 100 Discussion and Summary 101
Chapter Seven Results: Mentoring in Context 104 Memorable Incidents 106 The Authenticity Dimension 106 The Nurturance Dimension 113 The Approachability Dimension 120 The Competence Dimension 127 The Inspiration Dimension 134 The Conscientiousness Dimension 141 The Hard Working Dimension 147 The Volatile Dimension 153 Mentoring Profiles 161 Descriptions of Mentors 164 Mentoring Relationships 171 Summary 174
Chapter Eight Conclusions and Recommendations 177 Key Findings 177 Implications for Practice 184 Limitations And Recommendations for Future Research 186 Summary 188
References 190
Appendix 1 Learning at Work Questionnaire 199
Appendix 2 Mentoring in Work Settings Questionnaire 202
Appendix 3 Words Used to Describe Mentors 207
Appendix 4 Canadian Census Figures 211
v LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Mentoring Relationships 17
Table 2. Emergent Mentoring Frameworks 26
Table 3. Mentoring Functions and Workplace Relationships 27
Table 4. Selected Findings of Attributed Characteristics of Mentors 33
Table 5. Questionnaire One: Learning at Work 46
Table 6. Questionnaire Two: Mentoring in Work Settings 50
Table 7. Interview Guide 58
Table 8. Type of Organizations Represented in both Samples 63
Table 9. Selected Socio-Demographic Variables on Respondents from Two Samples 64 Table 10. Selected Socio-Demographic Variables on Mentors from Two Samples 67
Table 11. Words Used to Describe Mentors 77
Table 12. Proportions of Variance Among Eight Mentoring Factors 80
Table 13. Scale Scores Statistics for Eight Mentor Dimensions 90
Table 14. Correlations Among Eight Scale Scores 92 Table 15. Socio-Demographic Differences Among Proteges for Eight Mentoring Characteristics 95
Table 16. Socio-Demographic Differences Among Mentors for Eight Mentoring Characteristics 97
Table 17. Socio-Demographic Differences Among Industry Groups for Eight Mentoring Characteristics 99
Table 18. Description of Proteges Selected for Interviews 105
Table 19. High and Low Characteristics of Mentors as Ascribed by Proteges 162 Table 20. Mentoring Functions and Mentor Characteristics 182
vi LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Scope and Order of Phases Associated with the Study 41
Figure 2. Distribution of Questionnaires 53
Figure 3. Profile of Mary's Mentor 108
Figure 4. Profile of Ken's Mentor 111
Figure 5. Profile of Julie's Mentor 114
Figure 6. Profile of Trevor's Mentor 119
Figure 7. Profile of Dave's Mentor 123
Figure 8. Profile of Kathy's Mentor 126
Figure 9. Profile of Luke's Mentor 129
Figure 10. Profile of Denise's Mentor 132
Figure 11. Profile of Rose's Mentor 136
Figure 12. Profile of Mark's Mentor 139
Figure 13. Profile of Matthew's Mentor 142
Figure 14. Profile of Terry's Mentor 145
Figure 15. Profile of Ruth's Mentor 149
Figure 16. Profile of Sally's Mentor 152
Figure 17. Profile of John's Mentor 155
Figure 18. Profile of Suzuki's Mentor 159
vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The support I needed to complete this thesis came from many people. My research committee who challenged, encouraged and supported my learning. My special thanks to:
• Roger Boshier, who believed in me, set me on course, challenged and motivated
me to keep going when I really needed it.
• John Collins, who navigated, coached and guided me at every step of my
journey.
• Frank Echols and Dan Pratt, for their timely support, challenging dialogue and
undeniable wisdom.
Significant support came from my fellow students and special friends who beat the pavements with me collecting data, sharing their energy and spirit and a very special friendship. My thanks to:
• Kristen Greene, Gwen Pawlikowski, Ji-wan Shin, Megumi Shirasaka, Libby
Thornton, Kathy Thornton, Tami Vaisman, and Mark Wright. A special thanks
to my daughter, Toni Darwin, who travelled to Canada from Australia to help
lighten my spirit and role model courage.
To the people who helped in the distribution of questionnaires:
• Peter Frost, Ingrid Pipke, Janis Keller, Kate McCabe, Paul Tinsley, Pablo
Sobrino, Estelle Paget, Baldwin Wong, Stanley French, Brent Kobayashi,
Paul Hunt, Louis Riley and Kristin Smith.
Finally, I'd like to acknowledgement the many respondents who participated in this research especially those who willingly shared their mentoring stories with me.
vm CHAPTER ONE
MENTORING IN WORK SETTINGS
There are many people who significantly influence the learning and development of others. These significant people come in different guises ~ as friends, teachers, colleagues and bosses. They are often referred to as mentors. Yet the term conjures up pictures of extraordinary characters who live in the pages of story books. Merlin the Magician who mentored young Arthur to become King of Camelot, Obi-Wan Kenobi who taught Darth
Vader the ways of the Jedi Knights, or the original Mentor who was at times, Athene, the goddess of wisdom in disguise, are examples that stir the imagination. Biographies of famous people illustrate the important part mentors play in developing talented individuals, in art, literature, music, politics, business, religion, science and sport.
Within work settings, mentoring has been used as an intentional workplace learning strategy for centuries. In early democratic Chinese history the passing of the throne by the sovereign to a successor was known as Shan Jang, "stepping out of the way." Mentoring flourished in the English feudal system as favoured pages and squires became knights. The apprenticeship model was practiced by the Guilds in Medieval times. During the Renaissance and Baroque periods patron families supported talented artists. There has been a strong reproductive element attached to the term, well suited to societies that rely on ritualized behaviour to protect the status quo. Hence, mentoring was a way in which knowledge was handed down, cultures maintained, talent supported and future leadership secured.
Modern organizations became interested in mentoring as a result of studies into adult development which suggested that predictable transitions occur during people's lives and that early adulthood was a time when young people benefited from the assistance of a mentor
(Levinson, Darrow, Klein, Levinson & McKee, 1978). As well as supporting personal
1 growth (Daloz, 1986) mentors provided the necessary boost to a young person's career, supposedly making the difference between success and failure in the workplace (Kanter,
1977; Roche, 1979; Sheehy, 1976). For mentors, the relationship was an opportunity to
"give back" in middle age and revitalize their own learning (Levinson et al., 1978). For organizations, mentoring offered the promise of increased productivity, reduced turnover and preparation of future leaders (Zey, 1984).
Mentoring continues to be at the forefront of strategies to increase workplace learning.
A North American survey reported that the percentage of organizations planning mentoring programs doubled between 1995 and 1996, from 17 to 36 per cent (Jossi, 1997). Work settings have undergone rapid changes as a result of technological advancements and an increasingly diverse workforce, leading to renewed interest in individual and organizational learning. Previous research has provided evidence to suggest that challenging work assignments combined with appropriate learning support systems, such as mentoring, are a key element in the learning of employee skills (Daloz, 1987; McCall, Lombardo & Morrison,
1988). However, the patterns inherited from the past are having to be tested against a new set of realities and the status quo may no longer be the best way forward (Handy, 1990).
The challenge facing organizations today is how to re-frame mentoring so that supportive alliances are sufficiently available to those who can benefit from them - orciinary people as well as the scions of industry.
This study was about characteristics ascribed by proteges to their workplace mentors.
While characteristics can mean many things, they are referred to here as personality characteristics rather than socio-demographic variables such as age and gender. Are mentors extraordinary characters like those suggested in myths and legends? Do they possess particular characteristics which readily identify them as mentors? These questions are the focus of this study.
2 Purposes of the Study
The purposes of this study were: (1) To describe characteristics ascribed by proteges to workplace mentors; (2) To investigate how many dimensions best describe characteristics of workplace mentors; (3) To find out how mentoring dimensions manifest themselves in day-to-day work settings. A three phase research design was used, combining quantitative and qualitative data sources, as outlined below.
Phase one, Describing Mentors, asked: "What characteristics do proteges ascribe to their workplace mentors?" A questionnaire was designed and administered to large numbers of people in public places. Data collected from this questionnaire provided a basis for the development of a factor model of mentor characteristics which later served to guide follow-up, face-to-face interviews.
Phase two, Dimensions of Mentoring, asked: "How many dimensions best describe characteristics of workplace mentors?" Words used most frequently by respondents were arrayed in a second questionnaire and administered to a new set of respondents. Data from this second questionnaire were analyzed to produce a factor model of mentor dimensions, from which scale scores were developed.
Phase three, Mentoring in Context, asked: "How do the dimensions of mentoring manifest themselves in day-to-day work settings?" Interviews were conducted with selected respondents to define ways in which their mentors' more prominent dimensions were expressed in specific work settings.
3 Definitions
One of the criticisms often levelled against mentoring research is the lack of agreement on how to define the term. Examination of the various definitions reveals several common elements: that the mentor is a more senior employee who serves as a role model, provides support, direction, guidance, feedback and increases the visibility of the protege (Clawson.
1980; Kram, 1983; Clutterbuck, 1985). The larger the number of supportive functions provided by the mentor to the protege, the more likely the relationship was considered to be one of mentoring. Mentors who are willing and able to provide long-term and comprehensive support to proteges may be harder to find today as organizational and personal needs become more complex. Many researchers have not, therefore, required the comprehensiveness of functions suggested by traditional definitions, as the incidence of mentoring is much higher when mentoring is defined less restrictively (Clawson, 1980).
Some researchers make distinctions between primary mentors, who develop a more intense developmental relationship, and secondary mentors, who provide more of a detached learning support (Gibb & Megginson, 1993; Phillips-Jones, 1982). Others use the term
"diffuse mentoring" to refer to situations in which a less experienced person receives support from two or more experienced people who do not necessarily have a close one-to-one relationship (Fagan, 1988). Still others describe a continuum of supportive relationships, ranging from peer (usually equal experience and capability), coach (usually bosses who provide on-the-job training), guide (a person who explains the system), sponsor (patrons who provide visibility and help with upward mobility), with mentor being the most highly supportive and comprehensive relationship (Jeruchim & Shapiro, 1992).
The phenomenon of mentoring is more easily recognized than named, as aptly expressed by Levinson et al. (1978) who state: "no word currently in use is adequate to
4 convey the nature of the relationship" (p. 97). They believe that the essence of mentoring may be found more within the kind of relationship that exists between mentor and protege than in the various roles and functions suggested by the term.
Within work settings, mentors are usually either co-workers or bosses. Like the term mentor, the word "boss" is open to a number of interpretations and has embedded in it notions of hierarchy, paternalism and authority. However, traditional definitions of leadership are being challenged. Writers increasingly recommend a more nurturing workplace in which bosses are encouraged to have open, closer relationships with their staff
(Bennis, 1989; O'Toole, 1995). Whereas in the past many bosses perceived their role to be primarily one of supervision they now increasingly have a greater responsibility for staff development.
This study used the following definitions:
• Characteristics: The personal qualities that distinguish one person from another.
• Mentor: A person who encourages, challenges and supports the learning and
development of others.
• Protege. A less experienced person who receives support (formal or informal) from a
more experienced person. The term "mentee" is an alternative term for protege and
occurs within some quotations.
• Mentoring: When a more experienced person pairs with a less experienced person for
the purpose of career development or psychosocial support.
5 • Boss: Someone with authority (legitimized power) over another person who is
responsible for supervision. Hence, a boss can be either an immediate supervisor or
a more senior member of the organization.
Significance of the Study
Today's workplace is constantly changing and the challenge for organizations is to enhance the learning of individuals. Organizations learn through individuals who learn and while individual learning does not guarantee organizational learning, without it no learning occurs (Senge, 1990, p. 139). Relationships are a critical factor in accelerating learning
(Kram & Brager, 1991). Mentors make a critical difference in the success of mentoring relationships (Levinson, 1978). Hence, a greater understanding of the characteristics ascribed to mentors by their proteges will contribute to mentoring and organizational learning literature.
Mentors in work settings are usually either co-workers or bosses. On-the-job learning opportunities frequently arise from relationships between bosses and subordinates
(Kadushin, 1985; Kanter, 1977; Ritchie & Connolly, 1993). Few studies have investigated the boss and non-boss status of the mentor (Burke, McKenna & McKeen, 1991; Noe, 1988) and increased research on the mentoring of subordinates by supervisors is strongly urged
(Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1994). An area of exploration for this study was the comparison between characteristics ascribed to boss and non-boss mentors.
Several qualities distinguished this from other studies of mentoring. First, concerned the characteristics of mentors. However, it's most salient feature was the inversion of power relations. Overwhelmingly, studies on mentoring are written from a top down, often corporate perspective. Where proteges provide data it is usually within the confines of a
6 single (often elitist) organization. There has been remarkably little attention paid to what the ordinary person in the street has to say about mentors and mentoring. It takes courage to approach people in the street, announce that you're working at the university and then proceed to quiz them about their mentors. More than a third of those approached offered their name and phone number and invited the researcher to conduct an interview. In general, respondents appeared to enjoy talking about the characteristics of their mentors. In short, the researcher adopted an inductive and respectful approach which invited participation and listened to the voices of ordinary citizens.
Research Design
An inductive approach was taken in this study. The process of data collection started by asking a large sample of Canadians, in the province of British Columbia, to provide three words which described a significant person at work who had a positive influence on their learning. The words proffered to describe these people then became the core data for subsequent research procedures. Data gathering and analysis occurred in three distinct phases, as outlined below.
Phase One: Describing Mentors
The purposes of phase one, Describing Mentors, were to collect descriptive data on mentoring in work settings, to find respondents willing to be interviewed, and to provide a basis for the development of a factor model of mentoring characteristics. A questionnaire was designed to investigate characteristics ascribed to mentors in work settings, the nature and type of workplace relationships, and to assist in the identification of respondents for later interviews. Questionnaires were administered in public places (markets, parks, ferry terminals and shopping centres) in various locations across British Columbia, Canada.
7 These sites were chosen because they were more likely to attract a heterogeneous population.
Further, as the purpose of this phase of the study, Describing Mentors, was to produce a picture of a broad mentoring landscape, an informal friendly, face-to-face approach to collecting data from respondents was used.
Phase Two: Dimensions of Mentoring
The purpose of phase two, Dimensions of Mentoring, was to investigate the dimensions of mentor characteristics. A second questionnaire was administered to a new set of subjects. Questions were designed to elicit information about respondents' mentors as well as socio-demographic information about both respondents and mentors. The 80 words most frequently used by respondents to describe their mentors were included in this questionnaire. Additionally, 20 of the less frequently used words that are not normally associated with mentors were included, in order to avoid acquiescence response bias.
Respondents were asked: "To what extent did this mentor possess these characteristics?"
These 100 words utilized a two-point scale ("Yes", "No"). Data were factor analyzed, a factor model of mentor characteristics was produced, and scale scoring resulted in a number of mentoring characteristic dimensions. Questionnaires were administered in three different ways: personally, within group settings, and through distribution within organizations.
Once again, in order to achieve greater inclusivity of data sources, a variety of venues, likely to include a mix of occupational groups, was included in administration sites.
Phase Three: Mentoring in Context
The purpose of phase three, Mentoring in Context, was to collect data in order to establish how dimensions of mentoring related to day-to-day work settings. Whereas the earlier phases focused on characteristics ascribed to mentors, this last phase concerned
8 mentoring in context. Follow up individual face-to-face interviews were conducted with 16 of the 412 respondents who indicated their willingness to be interviewed during phase one,
Describing Mentors. Interviews were selected in a purposive manner, based on the following criteria: (1) the three words used to describe their mentors; (2) inclusion of same- gender and cross-gender mentoring partnerships; (3) a variety of workplace relationships such as boss and non-boss.
Summary
Mentoring has been the subject of extensive investigation in business and educational research literature for the past two decades. Within work settings, a mentor has been defined as a senior member of an organization who provides intensive, long-term support to the career advancement and personal development of a younger employee. More recendy, researchers have defined mentoring less restrictively as traditional career pathways become less prevalent and the workforce increasingly more diverse (Fagan, 1988). There is now greater emphasis on continuous learning for everyone, regardless of class, race, gender, background, or organizational position. In this study a mentor is defined as a more experienced person who encourages, challenges and supports the learning and development of a less experienced person. The focus is on personality characteristics ascribed by proteges to their workplace mentors; a topic that has received litde serious attention despite the proliferation of mentoring research on other topics.
Three questions were asked: (1) What characteristics do proteges ascribe to their workplace mentors? (2) How many dimensions best describe characteristics of workplace mentors? (3) How do the dimensions of mentoring manifest themselves in day-to-day work settings? The research design includes three phases: Phase one, Describing Mentors; two,
Dimensions of Mentoring; and three, Mentoring in Context. Data were collected from a large
9 number of people, in public places such as markets, shopping centres and ferry terminals, and in a variety of work settings and group training venues.
A full description of the research design, including data collection and analysis can be found in Chapter 4, Methodology. The subsequent chapters of this thesis are organized as follows:
• Chapter 2, Theoretical Perspectives provides a context for this study into characteristics ascribed to mentors in work settings, by exploring emergent trends, perspectives, functions, and workplace relationships. Previous research into characteristics of mentors is also reviewed and summarized.
• Chapter 3, Methodology describes the research methodology used in this study.
Conceptual considerations, research methodology, data collection, and data analysis for each of the three phases are documented.
• Chapter 4, Results: Describing Mentors reports socio-demographic findings from phase one, Describing Mentors, and two, Dimensions of Mentoring. Discussion and summary of these findings are also included in this chapter.
• Chapter 5, Results: Dimensions of Mentoring reports the process of data collection and analyses which led to the development of the Dimensions Of Mentoring Inventory (DOMI).
The chapter is divided into the following sections: Key Words Used to Describe Mentors;
Factor Structure of Mentoring Characteristics; Scale Scoring of Mentoring Dimensions;
Summary.
10 • Chapter 6, Results: Correlates of Eight Dimensions of Mentoring reports on differences among people's scale scores in terms of selected socio-demographic variables. The
Dimensions of Mentoring Inventory (DOMI) was correlated with various socio-demographic variables. Results of these correlations are reported in this chapter.
• Chapter 7, Results: Mentoring in Context documents the stories told by respondents about their mentors. Sixteen respondents were asked questions about their mentors and their mentoring relationships. Interviews were semi-structured and required respondents to recall memorable incidents that would demonstrate how their mentors' more prominent mentoring dimensions manifested themselves in work settings. This chapter is divided into the following sections: Memorable Incidents; Mentoring Profiles, Descriptions of Mentors;
Mentoring Relationships; Discussion and Summary.
• Chapter 8, Conclusions and Recommendations includes a summary of key findings and implications for mentorship practice. Limitations of the study and recommendations for future research are also discussed.
11 CHAPTER TWO THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
The term "mentor" has its roots in Homer's classic, The Odyssey. In this myth,
Odysseus, knowing that he would be away from home and kingdom for many years fighting in the Trojan War, entrusted his son, Telemachus, to his friend and adviser, Mentor. As well as a surrogate father, Mentor acted as a personal guide to Telemachus in his search for his father and, it would appear, in his search for his own identity. This original mentoring relationship which was intentional, protective, long term and intensive, has become a prototype for contemporary mentoring relationships.
The 1970s witnessed extensive research into mentoring as an important career- building factor. Roche's (1979) study revealed that nearly two-thirds of the prominent executives in the study had a mentor or sponsor, and one-third had two or more mentors.
Further, that these executives received higher salaries, bonuses, and total compensation than did executives who did not have mentors. Although female executives constituted a small proportion of his study (less than 1%) mentors were found to be equally important for the career advancement of women. Missirian (1982) conducted an exploratory survey of the one hundred top businesswomen in the USA., together with fifteen in-depth interviews. Her findings confirmed her initial hypothesis, that women who reach the top management ranks have had a mentoring relationship of one kind or another. Subsequent studies (Reich, 1986;
Collins, 1983; Jeruchim & Shapiro, 1992), have pointed to the importance of a mentor for both men's and women's career advancement. "Mentors are important for both males and females, but may be essential for women who are seeking professional advancement.
Mentors buffer discrimination and help women anticipate and overcome barriers"
(Otto, 1994, p. 17).
12 Organizations began to see the benefits of mentoring for the development of future leaders. Whilst the concept of succession planning was not a new phenomena in the business world, the difference was that organisations started to make explicit what was, in the past, implicit, and to develop company-sponsored formal mentoring programs. A main reason for this was the growing diversity in the work place and the need for affirmative action policies. Formal mentoring programs blossomed in the decade after management theorist Kanter (1977) concluded that having a mentor was critical to career success.
Employers wanting to improve the representation of women and ininorities in the executive ranks created specialized mentoring programs to help achieve that goal (Gunn, 1995). There was also a need for organizational change and a growing recognition of the importance of people in bringing about change.
Researchers have investigated and evaluated aspects of formal mentoring programs and showed the benefits to individuals, mentors and organizations (Cohen, 1995; Hunt &
Michael, 1983; Klauss, 1981; Wilson & Elman, 1990). Others have called for more reliable and valid instruments to measure the effectiveness of mentoring programs (Cohen, 1995)..
Still others have alluded to potential dangers of these programs, suggesting the natural process of mentoring may become contrived and mechanistic (Shapiro et al., 1978; Kram,
1985; Merriam, 1983;). Formal programs are, by their nature, authoritarian, for they are introduced and controlled by senior managers (Caruso, 1992; Kram, 1985). Two selective reviews of the mentoring literature were published in which Merriam (1983) cautioned against the potentially negative effects and Hunt and Michael (1983) proposed the establishment of formal mentoring programs. The latter's optimism appears to have had the loudest voice as large amounts of funds and energy continue to pour into the development, implementation, and evaluation of formal mentoring programs which continue to operate today in education, business and the public sector, with mixed results (Carden, 1990).
13 Mentoring practices are based on models developed when workplaces and career paths were more secure than they are today. Organizations are now more complex, with a movement away from the development of the individual's career in the hands of the organization to individuals taking responsibility for their own careers. Further, there is a danger that mentors, although wise to the past, may be less willing to embrace change and may be closed to learning (Collin, 1988; Senge, 1990). It is therefore, necessary to explore mentoring within this new context.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a context for this study into characteristics ascribed by proteges to their workplace mentors. This is achieved by reviewing some key theories and research trends. A description of the growing complexities of workplaces and emergent trends are discussed, highlighting the need to re-examine past theories and re-frame perspectives, roles, functions and workplace relationships. Finally, as the major focus of this study is the characteristics ascribed by proteges to mentors, previous studies into mentoring characteristics are reviewed and summarized.
Emergent Trends in Mentoring
Mentorship always occurs in a cultural context. The challenge people face is that the rules and rituals of today are continually evolving and may be quite different from those existing when they joined the work force. This creates challenges for everyone as few are exempt from the nature of change that has bombarded work settings over the past decade.
Two major changes have influenced the way mentoring is defined and used ~ unprecedented advances in technology and an increasingly diverse workforce.
The growth of technology is placing demands on organizational structures and the capacity of individuals within organizations to overcome barriers to change (Argyris, 1993).
14 As a result of information technology, computers and telecommunications have become faster and more affordable, enabling organizations to produce goods and provide services with little requirement for human beings. Many organizations have re-engineered and downsized resulting in increased redundancies and flatter organizational structures. These changes ha.ve had an impact on the way work is performed. More people are working part time and in many cases, from their homes. This trend is likely to continue so that by the twenty-first century less than half the workforce in the industrial world will be in full-time employment
(Handy, 1990) and the workplace, as people currently know it, will come to an end (Rifkin,
1995). While not everyone agrees with these predictions, it is inevitable that workplaces will continue to be transformed by technological discoveries.
In many instances rapid technological growth, resulting in organizational re• structuring efforts in the name of efficiency, has changed career structures. Consequently, an expectation of life-long employment within the same organization has been replaced by growing insecurity for workers at all levels and the traditional career orientation of mentoring is now believed to be too limiting. One job for life is no longer guaranteed and career responsibility rests with the individual "to cultivate adaptability by adopting and assimilating new work roles and experiences into an integrated sense of identity " (Thomas & Higgins,
1995, p. 3). This career instability includes most people as mid-life employees find themselves having to re-learn and compete for jobs in an open market place. They may be; more vulnerable than younger people who have been raised in an age of greater uncertainty of security in employment. Mentoring is now more likely perceived as an activity relevant to young and old alike.
Workplace diversity is increasing, thus gender and racial stereotypes that have in the past interfered with communication between different groups now needs urgent attention. In most instances this will challenge stereotypes and life scripts that people bring to situations.
15 Traditionally, mentors have chosen proteges most like themselves and women and minority groups have been left out in the cold as they didn't "fit" into the comfort zone of mentors
(Mertz, 1987). Further, due to an increase in redundancies, there are now less experienced people available to act as traditional mentors, particularly to women and minority groups.
Many of the psychosocial functions, such as friendship and counselling, may be better served by peers or people outside the immediate work group. Within a diverse work climate, the traditional one-on-one relationship may be harder to find as personal and organizational needs become more complex. In its place individuals are more likely to receive support from a range of developmental relationships, depending on the mentorial functions required.
Mentors have been viewed as guides who assist others to undergo life's journey and cope with fears. "We trust them because they have been there before. They embody our hopes, cast light on the way ahead, interpret arcane signs, warn us of lurking dangers and point out unexpected delights along the way" (Daloz, 1986, p. 17). Today, workplace mentors may be in need of guides themselves as they too are faced with new horizons. This places everyone in a learning role, including mentors "since the only thing that we ever really have to offer anyone as a mentor is the wisdom of our own experience, it seems crucial that we insist on always being mentored ourselves" (Huang & Lynch, 1995, p. 10).
Rapid technological growth, change in career structures and workplace diversity is requiring organizations to re-frame mentoring relationships (see Table 1). Additionally,
flatter structures have lessened power structures increasing the need for collaborative
leadership and team work. As continuous learning within work settings becomes more
important mentors are more likely to be people who encourage, challenge and support the
learning and development of others. Re-framing mentoring in this way enables it to become
a more effective learning tool, as organizations deal with uncertain environments through
16 active interaction, thereby creating new knowledge rather than mere knowledge reproduction
(Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
Conditions such as rapid change and diversity may create a climate of insecurity in
which people react conservatively, with a tendency to adopt fundamentalist thinking. There
are paradoxes here. On the one hand, most people work in a competitive environment yet are
often asked to collaborate and share ideas; to engage in intentional learning and reflection yet
redundancies often result in people having to do more with less resources. Within this
paradoxical climate mentoring is more important today than it was in the past as people journey into unknown territories together. Individuals are having to learn new skills and, in
order to remain competitive, organizations are becoming more reliant on people who are able
to form quality relationships. How mentoring is perceived and the capacity of people to re-
frame perspectives is critical if it is to remain relevant in today's work settings.
Table 1. Mentoring Relationships
Traditional Emergent Trends
mentor older mentor older, younger or same age
protective relationship relationship more equal
long term long or short term
hierarchical co-learning
homogeneous heterogeneous
exclusive inclusive
comprehensive multiple relationships
17 Perspectives
A perspective is a complex web of actions, intentions, and beliefs; each, in turn, creates its own criteria forjudging or evaluating right or wrong, true and false, effective and ineffective (Pratt, 1997, p. 35).
Implicit in mentoring practices are age-old assumptions about learning and development, hierarchy, power and gender. Additionally, much of the recent research has been directed more towards the practical application and implementation of programs than to theoretical and conceptual understandings of the mentoring phenomenon (Applebaum,
Ritchie, & Shapiro, 1994). Consequently, theories developed in more stable times, continue to anchor today's practices. The workplace is now less stable and continuation of the status quo is less desirable. The purpose here is to reflect on perspectives underlying these 20- year-old theories in the light of today's changing workplace environment.
Learning
Learning is strongly linked to people's beliefs about the nature of knowledge. In traditional epistemology, knowledge derives from the separation of the subject and the object of perception. Polanyi (1966) makes a distinction between explicit (transmittable in formal language) and tacit knowledge (context specific). The latter is an extension of the values and knowledge as lived within a community (Pratt, 1997), which Polanyi (1966) calls
"indwelling". Tacit knowledge includes cognitive and technical elements. The cognitive elements centre on "mental models" (Johnson-Laird, 1983) and the technical elements include know-how and skills. An example of "indwelling" was the Guild System, when apprentices
worked with their masters over a period of many years, learning through observation,
imitation and practice. The need to learn subtle things may account for the enduring popularity of mentoring over the centuries.
18 Within traditional mentoring relationships, learning was a means of transmitting knowledge to proteges and the mentor's primary role was that of a transmitter of organizational culture. The role of the mentor was one of protective teacher, guide and sponsor. Mentors were perceived as conservors and regulators of the existing order of affairs and mostly served as nodes in an information transmission network. Further, as mentors tended to choose those most like themselves, a kind of cloning process often occurred (Kanter, 1977). This perspective is one of maintenance of existing order of the way things have always been done and is best suited to stable times.
In a review of studies into organizational culture Nonaka and Takeuchi (1996) state that the potential of people as a creative resource, has received too little attention. They advocate a theory which looks at four modes of knowledge conversion that are created when tacit and explicit knowledge interact with each other. The first mode, "socialization", is a process of sharing experiences and thereby creating tacit knowledge, such as shared mental models and technical skills. The second, "externalization", is a process of articulating tacit knowledge into explicit concepts. This stage is triggered by dialogue and reflection. The third, "combination", is a process of systematizing concepts into a knowledge system, to be shared by the organization. The fourth, "internalization", is the process of embodying explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge so that it becomes part of the organizational culture.
This model has implications for mentoring within organizations. Historically, a focus of mentoring activities has been on the orientation of new employees and more recently, diversity programs. Mentoring has rarely been perceived as part of mainstream activities and as a result, it has not always been taken seriously by senior management. Mentoring could fit well within an organizational knowledge-creation process as a strategy to support on-the- job learning for all staff.
19 A major challenge confronting individuals is learning to break away from past mind• sets and habits which may act as barriers to learning. Bennis (1989) states that people must learn to free themselves from habit in order to resolve paradoxes, transcend conflicts, and become the masters rather than the slaves of their own lives. "True learning", he asserts,
"begins with unlearning" (p. 69). Further, growth-fostering relationships in the future are more likely to be characterized by the three qualities of interdependence, mutuality and reciprocity rather than dependence, influence and protection (Fletcher, 1996). Still further, the concept of co-learning suggests that individuals transcend roles, or create different roles, and interact as colleagues. With learning as the goal, mentoring is important for all employees, including senior managers who are also novices in the contemporary work environment.
Development
Several theorists proposed developmental learning models of mentoring to understand the pattern of an adult's life (Kram, 1983, Levinson et al, 1978, Missirian, 1982, Phillips-
Jones, 1982). In these conceptual frameworks a mentor is viewed as a transitional figure who guides and nurtures the protege into the adult world through a series of stages, from dependence to independence. Adult development perspectives suggest that early adulthood is a period of initiation and middle adulthood is a time for reappraisal. Each of these stages involves unique developmental tasks that must be mastered in order to advance to the next: stage (Erickson, 1980). Generativity remains a predominant concern through middle adulthood when people take on the responsibility for new generations of adults (Levinson et al., 1978). Adult development theory provides a basis for mentoring as both young adults and people in mid-life are able to satisfy each others' needs. For the protege, there is guidance and support and, for the mentor, there is a sense of giving back to future generations.
20 Career development research also suggests that people proceed through stages
(establishment, advancement, maintenance and withdrawal), and at each stage there is a transitional period ~ a time of adjustment. Mentoring is first encountered during the establishment stage, usually when young people first enter an organization and are in most need of guidance and support. Mentors, in their mid to late 40s, at the maintenance stage of their career, pass on their acquired knowledge to young people who have just started, enabling them to build a sense of identity and career purpose. One of the best-known mentoring models was postulated by Kram (1983). She suggested that mentoring relationships proceed through a number of stages: initiation (a period of six months to a year) during which time the relationship gets started; cultivation (a period of two to five years) during which time the range of mentoring functions provided expands to a maximum; separation (a period of six months to two years) after a significant change in the structural role relationship; re-definition (an indefinite period) after the separation stage, during which time the relationship is ended or takes on different characteristics, making it more peer-like.
A number of researchers are now beginning to question the relevance of earlier development models (Kram & Hall, 1995) as career paths are less predictable, and people are less likely than in the past to receive life-long developmental support from one person.
Further, these models are based on the assumption that the mentor has more career-related, experience and knowledge than the protege. However, mid-career workers, at the maintenance stage of their careers, are now having to learn new skills — those in which younger workers may already be more competent. Career age, rather than chronological age, may be more important and career growth will be a process of continuous learning which combines relationships and work challenges. Moreover, it is probable that Kram's (1983) work on stages of the mentoring relationship has lost much of its relevance, as mentoring relationships may also be shorter in today's rapidly changing work settings.
21 Several researchers have challenged developmental theory because it has established men's experience and competence as a baseline against which both men's and women's development is then judged, often to the detriment or misreading of women (Belenky,
Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986). In studying women's development Levinson (1996) discovered that the genders differ greatly in ways of going through each developmental period. He concludes that as a result of these differences, the developmental perspective must be combined with a gender perspective as "a way of thinking about the meanings of gender and the place of women and men in the current epoch of human history" (p. 37).
Moreover, adult developmental models are based on the need for separation, with intimacy re-emerging at the re-definition stage. Studies suggest a fusion of identify and intimacy for women, rather than identity preceding intimacy (Gilligan, 1982). While the question of gender differences in the development of identity and intimacy remains unanswered the reality of continuing connection is often relegated to the back seat in most models of adult and career development (Merriam, 1983).
Hierarchy. Power and Gender
Traditionally, a mentor was an older and more experienced person who provided guidance, support, protection and visibility to a younger, less experienced employee
(Clawson, 1980; Kram, 1985). Mentors were sponsors, guides, coaches, counsellors, godfathers and godmothers and the relationship was similar to that of a good substitute parent to an adult child (Anderson & Shannon, 1988). The etymological meaning of the term mentor comes from the root "men" which means "to remember, think, counsel" and
"protege" comes from the French verb, "proteger", "to protect". Thus traditionally the mentoring relationship has been framed in a language of paternalism and dependency. In some ways this perspective is reminiscent of the 19th Century when citizens were offered pastiche as a landscape of authority. "Foremost among the pastiche pictures of authority in
22 the 19th Century was the image of a father, a father from a more kindly and stable time, superimposed on the image of a boss. This picture of authority is paternalism, as high capitalism constructed it" (Sennett, 1993, p. 51).
Protective, hierarchical relationships are becoming less common in contemporary work settings as flatter structures reduce hierarchies and more people move into early retirement. There is, however, a danger that older individuals, who have accumulated wisdom of the past, will become a scarce resource. Many of the explanations once sought from older people are now explained by science, consequently many older people "are consigned to the scrap heap and their accumulated learning treated as obsolete" (Jarvis, 1992, p.203). It is possible that, as a result of redundancies, organizations are losing this rich resource provided by older storytellers, and those who remain may be under-valued and not called on to share their experiences. Mentoring has been described as a "vertical" process ~ one in which young members of a society learn how to "be" in that society (Bly, 1996). He believes that the breakdown of these vertical relationships has created a sibling society; one in which the members live out a perpetual adolescence. Greater recognition of the contributions made by both old and young employees may be required in today's work settings.
As well as wisdom, mentoring has been closely associated with the recycling of power. McClelland (1975) described a number of different phases. The first phase provides an opportunity for the protege to seek more powerful individuals within the organization, while the second involves the development of independent power. In mid-life, people progress to phase three, which involves power as an impact on others and then to four, when the need for power is subordinate to social or institutional objectives. The mentor holds the power until the protege is independent and then the cycle starts again, only this time the protege is now the mentor for someone else. The notion that mentoring is a power- dependent, hierarchical activity, which initiates the protege and renews the mentor may not be
23 as relevant for women as men. Gender studies report that men are more likely to conceive of power in terms of domination, while women are more likely to view power in terms of relationships and nurturing (Candib, 1994).
This recycling of power assumes a high degree of correlation between identity and work group memberships which mirror power relations and social stratification at the level of society or community. When there is a "fit" with the prevailing societal norms a state of congruent embeddedness exists. Women and racial minorities have mainly been excluded, from organizational norms and, as such, have been granted limited access to mentoring.
They have, therefore, often been forced to move outside of the organization for psychosocial support "in developing their professional identities because the people inside their workplace often can not provide the core internal sense of career that is so crucial to buUding a total career self-concept" (Thomas & Higgins, 1995, p. 9). As organizational structures become flatter and career patterns more fluid, networking, as a means of career support may be more effective in obtaining sponsorship and visibility, than mentorship.
Women face discrimination and identity issues throughout their careers which are different from those of men (Baker-Miller, 1991). In order to achieve equality, women in the late 1960s attempted to minimize differences between men and women. This was no easy task as there existed an attitude that women "might not provide as good a return on investment for the corporation as developing a male manager would" (Cook, 1979). Due to the small number of women in management positions, it was, and still is, easy for them to be entrapped in stereotypical roles, ranging from the "iron maiden" to the "mother,"
"seductress," or "pet" (Kanter, 1977). Others label successful women "queen bees" and berate them for not looking to "clone" their younger sisters.
24 There is a natural link between masculine and authority which places men at the head of the household and as bosses and mentors within work settings. While this view is changing as more women enter the workforce and gain positions within management, traditional perceptions remain strong. Even when a mentoring relationship is reciprocal and both parties are talented, the man will mostly be seen as the mentor, as demonstrated in the following obituary in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune, 1986, as cited in Sheldon (1990):
De Beauvoir and Sartre shared 50 years of the cutting edge of politics and culture. She was the existentialist writer-philosopher's muse and biographer as well as his companion, and he was her mentor.
Stalker (1994) finds the view of women mentors' unique location as one of paralysis unacceptable and stresses the transformative potential of women who simultaneously understand and oppose the patriarchal structures. She suggests an alternative view of mentoring which endorses resistance and transformations that women mentors bring to patriarchal cultures, and she "critiques the existing power bases and explores the ways in which power can be used to challenge the status quo" (p. 370). Some researchers have suggested that women are more likely to value learning within relationships as a key developmental experience (Candib, 1994, Hartsock, 1983; Kirkpatrick, 1975; McClelland,
1975). Hence, learning to re-frame existing attitudes, emphasizing the importance of interdependence over dependence and intimacy over emotional distance, may be less difficult for women than men.
In summary, mentoring research grounded in career and adult development models, stems from the assumption that workplaces are stable and there is a predictable career development path. Workplaces have changed and so there must also be changes in the way mentoring is perceived and framed. These emergent frameworks are summarized in Table 2.
25 Table 2. Emergent Mentoring Frameworks
From To
Learning as knowledge transfer Learning as knowledge creation
Mentor as wise old man Mentor any age and gender
Relationship moving from dependence Relationship interdependent, mutual
to independence and reciprocal
Life-long developmental stages Short learning stages
Chronological stages Career stages
Mentoring Functions and Workplace Relationships
How mentoring is perceived and framed determines the way in which mentoring functions are performed. Early research states that mentors fulfill two main functions: career and psychosocial (Kram, 1985, Noe, 1988). Career functions include sponsorship, exposure and visibility, coaching, protection, challenging assignments. Psychosocial functions include role modelling, acceptance, confirmation, counselling and friendship (see
Table 3). Both the integration and number of career and psychosocial functions that mentors provide were thought to distinguish mentoring from other types of relationships (Clawson,
1980). Two types of relationships commonly encountered in work settings, bosses and peers, and the mentoring functions they are likely to perform, are discussed.
26 Table 3. Mentoring Functions and Workplace Relationships
Functions Workplace Relationships
Career Functions: Sponsorship Networks, friends, bosses Exposure and visibility Boss, networks Coaching Boss, peers Protection Self Challenging assignments Boss
Psychosocial Functions: Role modelling Peers, boss, others Acceptance and confirmation Peers, friends, boss Counselling Friends, others Friendship Peers, friends, boss
Adapted from Kram, 1985.
The Boss as Mentor
Sponsorship, through exposure and visibility, within a protective relationship, were integral to traditional mentoring models. These functions were often reportedly associated with cloning, favouritism and over-protection and resulted in staff resentment, jealousy and over-dependence. Such practices were exacerbated if mentors sought out people most like themselves, resulting in the chosen few gaining promotion and inside information (Kanter,
1977). Mentoring partnerships were reportedly developed due to similarities in background, perceptions of ability, commitment and potential (Bowen, 1986; Hennig & Jardim, 1977).
Within modern work settings, however, people are more likely to receive mentoring support from a number of different people and protective functions may be of lesser importance, as individuals take greater responsible for their own career development. Consequently, rather
27 than looking toward protective sponsorship from mentors it is more likely to be found in support networks of colleagues within and outside of the organization.
Coaching and challenging assignments were part of a long-term intentional workplace strategy, as proteges learned from their mentors. Learning opportunities frequently came from relationships between bosses and subordinates. There is strong evidence to suggest that challenging work assignments combined with appropriate learning support systems are a key element in the learning of employee skills (Daloz, 1986; McCall, Lombardo, &
Morrison, 1988). A number of researchers believe that bosses are in a position to provide more comprehensive support as mentors than non-bosses. They are more accessible than non-bosses, have personal, first hand knowledge of personnel and are vested with the responsibility to be attentive to the work performance of staff (Burke, 1984; Clawson, 1985;
Clutterbuck, 1985; Ragins & McFarlin, 1990). A strong case for mentoring was argued by
Kanter (1984) who said that organizations that want to achieve excellence should encourage managers to become mentors to their employees. As learning stages are shorter and workplaces are more egalitarian, the mentor's role as learning leader who provides challenging assignments for all staff, is becoming more critical.
In every relationship between a junior person and their supervisor there is the potential for a relationship that serves some mentorial functions. However, this potential is not always realized (Levinson, 1996). Instead the two develop an "anti-mentorial relationship: they are not simply indifferent to each other but are in some basic sense oppositional " (p. 271). Leaders have different quality relationships with subordinates within work teams, and therefore behave differently towards staff. The nature of the relationship is reflected in the quality of exchanges between leader and work group member. In high quality relationships, members are given better job assignments, greater opportunities to work with the boss and more freedom. This is in contrast to low quality relationships, where members
28 are often required to do disliked jobs and have few opportunities to interact with the boss
(Dansereau, Graen & Haga, 1975).
All bosses may not be able to function effectively as mentors to all staff. Some believe that mentoring is a skill on its own. "Quiet people have it more than loud people, for mentors are able to live vicariously, getting pleasure from the success of others .... mentors are attracted by influence rather than power, hence they are not likely to be people in great authority, and will seldom be one's immediate supervisor" (Handy, 1990, p. 321). Others believe the boss's inability to mentor is less to do with a particular set of characteristics and more to do with the role of the boss which may be perceived as limiting and non-objective in such an intimate relationship (Collin, 1988; Wilson & Elman, 1990).
The inability of the boss to step out of role may be a major barrier for effective mentoring as roles that have been assigned to people often dictate their behaviour. Two major influences define authority relations: situational and individual factors (Kahn & Kram,
1994). Situational factors relate to the social structure which influences the way people behave, while individual factors relate to the way individuals perceive and perform their roles
(their perspectives). The boss as supervisor has dominated many workplaces, resulting in potential conflict with the exercise of authority in supervision and the receptivity and psychological freedom necessary for good learning situations (Kadushin, 1985).
While structural barriers are breaking down, due to flatter organizational structures and less layers of management, barriers may also be in the minds of people. The boss's role is steeped in tradition. Researchers emphasize conditioning from birth, the socialization history within one's family, schooling, and religion, to believe that obedience to proper authority is right and disobedience is wrong (Cialdini, 1993; Pfeffer, 1992). Obedience to role is therefore an important social construct for behaviour. Breaking down these
29 perceptions demands that people turn the mirror inward; learn to unearth internal pictures of the world and bring them to the surface (Senge, 1990). How the leadership role is perceived will influence the boss's ability to simultaneously act as mentor. Leadership and mentorship are closely aligned. A challenge facing bosses today is to encourage, challenge and support the learning and development of all staff, equitably and evenly, rather than only those they perceive as having special abilities or those with whom they feel most comfortable.
Peers as Mentors
Psychosocial functions may be more important than career functions in today's work settings as future job uncertainty and associated feelings of insecurity increase. If in a position of power within the organization, mentors may not perceive themselves able to self- disclose, thus limiting the amount of intimacy that can occur within relationships. Staff members may also feel that self-disclosures are not appropriate when their mentor is also their boss, or that admitting mistakes may be held against them in promotional opportunities.
Such lack of intimacy creates barriers to mentoring as relationships have a greater probability of being constructive when those involved in the interaction express more of their real selves, despite differences in roles or hierarchical position (De Waele, Morval, & Sheitoyan, 1993).
Lack of intimacy is relevant in cross-gender mentoring relationships. As there are fewer women in management positions and many mentors are managers, most mentors are men. A recent study of male executives showed that less than five percent had a female mentor (Reich, 1995). Women may be perceived as a high professional risk for male mentors. One of the most frequently mentioned hazards is that mentors and proteges can become sexually involved or that others in the organization will suspect sexual involvement
(Kram, 1985; Zey, 1984). These days, extra caution is needed, due to the threat of litigation.
Thus, people in cross-gender mentoring relationships may encounter difficulties in
30 deterrnining a comfortable and productive level of intimacy (Clawson & Kram, 1984). In his study of women's life cycles Levinson (1996) found that when women had a male mentor he did not have an intuitive sense of the her "dream" and therefore had difficulty "giving his blessing to her highest aspirations and making her feel truly welcome within his broader occupational world" (p. 270). Few studies, however, have investigated the limitations of men mentoring women so there is little data to support these suppositions.
Women have also faced a shortage of role models, described as individuals whose behaviours, personal styles, and specific attributes are emulated by others (Shapiro,
Haseltine & Rowe, 1978). Although a passive function, role modelling has been long associated with mentoring. It is passive because role models can simply be individuals who are held in high regard by a large number of people without even being aware that they are viewed as models for others. The concept of role modelling has been described as a
"sociological dinosaur" — at best irrelevant and at worst destructive because female role models can actually inhibit women's career advancement as it is often impossible to find that exact combination that constitutes a desired role model for any one individual. Role modelling today however, is less about long-distance empathy and masses longing for a symbol larger than themselves. More healthily, it is modelling vulnerability and the ability for a capacity to learn through mistakes as well as successes, and an openness to learning.
Hence, mentoring relationships become more equal and reciprocal, less driven by the expert and more by curiosity to learn and develop in partnership with each other.
Due to the prevailing perception of a mentor as a person with power and influence, peer mentoring may not get appropriate acknowledgment Relationships with peers, however, offer important alternatives to those with conventionally defined mentors. Such relationships can be especially valuable when they have an experience their co-worker lacks as they can compensate and learn from each other, helping them mutually to advance or reach
31 personal and professional goals (Jeruchim & Shapiro, 1992). In a study of 25 relationship pairs Kram and Isabella (1985) identified a continuum of peer relationships, from information peers (information sharing), to collegial peers (job related feedback and friendship), and special peers (confirmation, emotional support, personal feedback and friendship). Many of the functions were found to be similar to those characteristic of mentoring relationships, however peer mentoring offered a degree of mutuality that enabled both individuals to experience being the giver as well as the receiver of these functions. Such mutuality appeared to be critical in helping individuals during their careers "to develop a continuing sense of competence, responsibility, and identity as experts" (p. 24).
Friendship is an important psychosocial function within peer mentoring relationships.
Some researchers claim that, in conventional mentoring relationships, friendship develops only after relationships have terminated (Missirian, 1982; Reich, 1995). Many concur that relationships need to have high levels of mutual respect, trust and affection (Clawson, 1980) and learning is enhanced when there is mutual liking (Carnevale, Pruitt & Carrington, 1982).
If this is the case, peers as mentors may be a valuable and under-acknowledge mentoring source within work settings.
In summary, the career functions of coaching and providing challenging assignments are becoming important mentorial functions of bosses. Peers may be in a better position to provide psychosocial support as the level of friendship may be greater in peer relationships.
One of the most important changes in workplace relationships is the notion that individuals at every career stage, organizational level and age, must regularly learn if they are to adapt to fundamental changes at work.
32 Characteristics of Mentors
History is replete with examples of mentors who influence their proteges, however few prominent studies have investigated characteristics attributed to mentors. What is known about mentors is often an add-on to studies of mentoring functions or outcomes, rather than a serious attempt to investigate individual characteristics. Moreover, a summary of selected findings of attributed mentor characteristics (see Table 4) portrays a set of ideal qualities.
Ordinary people may be dissuaded from mentoring others as they may perceive themselves to be too far removed from the ideal. It is useful to recall that the prototype of contemporary mentors comes from the bard Homer's original myth in which Athene, the goddess of wisdom, at times assumed the form of Mentor. Thus the original mentor was "half male, half female, mortal and immortal, an androgynous demigod, half here, half there. Wisdom personified" (Daloz, 1986).
Table 4.
Selected Findings of Attributed Characteristics of Mentors Zaleznik, 1977
Risk takers Roche, 1979
Willing to share knowledge
Committed, approachable, sensitive, Burke, 1984
empathetic, supportive, helpful Knox & McGovern, 1988 Give feedback and are direct
Wise, caring, committed, integrity, Hardcastle, 1988 high expectations, sense of humour, catalysts
Willing to share, knowledgeable, successful, Fields, 1988 secure, powerful, confident, risk taker, challenger Cunningham & Ebele, 1993 Patient, tolerant, accessible
33 In a study of 80 respondents attending management development courses, Burke
(1984) reports that mentors are perceived as committed, approachable, sensitive, empathetic, supportive and helpful. Further, that these individual characteristics predispose experienced managers to want to share their experiences with junior colleagues. In answer to the question: "What qualities attracted you to your mentor", participants in Hardcastle's (1988) study said: the mentor's wisdom, the care evidenced by the mentor, sense of conimitment, integrity, having high expectations, sense of humour and the ability to act as a catalyst.
Additionally, the mentor recognized traits and talents in them that were unknown to others and to the proteges themselves.
The six most important characteristics of a mentor in a study of female faculty members and students were: a willingness to share knowledge, honesty, competency, a willingness to allow growth, a willingness to give positive and critical feedback, and directness in dealings with the protege (Knox & McGovern, 1988). In a review of 24 studies on mentoring functions and roles, Fields (1988) made a list of antecedents, defined as: "those characteristics that a person must have in order to be a mentor to another individual" (p.16). These antecedents were: experienced, older, willing to share, secure, confident, powerful, knowledgeable, successful, risk taker and challenger.
Alleman, Cochran, Doverspike, and Newman (1984) conducted a study with 29 pairs who said they had a mentoring relationship with each other, and 21 pairs who did not acknowledge a mentoring relationship. Research questions included: "Does the behaviour of mentors distinguish them from non-mentoring peers"? and "Do personality characteristics distinguish mentors from non-mentors or proteges from their peers?" The Jackson
Personality Inventory (1976) was used to compare personality characteristics of mentors and proteges with each other and with control groups. The Leadership Development
Questionnaire (Alleman, 1983) was used to measure behaviours of mentors toward proteges
34 and control group supervisors toward control subordinates. Results indicated that mentors and non-mentors behave differently. The mentoring behaviours that incriminate between groups occurred in a wide variety of organizations and functions, and the difference between groups occurred regardless of whether those participating in the study said their organization's policy was to encourage or discourage mentoring. On the other hand, personality characteristics measured by selected JPI subscales did not distinguish mentors from non-mentors. Alleman et al. (1984) concluded that mentors behave in a mentor-like way, regardless of their personal characteristics.
Mentors may not be the high-performing managers. It takes time to mentor and it may be that they have neither the time nor ability to engage in more emotional and personally intense aspects of mentoring relationships (Burke, 1984; Ragins & Cotton, 1991). Those with low rather than high organization-based self-esteem were found to be more attentive to cues within the organizational environment (Mullen, 1994). Hence, individuals high in organization-based self-esteem may be unlikely to assume mentoring roles because they may not appreciate problems faced by organizational newcomers (Aryee, Chay & Chew, 1996).
An investigation on the influence of individual and situational characteristics on the motivation to mentor conducted with 176 managerial employees reported that the motivation to mentor may be predicted by individual characteristics (altruism, positive affectivity); situational characteristics (employee development-linked reward system and opportunities for interaction on the job); and their interaction terms (opportunities for interaction on the job and altruism). The altruistic personality indicates that some people are consistently more generous, helpful and kind than others and that such people are more readily perceived as more altruistic. Like-wise, positive affectivity was described as a tendency of people to be happy or experience positive affect across situations. Findings indicated that these individual characteristics were positively related to a person's motivation to mentor, however,
35 individual characteristics alone did not influence an experienced manager to become a mentor.
A situational characteristic like employee development-linked reward system revealed a positive and significant effect on the motivation to mentor (Aryee et al., 1996).
Summary
Traditionally, mentors were older, influential members of an organization who provided both career and psychosocial support to younger members (Fagenson, 1994; Kram,
1985). Mentoring models, developed when times were more stable, may no longer be as relevant, hence mentoring needs to be defined and used differently. It is now thought that a continuum of mentoring relationships exist from short term instrumental types at one end, to the more enduring and intimate at the other.
An examination of the literature revealed few studies on individual characteristics of mentors. This may be due to the fact that, as mentoring is a relationship, researchers have concentrated on interactive aspects of the relationship rather than trying to define personality characteristics of mentors. Clearly, situational factors matter. However, current literature on characteristics of effective leaders suggests that leadership qualities are important, perhaps making "the critical difference" in organizational success (Bass & Stogdill, 1990). Mentors also make the critical difference in successful mentoring relationships (Levinson et al.,
1978). Yet, all people may not be able to function as mentors, or indeed, may not want to.
It may be that mentors have been placed on a pedestal and potential contributors have been dissuaded from taking on the role. Alleman et al. (1984) state that the difference between mentors and non-mentors lies in a set of behaviours, suggesting that a set of ideal behaviours can be produced and then taught. As there are few prominent studies that have investigated characteristics ascribed by proteges to their mentors, further research is warranted.
36 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY
A mentor is defined in this study as someone who encourages, challenges and supports the learning and development of others. The capacity of individuals to learn and adapt to constant change is an essential ingredient in today's transformed work environment, therefore a closer look at the characteristics ascribed to mentors will be an important addition to research literature. As there is no ideal mentor, an exploratory approach was used by asking a large number of Canadians, most of them resident in the Lower Mainland of British
Columbia, to describe their mentors. This chapter includes conceptual considerations underpinning the study, methodologies employed, processes of data collection and methods of data analysis.
Conceptual Considerations
This study examines characteristics ascribed by proteges to their workplace mentors.
Although previous researchers (Cattell, 1946; Gough & Helibrun, 1965; Jackson, 1976) have developed lists of characteristics which may be relevant to mentors, an inductive approach was taken in this study. Hence, rather than imposing some previously derived adjective checklist with all of the cross-cultural and other problems that can arise, 1,011
Canadians were asked: "Has there been a significant person at work who had a positive influence on your learning?" The words proffered (friendly, supportive, wise) to describe these mentors then became the basis for an entire research procedure. This study is unique for several reasons, as outlined here.
Inductive. An inductive mode of theory construction recognizes that both discovery and confirmation are important, consists of summary statements of relationships, and contains a minimum of deductive logic. For example, broad, exploratory questions were asked rather
37 than a set of hypotheses; a theoretically suggestive model emerged from the data rather than allowing a theory to guide data collection. On the topic of inductive theory Boshier (1978) asserts:
Inductive theory is marked by an aversion to interpretation of a theoretical sort; its proponents believe the task of science is to collect facts which speak for themselves. When sufficient facts are collected and summary statements made, generalized explanatory principles can be formulated. Logical inferences or deductive conclusions are unnecessary (p. 13).
Multiple Data Sources. It is a serious mistake to think that a researcher, informed by an independent perspective, enters a research project with a blank mind regarding the issues at hand. Even the most "open" researcher brings a frame of reference or a point of view to the matter under investigation. As indicated earlier, because most mentoring literature comes from a top down perspective with little regard to the ordinary people, it seemed prudent to pose the following three broad questions:
1. What characteristics do proteges ascribe to their workplace mentors ?
2. How many dimensions best describe characteristics of workplace mentors?
3. How do the dimensions of mentors manifest themselves in day-to-day work settings?
A variety of data sources expanded the scope and breadth of the study by using one phase to inform the other. Data collected in phase one, Describing Mentors, informed the development of the instrument in phase two, Dimensions of Mentoring, and data collected, in phase three, Mentoring in Context, was an illumination of dimensions of mentoring characteristics developed in phase two. Hence this study was enhanced by triangulating multiple sources of data to elaborate and illuminate the research questions, and consequently strengthen the study. Marshall and Rossman (1995) state: "Designing a study in which multiple cases, multiple informants, or when more than one data gathering method are used can greatly strengthen the study's usefulness for other settings" (p. 144).
38 Large, Inclusive Sample. As a field of research, mentoring is a relatively recent phenomenon and many earlier studies draw their sample from single organizations. Further, much of the earlier research was carried out with successful, high-achieving executives. Instead of being confined to a single organization, data collection involved consulting a large number of ordinary people in public places (markets, parks, beaches, shopping centres) as well as a variety of work settings and group training venues. Hence, this study generalizes across contexts rather than staying within one specific discipline area. Although this was a sample of opportunity rather than a random sample it was a reasonable approach and a way of overcoming weaknesses of previous studies. Data were collected from a wide spectrum of people in order to investigate the prevalence and substance of mentoring at all levels of work organizations and across occupations. As this sample closely resembles Canadian census data in average age and distribution of men and women, some claims of representation can be made (see Chapter 4). Moreover, much of the research into characteristics of mentors has been carried out with largely male samples, often stereotyping or ignoring women completely. In this study, gender was an important variable in data collection and analysis both of mentors and their proteges.
Focus on Ascribed Characteristics. Despite the increase in research about mentors, characteristics ascribed to them has received little attention. Most studies have focused on mentoring functions, outcomes, and aspects of the relationship itself (for example, phases of the mentoring relationship). Demographic descriptions (age and gender of mentors and proteges, organizational positions and power) have been covered extensively. While some researchers investigated personality characteristics and behaviours of mentors to distinguish them from non-mentor peers (Alleman et al, 1984); and others examined the influence of individual and situational characteristics on the motivation of people to mentor (Aryee et al,
1996), exploratory research into characteristics ascribed to mentors is thin. This may be due to the wide-spread belief that mentors, like bosses, behave according to the situation, hence
39 the conclusion is reached that individual characteristics are also contingent on the situation.
While it is difficult to dispute the notion that context matters, ignoring characteristics of mentors as foundational to such relationships down-plays the central role they perform. By exploring characteristics ascribed by proteges to mentors in work settings, this study addresses this imbalance.
Purposes of the Study
This study had three purposes (see Fig. 1). The purpose of phase one, Describing
Mentors, was to look broadly at the mentoring landscape in order to describe characteristics ascribed by proteges to workplace mentors. The question asked was: "What characteristics do proteges ascribe to their workplace mentors?" A questionnaire was aciministered to achieve this purpose as it facilitated the collection of a small amount of information from a. large number of respondents. Data provided socio-demographic information on respondents and mentors, as well as ascribed characteristics of mentors. For example, words used to describe respondents' mentors were used to inform phase two, Dimensions of Mentoring.
The questionnaire also served to identify people willing to be interviewed.
The purpose of phase two, Dimensions of Mentoring, was to find out how many dimensions best describe characteristics ascribed by proteges to their mentors. The research question is: "How many dimensions best describe characteristics of workplace mentors?" A second questionnaire was administered to different respondents in a variety of training venues and work settings. As well as socio-demographic information on respondents and mentors, further data on ascribed characteristics of mentors were obtained. As characteristics are not discrete entities, but co-exist and overlap, a factor model was used to explore the inter-relationship among scale scores based on factors.
40 Phase Three: Mentoring in Context
Question: How do the dimensions of mentoring manifest themselves in day-to-day work settings?
Method: 16 face-to-face interviews
Phase Two: Dimensions of Mentoring Question: How many dimensions best describe characteristics of workplace mentors?
Method: 760 qucstionnarics,Meflton'ng in Work Settings, administered in work settings and training venues
Phase One: Describing Mentors
Question: What characteristics do proteges ascribe to their workplace mentors?
Method: 1,011 questionnaires, Learning at Work administered in public places
Fig. 1. Scope and Order of Phases Associated with the Study of Mentoring in Work Settings
41 The purpose of phase three, Mentoring in Context, was to illuminate the scale scores of mentor characteristics. This was achieved by interviewing selected respondents who used words in phase one, Describing Mentors, indicating that their mentors may be high in one or more of the mentoring dimensions. The research question was: "How do the dimensions of mentoring manifest themselves in day-to-day work settings?" Interviews were conducted in order to gather more contextual-bound data. In many studies involving factor analysis data is collected, correlation matrices produced and the factor structure deterrnined.
An exploration of the meaning of the factors provided an additional dimension to the
Dimensions Of Mentoring Inventory (DOMI). Semi-structured interviews were used because
"in situations where you won't get more than one chance to interview someone, semi- structured interviewing is best" (Bernard, 1994). While still enabling the interviewer to maintain discretion to follow leads, the use of an interview guide aided the collection of
"reliable, comparable qualitative data" (p. 210).
Issues of Trustworthiness
A major challenge for researchers is to persuade their audiences that findings of an inquiry are worthy of attention (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness, through measures of validity and reliability are reported here.
Questionnaires. According to Borg, Gall and Gall (1993), face validity asks: "Do the items appear to measure what the instrument purports to measure?" Concurrent validity asks: "Do results correlate with other results?" Face validity was evaluated for both questionnaires using two different groups of mid-career students attending classes at the University of
British Columbia. Both groups completed the draft questionnaires and provided feedback regarding any difficulties encountered. Concurrent validity of measures was established through factor analysis which clusters related variables. Factor analysis was able to
42 determine the degree to which a large number of variables (in this case 100 words), could be reduced to a smaller set.
The reliability of the factors was measured by calculating coefficient alpha for the
Dimensions of Mentoring Inventory (DOMI) using a sample of 555 respondents (although
556 respondents reported having mentors, one did not complete the questionnaire). Test- retest reliability was carried out with 34 mid-career managers attending leadership development programs. The same questionnaire was administered to the same groups four weeks later. The two sets of scores were then correlated. This correlation was a measure of the reliability of the instrument over time. Reliability of the instrument was assessed as follows: Responses to Scale 1 (test) were correlated with responses to Scale 1 (retest).
Next, Scale 2 (test) was correlated with Scale 2 (retest) and so on for each of the eight scales.
The test-retest correlations were then summed over and divided by 100 to produce a mean test-retest score.
A correlation coefficient instrument is believed to be more internally reliable the nearer the results to 1.0. Cohen and Holliday (1982) suggest the following scale as a guide to satisfactory levels of reliability:
• 0.19 and below is very low;
0.20 to 0.39 is low;
• 0.40 to 0.69 is modest;
0.70 to 0.89 is high; and
• 0.90 to 1 is very high.
The mean alpha coefficient for the eight scales was .81 and the mean test-re-test reliability was .81.
43 Interviews. Validity and reliability were ensured by the utilization of the following strategies:
• Each interview was taped and participants were given verbal and written assurance that any information resulting from the study would be kept strictly confidential.
• Throughout the study, data and protocols were available for inspection, assumptions were stated, and limitations encountered were discussed. Records were kept of what data were gathered and how they were gathered in order to account for both processes and products of the study.
• Clear documentation was used to describe the characteristics of settings, individuals and procedures so that anyone interested in transferability would have a framework for comparison.
• Triangulation (of respondents and data sources) greatly strengthened the study's usefulness for other settings.
Procedures
Data collection fell into three separate phases. Phase one, Describing Mentors used a questionnaire which was distributed to 1,011 people in public places (markets, shopping centres and beaches) throughout British Columbia, Canada. Phase two, Dimensions of
Mentoring, used a different questionnaire which was distributed to 760 people in a variety of group training venues and diverse work settings. These data led to a factor analytic explication of the dimensions of mentoring characteristics. Phase three, Mentoring in
Context, consisted of face-to-face interviews with 16 respondents.
44 The research design, administration and analysis occurred between January 1997 and
January 1998, as follows:
• Phase one, Describing Mentors, (January - June, 1997) involved the development of the research design, pilot and revision of a questionnaire, UBC ethics approval, administration of questionnaires, coding and entry of data and data analysis.
• Phase two, Dimensions of Mentoring, (July - November, 1997) involved the development, pilot and revision of a second questionnaire, identification and organization of administrative sites, administration of questionnaires, coding and data entry, data analysis and development of a factor model.
• Phase three, Mentoring in Context, (November, 1997 - January, 1998) involved the conduct of interviews and analysis of interviews.
The instrument development, data collection procedures, and analysis of data for the study are described in this section.
Phase One: Describing Mentors
Instrument Development
The 12-item questionnaire, Learning at Work (see Appendix 1) was designed to investigate characteristics ascribed to mentors in work settings, the nature and type of relationship, together with descriptive data to assist in the identification of respondents for interviews. Respondents were asked: "Has there been a significant person at work who had a positive influence on your learning?" The word mentor was purposely omitted in order to
45 avoid confusion over individual definitions. Those who answered "no" did not need to complete the questionnaire. Respondents who reported "yes" answered the remaining questions which included information as outlined in Table 5.
Table 5. Questionnaire One: Learning at Work
Questions Type of Information
Questions 1,2, 3 Information on respondents Gender, age, whether they had mentors
Question 4 Roles performed by significant person: mentor (comprehensive and high support), sponsor (helped with career mobility), co-learner (exchanged ideas and experiences), coach (gave feedback on performance), counsellor (helped with personal growth), other
Question 5 Three key words to describe this significant person
Questions 6, 7 Information on significant person age in relation to respondent and gender
Questions 8,9 Same or different organization than mentor and organization type
Question 10 If the mentor was a boss or non boss
Question 11 Whether the mentor was aware of influence
Question 12 If respondents were willing to be interviewed
The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) was used to code organization types. This system of classification is based on economic units that have similar production processes in the same industry. The economy is divided into 20 sectors and
industries are grouped according to production criterion.
46 Pilot Study
The Learning at Work Questionnaire was piloted with 42 people from a variety of occupations, prior to its distribution. Participants in the pilot study were mid-career graduate
students from the University of British Columbia, and individuals from a variety of occupations who volunteered to complete the instrument. This resulted in a number of changes to the original design. For example, the original design included the word mentor,
which led to confusion as people brought different definitions to the term. It was also
suggested that the word boss be defined in order to avoid confusion.
Data Collection Procedures
Data were collected from a large number of respondents. As the questionnaire was
brief people were more inclined to complete it. The questionnaires were administered in
markets, parks, ferry terminals, garage sales and shopping centres at various public locations
in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, Canada. The decision to collect data in public
places was made because such locations were considered more likely to include a diverse
sample of people. Although it was an opportunity sample rather than a random sample, the
sample resembled Canadian census figures in respondents' age and gender (see Chapter 4).
Locations included: Willowbrook Shopping Centre at Langley, Granville Island
Market, Queen Elizabeth Park, Vancouver Island, Horseshoe Bay Ferry Terminal,
Vancouver Airport, University of British Columbia Campus, Stanley Park, English Bay Sea•
wall, Lonsdale Quay Market, West End Sale Yard, Vancouver Childrens' Hospital Waiting
Room, and Pacific Centre Terminal.
47 Data Analysis Procedures
Data from the Learning at Work Questionnaire were coded, entered into SPSS files.
Data relating to each variable were summarized in the form of tables. Socio-demographic information included respondents' gender, age, and whether there had been a significant person at work who had a positive influence on their learning; roles performed by mentors; key words to describe mentors; information on mentors, such as their age in relation to protege; type of organization; workplace relationships; and respondents' willingness to be interviewed. Words used to describe the "significant person" were collated and a frequency count determined the 80 most frequent words which were then arrayed in a second questionnaire, Mentoring in Work Settings, along with 20 less frequently used words, in order to avoid the tendency for people to circle "yes" all of the time. Words were ranked by frequency after data entry.
Phase Two: Dimensions of Mentoring
Phase two, Dimensions of Mentoring, was informed by the results from phase one,
Describing Mentors. Specifically, the most frequent words used to describe the "significant
person" were arrayed in an instrument designed to collect additional data. The purposes of
this phase were: (1) To answer the question: "How many dimensions best describe the
characteristics of workplace mentors?" (2) To develop scales, based on factor analytic
procedures, that would provide simple, quantitative measures of these dimensions.
48 Instrument Development
A 20-item second questionnaire, Mentoring in Work Settings, was designed (see
Appendix 2). Respondents were asked: "Have you ever had a mentor?" The working definition of a mentor and a mentoring relationship was included at the begmning of the questionnaire. A mentor was described as someone who encourages, challenges and supports the learning and development of others. A mentoring relationship was said to involve the pairing of a more experienced with a less experienced person for the purpose of career development and psychosocial support. Hence, a mentor could be described as a co• worker, friend or boss (immediate or senior). Respondents were asked to focus on only one mentor and keep that person in mind when completing the questionnaire.
Those who said they had no mentor were invited to proceed to question 10, information about respondents; others were asked to continue answering the questions, information about their mentor and the mentoring relationship (see Table 6). The questionnaire included the 80 most frequently used words from phase one, Describing
Mentors, together with a further 20 less frequently used words. These words were as follows: aggressive, contradictory, cunning, neurotic, obsessive, opinionated, outrageous, over-bearing, self-centred, eccentric, egocentric, stubborn, vindictive, volatile, wild, workaholic, stressed, hard and driven. Four kinds of information were collected.
49 Table 6.
Questionnaire Two: Mentoring in Work Settings
Questions Type of Information
Question 1 Whether respondents had a mentor Questions 2 -8 Information on respondents' mentor and the relationship: - boss or non boss - conflict within the relationship - current or past mentor - duration of the relationship - gender - age difference - aware of influence
Question 9 Descriptive words (obtained from initial survey) which describe valued mentors. The question was asked: "Which of these characteristics does your mentor possess?" These 100 words utilized a 2-point scale ("yes, "no"). These data were the basis for the development of a factor model
Questions 10-20 Information on respondents: - gender -age - Canadian-born - first language - socio-cultural identity - number of employees in immediate work group - held management position within the organization - whether the organization had a formal mentoring system - the number of mentors they had in total - whether they had been a mentor to others
50 Pilot Study
The Mentoring in Work Settings Questionnaire was piloted with 36 mid-career students attending a program at the University of British Columbia. The original questionnaire included a 3-point scale ("Yes","?", "No".) The "?" (Unsure) presented difficulties in analysis, for although a 3-point scale had high face vaUdity the ? did not necessarily lie on the yes-to-no continuum. A second pilot was then conducted with 20 people, where alternative forms were administered. One form used a 2-point ("yes" or "no") scale and the other a 3-point scale ("Not at all", "Somewhat", "Very Much"). On the 3-point version only 13% of the responses checked "somewhat", so it was decided that a dichotomous ("yes"/"no") scale could be used without jeopardizing face validity. Other changes to the questionnaire design included placing the words into alphabetical order to obviate suspicions about a hidden agenda.
Data Collection Procedures
Data were collected using printed, paper and pencil questionnaires. Each took approximately five minutes to complete. The time was obviously much shorter for individuals who never had mentors. Data were collected in three different ways:
1. Personally administered to individuals. This was achieved through individual network contacts. A total of 92 (12.1%) questionnaires were collected.
2. Group settings. The researcher phoned a number of institutions and spoke to the person in charge of training programs. If the response was favourable, questionnaires were mailed out, or hand-delivered.
51 Groups who participated in the study,included:
• Vancouver Community College: Business and Computing students
• Inter-cultural Studies: University of British Columbia
• British Columbia Institute of Technology: Marketing students
• Graduate School of Nursing: University of British Columbia Hospital
• Insurance Corporation British Columbia (IBC.)
• University of British Columbia: Educational Studies graduate students
• University of British Columbia: Masters of Business Administration students
• University of British Columbia: Theology students
• University of British Columbia: Alumni mentors and Staff Association
• Creative Minds Child Care
• Women's Resource Centre
• Leadership Vancouver: City of Vancouver
• Police Academy of the Justice Institute of British Columbia
In all, 490 (64.5%) questionnaires were obtained through this means of distribution.
3. Distributed in organizations, usually by the personnel or general manager. The researcher phoned a number of organizations. In most instances response to distribution in- house was not favourable. Reasons given for not participating included: no time, distrust of questionnaires, not relevant to their organization, not enough "in it" for the organization.
Those who agreed to distribute questionnaires obtained poor returns, even though the questionnaires were distributed by the senior manager and included a covering letter.
Distribution in-house included: CREO Productions, Canadian Coast Guard Pacific Region,
Pan Pacific Hotel, Rogers Video, Principals and Vice Principals Association of British
Columbia. Of the 500 questionnaires which were equally distributed, a total of 178 (23.4%) questionnaires were completed.
52 In summary, out of a distribution of 1,100 Mentoring in Work Settings Questionnaires, 760 (69%) were completed and returned. Figure 2 shows the distribution and frequency of both questionnaires.
Learning at Work Mentoring in Work Settings Questionnaire Questionnaire
PERSONAL DISTRIBUTION 92 (12.1%)
PUBLIC PLACES
n = 1,011
(100%)
IN-HOUSE DISTRIBUTION n = 178 (23.4%)
Figure 2. Distribution of Questionnaires
Data Analysis Procedures
Data from the Mentoring in Work Settings Questionnaire were coded into dBasel 11+ files and transferred into SPSS files (versions 5.0 and 7.5). Information on respondents included gender and age; whether they were bom in Canada; their culture and ethnicity; the organization in which they worked when they encountered their mentors; the size of the organization; their position within the organization. Information on the mentoring relationship related to who provided the mentoring, when the mentoring occurred and
53 duration of the relationship. Data analysis procedures included frequency counts on all 20 variables, means and standard deviations, and exploratory factor analyses.
Factor Model. A factorial approach was used since the literature shows that individuals have a range of descriptive concepts in mind when they attempt to characterize their mentors. Any one person may exhibit a number of different and sometimes contradictory characteristics.
The 100 word inventory, produced in phase one, Describing Mentors, allowed for this complexity of description. In turn, the factors, when identified and interpreted, could be used to guide the development of more simple scale scores. The scale scores were then used to graphically plot and interpret the profile of mentors of selected proteges.
There are a range of opinions among researchers about the use of dichotomous data with factor analyses; specifically, whether dichotomous data can satisfy the underlying assumptions of factor analytic procedures. The principal assumption is that the population characteristics from which the sample is drawn are bivariate normal on the variables under investigation. Horst (1965) states: "that the scientific investigation of any system must yield numbers of some kind ... These number may be of a wide variety and kind. For a particular variable, they may be binary measures ... that is simply 1 and 0. These are also called dichotomous measures ... For example, we may have response alternatives of yes or
no" (p. 10).
The factor model of mentoring was derived as follows:
First, an inter-item correlation matrix was calculated. The reliability and stability of
factors emerging from any factor analysis depends on the size of the sample, among other
things. Although there is no consensus on what the size should be, all researchers agree that
there should be more subjects than variables (Bryman & Cramer, 1994). According to
54 Gorsuch (1983), a minimum should be five subjects per variable. Hence, in order to ensure
adequate stability and reasonable generalizability, data collection continued until a mmimum
target of 500 subjects was exceeded, and 555 subjects were analyzed.
Next, a variety of orthogonal and oblique factor structures were examined, but in the
end, an orthogonal rotation, using an equamax solution was chosen because it yielded factors
that were more interpretable and which were more readily differentiable.
Twenty-six factors emerged with eigenvalues greater than 1.00. Rotation and sorting
reduced this number to eight factors with loadings of .30 or greater. A cut-off level of .30
for orthogonal factor loadings is fairly common and high enough to provide useful
interpretive value (Comrey & Lee, 1992).
The words comprising each factor were then used to develop eight scales, parallel to
the original factors, but more simply conceived. In developing scales for individual
respondents, each word which loaded on a factor .30 or greater caused the raw scale score to
be incremented by 1.00. Raw scale scores were then standardized by dividing the raw score
by the total number of words the respondent had used, in order to equalize the more
loquacious respondents with the taciturn ones.
Later these standardized scale scores were included in a series of Analysis Of
Variance (ANOVAs), t-tests, and correlational analyses to answer the main objectives of the
study.
55 Phase Three: Mentoring in Context
The purpose of phase three, Mentoring in Context, was to collect data, through semi- structured interviews, in order to answer the question: "How do the dimensions of mentors manifest themselves in relationships and in different work settings?" Proteges were invited to share memorable incidents that demonstrated their mentors' more prominent characteristics. These incidents, although focused on the proteges' recollections of mentor characteristics, concerned specific contexts and work settings. Additionally, the interviews helped to secure a deeper or more contextually-oriented understanding of what it meant to have a mentor possessing a considerable degree of one or another characteristic as measured by the mentoring scales. Hence, whereas the earlier phases of the study focused on mentor characteristics in general, this last phase concerned mentor characteristics as they manifested themselves in specific work settings.
The 16 interviewees were chosen in a purposive manner, based on the following criteria:
• Respondents' choice of words in describing their mentor, in the Learning at Work
Questionnaire: As one of the purposes of the interviews was to explore differences between mentoring dimensions, it was necessary to interview individuals who used words to describe their mentors which indicated that they would be high in one or more of the dimensions.
• A gender-based typology sampling frame: The sample included women who had a female mentor, men who had a male mentor, women who had a male mentor, and men who
had a female mentor.
• Mentors in a variety of relationship structures with the protege: Bosses, co•
workers and others.
56 Once selected, potential interviewees were contacted by phone to ask if they would participate in a one hour interview. A Mentoring in Work Settings Questionnaire was then either sent (fax or mail), or personally delivered to willing participants. Interviewees were invited to complete the questionnaire, Mentoring in Work Settings, so that their mentors' reported characteristics could be scale scored. However, in order to avoid the questionnaire being administered during the interview and possibly distracting or leading the interview, it were sent to interviewees in advance and collected at the end of the interview period. A letter also accompanied the questionnaire which indicated the focus of the interview, enabling respondents a chance to gather their thoughts in advance. The letter stated simply that the interviews would focus on the following two topics: (1) Some background information about the respondent, their mentor and the relationship; (2) Reflections on two or three memorable incidents which would demonstrate his/her mentor's characteristics.
Interviews were arranged and^carried out with the 16 selected respondents at times and places convenient to them. Interviews therefore occurred at either their place of work or home. Participants were asked a number of open-ended questions on their own career, how they met their mentors, and the mentoring relationship. They were also asked to describe memorable incidents. If the mentoring relationship occurred in the distant past such recall may be limited. It was, however, a useful means of getting behind the words and mentoring scales to the specific actions undertaken by. mentors.
Interviews were semi-structured, which are preferable: (1) in situations where respondents will be interviewed only once; (2) when respondents are managers, bureaucrats, and elite members of a community — people who are accustomed to efficient use of their time; (3) if the researcher wants to use an interview guide "in order to ensure reliable, comparable qualitative data" (Bernard, 1994, p. 210). The use of an interview guide (see
Table 7) did not exclude the discretion of the researcher to follow leads. It did, however,
57 ensure that the main purpose of the interviews was fulfilled — to explore the mentoring characteristics manifested by mentors. An audio-tape recorder was used to record the face- to-face interviews, on consent from respondents. Each interview took approximately 60 minutes.
Table 7.
Interview Guide
Introduction Background Information I'd like you to share with me some background information about yourself and the mentoring relationship. • Tell me about your career, for example, where you've worked, what you're doing now. • When and how did you first encounter your mentor? • Perhaps you could tell me a little about the relationship. What roles did your mentor perform? Was there any conflict?
Memorable Incidents
Can you give some examples to describe your mentor? Perhaps you would describe a couple of memorable incidents to help me get a better picture of her/his mentoring characteristics. • Was x aware of his/her mentoring role with you?
Follow-Up Questions
Is there anything more about your mentor that you would like to add, that we perhaps haven't covered in this interview? If you think of anything else that you would like to share with me, please feel free to phone me over the next few days - my number is x. Close interview.
58 Data Analysis Procedures
Information from the 16 interviews were recorded, transcribed, and detailed notes taken, aided by the interview guide. The final analysis of data in this phase of the study incorporated: (1) scale scoring respondents' completed questionnaires, and (2) an illumination of their mentor's more prominent characteristics through examples of descriptions of memorable events. Data gathering and analyses were guided throughout by the conceptual framework produced in phase two, Dimensions of Mentoring. These interviews were an attempt to get behind the words and hear the stories, to explore similarities and differences, to search for patterns and multi-dimensional aspects of these mentoring dimensions. Much of the informal conversation about the respondent's own career, which served primarily to set the tone of interviews, was edited out of the stories, so that what was recorded was purposively selected from data. This ensured the focus remained on descriptions of mentors rather than respondents.
Summary
An exploratory approach was taken in this study into characteristics ascribed by proteges to their mentors. Conceptual considerations underpinning the study were discussed, as well as details of the methodologies employed, processes of data collection and methods of data analyses. A variety of data sources expanded the scope and breadth of the study by using one phase to inform the other. Hence, words used to describe mentors in phase one, Describing Mentors, informed phase two, Dimensions of Mentoring. A factor model was produced and guided the development of more simple scale scores. These scale scores were then used to graphically plot and interpret the profile of mentors of selected proteges in phase three, Mentoring in Context.
59 This study has three purposes: The purpose of phase one, Describing Mentors, is to look broadly at the mentoring landscape in order to describe characteristics ascribed by proteges to workplace mentors. The question asked is: "What characteristics do proteges ascribe to their workplace mentors?" The purpose of phase two, Dimensions of Mentoring, is to find out how many dimensions best describe characteristics ascribed by proteges to tlieir workplace mentors. The question asked is: "How many dimensions best describe characteristics of workplace mentors?" The purpose of phase three, Mentoring in Context, is to illuminate the scale scores of mentor characteristics. The research question is: "How do the dimensions of mentoring manifest themselves in day-to-day work settings?"
Results of phases one, Describing Mentors, and phase two, Dimensions of
Mentoring, are reported in Chapters 4, 5 and 6, and results of phase three, Mentoring in
Context, are reported in Chapter 7.
60 CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS: DESCRIBING MENTORS
Data were collected from 1,771 people in a variety of public places and within organizations and group training venues. Socio-demographic information on respondents and mentors was gathered using two different questionnaires from two different samples.
The Learning at Work Questionnaire was administered in phase one, Describing Mentors.
The Mentoring in Work Settings Questionnaire was administered in phase two, Dimensions of Mentoring. This chapter reports the findings of several socio-demographic variables on respondents and mentors obtained from these two questionnaires. Fmdings are also discussed and summarized. Although large amounts of data were gathered, the focus here is on the following variables:
Socio-Demographic Information on Respondents: Age, gender, Canadian- born, English as first language, numbers of mentors and length of relationships, mentor to others, management position, and types of organization.
Socio-Demographic Information on Mentors: Age, gender, roles, aware of influence as mentor, workplace relationships, conflicts within relationship.
The population of this study's sample, in average age and representation of males and females, is similar to the distribution of age and gender within the Canadian population and therefore some claim of representivity can be made (see Appendix 4, Canadian census figures). The average age of the Canadian population is approximately 35 years. The average age of respondents in phase one, Describing Mentors, was 41 years and phase two,
Dimensions of Mentoring, was 36 years. There are slightly more women than men in
Canada. Phase one, Describing Mentors, included 48% of women and 52% of men and phase two, Dimensions of Mentoring, included 58.8% of women and 41.2% of men.
61 Respondents' Socio-Demographic Information
Learning at Work Questionnaire
There were 1,011 respondents to the Learning at Work Questionnaire administered in phase one, Describing Mentors. Most of these people lived in the Lower Mainland in British
Columbia, Canada. A total of 485 (48%) respondents were women (mean age = 40.50,
S.D. = 13.03) and 526 (52%) were men (mean age = 42.50, S.D. = 13.19). The mean age of the sample was 41 years. Most respondents (717, 70.9%) reported that there had been "a significant person at work" who had a positive influence on their learning. Most (85.9%) respondents worked in the same organization as their mentors. Respondents were asked if they would be available for interview and 312 gave their names and telephone numbers.
Mentoring in Work Settings Questionnaire
Respondents to the Mentoring in Work Settings Questionnaire administered in phase two, Dimensions Of Mentoring, were 760 people who worked in a variety of organizations in Vancouver. Questionnaires were collected through group distributions at training sessions
(64.5%), within organizations (23.4%), and from individuals (12.1%). In all, 430 respondents were women (mean age = 35.30, S.D. = 11.08), and 305 were men (mean age
= 37.45, S.D. = 10.03). The mean age of the sample was 36 years. In total, 498 (65.5%) respondents were born in Canada, and 553 (72.8%) reported English was their first language. Most respondents, 556 (73.2%) reported that they had mentors.
Both samples represented a variety of occupations and organizations (see Table 8)..
62 Table 8. Type of Organizations Represented in both Samples
Type of Organization Describing Mentors Dimensions of Mentoring Questionnaire 1 Questionnaire 2 No. % No. %
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 12 1.7 1 0.1 Mining, Oil and Gas 3 0.4 1 0.1
Utilities 6 0.8 0 — Construction 28 3.9 18 2.4 Manufacturing 26 3.6 30 3.9 Wholesale Trade 13 1.8 13 1.7 Retail Trade 61 8.5 53 7.0 Transportation 27 3.8 9 1.2 Information, Cultural Services 40 5.6 15 2.0 Finance,Insurance 25 3.5 55 7.2 Real Estate, Rental 10 1.4 7 0.9 Professional, Scientific, Technical 63 8.8 25 3.3
Management of Companies 14 2.0 0 — Administrative, Support Services 21 2.9 70 9.2 Educational Services 127 17.7 173 22.8 Health Care and Social Assistance 80 11.2 70 9.2 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 37 5.2 12 3.3 Accommodation, Food Services 42 5.9 33 4.3 Public Administration 40 5.9 52 6.8 Other Services 20 5.6 108 14.2
Table 9 reports selected socio-demographic variables on respondents from both questionnaires. The second questionnaire, Mentoring in Work Settings, was designed to build on the first, Learning at Work. Selected data from both questionnaires (prevalence of mentoring, age and gender) are similar even though the first data were gathered from a wide variety of public places, while the second data were collected from within organizations and
63 training institutions. Additional information on respondents was gathered in the Mentoring in
Work Settings questionnaire and has been included in the table.
Table 9. Selected Socio-Demographic Variables on Respondents from Two Samples
Learning at Work Mentoring in Work Settings Variables Questionnaire 1 Questionnaire 2 n = 1,011 n = 760
Had a Mentor: 70.9% 73.2%
Age: Mean age 41 years Mean age 36 years
Gender: Women 48% 58.8% Men 52% 41.2%
Canadian-born: 65.5%
Mentor to Others: 57.4%
Number of Mentors:
Length of Relationship: Average of 2 years
Management Position: 55.7%
Formal Mentoring Program: 20.1%
64 Age. There was no statistically significant difference between older or younger respondents who reportedly had mentors in both samples. Older respondents who reported having mentors were more likely to be in management positions than younger respondents who reportedly did not have mentors: Senior managers (mean age = 47.20, S.D. = 9.05),, middle managers (mean age = 40.57, S.D. = 8.62), supervisors (mean age = 35.51,
S.D. = 8.68). Further, the older the respondents the more likely they were to have mentored others (F = 89.90, df = 1, p < .01).
Gender. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of women and men who reported having mentors in both samples.
Can adi an-born. Respondents who were not born in Canada reported having current mentors more often than those born in Canada (F = 4.36, df = 1, p < .03).
Mentor to Others. Slightly more than half (57.4%) of the respondents perceived themselves as having mentored others.
Number of Mentors. Most respondents had more than one mentor and the average number of mentors was two, but ranged from one to 25.
Length of Mentoring Relationship. The average duration of mentoring relationships was two years, but ranged from four months to 45 years. Most people reported that their mentoring relationships ended about a year ago. Respondents who mentored others were more likely to have been in mentoring relationships longer than those who had not mentored others (F = 7.85, df = 1, p < .01). There was no statistically significant difference between women and men, nor length of relationships. Nor was there any statistically significant difference between the age of respondents and the length of relationships.
65 Management Position. Respondents who reported having mentors were more likely to be in management positions than those who reported not having mentors (F = 21.25, df = 1, p < .01). Additionally, proteges in management positions (55.7%) were more likely to have current mentors than those not in management positions (F = 7.85, df = 1, p < .01).
Formal Mentoring Program. Only 20.1 % reported that their organizations had formal mentoring systems. Those who reported that their organizations had formal mentoring systems were more likely to have had shorter mentoring relationships than those who worked in organizations where there was no formal mentoring system in operation.
Mentors' Socio-Demographic Information
Out of a total of 1,771 respondents who participated in this study, 1,273 (71%) respondents from both samples reported having mentors; 717 (70%) from the Learning at
Work Questionnaire administered in phase one, Describing Mentors; and 556 (73%) from the
Mentoring in Work Settings Questionnaire administered in phase two, Dimensions of
Mentoring. Selected variables from both findings are reported in Table 10, followed by a
discussion of the key variables. Interestingly, despite the diversity of both samples, findings
are similar for most comparable variables.
66 Table 10 Selected Socio-Demographic Variables on Mentors from Two Samples Learning at Work Mentoring in Work Settings Variables Questionnaire 1 Questionnaire 2 n = 717 n = 556
Age Differential: Older 74% Older 75.0% Same age 16% Same age 20.1% Younger 10% Younger 4.9%
Gender:
Women 38.8% 37.9% Men 61.2% 62.1%
Mentoring Roles:
Mentor (comprehensive and high support) 67.4% Sponsor (career mobility) 78.8% Co-learner (exchanged ideas) 48.6% Coach (feedback on performance) 64.1 % Counsellor (personal growth) 58.9% Other 53.8%
Aware of Mentoring Role:
Yes 50.9% 65.5% Unsure 38.4% No 10.7% 34.5%
Workplace Relationships:
Boss 56.3% Immediate 40.6%. Senior 14.9%. Non boss 43.7% Co-worker 20.0% Subordinate 0.4% Friend 10.8% Other 13.3%
Conflict within Relationships: — A lot 3.2%. A little 20.4%. None 42.2%. Not boss 34.1%.
67 Age Differential. Most respondents, 530 (73.9%) in the first sample, Describing
Mentors, and 417 (75%) in the second sample, Dimensions of Mentoring, reported their mentors were older than themselves. There were no statistically significant differences between men and women respondents in terms of the age of their mentors.
Gender. There were no statistically significant differences in the number of women and men who reported having mentors in both samples. However, men were more likely to act as mentors for both men and women. Further, men reportedly were more likely to have current mentors than women (F = 6.31, df = 1, p < .01).
Mentoring Roles. The more roles that are performed by the significant person who has a positive influence on the learning of proteges, the more the relationship is thought to resemble traditional mentoring. In phase one, Describing Mentors, a respondent who reported having "a significant person" who had a positive influence on his/her learning was asked to specify the roles that people performed. Of the 717 respondents 67.4% reported that this person was also his/her mentor who provided comprehensive and high support.
Women were no more likely than men to report their the significant person's role as one of mentor, sponsor, coach, and counsellor, however slightly more women than men reported that this significant person was a co-learner (%2 = 4.21, df =1, p < .03).
Bosses were more likely to be in the roles of mentor (%2 = 36.34, df = 1, p < .01), sponsor (%2 = 37.46, df = 1, p < .01), co-learner (%2 = 11.28, df = 1, p < 01), and coach
(%2 = 7.96, df = 1, p < .01) than non bosses. Respondents were asked to specify other roles. These were listed as: boss, friend, role model, teacher, instructor, co-worker, comrade, colleague, and fellow employee. Less frequently used words in the "other" category were: client, partner, spiritual growth, inspiration, motivator, confidante, protagonist, personal support, critical thinker, networker, destructive, resource person.
68 Aware of Influence. In phase one, Describing Mentors, 50.9% of respondents reported their mentors were aware of the influence they had on them; 38.4% were unsure; and 10.7% said "no". When mentors were also bosses they were significantly more likely to be aware of their role as mentors than were mentors who were not bosses (%2 = 15.46, df = 2, p < .01). Respondents in phase two, Dimensions of Mentoring, reported almost identical findings. In all, 65.5% of proteges reported that their mentors were aware of their role as mentors. Older respondents were more likely to report that their mentors were aware of the mentoring relationship than younger respondents (F = 5.12, df = 1, p < .02).
Workplace Relationships. Of the 717 respondents in the first sample, Learning at
Work Questionnaire, who reported having mentors, 56.3% said these mentors were also their bosses. More than half (55.6%) of the 556 respondents in the second sample,
Mentoring in Work Settings Questionnaire also reported that their mentors were their bosses
(immediate supervisors or senior managers).
Women were neither more or less likely than men to have mentors who were also their boss, nor to experience conflict within relationships, hence there were no statistically significant differences between men and women who reported having bosses as mentors in both samples. Respondents who reported having bosses as mentors were more likely to be older (F = 10.04, df = 1, p < .01) and relationships were more likely to be of longer duration than those whose mentors were not their bosses (F = 6.40, df = 1, p < .01).
Conflict within Relationships. Little conflict was reported; in fact, most respondents who had a boss as a mentor reported no conflict; 3.2% (a lot); 20.4% (a little); 42.2%
(none).
69 Discussion and Summary
Prevalence of Mentoring. Of the 1,771 people who participated in this study, two- thirds (1,273) reported having mentors and the average number of mentors was two. These results confirm previous studies into the prevalence of mentoring in work settings (Burke,
1984; Roche, 1979). When referring to mentors, many researchers have been less restrictive than required in the traditional definition, in the number of roles mentors are expected to perform before the relationship is called mentoring. This is because when a researcher used strict criteria to define mentoring, it was not found to be a common experience (Clawson,
1985; Hanlan & Weiss, 1981; Levinson et al., 1978; Merriam, 1983). In this study mentors are defined broadly, as more experienced people who encourage, challenge and support the learning of less experienced people. A high incidence of mentoring would, therefore, be anticipated. When asked to be more specific about functions performed by these significant people, most (67.4%) reported that they acted as mentors; defined in the questionnaire as someone who provided comprehensive and high support. Hence, when mentoring was defined less restrictively approximately two-thirds of the sample reported having mentors.
When defined more restrictively (comprehensive and high support), the incidence of mentoring for the overall sample was reduced to about half. This is still considerably more than past studies which report that "true mentoring" is experienced by merely 10 to 30% of respondents (Fagan, 1988).
Gender. Results showed no statistically significant relationship between gender of respondents who had mentors and those who had no mentors. When asked to define functions performed by the significant person, more women than men reported a co-learning function (62%). Co-learning suggests openness and accessibility, hence this finding lends support to a study by Josefowitz (1982) who reported that women managers were found to be twice as accessible to their employees as men managers, regardless of their positions.
Gender studies report that men are more likely to conceive of power in terms of domination,
70 while women are more likely to view power in terms of relationships and nurturing (Candib,
1994). Further, men reportedly do not perceive women to be influential for careers and actively avoid female mentors (Erkut & Mokros, 1981). In this study three-fifths of respondents reported that their mentors were men, confirming past findings where approximately equal numbers of men and women were found to have mentors, but the majority of those functioning as mentors were men (Kram, 1980; Ragins & Cotton, 1991).
There were no reported differences in the gender of mentors or proteges nor between cross- gender mentoring partnerships. This finding confirms the claim of Alleman et al. (1984) that mentoring behaviour does not vary between single and mixed-gender mentoring partnerships.
Age. Most (75%) respondents reported that their mentors were older than themselves. Clearly, older individuals still play major roles as mentors in work settings.
Moreover, researchers suggest that executives who were once proteges are more likely to become mentors themselves (Hardcastle, 1988). Slightly more than half (57.4%) of those who reportedly had mentors perceived themselves as having mentored others. As the average age was 36 years and those who reported having mentored others were older than those who reported that they had not been a mentor for others, these results indicate that mentoring is a cyclical activity. Hence, people who have been mentored are more likely to mentor others than those who have not been mentored.
Workplace Relationships. More than half of both samples reported that their mentors were also their bosses; 56.3% in the first sample, and 55.5% in the second sample. When respondents reported their mentors as bosses the relationships more closely resembled traditional mentoring practices — the support was reportedly more comprehensive, the relationship of longer duration and most bosses who were also mentors reportedly were more aware than non-boss mentors of the influence they had on their proteges. Very little conflict
71 was reported within relationships. These findings support earlier findings (Burke, 1984;
Clawson, 1985; Clutterbuck, 1985; Ragins & McFarlin, 1990) that immediate supervisors are more accessible and therefore are in a position to provide comprehensive memorial support. Additionally, these findings have implications for organizers of structured mentoring programs that often bypass immediate supervisors. Rather than organize formal mentoring programs, organizations may be advised to place greater emphasis on the boss's memorial functions and the kind of relationships that exist between immediate supervisors and staff.
Almost a quarter of the sample (20.4%) described their mentors as co-workers.
Clearly, peers are able to learn from each other's experiences and give and receive support from each other, thus there is more likely to be mutual support of a more personal nature.
Such mutuality is thought to be critical "in helping individuals to develop a continuing sense of competence, responsibility and identity as experts" (Kram and Isabella, 1985, p. 24). As work settings continue to break down hierarchical structures and value team learning there is a growing recognition of the importance of peer mentoring. These mentoring partnerships are likely to increase in the future as organizations place greater
emphasis on collaborative learning and dialogue as a means of knowledge creation.
Aware of Mentoring Role. In the original mentoring story the pairing of Telemachus
and Mentor was an intentional process. However, many people who have a positive
influence on the learning and development of others may be unaware of their influence.
Hence, it was of interest to investigate whether mentoring relationships today are considered
intentional or whether they happen haphazardly. Almost half of the respondents reported that
their mentors were unaware of the influence they had on them. These findings support prior
findings that many mentors are unaware of the extent of their impact on their protege's
learning and development (Burke, 1984; Kram, 1983).
72 Mentors who were also bosses were reportedly more aware of their influence, indicating that when a mentor is also a boss, the mentoring relationship is more intentional.
The importance of the boss's role as mentor who is able to provide intentional learning support is clearly a key ingredient of organizational learning. Memorial support offered by peers, however, may happen more often than is acknowledged, as co-workers may not be perceived as mentors, due to the perception of mentoring as a hierarchical relationship.
Formal Mentoring Programs. About a fifth of the respondents (20%) indicated that their organizations had formal mentoring programs. Respondents who worked in these organizations reported that their mentoring relationships were of shorter duration than those who worked in organizations that did not have formal programs. As most formal mentoring programs are managed they tend to have limited time frames. Hence, mentoring within structured programs is more likely to be, what Gibb and Megginson (1993) term "learning support mentoring", rather than the more traditional "mainstream" mentoring. Learning support mentoring is more concerned with the tutoring of specific skills for a specific purpose, for example a vocational qualification or a specific learning and career goal.
Summary. Findings of this study indicate that most people reportedly have mentors, regardless of their age, gender or status within organizations. Slightly more than half had more traditional mentoring relationships and others received sponsorship, coaching and counselling which more closely resembled less intensive learning support mentoring. People born outside of Canada were as likely to have mentors as those born in Canada and they were more likely to have current mentors than those born in Canada. People still value the guidance of older people as two thirds of respondents who had mentors reported that their mentors were older than themselves.
73 More than half of the respondents reported their bosses were also their mentors. On the other hand, almost half of the respondents reported non-bosses as mentors, indicating that, while bosses are in a position to provide career support, peers are recognized as people who provide psychosocial support. Although women appear to be no less advantaged than men in finding mentors, fewer women than men were reportedly mentors for either women or men — three-fifths of mentors were men. There were, however, no significantly significant differences between cross-gender and single-gender relationships.
Although many respondents appear to hold traditional perspectives on mentoring there have been a number of changes. Mentoring relationships are obviously more short term with the average length of time within relationships reportedly two years and ranging from four months to 45 years. This calls into question Kram's (1983) model of mentoring phases which indicates that mentoring relationships last for up to six years. Relationships are more short term in 1990s work settings than they were in the past. Most people reported having more than one mentor, some up to 25. This finding suggests that mentoring relationship are more heterogeneous than those of yesterday. Further, although slightly less than a quarter of respondents mentioned co-workers as mentors, almost half reported other types of mentoring
support other than bosses. Still further, approximately equal number of women reported having mentors as men, indicating that women are no longer disadvantaged, as they were in
the past, in having workplace mentors. There findings point to gradual changes in perspective towards mentoring and there will inevitably be further changes as workplaces
continue to become more diverse and inclusive.
In conclusion, the intention of collecting socio-demographic data was to paint a broad
picture of the mentoring landscape in order to place the main focus of this thesis,
characteristics of mentors, into context. A great deal of socio-demographic data were
collected in this study. Key socio-demographic variables on respondents and mentors were
74 reported in this chapter. Phases one, Describing Mentors, and two, Dimensions of
Mentoring, used two questionnaires to collect data from a large number of respondents. As well as collecting socio-demographic data on proteges and mentors, phase one, Describing
Mentors, also asked respondents to provide three words to describe their mentors. In all,
339 words were collected. These words became the basis of phase two, Dimensions of
Mentoring. These findings are discussed in Chapter five, Dimensions of Mentoring.
75 CHAPTER FIVE
RESULTS: DIMENSIONS OF MENTORING
The main purpose of this study was to explore characteristics ascribed by proteges to their workplace mentors. In phase one, Describing Mentors, 1,011 respondents were asked:
"Has there been a significant person at work who had a positive influence on your learning?"
Those who said "yes" were invited to write three words to describe this person. In phase two, Dimensions of Mentoring, selected words were arrayed in a second questionnaire and a further 760 respondents were asked if they had mentors. Those who did were asked: "To what extend did this mentor possess these characteristics?" They were instructed to respond quickly and spontaneously to the words, keeping in mind the mentor in question. For example, although most people may be characterized as "supportive" it may not automatically be a word that springs to mind with certain individuals. The objective was to delineate characteristics of mentors. Factor analysis was used to examine the underlying factor structure among these key words. These factors were then used to develop scale scores to produce the Dimensions Of Mentoring Inventory (DOMI). This chapter reports the finding of this process. It is divided into three main sections: Key words ascribed to mentors; Factor structure of mentor characteristics; Scale scores of mentor characteristics
Key Words Ascribed to Mentors
Table 11 shows the 100 words used in phase two, Dimensions of Mentoring, and the extent to which respondents used them in both questionnaires. Figures are percentages of times each word was mentioned by respondents in the respective sample. The differences in the two columns is that, in phase one, Describing Mentors, respondents generated the words rather than responded to pre-constructed words. Clearly, when words are generated less people will chose the same words. A complete list of the 339 words generated in phase one,
Describing Mentors, in descending order of frequency, can be found in Appendix 3.
76 Table 11. Words used to Describe Mentors Word Describing Mentors Dimensions of Mentoring Phase 1 Phase 2
1. Kind 15.6% 94.4% 2. Supportive 12.8 95.9 3. Knowledgeable 10.6 93.9 4. Intelligent 10.0 98.0 5. Tough 10.0 49.0 6. Understanding 9.5 94.4 7. Caring 7.8 94.4 8. Honest 7.4 94.4 9. Fair 6.7 92.9 10. Encouraging 5.9 96.4 11. Helpful 5.7 98.0 12. Patient 5.0 81.0 13. Open 4.7 90.0 14. Positive 4.2 95.4 15. Energetic 3.8 90.3 16. Generous 3.5 88.3 18. Friendly 3.5 96.4 19. Experienced 3.5 93.9 20. Creative 3.3 77.5 21. Attentive 3.3 92.9 22. Humorous 3.2 79.6 23. Enthusiastic 2.8 91.3 24. Compassionate 2.8 86.2 25. Strong 2.5 86.2 26. Thoughtful 2.5 91.8 27. Smart 2.5 94.9 28. Demanding 2.4 44.9 29. Motivated 2.4 92.4 30. Genuine 2.2 89.3 31. Professional 2.2 91.8 32. Instructive 2.1 89.8 33. Funny 2.1 70.9 34. Confident 2.0 91.3 35. Approachable 2.0 94.9 37. Wise 1.8 89.3 38. Interested 1.8 93.9 39. Direct 1.8 85.7 40. Challenging 1.8 82.1 41. Considerate 1.8 93.4 42. Easy-going 1.7 73.0 43. Assertive 1.7 82.6 44. Giving 1.7 89.8 45. Organized 1.7 80.1 46. Respectful 1.7 94.4
77 Table 11.(Continued) Words used to Describe Mentors
Word Describing Mentors Dimensions of Mentoring Phase 1 Phase 2
47. Competent 1.5 90.3 48. Inspiring 1.5 84.7 49. Sensitive 1.5 84.7 50. Risk-taking 1.5 63.3 51. Efficient 1.5 83.7 52. Consistent 1.5 78.1 53. Trustworthy 1.4 93.4 54. Visioning 1.4 75.0 55. Insightful 1.4 84.7 56. Principled 1.3 83.2 57. Brilliant 1.3 64.8 58. Disciplined 1.1 84.2 59. Dynamic 1.1 73.0 60. Nice 1.1 90.3 61. Dedicated 1.1 90.3 62. Thorough 1.1 82.7 63. Strict 1.1 35.7 64. Communicative 1.1 92.4 65. Curious 1.0 76.5 66. Believing 1.0 92.9 67. Empowering 1.0 68.9 68. Sincere 1.0 93.4 70. Bright 1.0 93.4 71. Ambitious 1.0 78.1 72. Available 1.0 92.9 73. Loyal 1.0 87.2 74. Conscientious 0.8 89.3 75. Passionate 0.8 62.8 76. Co-operative 0.8 92.9 77. Comprehensive 0.8 77.6 78. Committed 0.8 94.9 79. Empathetic 0.8 75.5 80. Spiritual 0.8 51.5
Less Frequently used Words
116. Driven 0.03 62.3 123. Obsessive 0.03 18.9 139. Aggressive 0.02 33.2 150. Eccentric 0.02 30.6 158. Hard 0.02 33.2 179. Stubborn 0.02 38.3 181. Self-centred 0.02 15.8
78 Table 11. (Continued) Words used to Describe Mentors
Word Describing Mentors Dimensions of Mentoring Phase 1 Phase 2
201. Cunning 0.01 27.6 228. Egocentric 0.01 17.9 278. Neurotic 0.01 17.4 279. Opinionated 0.01 60.2 280. Outrageous 0.01 30.6 281. Over-bearing 0.01 10.2 290. Picky 0.01 30.1 308. Stressed 0.01 42.9 327. Volatile 0.01 19.9 329. Vindictive 0.01 13.8 332. Workaholic 0.01 45.9 333. Wild 0.01 17.4 318. Contradictory 0.01 23.5
Factor Structure of Mentor Characteristics
Data from 555 respondents (one respondent who reported having a mentor did not complete this part of the questionnaire) were entered into SPSS files and the 100 words intercorrelated and factor analyzed. First, an inter-item correlation matrix was calculated. A variety of orthogonal and oblique rotations were examined. Twenty-six factors, accounting for two thirds (66.0%) of the total common factor variance had eigenvalues greater than 1.0.
Seven, eight, nine and ten factor solutions were examined, as well as varimax, quartimax, and equamax rotations. In short, 12 solutions were examined. Hence, after various rotations were produced, an eight-factor orthogonal rotation - using an equamax solution — was chosen.
The eight factor solution included words which loaded .30 or better on their principal factor, accounting for 40.3% of the common factor variance. The eight factor solution omitted only two words (attentive and instructive) which loaded less than .30. The equamax
79 solution was selected because the factors were meaningful and produced equal numbers of words in each factor. The concepts underlying the high-loading words were more readily differentiable. It distributed the 98 surviving words more evenly among the eight rotated factors.
The final solution thus consisted of eight factors containing 98 words. The partition of variance accounted for among factors is set out in Table 12. These eight factors are interpreted in the following section.
Table 12. Proportions of Variance among Eight Mentoring Factors
Factor Variance Variance Factor Cumulative before Rotation after Rotation Name Variance (%) (%) (%)
Factor 1 16.01 6.45 Authentic 6.45
Factor 2 8.58 6.01 Volatility 12.47
Factor 3 4.05 5.52 Nurturance 18.00
Factor 4 2.83 5.14 Approachability 23.14
Factor 5 2.47 4.45 Competence 27.60
Factor 6 2.18 4.41 Inspiration 32.01
Factor 7 2.00 4.32 Conscientiousness 36.33
Factor 8 1.93 3.92 Hard Working 40.26
80 Factor 1
Factor 1, AUTHENTICITY consisted of 14 words with loadings greater than .30, as follows:
Factor 1
AUTHENTICITY
Sincere .68
Trustworthy .67
Genuine .65
Fair .59
Respectful .57
Honest .57
Supportive .56
Understanding .53
Loyal .47
Helpful .44
Principled .42
Thoughtful .42
Believing .39
Empowering .32
Factor 1, Authenticity (accounting for 6.45% of the common factor variance)
identifies mentors who are genuine, fair, honest, supportive, understanding, loyal, helpful,
principled, thoughtful, believing, respectful and empowering of others.
81 Factor 2
Factor 2, VOLATILITY consisted of 16 words with loadings greater than .30, as follows:
Factor 2 VOLATILITY
Neurotic .64
Volatile .61
Overbearing .61
Egocentric .59
Outrageous .59
Obsessive .57
Vindictive .57
Contradictory .53
Self-centred .50
Wild .50
Eccentric .48
Opinionated .48
Stressed .44
Cunning .39
Hard .39
Picky .38
Factor 2, Volatility (accounting for 6.01% of the common factor variance) identifies mentors who are neurotic, overbearing, egocentric, outrageous, vindictive, contradictory, self-centred, wild, eccentric, opinionated, stressed, cunning, hard and picky.
82 Factor 3
Factor 3, NURTUPvANCE consisted of 12 words with loadings greater than .30, and three items (stubborn, aggressive, tough) with negative loadings, as follows:
Factor 3
NURTURANCE
Nice .54
Sensitive .54
Nurturing .51
Kind .50
Compassionate .49
Easy-going .48
Spiritual .48
Patient .47
Stubborn -.44
Aggressive -.44
Giving .43
Tough -.41
Generous .40
Empathetic .37
Wise .37
Factor 3, Nurturance (accounting for 5.52% of the variance) identifies mentors who are kind, sensitive, compassionate, easy-going, spiritual, patient, generous and empathetic to others. These mentors are especially not stubborn, aggressive nor tough.
83 Factor 4
Factor 4, APPROACHABILITY consisted of eleven words with loadings greater than
.30, as follows:
Factor 4
APPROACHABILITY
Humorous .57
Funny .57
Friendly .53
Encouraging .48
Approachable .47
Communicative .45
Positive .45
Co-operative .41
Open .39
Caring .39
Considerate .38
Factor 4, Approachability (accounting for 5.14% of the common factor variance) identifies mentors who are humorous, friendly, encouraging, communicative, positive, open, caring, co-operative and considerate of others.
84 Factor 5
Factor 5, COMPETENCE consisted of 12 words with loadings greater than .30, follows:
Factor 5
COMPETENCE
Smart .66
Competent .58
Knowledgeable .52
Bright .52
Interested .52
Intelligent .47
Enthusiastic .45
Professional .42
Confident .39
Experienced .37
Insightful .36
Informative .34
Factor 5, Competence (accounting for 4.45% of the common factor variance) identifies mentors who are knowledgeable, bright, interested, intelligent, enthusiastic, professional, confident, experienced, insightful and informative to others.
85 Factor 6
Factor 6, INSPIRATION consisted of 12 items with loadings greater than .30, as follows:
Factor 6
INSPIRATION
Risk-taking .56
Visioning .55
Inspiring .53
Creative .52
Curious .49
Dynamic .49
Strong .47
Passionate .44
Direct .37
Brilliant .36
Challenging .35
Assertive .31
Factor 6, Inspiration (accounting for 4.41% of the common factor variance) identifies mentors who are risk-taking, visioning, inspiring, creative, curious, dynamic, strong, passionate, direct, brilliant, challenging and assertive.
86 Factor 7
Factor 7, CONSCIENTIOUSNESS consisted of nine words with loadings greater than .30, as follows:
Factor 7
CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
Thorough .66
Efficient .63
Organized .62
Disciplined .52
Conscientious .48
Comprehensive .48
Consistent .46
Available .46
Strict .33
Factor 7, Conscientiousness (accounting for 4.32% of the common factor variance) identifies mentors who are efficient, organized, disciplined, consistent, strict, and available to others.
87 Factor 8
Factor 8, HARD WORKING consisted of nine words with loadings greater than
.30, as follows:
Factor 8
HARD WORKING
Dedicated .61
Motivated .53
Committed .53
Hard Working .49
Ambitious .43
Energetic .43
Driven .43
Workaholic .42
Demanding .35
Factor 8, Hard Working (accounting for 3.92% of the common factor variance) identifies mentors who are dedicated, motivated, committed, ambitious, energetic, driven and workaholics who tend to be demanding of self and others.
88 Scale Scores of Mentor Characteristics
The words comprising the eight-factor solution were used to develop eight scales, parallel to the original factors but more simply conceived. Respondent scores on each scale were derived by summing responses to each of the words which appeared in each factor.
Thus, on a factor like Authenticity where there were 14 words, a rninimum scale total would be 0 (a protege who said "no" to all 14 words in the Authenticity scale) and a maximum score would be 14 (a protege who said "yes" to all 14 words in the Authenticity scale). An
Authenticity raw score was derived by summing responses to the following words: sincere, trustworthy, genuine, fair, respectful, honest, supportive, understanding, loyal, helpful, principled, thoughtful, believing, empowering. Factor 3, Nurturance, contained 13 words with positive loadings as well as three words with negative loadings (stubborn, aggressive and tough). Thus, on Factor 3, Nurturance, where there were 16 words, three with negative loadings, if respondents circled "no" to any of these three words, points were added to the
Nurturance factor. Hence for Authenticity the maximum score was 14; Volatility, 16;
Nurturance, 15; Approachability, 11; Competence, 12; Inspiration, 12; Conscientiousness, 9; and Hard Working, 9.
Next, respondent's individual raw scale score was divided by the total number of words comprising that scale. Thus the scaled scores were expressed as percentages; the number of words a respondent did use, divided by the number of words a respondent could
have used. The raw (percentage) scores were then standardized by dividing each by the total
number of words the respondent had used in order to provide a balance between respondents
inclined to exaggerate and those inclined to minimize. The over-all score was then multiplied
by ten and rounded to the nearest whole number. These standardized scale scores were then
used to graphically plot and interpret the profile of mentors of selected proteges.
89 Reliability
Table 13 shows the mean scale scores and reliability coefficients for the eight mentoring dimensions. Two procedures tested the reliability of the Dimensions of Mentoring
Inventory (DOMI). The internal consistency of each scale was examined by calculating coefficient alpha for each scale. In the second procedure test-retest correlations were computed. The instrument was administered twice — four weeks apart — to 34 mid-career individuals attending management development programs. Anonymity was preserved, but correct matching of the "test" and "re-test" questionnaires was assured, by having respondents note their date and place of birth on both questionnaires. The mean alpha coefficient for the eight scales was .81 and the mean test-re-test reliability was .81. Hence, scores were at a high level of reliability (Cohen & Holliday, 1982).
Table 13. Scale Scores Statistics for Eight Mentor Dimensions
Scale Scores No. of Mean S.D. Min. Max. ReUability Words Scores Alpha Test-Retest
Authenticity 14 12.47 2.39 0 20 .89 .89
Volatility 16 3.18 3.10 0 20 .86 .86
Nurturance 15 8.28 2.52 0 14 .84 .84
Approachability 11 12.16 2.42 0 28 .81 .83
Competence 12 12.99 1.76 3 19 .78 .78
Inspiration 12 10.20 2.42 0 18 .78 .78
Conscientiousness 9 10.66 2.69 0 21 .75 .75
Hard Working 9 10.58 2.55 0 22 .73 .73
Total No. of Words 100 73.52 10.45 0 96 .91 .65
No. of Unusual Words 11 1.00 2.63 0 11 .85 ~
90 Scale Score Correlations
The mentoring factors were built from an orthogonal rotation. Theoretically, they were uncorrelated. The intercorrelations shown in Table 14 occurred because these were scale (not factor) scores. Unlike factor scores, which reflect loadings ~ that is, each item's contribution to a factor — scale scores assign an equal weight to each item. Hence,
"empowering," the lowest loading item on Authenticity (.32) was assigned a weight equal to that of "sincere" (.68).
To determine the interdependence of the eight mentoring scales, their intercorrelations were computed. Authenticity, Nurturance and Approachability were all positively correlated with each other but negatively correlated with Volatility, Inspiration and Hard Working.
Approachability was also negatively correlated with Conscientiousness. Volatility, Hard
Working and Inspiration were negatively correlated with these scales, but positively correlated with each other. Conscientiousness was negatively correlated with Volatility and
Approachability. Competence was negatively correlated with Volatility and Inspiration. This uneven relationship of people-oriented factors with task-oriented factors will play an important role with observations relating to interviews held with a small selection of respondents and reported in Chapter Seven, Mentoring in Context.
The number of words a respondent used compared to the number of words they could have used was included in the scale scoring, in order to equalize respondents who circled
"yes" to many words from those who circled "yes" to fewer words. Table 14 correlations in boldface were significant at p< .001.
91 Table 14. Correlations Among Eight Scale Scores
Auth. Vol. Nurt. Appr. Comp. Inspir. Consc. Hd.Wkg. No.Wds.
Authenticity 1
Volatility 2 -.67
Nurturance 3 .48 -.53 —
Approachbl. 4 .45 -.54 .47 —
Competence 5 .08 -.23 -.11 .03 —
Inspiration 6 -.37 .07 -.34 -.32 -.12 —
Conscients. 7 .05 -.31 -.08 -.14 -.02 -.07 —
Hard Wkng. 8 -.46 .26 -.55 -.37 -.09 .20 .01 —
No. Words 9 -.11 -.05 .07 -11 -.47 .38 .15 .05
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Summary
The objective of the procedures outlined in this chapter was to explore how many dimensions were required to describe the characteristics of workplace mentors. Factor analysis was used to find relationships among the 100 words descriptive of mentors in order to reduce the 100 x 100 correlations into as few factors as possible. A principal components extraction and an equamax rotation gave the most interpretable solution. Twenty-six factors emerged with eigenvalues greater than 1.00. Rotation and sorting reduced this number to eight factors with loadings of .30 or greater. The number of factors was decided by examining the number of words in each factor, the meaningfulness of the clusters, and the percentage of variance after rotation.
92 The procedure resulted in eight factors: Authenticity, Volatility, Nurturance,
Approachability, Competence, Inspiration, Conscientiousness and Hard Working. The words comprising each factor were then used to develop eight scales, parallel to the original factors, but more simply conceived.
To determine the interdependence of the mentoring scales, their intercorrelations were computed. Strong correlations were discovered among Authenticity, Nurturance and
Approachability. Strong correlations were also found among Volatility, Hard Working and
Inspiration. These scales were negatively correlated with each other. Competence was negatively correlated with Volatility and Inspiration, and Conscientiousness was negatively correlated with Volatility and Approachability. This uneven relationship of people-oriented factors with task-oriented factors will play an important role with observations made during interviews with a selection of respondents in Chapter Seven, Mentoring in Context.
The eight mentoring scales, Dimensions of Mentoring Inventory (DOMI), were then correlated with various socio-demographic variables. Results are reported in Chapter Six,
Correlates of Eight Dimensions of Mentoring. The scale scores were also used to graphically plot and interpret the profile of mentors of selected proteges. These more focussed results are reported in Chapter Seven, Mentoring in Context.
93 CHAPTER SIX
RESULTS: CORRELATES OF EIGHT DIMENSIONS OF MENTORING
This study concerned characteristics ascribed by proteges to mentors in work settings.
Factor analysis procedures resulted in eight factors which were then used to develop scale scores. This chapter reports on differences among people's scale scores in terms of selected socio-demographic variables. Despite the brevity of the questionnaires, large amounts of data were gathered. The focus here is on the following issues:
1. Protege attributes: gender, Canadian-born versus foreign born, current or past
mentor, management position, mentor to others, formal mentoring program.
2. Mentor attributes: gender, age, workplace relationships, conflict in relationship if
mentor is also protege's boss, aware of influence.
3. Organizations: industry groups in which proteges worked when they encountered
their mentor.
Socio-demographic variables of both proteges and their mentors, such as gender, age and organization, were tested in order to examine prospective relationships between variables and the scores in the Dimensions of Mentoring Inventory (DOMI). Tables 15, 16 and 17 show the significant differences between these socio-demographic variables and the eight
Dimensions of Mentoring Scales for proteges, mentors, and differences among industry groups in which proteges worked. For each socio-demographic breakdown, these tables show the eight scale scores means (and standard deviations). Statistically significant differences are highlighted in boldface throughout the tables. An alpha level of .05 was used for these t-tests and ANOVAs. The focus on the following table is on protege attributes: gender, Canadian-born, current mentor, management position, mentor to others and formal mentoring program.
94 Table 15. Socio-Demographic Differences Among Proteges for Eight Mentoring Characteristics
Socio-Demographic Variables Dimensions of Mentoring
Characteristics of Auth Vol Nurt Appr Comp [nspir Consc Hrd. Wk Eight Mentoring Scales Scale Means 12.46 3.18 8.28 12.16 12.99 10.20 10.66 10.59 Std. Deviations 2.39 3.10 2.52 2.42 1.76 2.42 2.69 2.55
Gender Number
Women 324 12.46 3.18 8.48 12.26 12.79 10.22 10.67 10.53 2.18 2.90 2.42 2.36 1.75 2.40 2.61 2.51
Men 231 12.46 3.11 8.00 12.03 13.27 10.18 10.64 10.66 2.66 3.36 2.62 2.49 1.73 2.44 2.80 2.61 Canadian-born
Yes 379 12.54 3.02 3.02 12.27 13.10 13.36 10.55 10.40 2.30 2.99 2.39 2.29 1.56 2.32 2.78 2.58
No 176 12.29 3.52 8.28 11.92 12.74 8.77 10.88 10.97 2.57 3.29 2.77 2.65 2.11 2.59 2.46 2.45 Current Mentor
Yes 211 12.52 2.78 8.67 12.49 12.70 10.45 10.62 10.32 1.94 2.73 2.08 2.17 1.87 2.27 2.25 2.62
No 341 12.40 3.42 8.01 11.93 13.13 10.02 10.66 10.74 2.70 3.29 2.75 2.58 1.77 2.54 2.95 2.62 Management Pos tion
Yes 335 12.60 3.07 8.03 12.05 13.13 10.30 10.61 10.69 2.47 3.06 2.65 2.36 1.72 2.50 2.79 2.66
No 216 12.23 3.37 8.65 12.33 12.75 10.06 10.71 10.42 2.26 3.17 2.26 2.50 1.80 2.28 2.54 2.39 Mentor to Others
Yes 366 12.40 3.23 8.19 12.05 13.02 10.34 10.63 10.61 2.47 3.11 2.63 2.38 1.68 2.37 2.83 2.51
No 184 12.57 3.13 8.40 12.37 12.91 9.95 10.66 10.57 2.26 3.10 2.30 2.50 1.92 2.50 2.40 2.67 Formal Mentoring Program
Yes 155 12.07 3.58 8.24 12.12 12.94 10.10 10.87 10.53 2.63 3.46 2.65 2.39 2.01 2.36 2.69 2.71
No 398 12.56 3.02 8.25 12.11 12.95 10.19 10.52 10.57 2.42 2.94 2.52 2.55 1.86 2.53 2.77 2.55
95 Socio-Demographic Differences Among Proteges
Few statistically significant relationships were found between socio-demographic variables among proteges for the eight mentoring characteristics, although substantially more than would be predicted by chance alone. There were no statistically significant differences concerning the extent to which proteges had a current mentor or one in the past.
Additionally, there were no differences found among proteges in formal or informal mentoring relationships. Differences were found among the following variables:
Gender. Women proteges attributed higher Nurturance scores to mentors than men
(F = 4.95, df = 1, p < .02). On the other hand, men proteges attributed higher Competence scores to mentors than women (F = 10.46, df =1, p < .01).
Canadian-born. Canadian-born proteges attributed higher Competence scores to mentors than proteges born outside of Canada (F = 5.15, df = 1, p < .02). Canadian-born proteges also attributed higher Inspiration scores to mentors than those born outside of
Canada (F = 4.94, df = 1, p < .02).
Management Position. Proteges in non-management positions attributed higher
Nurturance scores to mentors than those in management positions (F = 7.85, df = 1, p < .05). While proteges in management positions attributed higher Competence scores to mentors than those in non-management positions (F = 5.97, df = 1, p < .01).
Table 16 tests the socio-demographic differences among mentors for the eight mentoring characteristics. Socio-demographic variables include: gender, age, workplace relationship, conflict in relationship, aware of influence, single and cross-gender relationships.
96 Table 16. Socio-Demographic Differences Among Mentors for Eight Mentoring Characteristics
Socio-Demographic Variables Dimensions of Mentoring
Characteristics of Auth Vol Nurt Appr Comp Inspir Consc Hrd. Wk Eight Mentoring Scales Scale Means 12.46 3.18 8.28 12.16 12.99 10.20 10.66 10.59 Std. Deviations 2.39 3.10 2.52 2.42 1.76 2.42 2.69 2.55
Gender Number Women 210 12.33 3.14 8.66 12.27 12.81 9.98 10.70 10.73 2.48 3.10 2.33 2.59 1.75 2.54 2.49 2.35 Men 345 12.54 3.21 8.04 12.10 13.10 10.34 10.63 10.50 2.33 3.10 2.60 2.30 1.76 2.33 2.80 2.66 Age of Mentors Older 416 12.36 3.33 8.13 12.00 13.04 10.17 10.67 10.70 2.49 3.27 2.59 2.36 1.81 2.42 2.72 2.61
Younger 111 12.70 2.76 8.49 12.50 12.67 10.22 10.81 10.26 2.20 2.63 2.40 2.77 1.88 2.54 2.53 2.41
Same age 27 12.70 2.48 9.33 12.89 13.14 10.33 9.70 10.14 2.43 1.69 1.61 2.08 1.53 2.51 3.16 2.12 Workplace Relationship Boss (Immediate) 309 12.41 3.16 8.08 11.96 13.03 10.18 10.81 10.99 2.61 3.32 2.48 2.39 1.85 2.57 2.67 2.38
Boss: Senior 89 11.53 3.41 7.12 11.11 12.21 9.85 9.56 10.44 3.69 3.39 3.09 3.45 3.36 3.25 3.50 3.40
Co-worker 111 12.58 2.93 8.53 12.60 13.15 9.70 10.73 9.72 2.54 2.54 2.46 3.04 2.01 2.51 2.89 3.01
Friend 60 12.4 3.50 10.00 12.30 12.48 10.51 10.31 10.03 1.90 2.90 .00 1.98 1.52 2.28 2.62 2.24
Other 74 12.51 2.97 9.00 12.19 12:86 10.45 10.75 10.41 2.10 2.90 1.93 2.26 1.92 2.13 2.64 2.65 Conflict in Relationship A lot 16 10.75 6.93 6.50 11.31 11.69 10.31 8.81 13.00 4.57 6.00 4.08 3.55 4.24 3.32 2.33 2.50
A little 101 12.03 3.97 7.45 11.41 13.20 9.97 10.35 11.37 3.11 3.46 2.77 2.86 2.00 2.85 2.83 2.69
None 209 12.61 2.83 8.24 12.21 12.96 10.42 10.89 10.77 1.86 2.71 2.25 1.88 1.45 2.18 2.52 1.95 Aware of Influence Yes 361 12.41 3.29 8.29 12.02 13.03 10.17 10.64 10.62 2.55 3.36 2.54 2.43 1.82 2.52 2.83 2.54
No 191 12.57 2.94 8.28 12.49 12.93 10.26 10.68 10.50 2.08 2.52 2.45 2.38 1.64 2.22 2.39 2.59 Women Mentors 211 Women Resp. 179 12.35 3.12 8.66 12.27 12.73 9.94 10.72 10.57 Men Resp. 32 11.97 3.28 8.47 11.94 12.97 9.97 10.38 11.38
Men Mentors 345 Women Resp. 146 12.55 3.38 8.22 12.18 12.79 10.53 10.55 10.43
Men Resp. 199 12.55 3.09 7.92 12.05 13.33 10.22 10.69 10.55
97 Socio-Demographic Differences Among Mentors
Socio-demographic differences among mentors and the eight mentoring characteristics are reported below:
Gender. Higher Nurturance scores were ascribed to women than to men mentors
(F = 7.80, df = 1, p < .01).
Age. Interestingly, same-age were seen as more Nurturing than either younger or older mentors and there were no detectable differences in Nurturance scores between those younger and older mentors (F - 3.40, df = 2, p < .03).
Workplace Relationship. Bosses received higher Conscientiousness scores (F =
3.34, df - 4, p < .01) and Hard Working scores (F = 4.52, df = 4, p < .01) than non- bosses. However, non-bosses received higher Approachability scores than bosses
(F = 4.18, df = 4,p< .02).
Conflict in Relationship. Conflict in the mentoring relationship was more of a problem when the mentor was the protege's boss. When conflict did arise those mentors were characterized as Volatile (F = 14.81, df = 3, p < .01) and Hard Working (F = 8.67,
•df = 3, p < .01) A little conflict in the mentoring relationship was reported for mentors who were characterized as Competent (F = 4.60, df = 3, p < .01).
Table 17 tests the socio-demographic differences among industry groups for the eight mentoring characteristics.
98 Table 17. Socio-Demographic Differences Among Industry Groups for Eight Mentoring Characteristics
Socio-Demographic Variables Dimensions of Mentoring
Characteristics of Auth Vol Nurt Appr Comp Inspir Consc Hrd. Wk Eight Mentoring Scales Scale Means 12.46 3.18 8.28 12.16 12.99 10.20 10.66 10.59 Std. Deviations 2.39 3.10 2.52 2.42 1.76 2.42 2.69 2.55
Industry Groups
Construction 13 13.00 3.46 7.53 11.53 13.07 9.84 10.61 11.00 1.63 1.71 3.30 2.98 1.38 2.37 2.10 3.24
Finance 39 12.30 3.30 7.76 11.87 13.56 9.71 11.05 11.12 2.93 4.09 3.01 2.78 1.69 2.48 2.31 3.07
Prof. Services 56 11.93 4.00 7.69 11.67 13.05 10.21 10.37 11.21 3.43 3.82 7.89 2.96 1.94 2.76 2.96 3.17
Ed. Services 135 12.51 2.92 8.28 12.18 13.06 10.17 10.80 10.16 2.57 2.74 2.61 2.47 1.79 2.66 2.93 2.60
Arts/Ent. 11 12.82 3.45 8.90 12.36 12.54 10.90 8.67 10.63 .75 2.16 1.64 1.85 .93 1.30 2.15 1.91
Acc/Food 27 12.44 2.66 8.70 12.48 12.74 10.48 10.70 10.59 .93 2.21 1.51 1.36 1.40 1.80 2.74 2.13
Public Adm. 36 12.58 4.02 7.91 12.27 13.16 9.63 9.30 11.13 2.95 3.79 3.20 2.03 1.96 3.05 3.71 2.55
Manufacture 11 13.27 2.09 9.36 12.18 12.72 9.54 11.00 10.45 1.95 2.11 1.96 1.32 1.42 2.54 1.48 2.45
Retail 37 12.35 3.78 8.21 11.91 12.10 10.37 10.62 10.64 1.51 2.91 2.42 2.57 2.24 2.01 2.62 1.87
Inf/Cultural 11 11.18 4.45 7.54 11.27 11.54 9.09 9.09 9.81 3.46 2.87 2.77 3.49 3.53 3.26 3.20 2.89
Scientific 13 12.00 2.76 7.76 12.38 14.00 10.46 10.53 11.15 3.18 3.53 2.77 1.66 2.12 2.47 3.17 2.37
Health 61 12.19 2.86 8.91 12.01 12.73 10.70 11.26 10.32 1.81 2.99 1.93 1.82 1.47 2.05 1.82 1.84
Other Services 81 12.45 2.91 8.53 12.50 13.04 10.24 10.62 10.23 2.48 2.94 2.29 3.11 1.94 2.37 2.59 2.72
99 Socio-Demographic Differences Among Industry Groups
Table 17 shows the socio-demographic differences among industry groups for the eight mentoring characteristics. The North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) was used to code organization types. When an alpha level of .05 was used for statistical tests few statistically significant differences were found between industry groups.
There were differences among the various industry groups where the proteges worked but only in terms of Competence and Conscientiousness, as follows:
• Proteges from Construction, Finance, Professional Services, Educational Services,
Public Administration and Scientific Services Industry groups ascribed higher Competence scores to mentors than proteges from Information and Cultural Services (F = 1.66, df = 17, p < .04).
• Proteges from Finance, Educational Services, Accommodation and Food,
Manufacturing, Retail, Health and Other Services ascribed higher Conscientiousness scores to mentors than proteges from Arts and Entertainment Industry groups (F = 1.66, df = 17, p < .04).
Few significantly significant differences were found among industry groups and the
Dimensions of Mentoring Inventory (DOMI.), indicating that people describe mentors in
similar ways regardless of organizational or occupational groups.
100 Discussion and Summary
Various socio-demographic variables among proteges, mentors and industry groups were compared with the eight mentoring characteristics of Authenticity, Volatility,
Nurturance, Approachability, Competence, Inspiration, Conscientiousness and Hard
Working. Tables 15, 16 and 17 showed the eight scale score means (and standard deviations). Statistically significant differences were discussed. Interestingly, there were few statistically significant differences, indicating that most people view mentors in similar ways..
There were few socio-demographic differences among proteges and the eight mentoring characteristics. No differences were found in the following variables: Whether the respondent's mentor was current or past; whether proteges were mentors for others; whether they were in management positions; or whether they were in organizations that had formal mentoring programs. Women proteges attributed higher Nurturance scores to mentors than men, whereas men proteges attributed higher Competence scores to mentors than women. Proteges in management positions attributed higher Competence scores to mentors than proteges in non-management positions. On the other hand, proteges in non- mana'gement positions attributed higher Nurturance scores to mentors than proteges in management positions.
Few socio-demographic differences were found among mentors and the eight mentoring characteristics. No differences were found in the following variables: Whether their mentors were aware of their influence on proteges; and interestingly, no detectable differences were found between single and mixed-gender mentoring relationships. Women proteges ascribed higher Nurturance scores to mentors than men proteges. Interestingly, proteges who were about the same age as their mentors ascribed higher Nurturance scores to
101 mentors than proteges whose mentors were older and younger. Proteges attributed higher
Conscientiousness and Hard Working scores to mentors who were bosses than those who were non-bosses. On the other hand, proteges attributed higher Approachability scores to mentors who were non-bosses than to mentors who were bosses. There were differences in attributed Competence and Conscientiousness scores from proteges who worked in different industry groups, although these differences were slight.
An alpha level of .05 was used for statistical tests. The most highly significant differences occurred in the following socio-demographic variables which had alpha levels greater than .01. These differences related to gender, workplace relationships and conflict within mentoring relationships when respondents reported their bosses as mentors. These are discussed below.
Gender. Women proteges attributed higher Nurturance scores to mentors than did men. While men proteges attributed higher Competence scores to mentors than did women.
Sex-role research reports that successful individuals in leadership positions tend to utilize masculine sex-role behaviour and that higher level management positions are often seen as masculine (Bern, 1974; Sleeth & Humphreys, 1980). Hence, women are perceived as possessing different characteristics and requirements than their male counterparts. The perception of women as nurturing rather than competent to handle the tough leadership tasks was illustrated in a recent Canadian study (Barnett, 1997, p.6):
While the male executives said women have good interpersonal skills and are team, players and good communicators, 36 per cent felt women lacked traits such as general management skills, experience and the ability to demonstrate results.
This perception has also been found to be held by women who may feel that they do not possess the qualities necessary to advance the learning and development of people at work or
102 they are not qualified to mentor (Ragins & Cotton, 1991). It seems obvious from these findings that, regardless of any differences in characteristics between women and men mentors, proteges' perceptions differed significantly.
Workplace Relationships. It was expected that women, co-workers and friends who were about the same age as their proteges would be ascribed higher Nurturance scores, and this was the case. Peers are in a better position to provide psychosocial support than bosses and women mentors are more likely to be co-workers than men mentors. As well, that Hard
Working and Conscientiousness scores were ascribed more to bosses than non bosses, and that higher Competence scores were ascribed to their mentors by proteges in management positions than those in non-management positions. This view appears to reflect workplaces today that give competence a high profile. Careers are often dictated by an individual's ability to show evidence of her/his leadership competencies. The notion that relationship- skills are less important than task and career-oriented skills has been a dominant perception in many work settings for much of the twentieth Century.
Conflict within Relationships. Little conflict occurred in mentoring relationships where proteges' mentors were also their bosses. When conflict did arise those mentors were characterized as Volatile and Hard Working. This supports findings from Ragins and
McFarlin (1990) that, as bosses are more accessible than non-bosses, they are well-placed, to serve as mentors to staff.
In summary, findings from this study indicate that most people, regardless of age, occupational group or place of birth describe mentors in similar ways and share similar perspectives on mentoring. The next chapter, Mentoring In Context, reports on interviews conducted with selected respondents to explore how their mentors' more prominent dimensions were manifested in specific work settings.
103 CHAPTER SEVEN
RESULTS: MENTORING IN CONTEXT
The nouns "mentor" and "mentee" identify the participants, however the verb "to mentor" is essential in identifying the drama they are engaged in and the essence of the drama is the evolution of the mentorial relationship (Levinson, 1996. p. 239).
The third phase of this study aimed to see how the mentoring dimensions manifested themselves in day-to-day work settings. This chapter reports proteges' stories about their mentors and what it was like to work with them. Factor analysis procedures had previously produced constructs of mentoring characteristics, and the Dimensions of Mentoring
Inventory (DOMI) provided a conceptual framework for data analysis. As real people distribute themselves across all dimensions, not merely one or two, it is not possible to say that mentor x is Authentic. It is possible, however, to say that someone is high in
Authenticity and Nurturance but low in Volatility.
One of the main reasons for choosing people for interview was the choice of words they had used to describe their mentor. If one or more of their words were the same as those in one of the Dimensions of Mentoring Inventory (DOMI) they were considered for interview. The purpose for this was to acquire portraits of mentors who were reportedly high in each of the eight mentoring dimensions. Interviewees also completed the 100 word checklist so that profiles of mentors could be plotted and interpreted. If respondents' scale scores fell between the 90 and 100 percentiles their mentors were considered high in this mentoring dimension. A profile on the protege's mentor is placed in each story, to help contextualize interpretation. Names assigned to these interviewees are fictitious to protect confidentiality. Profiles of all 16 interviewees contained one or more of the eight mentoring dimensions in the high percentiles. Mentoring profiles are discussed in this chapter, as well as a summary of descriptions, illuminated through memorable incidents.
104 These descriptions give further insight into mentors' reported behaviours, as perceived by proteges. Interviewing respondents was an opportunity to bring deeper meaning to the mentoring dimensions by exploring multi-dimensional portraits and discovering similarities as well as differences. While 16 interviews do not provide sufficient data to generalize far beyond the immediate findings, they do provide meaningful information about how mentors, who were high in one or more of the mentoring dimensions, related to their proteges in mentoring relationships. A description of interviewees is given in Table 18.
This chapter is organized as follows: Memorable Incidents; Mentoring Portraits; Descriptions of Mentors; Mentoring Relationships; Discussion and Summary.
Table 18. Description of Proteges Selected for Interviews
Protege Workplace Gender of Gender of Age of Protege's Relationship Protege Mentor Mentor Occupation
Mary Subordinate W. W Older Social Work Ken Boss M W Older Nursing Julie Boss W M Same Government Trevor Friend M M Same Construction Dave Boss M M Same Demolition Kathy Co-worker W M Older Hospitality Luke Boss M M Older Education Denise Boss W W Young Education Rose Friend W W Older Health Mark Boss M M Older Police Matthew Boss M M Older Retail Travel Terry Friend M M Older Printing Ruth Boss W W Same Training Sally Boss W W Older Media John Boss M W Older Telemarketing Suzuki Boss M M Older Engineering
105 Memorable Incidents
Sixteen proteges described their mentors by recounting memorable incidents.
Interviews were held with people who had used words suggesting that their mentors were high in one of the following eight mentoring dimensions: Authenticity, Volatility,
Nurturance, Approachability, Competence, Inspiration, Conscientiousness, Hard Working.
Asking proteges to describe memorable incidents was an attempt to get behind the words and hear the stories, to explore similarities and differences, and search for patterns. Much of the informal conversation about proteges' own careers was edited out of the transcripts. Hence, what is reported here are focused incidents, or vignettes, which illustrate mentoring characteristics and how they manifested themselves in specific work settings.
The Authenticity Dimension
The dimension of Authenticity includes the following words: sincere, trustworthy, genuine, fair, respectful, honest, supportive, understanding, loyal, helpful, principled, thoughtful, believing and empowering. Two of the interviewees, Mary and Ken, used one or more of these words in phase one, Describing Mentors, indicating that their mentors may be high in Authenticity.
Maw's Mentor
"She was very respected by the women and had emerged as their natural leader."
I encountered my mentor when I was appointed Executive Director of a Transition
House for battered women. I walked in there and had my job cut out for me. The House
had opened two years earlier. One of the issues that society grapples with in family violence
106 is the unequal distribution of power in relationships, so the house originally opened as a collective. The women on staff had themselves gone through domestic violence and had come through it. All of the decisions had been made by this group as a collective. But it wasn't working and the Board decided to move into a situation where they had someone in charge. That's where I came in -- one year out of a social work degree. Although I had about eight years' experience as a teacher I was younger than the women and lacked the life experience that they had. So they looked upon me with suspicion and I was in an awkward situation. That's when I met my mentor.
Val was about ten years older than me. She was very respected by the women and had emerged as their natural leader. At first she resented me. She had applied for the position as Executive Director so I had to work for her respect and prove to her that I was able to do the job. She was a tough person to win over. It took a year, and once she believed that I was competent in the job and knew what I was doing she started to trust me.
We began to work together as a team and I consulted her with all of my decisions. I told the staff that together we could make things work and shared my vulnerability with them. Val, in particular, appreciated my honesty. And when she got behind me, the rest of the staff followed her lead. I was in that job for five years and my success in the position was in no small way due to her help and guidance. There developed a lot of trust in our relationship.
We also became good friends.
She was very severe looking and wore her hair pulled straight back and never wore any make up. If you saw her she'd probably frighten you, and she did frighten some clients initially. She was very reserved and didn't smile. She took a while to warm up to somebody. But in a very short while the women warmed to her. They recognized her heart and her commitment in helping them turn their lives around. She was very well loved by most people.
107 Eight Key Characteristics of Mentors
Protege's Name Mary M F Mentor's Name Val M F
Authenticity Nurturance Approach- Competence Inspiration Conscien• Hard Volatility Number of ability tiousness Working Words %ile 20 14 16 18 15 98% 17\ 12 16 17 14 11 90 98% 14 95 15 \ 11 15 14 9 88 95 15 13 90 14 ID 14 13 7 85 90 12 6 85 14 85 80 12 12 5 81 80
13 75 75 1 4 13 11 70 79 70 65 9 \ 13 11 65 60 77 60 55 / 11 2 \ 55
12 75 50 50 \ 10 45 12 10 / 45
40 8 \ \ 72 40 35 12 / 10 35
70 30 11 1 \ 30 \ 9 25 7 \ 9 25 20 11 6 \ / 8 \66 20 10 / 0 15 5 \ / 11 8 8 15 7 10 10 4 97 7 10 5 8 2 10 5 5 6 54 5 2% 4 1 6 9 3 3 3 46 2%
1 I I 3 I I I I 3 I Authenticity Nurturance Approach- Competence Inspiration Conscien• Hard Volatility Number of ability tiousness Working Words SCSIG Scores 18 10 9 12 9 12 12 3 56
Fig. 3. Profile of Mary's Mentor
Key Characteristics of Mentors (c) Darwin and Collins, 1998 108 Can you give some examples to describe your mentor?
She was always willing to share her own life story which was horrendous. She had been raised in poverty and had been almost beaten to death by her husband. She was a woman who you just couldn't help but admire. She had so much dignity and strength and a lesser person would have succumbed to life's difficult times. She also gave more than expected. She often would stay at work far longer than her shift required but she wanted to stay and make sure that the women were O.K.
It was better not to be on the wrong side or her. She didn't mince her words. If she thought that someone was taking advantage of the service we gave she was very quick to let them know. She had poor social skills with people in superior positions especially if she thought they were not pulling their weight. She had no time for phony people or people who were there to glorify themselves, for example with a couple of people on the Board who never showed up at the House. I remember how she pissed off some of the Board members.
She was right in what she said but people didn't like it, obviously.
Val was never jealous. She would say that it was so great that I got all of the attention, you know, gala events and such like. I would encourage her to attend and wanted her to have some recognition for her hard work. That never interested her. She didn't want to go to these sorts of things as they irritated her. She got lots of feedback from the women she worked with. It was this sort of recognition that she craved for and got from the people she helped. She put the House first, always. There was a time when it became clear that I'd have to fire one of the staff as she was never going to accept the changes to the cooperative.
Val was very close to this woman and she was torn between the situation. But she took a stand about what she believed in and what the house stood for and she knew that we would never move forward with Ruth's antagonistic ways. It nearly killed her.
109 Was she aware of her mentoring role with you?
You know, I don't know. I hope she was because I never told her. But the day before she died of cancer I was at her bedside. I tried to talk to her hoping that she could hear me. I told her that I loved her and how much she meant to me. And that I could never have stayed at the Transition House without her help and guidance. I think she understood and heard me because she squeezed my hand.
Ken's Mentor
"She just naturally had a sense of fair play "
I met Judy when I was a nurse at a country hospital. She was the Director of
Nursing. We seemed to hit it off right away. I was at the pinnacle of my career, running life support systems at the hospital and was able to diagnose and deliver drug therapy without a doctor on hand. I was about 35 years old at the time and she was about ten years older than me. I felt that any time I had anything go wrong that I could go to Judy and she would be on my side. Nursing is a very back-stabbing sort of job and there were times when different issues came up and I thought that I was not justly treated, I could go to her. She was fair, just and honest.
She went to bat for people. She was an excellent mediator and counsellor, and often resolved conflict. She'd bring people in and mediate so well that both opposing sides left
feeling good about themselves and the other person. You never seemed to leave her office
angry at anybody. You know, she was just a very good person. People saw her as a role
model and learnt from her. She instilled a capacity for tolerance to a lot of the staff. I don't
think that she set out to teach us how to be more tolerant but I mink just because of the way
she handled things she instilled a lot of those qualities in most of the staff and we all
understood more about tolerance as a result. She was able to put things in perspective.
110 Eight Key Characteristics of Mentors
Protege's Name Ken M F Mentor's Name Judy.
Authenticity Nurturance Approach- Competence Inspiration Conscien• Hard Volatility Number of ability tiousness Working Words %ile 20 14 16 18 15 98% 17 16 17 14 11 90 98% 14 95 15 . 15 14 9 88 95 15 13 90 W 10 \ 14 13 7 85 90 6 85 14 85 80 12\ 12 5 81 80 75 1!S 4 75 13 11 70 79 70 65 9 13 11 3 65 60 77 60 55 11 2 55 50 12 75 50 1 10 45 12 10 45 40 8 72 40 35 12 10 35 30 11 1 / 70 30 9 r 25 7 9 25 20 11 6 8 66 20 10 15 5 11 8 15 7 10 10 4 9 7 59 10 5 8 2 10 5 5 6 54 5 2% 4 1 6 9 3 3 3 46 2%
1 I 3 I I I 3 Authenticity Nurturance Approach Competence Inspiration Conscien• Hard Volatility Number of ability tiousness Working Words SC3l6 Scores 14 12 13 13 12 13 8 0
Fig. 4. Profile of Ken's Mentor
111 Key Characteristics of Mentors (c) Darwin and Collins, 1998 Can you give some examples to describe your mentor?
Judy always made time for people and had an open door policy. Every time you wanted to see her you just said hello to her secretary, knocked on her office door and if she was busy she'd say "come back in half an hour-." If it was going to be a lengthy discussion she'd arrange for someone to take over your patients and sit down and talk. There were numerous times when I was able to talk to her about grievances and she would always make sure that decisions were made fairly and justly.
She supported my career and still does. I'm HIV positive so I'm not working nov/. I went back to see her about six months ago and she asked me what I was doing. I said that I travel a lot and she said that with all the new drugs HIV positive people are doing well. I was diagnosed only recently so the chances of me being around for better chemotherapy or drug therapy is a great possibility. AIDS will become manageable, just like diabetes. It's a matter of how quick they are in getting to that stage. Statistically I've got another ten years left in me at worst. So I told her that I may go back to work and she offered me a job right there as a roving educator, not just for AIDS but for drug abuse victims. So, she was there for me when I was on her staff and she's still there for me. I still regard her as my boss.
She always knew what was going on with her staff. If someone was going to have a baby or if a family member was ill she would acknowledge them. She always made time to talk to people and ask them how things were going. She was very supportive with everyone.
There was one occasion when one of the nurse's husband was discovered to be a paedophile.
Judy would be seen daily chatting with her and walking around the hall with her. It must have been horrible for that woman as the whole town knew about it and the man was found guilty. The whole process took about four months and all of this time Judy was giving her support when a lot of people just turned their backs on this woman. That's the sort of person
Judy was. She accepted people for what they were and was never judgmental.
112 She knew that she was in charge but she never made you feel that she was going to lower the boom. She'd put people in their place and wouldn't take any guff. If she thought you were pulling her leg or not telling the truth, she would let you know. People respected her for that. Nursing isn't for everybody. Training can teach you a certain amount of tolerance, but I think that Judy just naturally had a sense of fair play. I don't know what it is that makes people special, but Judy had whatever it was. I think a genuineness and a natural respect for people. She helped people in a lot or areas in terms of domestic problems as well as work matters. The nursing staff was mainly women and there would be all sorts of things going on — divorces, custody battles and the regular run of the mill disasters and she always seemed to be there for staff who were going through some sort of personal dilemma.
Was she aware of her mentoring role with you?
Judy was a mentor for a lot of people. There was something special about her. As soon as you asked me who was my mentor there was not a question in my mind, it just came to me, just like that. I don't think she was aware that she was my mentor. I think I told her how much I appreciated what she had done for me and how much I valued her judgment. I certainly complemented her but I didn't actually come out and say that she was my mentor.
She probably would have thought that I was proposing to her or something.
The Nurturance Dimension
The dimension of Nurturance includes the following words: nice, sensitive, kind, compassionate, easy-going, spiritual, patient, giving, generous, empathetic and wise. Two of the interviewees, Julie and Trevor, used one or more of these words in phase one,
Describing Mentors, indicating that their mentors were high in Nurturance.
113 Julie's Mentor
"He's very supportive as well as challenging"
I met my mentor about 17 years ago at the beginning of my political career. He was an administrator at the time and we were both on the same committee. After that our paths crossed as a result of similar work, although our careers went in different ways. He joined the government and became an Executive Director. He has since hired me and now I report directly to him. Initially we were peers, for a short time I was his boss, and now he is my boss, so we've essentially switched roles. When I took this job I made it quite clear to him that there were parameters in which I was prepared to work. I think that he has made me look at myself in a broader way. Like most teachers we tend to down play our abilities. I've been able to move way beyond my original parameters. Tim gave me an open ended situation and he gave me choices and he knew I would take them.
Can you give some examples to describe your mentor?
Tim has probably pushed me harder to take on things that are outside my line of comfort. He has pushed me very hard and I've done things in the last few months that I wouldn't have contemplated doing. I had to represent the Canadian government in Montreal last May. That was a huge stretch for me because I wasn't aware of what the issues were and I panicked. And that was just an example of pushing me out of my comfort zone. But once I got there I was O.K. with it. I worry sometimes that he over-estimates what I can do.
I don't think I've ever let myself or even him down but I do tend to do some self-deprecating things. I set very high expectations for myself and others and when they aren't lived up to I do take it very hard. So I try not to set expectations too high for myself because I'm looking for a potential fall.
114 Eight Key Characteristics of Mentors
Protege's Name Julie M F Mentor's Name Jjm
Fig. 5. Profile of Julie's Mentor
115 Key Characteristics of Mentors (c) Darwin and Collins, 1998 I am able to take these risks because of the trusting relationship. I know it's not a test with him to see me go under. He says: "I know you can do it, so here's a chance to go to it."
He certainly sets lots of challenges for me. He's very supportive as well as challenging. He says: "Here are some opportunities. Do you want to be involved in it and how do you see yourself fitting in?" So challenge and support and as a result I've learnt to be more assertive about my own abilities. It's a large bureaucracy and people don't know what you can bring to things, so I now know that it was important to let them know what I can do.
It's a reciprocal relationship and it see-saws back and forth. I would never have thought of working for government and I wouldn't be here if this particular offer hadn't come from him. It's only because I have a great deal of trust in him. Once I develop a relationship built on trust its a solid relationship and it will weather an awful lot except for betrayal. Over the last year we have both provided a lot of job-related support for one another. He can often bounce ideas off me and trust that what he says won't go any further.
I also give him feedback.
I've always considered him to be a highly principled individual which is not easy to
be in a top government position, and he's been able to live with what he's done over the
years. There are very few people who have managed to stay in government for a long time,
maintain senior positions and still be able to cut across every political party. People may say
he is a chameleon but I've never seen any change in his principles. He has never lost his
commitments to education and wanting the best education for children in this province.
I think there are some fundamental things that keep him going and keep him focused
such as his passion for education. I've watched him become more passionate of late, in a
more overt way. People want to see this passion in leaders and they need to show that they
are willing to take some risks in their own presentation of their thoughts. This summer he
116 took a very big risk and decided that he would only have speaking notes and he actually took some cartoons. He wanted to talk about what he believed in and he got up and did it There were some people who know him well and they were blown away by this delivery. It was quite a wonderful experience to see someone in a senior position take personal risks.
He's comfortable with delegating authority, which is unusual for people in senior leadership positions. It's tough being in a leadership position, but his quiet strength gives him the ability to keep going. He's still able to remind people who it is they report to when it , is necessary to do so. He did this once in front of me. It's powerful when used infrequently and a reminder to people that when push comes to shove, he is the leader. He's taught me to be reflective and introspective and not to shoot from my hip so to speak. I've had to step back from what I would normally not do, and not take on a fight.
Was he aware of his mentoring role with you?
Yes. On the one hand it is hard for me to say that a man has been my role model.
Although unfortunately the kinds of situations I've found myself in I've had very few women role models so I've had to look to men and I've taken away various characteristics and styles which I think are appropriate for me. One of the things I've been disappointed in is that other women are not in key management positions. There are still very few women in the kind of positions I think they should be in and I don't see things changing. I wonder if it because some of us continue to hang on to positions and don't give others the opportunities.
Even though you try to mentor other women many don't seem to take the step and there isn't that level of interest to take on these kind of roles.
117 Trevor's Mentor
"He has my interest at heart with no ulterior motive for himself"
I'm in the construction business but my mentor actually had nothing to do with this job. I met Tom about 15 years ago when I was still living in Ontario. He was an advertising executive at the time. I was interested in arts and he liked that. We were sort of attracted to each other. I brought him back to earth a little bit. I also knew a lot of funky people in town and he sort of appreciated meeting those types of people. He's now a wealthy entrepreneur and heads up a public company but his main friends are still the people he has known for years and years. We all went to high school together and have kept strong ties. I think he appreciates my career as much as you can call it a career - it's a trade. And although I'm a. foreman in that trade it's a far way from the expertise he has. He's given me advice on personal things. I value his opinion. He's a friend who has taken me along for the ride sort of thing. Our relationship started off as personal support. As he became more successful he sort of wanted to bring his friends up to his level financially. I think he was of the opinion, and still is, that having money is no fun unless you can bring your friends with you. I think that's a great idea.
Can you give some examples to describe your mentor?
We've done some business dealings where he has given me advice on certain stocks with the information he had on hand. They didn't work out and we lost a bundle. He could have shrugged his shoulders and said "that's life in the fast lane Trevor," but in fact he said:
"Trevor, not a problem, I'm going to make you whole on this." And subsequently he put together deals and lined me up with shares which later on came back as high performing
shares for me. He feels a certain amount of responsibility and I feel a certain amount of trust
He acknowledges my trust and there is a real bond between us. I certainly don't believe that any influence of his would ever do me any harm.
118 Eight Key Characteristics of Mentors
Protege's Name Trevor M F Mentor's Name Tom M F
Authenticity Nurturance Approach- Competence Inspiration Conscien• Hard Volatility Number of ability tiousness Working Words %ile 20 14 16 18 15 98% 17 12 16 17 14 11 90 98% 14 95 15 11 15 14 9 88 95 15 13 90 14 10 14 13 7 85 90 12 6 85 14 85 80 12 12 81 80 75 / \ 13 4 75 13 1.1 70 79 70 65 9 \ 13 / \ /11 3 65 60 77 60 55 11 2 55 50 75 50 10 45 12 / 10 45 40 8 72 40 35 \10 / 35 30 11 1 70 30 9 9 25 7 25 20 11 6 8 66 20 10 0 15 5 11 8 8 15 7 10 10 4 9 7 59 10 5 8 2 10 5 5 6 54 5 2% 4 1 6 9 3 3 3 46 2%
1 I I 3 I | | 3 I I Authenticity Nurturance Approach- Competence Inspiration Conscien• Hard Volatility Number of ability tiousness Working Words Scale Scores 12 10 12 12 11 9 12 5 83
Fig. 6. Profile of Trevor's Mentor
(c) Darwin and Collins, 1998 Key Characteristics of Mentors 119 He's introduced me to some important clients. I'll go there and he could introduce me as Trevor the painter, but instead he says: "This is Trevor, the very creative artist." I've got lots of business this way. So he was a sponsor, a friend a lot of things for me. He has a sense of balance on a personal level and has lots of time for his family and his friends. He has a willingness to listen and fits in well socially at all levels. Tom's a spiritual person. He was raised in a big Christian boy's school and he maintains some of that spirituality today and has a strong base belief. He knows where he's going, where he's been and what the important influences in his life were that have got him to where he is today. So to his friends he is challenging and supporting and nurtures trusting relationships with them.
Was he aware of his mentoring role with you?
Indirectly. It's sort of a big brother little brother relationship (he's about 3 years, older than me). To tell him that he was my mentor would put him kind of in a spot. I sort of don't think he wants to feel responsibility but he sort of does take on this responsibility.
There's just no need to define the relationship.
The Approachability Dimension
The dimension of Approachability includes the following words: humorous, funny, friendly, encouraging, communicative, positive, co-operative, open, caring and considerate. Two of the interviewees, Dave and Kathy, used words in phase one,
Describing Mentors, indicating that their mentors may have been high in Approachability.
120 Dave's Mentor
"He was always encouraging and did what he could to make the job easier"
When I met up with my mentor I was removing hazardous materials like asbestos.
Steve was a pipe installer when I first met him. He was very knowledgeable and within a short time he took over as foreman of otir team. From the outset his positive attitude made doing the job less of a hard chore. There was no competitiveness. He was younger by about three years and at the time we were both in our late twenties.
Can you give some examples to describe your mentor?
He was very versatile and could do just about anything. He was genuine and didn't pull any punches. And if he said he was going to do things he pretty much had it done and if he couldn't find an easy way to get it done he'd do it the hard way. He was also a pretty balanced kind of person and made sure that he got away at week ends, camping and spending time with his family.
Steve was always available. Any time you had a doubt he would rather you at least brought it to his attention. He was very real about wanting to make sure that every-one's butt was covered. Some jobs we were on were very hot, like we did jobs in boiler rooms and out in the hot sun. He was always encouraging and did what he could to make the job easier. If you really thought you couldn't do it he'd give you the benefit of the doubt and if you didn't feel confident to get something done he'd pull you out and tell you to take a break. This was contrary to what the owners would say, but he looked after us. In the demolition industry there were guys who were hot dogs and their egos got in the way of their job sites. They never let you forget that they were your boss.
121 He was different because he didn't let you forget that he was human too. There are different guys, like quarter backs in a football game. Well he was like those quarterbacks..
He may not have thrown the longest passes but he got them there. That's the difference between him and other guys. There have been some guys I've worked for who threw the ball right out of the stadium but there were a lot of guys who got hurt on jobs. They didn't seem to care about putting people's health at risk. Steve gained my respect because at least he acted as though we mattered.
If it wasn't for him I probably wouldn't have spent so many years in the industry. I wouldn't have made it. I could have gotten my ass fired a number of times because I don't deal well with bosses who tell me what to do. And when you watch people get hurt you get aware of how dangerous the job can be. The industry was relatively new in the 1980s. We actually re-established the industry standards and when you think of someone like Steve who kept a lot of people from being injured, well, I've never known of anyone who didn't respect him. Some people are just straight cuts. They see it, they call it, and they do it. And he was one of those guys. He never under-estimated his abilities. To us he was just a strong, good leader. He'd say straight out what he wanted done and how but left it open to suggestions that may improve how it is done. He was pretty real and open.
He never under-estimated me or ragged me. He genuinely showed me that he had confidence in my abilities and he'd never send anyone to do something if he couldn't do it: himself. He depended on you though to know yourself best. He knew one thing. That he was one of the few people who could call me anytime and I'd go to work for him. He had a great sense of humour, and a realness. Many people woke up during the night and had relationship problems because of that industry. It was a dangerous job because if you breathed in the asbestos you were putting your lungs in jeopardy. Steve would say at the end of the day: "Shake it off and don't take it home with you."
122 Eight Key Characteristics of Mentors
Protege's Name Dave M F Mentor's Name Steve M F
Authenticity Nurturance Approach- Competence Inspiration Conscien• Hard Volatility Number of ability tiousness Working Words %ile 20 14 16 18 15 98% 17 17 14 11 90 98% 12 16 14 95 15 14 9 88 95 11 15 15 13 90 14 13 7 85 90 m 14 12 6 85 14 85
80 12 12 5 81 80
75 13 4 75 13 11 \ 70 79 70
65 9 lV 11 3 65
60 77 60
55 VK 55
50 12 75 50 10 45 12 10 45
40 8 \ 72 40
35 12 10 35
30 11 1 70 30 9 9 25 7 9 25
20 11 6 8 66 20 10 0 15 5 11 8 8 15 7 10 10 4 9 7 59 10
5 8 2 10 5 5 6 54 5
2% 4 1 6 9 3 3 3 46 2%
1 I I 3 I I I 3 1 Authenticity Nurturance Approach- Competence Inspiration Conscien• Hard Volatility Number of ability tiousness Working Words SCcll6 Scores 14 10 14 13 12 11 10 2 70
Fig. 7. Profile of Dave's Mentor
123 Key Characteristics of Mentors (c) Darwin and Collins, 1998 He was a regular guy who was just good at what he did. Whereas a lot of guys would boast, he didn't. You never heard the egotistical side come from him. And he treated everyone fair and never singled anyone out. Any situations that would make people nervous he'd generally do it himself. And we respected that because there were so many foreman who would sit outside the wall smoking their cigarettes, but he was right in there with us.
He was very productive and a lot of jobs went a lot smoother because of him. He was good with the boss and good with us. Like, he protected me from my own tongue as I tend to say what I think and that's not well accepted by management. He was very attuned, competent and self confidence in his own ability. When you trust your boss you have no doubt that if things go wrong you can go to them without getting flack. That's what it was like with him.
Was he aware of his mentoring role with you?
He definitely knew that if he called today I'd still go out there and work for him. But
a mentor? No, well I don't think so. I haven't seen him for many years but I think I'll give
him a call and ask him.
Kathy's Mentor
"He made me laugh when I felt like crying"
I'd started work at an international hotel serving food and beverages in the restaurant.
Prior to that I had completed a short course in hospitality but had never actually worked in the
industry before. It was a tough place to work for the inexperienced. You were expected to
catch on very quickly and not be a burden to your co-workers. There was a lot of tension
between the staff as they all fought to assert their power rather than support each other. My
first week was hell. I was shouted at, sworn at and nearly hit with a saucepan by an irate
chef. This apparently was standard treatment for anyone new as they tried to sift out the
124 weak from the strong. I was very unhappy and hated the thought of going to work ~ well that was until I met Joseph. He was my angel of mercy, someone who I could laugh with when it all became too much.
Joseph was a lot older than me with the best sense of humour and always positive and cheerful. He really looked out for me and helped me to deal with the unpleasant aspects of the job. He really seemed to care somehow. I don't know what it was. He'd sort of do things to help me and not make a big fuss about it, and if I went to him for advice I was never made to feel that I was imposing, regardless of how busy he was. I didn't know him for long but he stands out as someone who helped me because I didn't have a lot of confidence in myself at that time and it would have been easy to give up.
Can you give some examples to describe your mentor?
Well, I remember one of the most humiliating times of my life. As part of my initiation into the industry I was assigned the table which the general manager and several shareholders were seated at. My nerves got the better of me and I forgot everything I had learned during my course. When it came time to clear the table I picked up more than I could handle and dropped a knife onto the general manager's lap. Without thinking I grabbed it from his lap and walked back into the kitchen before he had time to respond. My supervisor had watched the whole incident and followed me into the kitchen. He wasn't understanding at all and instead became angry. He told me to smarten up my act and come back only when
I could wait tables properly. I could feel the tears swell up in my eyes and thought seriously about leaving right then and never returning. Joseph watched all of this. He thought the whole thing was hysterical and whispered in my ear that the supervisor was just jealous because I didn't put my hand between his legs. He also said not to worry as I would probably get promoted because of my bold behaviour. Of course he was only joking but it made me laugh when I felt like crying.
125 Eight Key Characteristics of Mentors
Protege's Name Kathv M F Mentor's Name Joseph M F
Authenticity Nurturance Approach-Competence Inspiration Conscien- Hard Volatility Number of ability liousness Working Words 20 17
15
14-
13
12
11
10
-I- _3 I. J. J 3 |. Authenticity Nurturance Approach- Competence Inspiration Conscien- Hard Volatility Number of ability tiousness Working Words
Scale 83 Scores 14 10 16 14 11 10 0
Fig. 8. Profile of Kathy's Mentor
126 Key Characteristics of Mentors Darwin and Collins, 1998 Joseph didn't just make me laugh he also stayed behind in his own time and showed me how to clear tables like a professional. After his instruction I felt confident and ready to show the supervisor how competent I was. Well he was most impressed especially when I received a $50 tip from one of the customers I was serving. It was so easy once someone took the time to show me and immediately I felt more confident and better about myself.
Joseph did this for a lot of people. It was as though he got a lot out of helping others. And I don't think he did do it for any rewards from management. He was just naturally there for people and seemed to care a lot and he was always positive. I remember once something bad happened to him but he seemed to be able to get above it all and have this positive attitude regardless. That made people want to be with him because his positive attitude sort of rubbed off on to others and the workplace was a lot happier because of him.
Was he aware of his mentoring role with you?
He was so unassuming that it wouldn't have occurred to him that he was making such a valuable contribution to some-one's life. He was aware that he made me laugh but that's probably as far as it went.
The Competence Dimension
The dimension of Competence includes the following words: knowledgeable, bright, interested, intelligent, enthusiastic, professional, confident, experienced, insightful and informative. Two of the interviewees, Luke and Denise, used one or more of these words in phase one, Describing Mentors, indicating that their mentors may be high in
Competence.
127 Luke's Mentor
""Roger wrote and talked like Carl Jung"
I met my mentor when I was 26 years of age when I went from a teaching position to work in special education at central office. He was my boss and mentor for about six years.
Roger wrote and talked liked Carl Jung. Pie really knew his stuff and had high ideals, lots of ideas and he liked to do things his way. He wasn't interested in the politics of the bureaucracy and relied less on his positional power and more on his personal power. He taught me to cut the nonsense and would constantly say: "Let's look through it and see what really is important." So, he helped me to bridge the gap and to re-orientate my minking. If I was confused I would go to Carl Jung and a whole new world would open up for me. He was well-read, practical, intelligent and synergistic.
"Give people the freedom to be themselves," he would say. He used to temper my enthusiasm with practical advice and help me to reflect and to think differently. So I guess he was a guide and a teacher. And he was to a lot of people as he was good at changing people's paradigms. Personally, he both challenged my thinking and taught me how to function in a bureaucracy. In other words, he knew how the system worked and passed that information on to me. I saw some writing on a t-shirt the other day and it read: "An idea worth dying for is worth re-thinking." It reminded me of him. His motto was: "If you have a conflict you really haven't thought it through." He marched to his own drum and he didn't pander to the bureaucrats. He stretched people's minds, was very firm, demanding, practical, and knew what was important.
128 Eight Key Characteristics of Mentors
Protege's Name Luke M F Mentor's Name Roger M F
Authenticity Nurturance Approach- Competence Inspiration Conscien• Hard Volatility Number of ability tiousness Working Words %ile 20 14 16 18 15 98% 17 12 16 17 14 11 90 98% 14 15 11 15 14 9 88 95 95 M 90 14\ 10 14 13 7 85 90 / \ 12 6 85 / 14\ 85
80 / 121 12 5 81 80 75 13 75 13 / 1 11 70 79 70 65 13 1 11 M 65 60 77 60
11 \ 2 55 55 / \ 50 75 50 10
10 45 45 12 1 / 40 8 \ 72 40 35 12 I / 10 35
30 11 1 70 30 9 \ w I / 25 7 9 25 20 11 6 66 20 10 0 15 5 11 8 I 8 / 15 7 10 10 4 9 7 59 10 5 8 2 10 5 5 54 5 2% 4 1 6 9 3 3 3 46 2%
1 I I 3 I I I 3 Authenticity Nurturance Approach- Competence Inspiration Conscien• Hard Volatility Number of ability tiousness Working Words SC3l6 Scores 15 9 12 16 8 14 5 4 62
Fig. 9. Profile of Luke's Mentor
129 (c) Darwin and Collins, 1998 Key Characteristics of Mentors Can you give some examples to describe your mentor?
I would often say and do things that would get me into trouble. And if I did get into difficulties he'd get me out of deep water. One day at a meeting Roger came up with a saying. He said "If the child does not successfully learn he has not successfully been taught." I didn't really twig what he meant. So at a meeting of teachers I quoted this and the teachers got upset. Someone spoke to Roger and he said: "well he meant so and so" and smoothed it over.
He went to bat for his staff. At one meeting with the bureaucrats he tried to reduce work loads of his immediate staff as they were suffering stress and were over-worked. He recommended practical ways in which the work flow could operate but was defeated at the meeting. He told us to do it the practical way anyway and said "that's a direct order." He knew that he could get into trouble but he was prepared to take the flack and help us to achieve what was best for kids, not what was best for the bureaucracy. We worked in a very bureaucratic environment where the keen ones came in at 8 a.m. and the not so keen ones at
8.15 a.m. Roger came in at 8.30 and proceeded to read the Globe and Mail. Guess he wanted to make a statement. I can still see him reading the Globe and Mail every morning.
He was there for people who needed to speak with him about anything and at 10.30 a.m. we'd go for a coffee and lemon pie and chat. So he was a real character who would penetrate the crap and get on with what he considered to be the really important issues.
Was he aware of his mentoring role with you?
Definitely. He was a good boss to others and a boss and mentor to me. He was my sponsor and in many ways I was seen as his "golden haired boy." Roger taught me the value of being a free thinker and helped my career by recommending me to people. He was close to retirement and so he had lots of knowledge and experience to pass on to me.
130 Denise's Mentor
"She didn't let details get in the way of the big fundamental issues "
She was the head of my department at the University. Maybe she doesn't fit into your definition of a mentor because in some ways there was a reciprocal quality to the relationship. I had already published a book, edited stuff and had lots of publications. She urged me to try for an early tenure promotion. She's the one who put the package together and told me what to do even though others were opposed to the idea of me being a full professor and thought me too presumptuous to do so - the argument was that I should wait my turn. Despite opposition however, Jan got my promotion through. The good thing about
Jan was her no nonsense approach and although she could deal with details she didn't let details get in the way of the big fundamental issues. She was very strong within the first generations of feminists. And what she was doing in my case was largely to do with ensuring that more women got into the higher ranks of the university. So, in many ways I was as useful to her as she was for me.
Always with Jan there was incredible discontent, especially with males who thought that she was favouring some people over others. And I think to some extent there was some validity in that accusation. She's incredibly astute and I learnt an incredible amount in watching her deal with students, particularly how she maintained both support and challenge with graduate students. She's very bright. She's also very tough and doesn't suffer fools.
She's very goal oriented and very concerned about herself and her own career. She's not necessarily generous with people as a matter of course and I don't think that she's particularly kind by nature. She's always willing to climb up on the backs of others when she feels it is justifiable to do so. And there is always the case when you have to leave someone behind, especially if the relationship will harm you.
131 Eight Key Characteristics of Mentors
Proteae's Name Denise M F Mentor's Name Jan M F
Authenticity Nurturance Approach • Competence Inspiration Conscien- Hard Volatility Number of ability tiousness Working Words %ile 20 14 16 18 15 98% 17 12 16 /17 14 11 90 98% 14 95 15 11 15/ 14 9 88 95 15 13 90 14 10 J4 7\ 85 90 12 6 85 14 \ 85
80 12 fl2 5 '\ 81 80 75 4 75 13 11 70 \79 70
65 11 9 / 13 / 3 65 60 77\ 60 55 11 / 2 55
50 / 12 75 50 / 10 45 12 10 45 40 8 / 72 40 35 12 10 / 35
30 / 11 1 70 30 9 / 9 25 7 / 9 / 25 20 11 6 / 8 66 20
/ 10 0 15 11 8 8 15 7 10 10 4 9 59 10 5 8 2 10 5 5 6 54 5 2% 4 1 6 9 3 3 3 46 2%
1 I I 3 I I I 3 I [ Authenticity Nurturance Approach- Competence Inspiration Conscien- Hard Volatility Number of ability tiousness Working Words Scale Scores 11 4 15 19 15 6 13 8 53
Fig. 10. Profile of Denise's Mentor
132 (c) Darwin and Collins, 1998 Key Characteristics of Mentors Can you give some examples to describe your mentor?
She didn't invest time and energy into tasks which she felt were not very important and would often throw work on to other people. So she may not invest a lot of time and energy to a committee meeting because she had more important things to do. But if there was honour and glory from that same committee there was no question about her taking the glory.
She is known for getting other people to do the hard work. This ensures that she maintains an exemplary research career. In a sense that is what someone who serves as a model or a mentor for you is — to show you that you do have to make hard decisions. I've heard her say that if you are not going to be unique in terms of being on a student's committee then don't bother. And I think that is true. You can spend time being goodness and light for everybody else and talking to everyone and your own work does suffer. You're here to do serious research and the time it takes to look after others takes time away from that. That's an important lesson that I learnt from her -- to look after myself.
I don't think she thought it was necessary to be liked. I think being liked is a
feminine characteristic and that women, in general, want to be liked and take on a motherly
sort of role in order to make people feel warm and cozy. I learnt from her that you can't have
it all and that you have to make those choice. And I've watched the way she makes those
choices and I think in many ways, she's been more influential because of it. Sometimes she
has been ruthless behind the scenes to get support for her causes. And she's very good at
getting support and lining up people ahead of time. So I learnt how important those
maneuvers are. An example of this was her support to me in my own career. She said: "If
you listen to me I'll get you through." She said it all the time. She was very self-confident,
very honest and had a sense of integrity and those choices didn't reflect badly on her basic:
integrity. She has never pretended to be something she's not. What you see is what you get
with Jan.
133 She helped lots of women in their careers and gave lots of instructions about how to put together your resume and get a promotion. And she had played this role for a long time.
There were very few women academics and the attitude towards women here was quite reprehensible in a number of quarters and one of the reasons was the attitude that women should not be too academic. So her mentoring was important for other women as well.
Was she aware of her mentoring role with you?
She'd probably be surprised that I would think of her as a mentor because I don't think that I have ever used her at an individual level and I've never asked her for advice. She has taken a more direct mentoring role with others. But she was a mentor to me. The first year I was in the job the head of department came up for grabs. Two people went for the job. One was an aging white male and if he had gained the position I would have probably sat in the position I was in and probably wouldn't even have stayed with the department. But
Jan got the job. The relationship with her was absolutely fundamental to shaping my career.
The Inspiration Dimension
The dimension of Inspiration includes the following words: risk-taking, visioning, creative, curious, dynamic, strong, passionate, direct, brilliant, challenging and assertive.
Two of the interviewees, Rose and Mark, used one or more of these words in phase one,
Describing Mentors, indicating that their mentors may be high in Inspiration.
Rose's Mentor
"She is a kind of hero for me"
As a woman mining engineer I never had a mentor during the early stages of my career. Mining engineering is a very male dominated field. However, a couple of years ago
134 I took on a volunteer role with International Health, which has turned into an unpaid job. It is in this role that I met the person I now call my mentor. She is a kind of hero for me. I've wondered if I was ever the sort of person who clung to heroes, but I don't mink so at all. I'd heard about her, so when I was at a conference a few years ago, I went out of my way to meet with her and her husband. They are both famous people in international health work and they both have the Order of Canada for their work. So anyway, I went and introduced myself and immediately a friendship developed with both of them and my husband and I have been close friends of both Liz and her husband since then.
Liz is 70 something but I think of her as about my age (40 something). She and her husband are still working and they travel for six months a year. All winter they travel throughout the world. They are pediatricians and they help set up training programs for pediatricians throughout the world and so they are well known internationally. She's an amazing woman. I cannot think of a single person who would possibly dislike her. She wears flat shoes and her hair is pushed back as she has no time to worry about such things.
I've heard people say: "I would do anything for this woman." She's not saintly — she just gives out generosity and warmth. She never says anything nasty about anyone. Millions of people adore her.
Can you give some examples to describe your mentor?
It is the way she handles other people I think is inspirational. She is so wise and encouraging and such a true teacher. People flock to her and confide in her. For example I know a doctor who likes to write poetry and he wouldn't admit to anyone alive that he writes poetry but he doesn't mind showing it to her. That's the sort of person she is and people will open up to her because they know that she will never be negative and never damage them..
135 Eight Key Characteristics of Mentors
Protege's Name Rose M F Mentor's Name Liz
Authenticity Nurturance Approach- Competence Inspiration Conscien• Hard Volatility Number of ability tiousness Working Words %ile 20 14 16 18 15 98% 17 12 16 17 14 11 90 98% 14 95 15 11 15 14 9 88 95 15 90 14 10 14 13 7 85 90 /l2 6 85 14 85 80 12 \ 12 5 81 80 75 \ 13 4 75 13 11 70 79 70 11 3 65 65 9 \ r \ 60 ' 77 60 55 11 55 50 1? 75 50 1 \y 45 45 12 10 I Vf 40 8 72 40 35 12 10 35 30 11 1 70 30 9 9 25 7 9 25 20 11 6 8 66 20 10 0 15 5 11 8 8 15 7 10 10 4 9 7 59 10 5 8 2 10 5 5 6 54 5 2% 4 1 6 9 3 3 3 46 2% 1 I I 3 I 1 I 3 I Authenticity Nurturance Approach- Competence Inspiration Conscien• Hard Volatility Number of ability tiousness Working Words Scale Scores 13 10 12 13 13 13 10 2 78
Fig. 11. Profile of Rose's Mentor
(c) Darwin and Collins, 1998 Key Characteristics of Mentors 136 When we attend conferences I am like one of her entourage and it's like being with royalty. When you go into a conference you can hear the silence. The young ones particularly mob her and are always around her. She's a very famous person in her own field, yet she is a down-to-earth person. The incident that stands out in my mind which would help to demonstrate this would be the time she was at a big conference. She went into the room and there were not enough chairs so she sat on the floor in the comer and made no fuss about it. People offered her a seat but she insisted on just sitting on the floor.
She likes simple things. She cuts the crap and intellectually brings things down to a simple level. But the most inspiring thing about her is the way in which she supports young students. She doesn't take over from people but she empowers them. She is such an inspiration for young and old alike. She rejects the role of leader, but because people respect her they usually do everything she says. She has personal power and gives it all away.
That's what I've learned from her, that true power is not something you have to horde, you can always give it away to other people. The less you look for personal glory in this work the more you get.
She's wise. Wise is such an old fashioned word and people tend not to use it these days. I think that mentors have to be wise and stable. Mentors are very rare. I keep asking myself: "What would Liz say about that? How would Liz deal with that?" She's a remarkable woman and role model and she is my dear friend.
Was she aware of her mentoring role with you?
I'm sure she knows that she's my mentor. But she's a very shy person and she cannot stand it if people gush at her about things. She's had an effect on thousands of people so she knows she's a mentor for many, many people.
137 Mark's Mentor
"He was a role model for a lot of people."
I've been in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for 39 years. I met my mentor in the late 1960s when he was my supervisor. I worked with him initially for three years and a close friendship developed. The relationship grew and even today, although he's been retired for probably ten years, I still keep in contact with him. He had a lot of outstanding qualities that people saw right away. He had a way of being very friendly and as soon as you met him that trusting relationship developed instantaneously. He'd call it the way it was and people appreciated that. He had a sense of adventure and one of the first things he did when he retired was to buy a motor cycle and he's still riding it. He was a good teacher and an excellent role model. I guess I remember him as a main mentor in my life because it was during the time when I was really eager to learn and experience new things and he met that need for me.
Can you give some examples to describe your mentor?
He led by example and a lot of us admired him for that and adopted a lot of his traits.
I attributed a lot of the skills I obtained as a direct result of his coaching. For example, we had a particularly nasty murder and the murder scene was just off the grounds of a mental institution and a lady was sexually assaulted and killed. We had 1,200 possible suspects. It was a mammoth task but he organized everything even though we didn't have many people to work on it. He just had the ability to organize and knew what guidelines to give and what we should be looking for. Later, when I was involved in an investigation of a serial murderer which resulted in the conviction of someone, I was able to use the skills that I had learnt from Jack and it made my work a lot easier as a result of his teaching.
138 Eight Key Characteristics of Mentors
Protege's Name Mark M F Mentor's Name Jack
Fig. 12. Profile of Mark's Mentor
Key Characteristics of Mentors (c) Darwin and Collins, 1998 139 Jack was a very experienced homicide detective and many people wanted to be on his team as he had an excellent reputation. He had investigated more murders than anyone in our force in that province. He also had the capacity to work hard. Whenever there was something to be done he was there and he never asked anyone to do something he wouldn't do himself, so he led by example. He was tough on the job and a task master. When there was work to be done there was no fooling around and we'd get on with it and get it done.
He always had time to listen, whether it was work related or personal. He was a super communicator, down to earth and he had a lot of common sense. There were no frills with Jack. Everyone marvelled at his ability to pick up a file and go through it and have a complete grasp of the contents within a few hours which would take me days. He was able to speed read for one thing. Also, I never saw him blow up with anybody. Work-wise, he never got upset where he'd blow someone up or take thing out on people. He was a good communicator and had down-to-earth common sense and these skills made him an excellent leader and well respected. At the same time, Jack was also able to deal compassionately with victims of crime. He was very warm and was able to deal humanely with people and always ensured that their needs were looked after, personal and spiritual. That was one of his main strengths — his humanity.
Was he aware of his mentoring role with you?
We've talked about our relationship over the years. I was working with him when he retired and the last couple of months he was preparing for retirement we spent considerable time together talking about the past. And I know directly from him that, as I was drawing from him picking up pointers about the job, at the same time he was drawing from me, even though I was considerably younger than him. It was a pretty comprehensive and long term relationship.
140 The Conscientiousness Dimension
The dimension of Conscientiousness includes the following words: thorough, efficient, organized, disciplined, comprehensive, consistent, available and strict. Two of the interviewees, Matthew and Terry, used one or more of these words in phase one, Describing
Mentors, indicating that their mentors may be high in Conscientiousness.
Matthew's Mentor
"He was guided by his own conscience rather than what others thought of him"
I met my mentor while I was working for a multi-national retail/wholesale travel organization. I actually got into human resources through my mentor. I was about 27 when
I first met him and he was about ten years older than me. When I first started with the company I was a temporary worker with the accounting department and he was hired as the controller of the Canadian operations so I had to report to him.
He was an ideas person so if someone came to him with an idea and he liked it he'd try to flesh it out more. I went to him with the idea that there should be somebody to look after human resources (we had no human resources department). I said that if the company would be willing and would help in a financial way I'd go back to university and study human resources. He agreed and I not only attended a three year part time course but became the director of human resources for a division of North America. It involved a lot of juggling and long hours but I enjoyed being back with people and responsible for training and development.
141 Eight Key Characteristics of Mentors
Protege's Name Matthew M F Mentor's Name Owen M F
Authenticity Nurturance Approach- Competence Inspiration Conscien• Hard Volatility Number of ability tiousness Working Words %ile 20 14 16 18 15 98% 17 12 16 17 1* 11 90 98% ~~"l4" 95 15 11 15 14 9 88 95 |15 13 \ 90 14 10 14 13 85 90 12 6\ 85 114 85 12 12 5 ^ 80 80 \ 81 75 13 4 75 13 11 70 \9 70 65 9 I 13 11 3 65 60 77 \ 60 55 11 2 55 50 12 75 50 10 45 12 I 10 45 40 8 72 40 35 12 10 35 30 11 I 1 70 30 9 9 25 \ 7 9 25
20 11 \ 6 8 66 20 10 I 0 15 5 11 8 8 15 I 7 10 10 U 9 7 59 10 5 8 10 5 5 6 54 5 2% 4 9 3 3 3 46 2% 1 I I 3 I I I 3 I I Authenticity Nurturance Approach- Competence Inspiration Conscien• Hard Volatility Number of ability tiousness Working Words Scale Scores 13 1 5 18 15 14 16 7 57
Fig. 13. Profile of Matthew's Mentor
(c) Darwin and Collins, 1998 Key Characteristics of Mentors 142 Can you give some examples to describe your mentor?
Owen was protective and in some ways an informant, sort of like a sponsor or patron. He was also a good sounding board and always available for me to bounce ideas off.
Because he was near the top of the organization he would hear things being said and if he heard of a situation that involved me he'd say: "Watch your back." He was there for me and you knew exactly where you stood with him. He knew that I was gay and in the corporate world that is not well accepted. He would hear them making fun of me and they would make fun of the perception of him being a mentor for me. It didn't seem to bother him and he always stood behind me. The day I was laid off, which caught everybody by surprise, he said that if I wanted a reference or support in anything he would be there to offer it to me.
He worked hard. He is a highly principled individual and had a lot of strongly held beliefs and values. He wasn't someone who lied or played games. He believed in honesty and fairness. In the corporate world there's a lot of back stabbing but he wasn't like that and was always very up front. Owen was guided by his own conscience rather than what others thought of him. He also helped me to look at how other people perceived a situation. Like the time when someone in the company had died of AIDS from a blood transfusion. I said that I'd go to the funeral. He said "no" because you're gay and suggested that I send flowers but send someone who would be more removed from the situation. He was down to earth and wasn't afraid of talking about the issue.
Was he aware of his mentoring role with you?
I don't know that he was a mentor for others for he was a bit of a loner in the corporate world. He singled me out but I don't know why. I never asked him. He would have known that I thought of him as my mentor. Why me? When you're gay you have to take any support you can get. I wanted to be in the corporate world and it was a good job. I
143 liked the life-style, travelled a lot and when you have someone who is prepared to help you as much as possible, it is so refreshing and rare.
Terry's Mentor
"Whenever anyone wanted to talk with him he was available"
Take a man with an attitude of wanting to live and to please other people so much so that he gave up his life to do it. He never did the things that he wanted to do. He was a business owner and he inherited the business from his father. Basically he saw his father die without enjoying himself and he was the same. He always talked about travelling and having fun, but he never got around to doing it. He got himself so busy with different charity organizations, so when he wasn't working his time was completely taken up with volunteering. Consequently he never fulfilled his dreams to get away from the business and travel. I met Ron when I was young and I was working as a printer for someone else. He'd come in and talk. Then I went and worked for him occasionally, when he needed it. We were friends for over 15 years. He helped me to grow at that time and to believe in myself and start my own business. "Never give up," he would say.
Can you give some examples to describe your mentor?
His customers were the most important thing in his life. It was his want to please people that took over his life. Whenever anyone needed to talk to him he was available.
He was so committed to the work. Nothing else mattered to him but getting the customer's orders taken care of. He'd glow. Get it done and he'd feel good. That was his accomplishment. Ron was very human. Everyone who came in, he always had time for.
He was like a mother looking after a whole bunch of kids and spent all the time giving with no time for himself. He was aware but he never made any change.
144 Eight Key Characteristics of Mentors
Protege's Name Terry M F Mentor's Name Ron M F
Authenticity Nurturance Approach- Competence Inspiration Conscien• Hard Volatility Number of ability tiousness Working Words %ile 20 14 16 18 15 98% 17 12 16 17 14 11 90 98% 14 95 15 11 15 14 9 88 95 15 90 14 10 14 13 7 85 90 12-^ 6 85 14 / 85 80 12 \ 12 81 80
75 / \ 13 A 75 13 / 11 70 79 70
3 65 / 9 \ 13 / \ 11 / 65 60 77 60 55 11 2 55 50 75 50 10 45 12 / / 10 45 40 8 72 40 35 10 35 30 11 1 70 30 9 9 25 7 9 25 20 11 6 8 66 20 10 0 15 5 11 8 8 15 7 10 10 4 9 7 59 10 5 8 2 10 5 5 6 54 5 2% 4 1 6 9 3 3 3 46 2% 1 I I 3 I | I 3 I I Authenticity Nurturance Approach- Competence Inspiration Conscien• Hard Volatility Number of ability tiousness Working Words Scale Scores 11 10 12 12 12 13 10 5 81
Fig. 14. Profile of Terry's Mentor
(c) Darwin and Collins, 1998 Key Characteristics of Mentors 145 He was about 62 when he died. Even when he got cancer he went to work every day. It had become such a habit for him that he could not stop. Work was his shrine. I was disappointed that he didn't pack it in. He probably didn't know how to relax because he'd worked so hard all of his life. I was curious to watch somebody who wanted something, told someone that he wanted to do it, but never did it. I watched him all those years and wondered why he didn't do it. I learnt not to be like him. You need to do both — you gotta say it and do it.
He was partly a role model, partly personal growth, partly my good friend. He was a positive person. He taught me about life in a way even though I may not have agreed with him. That was the most important thing — to re-awaken myself to what was going on around me. By watching him I became curious to watch everybody. You can learn from negative things as long as you are open and aware. I got a lot of inspiration from him too, like his attitude that you don't have to do what you don't want to do, to be yourself and don't try to be someone you are not. If you want to look at something go outside of what you are looking at. When you are strong enough nothing will influence you in life except for you..
Yes, he taught me a lot of life's lessons.
Ron was one of the most popular people around. The worst thing others said about him was that he didn't spend much time away from work. On his time off Ron was involved with charity work. He always wanted to give to people. He was honest, approachable, loving. He never had anything bad to say about anybody. I meet a lot of people who have one or two of those characteristics but the total package is rare. That's why you learn to accept people for who they are in order to co-exist with them.
146 Was he aware of his mentoring role with you?
Yes. He was like a father to me and, at one stage, wanted me to join his business.
However, it is my belief that mentors sit everywhere. They could be playmates, teachers, friends, people you meet at the store. Everyone is a potential mentor in life. You need to be open and not just looking for the one saviour to pull you through life. If I'd been looking for one saviour to pull me through life I might have ended up just like him. So you need lots of examples, not just one. You also learn from bad experiences as much, if not more than, from good ones. People are attracted to another person's basic core of characteristics and the behaviours are there for attention getting — so you are attracted to the person because of his core and can forgive some of the behaviours because you know that they are the shell or guard. It is the core that attracts you to that person. I was attracted to Ron's character and learnt from his negative as well as his positive influences.
The Hard Working Dimension
The dimension of Hard Working included the following words: dedicated, motivated, committed, ambitious, energetic, driven, demanding and workaholic. Two of the interviewees, Ruth and Sally, used one or more of these words in phase one, Describing
Mentors, indicating that their mentors may be high in the Hard Working dimension.
Ruth's Mentor
"She would work hard during the day and play hard at night"
I met my mentor when I went as an English teacher to Japan. I had a special teaching position which involved me travelling to schools and sorting out problems. I wanted a more challenging position. I read a book that said to think about a job and then recommend
147 yourself for this job to someone. So I went to this person who became my mentor and said:
"I think that the company needs someone to specialize in communication, specializing in public relations with teachers. And I am that person and I can help you in your work by smoothing over conflicts." So she hired me and created the position for me. I worked with her in the office. In Japan the boss is called the "bucho" and whoever sits closest to the bucho the more powerful the position. I sat really close to her in the power desk.
I was a bit in awe of her. She was only a few years older than me, in her late twenties. Aiko was incredibly beautiful and sometimes I used to feel intimidated because she was so beautiful and incredibly powerful and I used to feel like a little girl around her. She was very ambitious. It wasn't a typical Japanese company in as much as it was matriarchal and most of the staff were women who had been groomed by other women to take over management positions. She came into the company as it went through a real growth stage so it was a lot of luck that she was in the right place at the right time, But she was also terribly dedicated and ambitious.
Can you give some examples to describe your mentor?
Aiko had so much energy. She would work hard during the day and play hard at night and was an amazing player, singing kareoki until four or five in the morning. Yet she never seemed to be tired or worn out. I was hard working too so she liked that. She gave me lots of challenging assignments and took short cuts for me. One example of this is when
I wanted to return to Canada. She offered me a choice position in the Vancouver office. A lot of people were angry because they said that I didn't have to compete for one of the best jobs in the company. But that was her way of doing things. If she knew that you were good she didn't mess around with unnecessary protocols.
148 Eight Key Characteristics of Mentors
Protege's Name Ruth M F Mentor's Name Aiko
Volatility Number of Authenticity Nurturance Approach- Competence Inspiration Conscien• Hard ability tiousness Working Words 20 14 16 18 15 %ile 98% 98% 17 12 16 17 14 11 90 14 95 15 11 15 14 9 88 95 15 / 90 14 10 14 13 7 85 90 /12 6 85 14 / 85 80 80 12 12 N . 5 81 75 13 75 13 / 11 70 79 70 65 9 11 3 65 60 77 60 55 11 2 55 75 50 50 \ Y 10 45 12 10 45 40 72 40 35 12 10 35 30 11 1 70 30 9 9 25 7 9 25 20 11 6 8 66 20 10 0 15 5 11 8 8 15 7 10 10 4 9 7 59 10 5 8 2 10 5 5 6 54 5 2% 4 1 6 9 3 3 3 46 2%
1 I 3 I 3 I Number of Authenticity Nurturance Approach - Competence Inspiration Conscien• Hard Volatility ability tiousness Working Words Scale Scores 13 8 12 13 13 13 13 4 78
Fig. 15. Profile of Ruth's Mentor
Key Characteristics of Mentors (c) Darwin and Collins, 1998 149 She knew that she had to have good results and that her employees showed off her own ability. With me she knew that I could get good results so she believed in me. I think she liked the fact that I was self-directed and she trusted that I would be O.K. and I was
O.K. In fact sometimes she took advantage of that and often left me to look after the office.
She had a good work ethic and I appreciated that there was a big line between what was work and what was my private life.
Was she aware of her mentoring role with you?
I think so. She liked lots of things about me. She knew that I could shut up and trusted me to work on my own. She offered me my first executive job. I had no idea how to behave and she was my role model and sponsor. I seem to have taken on a lot of her habits.
She believed in me and made me incredibly visible within the company. If I get to have a position similar to hers I'd like to have the same relationship with my good staff members.
Sally's Mentor
"We were both very hard working so we had a lot of respect for each other"
I'm a journalist and I met my mentor about six years ago when we were both working in the news-room. Subsequently she became my supervisor and was so for about three years. Although she's no longer my supervisor, philosophically in my head, she's still my mentor. She was an interesting character and typical of a lot of women of her age (late forties) who worked for the media. She had a tough exterior which she needed in order to be taken seriously by the media as it was a male dominated business. Tess was also gay, which makes her a bit different. She was aggressive and pushed herself very hard and expected a lot from others. In fact, she was a complete workaholic. We were both very hard working so we had a lot of respect for each other.
150 Can you give some examples to describe your mentor?
She was quick to respond to people. For example, the first day she was made my supervisor I wrote her a memo telling her all of the things that I wanted out of my job and the position. You see, the supervisor previous to her did absolutely nothing. I sent it off before
I left work and she responded that night. I think Tess appreciated my assertiveness and relating so directly to her. And in return she was direct with me. She'd give me feedback and praise me for a job well done. Tess promoted me and made me visible, introducing me to her friends on the network and she'd talk to people and tell them how good I was. As I didn't (and still don't) promote myself very well Tess was great for my career. But she didn't promote everyone. There were two types of people — those who thought that she was fabulous and those who just couldn't stand her.
She'd jump in and do the lowly jobs as well as the glamorous ones. Tess would never ask anyone to do any job that she wouldn't do herself. I thought if she could do it I could do it too. So she was a fine role model for me. She had a hard exterior but was a real softy inside, although she wasn't very demonstrative. Her toughness put a lot of people off and she was very demanding. She would snap at them and get them to do stuff by intimidating them. But she didn't intimidate me. I found her genuine. I think she really appreciated my assertiveness and saying it straight with her. Tess always gave feedback.
She'd always say thank you and praise you for doing a good job. I've kept a lot of her notes. She was always direct and not afraid to say what she thought.
151 Eight Key Characteristics of Mentors
Prntene's Name Sally M F Mentor's Name Jess M F
Authenticity Nurturance Approach- Competence Inspiration Conscien• Hard Volatility Number of ability tiousness Working Words %ile 20 14 16 18 15 98% 17 12 16 17 14 11 90 98% 14 95 15 11 15 14 9 88 95 15 13 \ 90 14 10 14 7 \ 85 90 12 6 85 14 85 80 12 M2 5 8l\ 80 75 13 4 75 13 J,1 70 79 70
65 9 J 11 3 65 60 77 60 55 11 2 55 50 75 50 10 45 12 45 10 I 40 8 / 72 40 12 10 35 35 I 1 30 1 70 30 9 9 25 7 \ 9 1 25 20 11 6 8 66 20 10 0
15 5 11 \ 8/ 8 15 7 10 10 4 9 171 59 10 5 8 2 10 5 6 54 5 2% 4 1 6 9 3 3 3 46 2% 1 I I 3 I I _l 1 3 Authenticity Nurturance Approach- Competence Inspiration Conscien• Hard Volatility Number of ability tiousness Working Words Scale Scores 11 6 12 13 11 4 13 10 75
Fig. 16. Profile of Sally's Mentor
(e) Darwin and Collins, 1998 Key Characteristics of Mentors 152 I guess she was a kind of a sponsor for me. Later, when she heard that I'd been dumped from my old job she rang me and spent about half an hour on the phone -- she phoned me from London and asked what had happened — she was really encouraging and supportive. I told her that I was thinking of applying for another job in another network.
She said that she knew the person who was heading up this new network and that she was going to ring her and tell her about me. Then when I did eventually meet up with this woman she said: "you've got a job don't worry." I'm so bad at this networking business. I would never have gone up to her if Tess hadn't encouraged me to do so. She used to talk about me all the time to people and constantly promoted me.
Was she aware of her mentoring role with you?
I said to her once: "You are the best boss ever." And I really meant it. There are times when I thought: "She's nuts. She works all the time. She has no life." But no-one has believed in me the way Tess did. I didn't have too much self-esteem and her belief in me helped me to believe in myself.
The Volatility Dimension
The dimension of Volatility includes the following words: neurotic, overbearing, egocentric, outrageous, obsessive, vindictive, contradictory, self-centred, wild, eccentric, opinionated, stressed, cunning, hard and picky. Two of the interviewees, John and Suzuki, used one or more of these words in phase one, Describing Mentors, indicating that their mentors may be high in Volatility.
153 John's Mentor
"Anne was a Pisces and had a split personality"
I was with an International Telemarketing organization when I met my mentor. Anne was head of the training department and she taught me a lot about business. I was in my mid twenties and I was new to the business. The arts was always my primary focus so I knew nothing about the business world. She was almost two decades older than me and had a lot of experience and knowledge about the corporate world. I had a friend who referred me to the company and he said that she and I would hit it off great and I would have fun working with her. And I did. Anne was my boss. She was a wonderful person and a wonderful individual. It was a strong learning experience for me. She had a very strong sense of what she wanted to accomplish and strove for perfection. She would always wear a business suit and knew how a business should be run from a behavioural point of view, so she would make sure that her behaviour was always what was expected.
Can you give some examples to describe your mentor?
She taught me how to be aggressive in business when it was necessary, and how to maintain my own sense of independence. This is important in a management position because most individuals can't deal with problems on a daily basis. You have to learn how to separate yourself from a situation. Anne and I were friends right from the start and it was difficult for her to separate our friendship from the job situation. If you are the boss you have to maintain that degree of separation. She didn't have this degree of separation with me and this was difficult for her at times. Rather than tell me straight away that I was doing something that she disagreed with she would leave it so that it got to a volcanic situation and we had to iron it out.
154 Eight Key Characteristics of Mentors
Protege's Name John M F Mentor's Name Anne M F
Authenticity Nurturance Approach- Competence Inspiration Conscien• Hard Volatility Number of ability tiousness Working Words %ile 20 14 16 18 15 98% 17 12 16 17 14 90 98% 14 95 15 11 15 14 88 95 15 13 90 14 10 14 13 7 85 90 12 / 6 85 14 85
80 12 12 / 5 81 80 75 13 / 4 75 13 11 70 79 70 65 9 13 11 / 3 65 60 77 60 55 11 2 55 50 12 75 50 1 (7r 45 12 10 I yj 45 40 8 72 40 35 12 10 / 35 30 1 70 30 9 25 25 8 20 11 / 6 66 20 ' 10 \ / 0 15 5 IV 8 8 15 7 10 10 4 9 7 59 10 5 8 2 10 5 5 6 54 5 2% 4 1 6 9 3 3 3 46 2% _ 1 I I 3 I I I 3 I I Authenticity Nurturance Approach- Competence Inspiration Conscien• Hard Volatility Number of ability tiousness Working Words Scale Scores 10 7 11 11 9 9 10 11 91
Fig. 17. Profile of John's Mentor
155 (c) Darwin and Collins, 1998 Key Characteristics of Mentors There was a bit of envy on her part that I was capable of doing more and she wasn't
(I took over other departments). She helped me with my career and to establish myself in that organization and encouraged me every step of the way. She was still very supportive even though she was envious sometimes of my advancement. Anne was a Pisces and had a split personality. She would be professional and businesslike on the surface but on the inside she had a lot of insecurities. A lot of them she didn't want to acknowledge. But she was very out-going and spontaneous and had a care-free attitude toward things. She had a very dry English sense of humour and was very intelligent. People either liked or disliked her, but those who didn't like her she didn't like either, so it was mutual.
In her dealings with other people she was very professional and to the point. I tend to be a very "tell it as it is" kind of person which got me into trouble in the past because I tended to say what I thought. She was very cautionary and there were quite a few times when I was irate and I was just going to charge in and tell the boss just what I thought. But she would help me to calm down and help me to think about what I wanted to say, so rather than make it a negative situation I was able to turn it into a positive situation and still get my point across. This happened quite a few times before I learnt to do it myself. She gave me feedback all the time. She was my coach and teacher.
We had a bit of a power struggle within the company and you would not believe how much she went behind every-one's back to support her political aspirations to the hilt. So our department made it and the other ones didn't. She was politically correct with staff but she would never tell them to do things. She would do it in a way that made them think that it was the correct thing to do all along so that it became their idea rather than hers. There were
some things that we both avoided and tended to avoid at all cost and when she was mad at me about something, she would'make me do those things. Once she said something inappropriate on my review and I got really mad. She disciplined me in inappropriate ways
156 and I made sure she knew that I was upset about the unfairness of her actions. I think that she respected the fact that I was able to take what she threw my way and stand up for myself.
Anne learnt from me too. I think that I have a lot of outspoken, creative kind of attitudes that she didn't have, so in a lot of cases she looked to me for some of the spontaneity of life. As I said, she had a split personality. She was always afraid to ask for a raise and I'd encourage her to do so. She was afraid of the boss. He was a very dominant individual who wanted to control. At management meetings he would make us put our coats on and take them off just so he could have the control. So I encouraged her not to be so intimidated by him. It was odd because with other people she was not intimidated at all, in fact she probably intimidated them. But with him she was intimidated so I helped her to deal with that.
Was she aware of her mentoring role with you?
Everyone in life teaches you something so I can't say that I haven't had other mentors. But she was a very special person for me because she taught me a lot about business to make it possible for me to be who I am in business today. Yes, she knew that she was my mentor.
She taught me to be a confident business actor. In business you have to put on different faces at different times. She taught me how to put on these different faces and she modelled this for me. I would watch her and learn and there's a lot to learn in any environment especially when you are learning something for the first time. She was helpful and caring to most of her staff, except for those she didn't like. She definitely took on a more direct mentoring role with me than she did with other staff. No-one else got the help I got. It was a special relationship and I do miss it.
157 Suzuki's Mentor
"He was very stubborn and was up and down with his moods"
I knew my mentor for half of my life so he was like my father. I met him as a young student at the university in Japan and he was my mentor for 20 years until he died a few years ago. He taught me everything I know so he stands out as someone who has been a mentor in my life even more than my father. He was my teacher, my boss and sometimes my friend. He joined the university when he was about 50 years old. That's when I met him. He was my supervisor. Prior to becoming a professor at the university he was head of construction in Japan. He was a very brilliant engineer and he constructed dams. His job was very difficult and he worked very hard. He had to be very tough because many times he had to tell people to leave their houses in order to put up new constructions. Some people liked him but many did not like him because he was very tough. He was also aggressive and ambitious.
Can you give some examples to describe your mentor?
Hiroshi was very stubborn and was up and down with his moods. People would often become confused because some days he was nice and other days he would be angry.
Sometimes he would smile and other times he would be sad. He was very eccentric, strict and tough. He was a perfectionist and very critical of himself and others. He was so driven and had such high expectations and always looked toward the next accomplishment rather than be pleased that he had succeeded in the present one. Many people could not deal with such a person. But he was very brilliant and so those who could cope with his mood swings and toughness learnt a lot. He had a lot of passion.
158 Eight Key Characteristics of Mentors
Protege's Name Suzuki M F Mentor's Name Hiroshi
Authenticity Nurturance Approach- Competence Inspiration Conscien- Hard Volatility Number of ability tiousness Working Words
Authenticity Nurturance Approach- Competence Inspiration Conscien- Hard Volatility Number of ability tiousness Working Words Scale Scores 11 0 4 16 16 9 15 13 61
Fig. 18. Profile of Suzuki's Mentor
(c) Darwin and Collins, 1998 Ke* Characteristics of Mentors 159 We had lots of conflict in the relationship at the beginning and would fight He wanted to do things his way all of the time and got impatient when I objected to his way of doing things. He had a bad temper sometimes and it was hard to communicate with him.
But he believed in me and taught me how to contract and build constructions. He taught me all kinds of techniques that would be necessary for me to do well in my work. Other students did not get so much attention. He said to me that if you want to become a contractor your research must be useful and practical. He helped me to get a good career.
Was he aware of his mentoring role with you?
Yes. He had many students but I was his favourite. Later I went to his house all of the time and I appreciated him very much. I don't know why he thought of me as so special.
We were very different. I am not strict and tough like he was. I am very kind. But Hiroshi taught me everything and I am so grateful to him. He stands out as a mentor more than anyone else in my life.
160 Mentoring Profiles
Recall that respondents were chosen for interviews mainly as a result of the words they had used in phase one, Describing Mentors, indicating that their mentors may be high in one or another of the eight mentoring dimensions. Each interviewee also completed the
Mentoring in Work Settings Questionnaire so that profiles of mentors could be plotted and interpreted. High and low scores were calculated by scale scoring each person's response to the 100 word checklist. If respondents' scale scores fell above the 90-100%ile they were considered high in this dimension. If scores fell below the 10%ile, they were considered low in this dimension. Most mentor profiles closely corresponded to the words proteges had used initially to describe their mentors (see Table 19). There were, however, exceptions:
Ken's mentor was higher in Nurturance (98%) than Authenticity, although Authenticity was also high at 90%, as was Conscientiousness (92%). Matthew's mentor was higher in
Inspiration (99%) and Competence (99%) than Conscientiousness, although
Conscientiousness was still high at 96%. From words used initially to describe Ruth and
Sally's mentors they were thought to be high in Hard Working (90%). While both were high in this mentoring characteristic Ruth's mentor was higher in Inspiration (95%) and Sally's
Volatility (97%). Clearly, no one fell into any one pure mentoring dimension but rather they yielded profiles that were multi-dimensional.
Table 19 summarizes the high and low characteristics of mentors as ascribed by their proteges. Mentors who were high in Nurturance usually had strong Authenticity and
Nurturance irrespective of other characteristics. Inspiration and Conscientiousness were
often also high, but not invariably so. Approachability was not always high. As earlier
findings indicated that this dimension was more likely to be associated with co-workers and
friends, and most proteges interviewed reported their bosses as mentors.
161 Those whose mentors exhibited Volatility also had Competence, Inspiration and Hard Working emerging as secondary characteristics. Conscientiousness was often low. Interestingly, correlations between the eight scale scores (see Table 14) show that Authenticity and Nurturance are positively correlated, with each other, at a significant level. So too are Volatility and Hard Working, which are also positively correlated with Inspiration. Table 19 shows the high (90%ile and up) and low (10%ile and below) percentiles of mentors as ascribed by proteges at interview. As phase three, Mentoring In Context, was concerned with exploring how proteges' mentors more prominent characteristics manifested themselves in day-to-day work settings, middle range characteristics have not been included in this table.
Table 19. High and Low Characteristics of Mentors as Ascribed by Proteges Mentors Dimensions of Mentoring Initial Words High%ile % Low%ile % Mary's mentor authentic Authenticity 99 Approachability 10 honest Nurturance 90 real Ken's mentor sincere Nurturance 98 supportive Authenticity 90 understanding Conscientiousness 92
Trevor's mentor generous Nurturance 90 — honest spiritual Julie's mentor focused Nurturance 98 supportive Hard Working 90 giving Dave's mentor positive Authenticity 90 open Nurturance 90 fair Approachability 90
Kathy's mentor friendly Approachability 98 funny Authenticity 90 kind Nurturance 90
162 Table 19. (Continued) Profiles of Mentors as Ascribed by Proteges
Mentors Dimensions of Mentoring
Initial Words High%ile % Low%ile %
Luke's mentor realistic Competence 95 Hard Working 1 intelligent Authenticity 95 fair Conscientiousness 95
Rose's mentor supportive Inspiration 95 inspiring Conscientiousness 92 open Nurturance 90
Terry's mentor available Conscientiousness 90 — disciplined Nurturance 90 honest
Mark's mentor compassionate Inspiration 90 — caring inspiring
Suzuki's mentor tough Volatility 99 Nurturance 0 hard Inspiration 99 Approachability 1 smart Competence 95 Hard Working 97
John's mentor ambitious Volatility 98 Authenticity 10 stressed hard
Denise's mentor bright Competence 99 Nurturance 10 tough Inspiration 99 Conscientiousness 8 professional Volatility 93 Approachable 95 Hard Working 90
Matthew's mentor conscientious Competence 99 Nurturance 2 available Inspiration 99 Approachability 1 insightful Conscientiousness 96 Hard Working 97 Volatility 90
Ruth's mentor ambitious Inspiration 96 — hard working Conscientiousness 92 energetic Hard Working 90
Sally's mentor hard working Volatility 97 Conscientiousness 4 supportive Hard Working 90 aggressive
163 Descriptions of Mentors
Descriptions from proteges of their mentors were illuminated through memorable incidents. Researchers cannot agree on what comes first — characteristics or behaviours.
Covey (1989) sees behavioural effects as secondary, because "in the last analysis, what we are communicates far more eloquently than anything we say or do" (p. 22). On the other hand, Alleman's (1984) study found various personality characteristics, personality profiles, and several other personal attributes did not discriminate between mentors and non mentors.
It was behavioural differences that discriminated between groups. She concluded that
"mentoring relationships can be established by learning or encouraging mentor-like behaviour" (p. 332). Findings from the current study indicate that behaviours are closely tied to characteristics, but that they are indeed of secondary importance in the mentoring relationship. However, this was not a study on mentoring behaviours. Its purpose was to explore characteristics ascribed by proteges to their mentors.
Specifically, the purpose of this third phase, Mentoring In Context, was to explore how the eight mentoring dimensions manifested themselves in day-to-day work settings. By asking proteges to describe memorable incidents that would demonstrate their mentor's characteristics it was possible to compare a few profiles and explore similarities as well as differences. Hence, more general and personal descriptions of the mentors of these 16 proteges were extracted from their mentoring stories and are summarized in this section.
164 AUTHENTICITY
Mary, Ken, Dave, Kathy and Luke all had mentors whom they described as authentic. In detailing how this authenticity manifested itself in day-to-day life, they used the following phrases and descriptions during interviews:
• willing to share their life-stories • direct with people and play it like it is • genuine and real • "going to bat" for people • taking a stand for what they believe is right • offering support in a non-judgmental way • having a natural sense of fair play • taking a personal interest in others
NURTURANCE
Ken, Trevor, Julie, Dave and Kathy described their mentor as nurturing. In sharing their memorable incidents they described their mentors in the following way:
• having a capacity for tolerance • individuals who are not afraid of intimacy with others • valuing of friendship and reciprocity • well-balanced and patient with others • active and willing listeners • feeling a certain amount of responsibility for others • comfortable with delegating authority and sharing power
165 APPROACHABILITY
Kathy, Dave and Denise all had mentors whom they described as approachable. By giving examples of how this approachability manifested itself in work settings, they used the following descriptions:
• always being available to people
• acting as though people really matter to them
• genuinely caring for others
• positive and cheerful
• great team players
• having a great sense of humour
COMPETENCE
Luke, Matthew, Suzuki and Denise all had mentors whom they described as competence. In detailing how this competency manifested itself in the mentoring relationship, they used the following phases and descriptions during interviews:
• skilled, experienced and knowledgeable
• marching to their own drum
• practical and demanding of quality
• informative teachers
• giving sound advice
• tough and bright
• promoting careers
166 INSPIRATION
Rose, Mark, Matthew, Ruth, Suzuki and Denise described their mentors as inspirational. They used the following words and phases to describe their mentors:
• charismatic • respected and admired • often top of their field • having personal power • speaking simply and communicating well • leading by example • willing to take risks • visionaries • role models for many people
CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
Mary, Ken, Luke, Rose, Matthew, Terry and Ruth all had mentors whom they described as conscientious. In describing their mentors, they used the following phases during their interviews:
• honest and fair • accessible to people • strong and disciplined • having a strong work ethic • loving to work and committed to their jobs • telling things as they are
167 HARD WORKING
Julie, Matthew, Ruth, Sally and Denise all had mentors whom they described as hard working. During interviews they used the following phases to describe their mentors:
• high in energy
• ambitious and successful
• either liked or disliked, admired or hated
• self-directed and admire that attribute in others
• expecting a lot from self and others
• liking to have a few like-minded people as proteges
VOLATILITY
Matthew, Denise, Suzuki, Sally and John all had mentors whom they described as volatile. In sharing their memorable incidents they used the following phases to describe their mentors:
• aggressive in business dealings
• passionate about their work
• very intelligent and talented
• striving for perfection
• often changing moods and confusing people
• stubborn and opinionated
• either liked or disliked by people
• intimidating and able to intimidate
168 Multi-dimensional. There was overlap among proteges' descriptions of mentors.
Strong overlaps were found in mentors who were high in Authenticity, Nurturance, and
Approachability — relationship-oriented characteristics often associated with psychosocial support. Strong relationships were also found between those high in Volatility, Competence and Hard Working — task-oriented characteristics often associated with career support.
These findings support the correlations among the eight scale scores, as displayed in Table
14. The profiles show that all mentors exhibit behaviours from all of the eight mentoring dimensions, some more than others. It is also likely that those mentors who display task- oriented, rather than people-oriented behaviours evoked a more emotional response from other people, as demonsttated by the following comments: "People either liked or disliked
her, but those who didn't like her, she didn't like either, so it was mutual" (John). "Some people liked him but many did not like him because he was very tough" (Suzuki).
Learning from flaws. There were interesting contrasts. In describing her mentor
Rose said: "She's wise. Wise is such an old fashioned word and people tend not to use it
nowadays. I think that mentors have to be wise and stable." This view was contrasted with
that of Terry who felt that mentors have human flaws and it is their weaknesses as well as
their strengths which serve as learning experiences:
It is my belief that mentors sit everywhere. They could be playmates, teachers, friends, people you meet at the store. Everyone is a potential mentor in life. You need to be open and not just looking for one saviour to pull you through life. For example, if I'd been looking for one saviour to pull me through life I might have ended up just like him. So you need lots of examples, not just one. You also learn from bad experiences as much, if not more than, good ones.
Some proteges seem to understand the foibles of their mentors and build up zones of
tolerance around their behaviours and have ways of dealing with behaviours, sometimes
through direct feedback and confrontation: "I think she respected the fact that I was able to
take what she threw my way and stand up for myself" (John). Proteges were also able to
169 review their own beliefs and actions often through a process of observation and reflection..
"You can spend time being goodness and light for everybody else and talking to everyone and your own work does suffer — that's an important lesson that I learnt from her — to look after myself (Denise). It is this volatile side of mentors that can teach others the toughness that is sometimes required in life. Yet this dimension is often left out of mentoring descriptions. While most mentors were reported as being low in the dimension of Volatility, mentoring relationships where this dimension was high, were no less potent: "My mentor taught me everything. He stands out as a mentor more than anyone else in my life" (Suzuki).
Most of the mentors described through these stories were also bosses. According to
Bennis (1989) "the ideal boss for a growing leader is probably a good boss with major flaws, so that one can learn all the complex lessons of what to do and what not to do simultaneously" (p.151). It is worthwhile remembering, however, the words of Levinsoh's caution (1996) that while all bosses have the capacity to fulfill some memorial functions, the potential is not always realized and an "anti-mentorial" relationship develops. It may be that knowing the art of managing bosses actively and successfully is a critical determinant of a protege's own success within an organization.
Aware of the mentoring role. Many mentors appear to be unaware of the fact that they have played a key influence in the learning of their proteges. In phase one, Describing
Mentors, respondents were asked: "Was your mentor aware of his/her influence on you?"
In all, 50.9% said "yes"; 38.4% were unsure; and 10.7% said "no." In phase two,
Dimensions of Mentoring, when a yes or no answer was required, 65.5% said "yes" and
34.5% said "no." During phase three, Mentoring in Context, the same question was asked during interviews and a variety of answers given, ranging from a definite "yes" to feelings of uncertainty.
170 Some interviewees were certain that their mentor was aware:
Yes, she knew she was my mentor (John). Yes, he had many students, but I was his favourite (Suzuki). Definitely. He was a good boss to others and a boss and mentor to me (Luke). Yes. We've talked about the relationship over the years (Mark). I'm sure she knows that she's my mentor (Rose). He would have known that I thought of him as my mentor (Matthew).
Others were indecisive:
You know, I don't know. I hope she was because I never told her (Mary). I don't think that she was aware that she was my mentor (Ken). To tell him that he was my mentor would put him kind of in a spot (Trevor). No, well I don't think so (Dave).
Still others reported that their mentor probably wouldn't have been aware of his/her mentoring role:
He was so unassuming that it wouldn't have occurred to him that he was making such a valuable contribution to someone's life (Kathy). She would probably be surprised that I would think of her as a mentor because I don't think that I have ever used her at an individual level and I've never asked her for advice (Denise).
Hence, the findings from this study support prior findings that many mentors are unaware of the extent of their impact on their protege's learning and development (Burke, 1984; Kram,
1983).
Mentoring Relationships
There are a number of similarities that ctit across most mentoring descriptions. Five themes seem common to most of the memorable incidents, as described by proteges: belief and visibility, wanting to be mentored, timing, reciprocity, and affinity.
171 Belief and Visibility. A strong feature among relationships was the mentor's belief in their proteges' capacity to achieve their full potential. It is as though they were able to bring out talents in the other person because they saw something special about him/her that may have been invisible to others. Mentorship is in many ways spiritual as mentors help individuals learn how to "be" as well as what to "do" as demonstrated by the following comments:
I didn't know him for long but he stands out as someone who helped me because I didn't have a lot of confidence in myself at that time and it would have been easy to give up (Kathy).
She believed in me and made me incredibly visible within the company. If I get to have a position similar to hers I'd like to have the same relationship with my good staff members (Ruth).
No one has believed in me the way she did. I didn't have too much self- esteem and her belief in me helped me to believe in myself (Sally).
He helped me to grow at that time and to believe in myself and start my own business (Terry).
According to Hillman (1996): "To be is first of all to be visible. Passively allowing yourself to be seen opens the possibility of blessing. So we seek lovers and mentors and friends that we may be seen, and blessed" (p. 122). There was clearly such an element of spirit in all of the stories. Additionally, there was a willingness of the mentor to assist the protege and go
"beyond the call of duty." According to Luke: "He was a good boss to others and a boss and mentor to me."
Wanting to be mentored. Another similarity was an eagerness on the part of proteges to want to be mentored. In fact in many cases it was the proteges who made
themselves visible to their mentors and went out of their way to ensure that the relationship
happened, as illustrated by the following comments from proteges:
The first day she was made my supervisor I wrote her a memo telling her all of the things that I wanted out of my job and the position (Sally).
172 I went to this person who became my mentor and said: I think that the company needs someone to specialize in communication And I am that person (Ruth).
I went to him with the idea that there should be somebody to look after human resources. I said that if the company would be willing and would help in a financial way I'd go back to university and study human resources. He agreed (Matthew).
Timing was important: "I guess I remember him as a main mentor in my life because it was during the time when I was really eager to learn and experience new things and he met that need for me" (Mark). In most of the stories mentors appeared at a time when respondents were in a life transition and needed support and guidance from another person.
Mary, John, Suzuki, Julie, Kathy, Luke, Mark, Matthew, Ruth and Sally were in a new position and looking for guidance on how to succeed within the organization. Denise was in a male-dominated organization looking for promotion and Ken had developed a life- threatening illness. Their career paths would have been very different had they not encountered their mentors, well illustrated by Denise who states: "The relationship with her was absolutely fundamental to shaping my career."
Reciprocity was another common feature of most mentoring relationships, even
when mentors were obviously in more powerful situations within the organization, as
demonstrated by the following statements:
She learnt from me too. I think that I have a lot of unspoken, creative kind of attitudes that she didn't have, so in a lot of cases she looked to me for some of the spontaneity of life (John).
It's a reciprocal relationship and it see-saws back and forth (Julie).
Maybe she doesn't fit into your definition of a mentor because in some ways there was a reciprocal quality to the relationship (Denise).
I know directly from him that, as I was drawing from him picking up pointers about the job, at the same time he was drawing from me, even though I was considerably younger than him (Mark).
173 Mentors and proteges appear to provide each other with complementary benefits, suggesting that mentoring relationships are far from one-sided.
Affinity. Finally, within every relationship, there was an affinity — a bond of warm friendship and, in most cases, a strong emotional commitment, often involving feelings of trust, loyalty and respect. "I am able to take these risks because of the trusting relationship.
I know that it's not a test with him to see me go under" (Julie). It is often an unspoken bond and an understanding of the psyches of each person. In some cases there was a social relationship but in others there was no social contact. There appeared to be an attraction to the very essence of each others' being. The idea that people possess an essential nature that is qualitatively different from their acquired personality is basic to sacred psychology.
Essence has been described as what is "one's own," the potentials with which people were bom, rather than what they learnt through education and schooling (Almaas, 1986). It is possible, therefore, that unconsciously people seek out other people who can help them to become who they really are. This attraction did not appear to be behavioural, but of a more essential nature — sometimes spiritual, other times intellectual or emotional. Its essence is found more within the kind of relationship that exists between the mentor and the learner, than in roles and functions performed.
Summary
The purpose of phase three, Mentoring in Context, was to explore how the mentoring dimensions manifested themselves in day-to-day work settings. Mentoring always occurs in a social context, consequently what goes on in the relationship at a relatively overt, behavioural level, and the meanings that shape each person's involvement in it, need to be: considered. Sixteen people were interviewed and asked to describe memorable incidents.
These interviews provided more contextually-bound information on what it was like for
174 proteges to relate to mentors who possessed considerable amounts of characteristics nested in one or more of the scaled factors.
Eight mentoring characteristics were produced from words used by respondents to describe their mentors. The eight key characteristics were: Authenticity, Volatility,
Nurturance, Approachability, Competence, Inspiration, Conscientiousness and Hard
Working. No mentor fell exclusively into only one of the eight mentoring dimensions, but rather showed multi-dimensional profiles, both in characteristics and behaviours. Although every mentor was unique, two main patterns emerged: those mentors high and those low in
Nurturance. Those high in Nurturance were often also high in Authenticity. Those low in
Nurturance were often high in Volatility and Hard Working. Clearly, mentors high in
Nurturance and Authenticity are more altruistic and closer to traditional notions of what a mentor should be like, or rather, how mentors have been perceived throughout the ages.
Those high in Volatility and Hard Work are more likely to provide career support through sponsorship than through psychosocial support. They are probably less likely to be perceived as mentors and certainly these characteristics have not been described as being associated with mentoring in past research sttidies — however clearly evident they were in this study.
What appeared to make mentoring unique from other workplace relationships was a number of similarities found within the relationship itself, as illuminated through proteges' stories. Mentors believed in their proteges and helped them to "be" as well as to "do". Often mentors were encountered at a critical period when proteges were in a new position or time of transition in their lives. Mentors recognized characteristics and talents in proteges that may have been unknown to others and to proteges themselves. A sense of kinship developed.
They offered them unique visions of themselves, motivated them to grow professionally, showed them new ways and contributed to their growth and development as people as well
175 as supporting their careers. Some relationships were more significant than others but most showed genuine caring and empathy. Many relationships possessed a great deal of reciprocity. Proteges were most often active in their own mentoring process, especially if their mentors were high in Volatility and Hard Work. Many also seemed well equipped at managing the mentoring relationship through an understanding of their mentors' flaws as well as their strengths; and by effectively building zones of tolerance toward their mentors' behaviours. The attraction of both parties appeared to be from a non visible essence or core attraction rather than any function each mentor performed.
In conclusion, these relationships usually included various degrees of belief and visibility, desire to be mentored, timing, reciprocity and affinity. A unique understanding developed between mentors and proteges, confirming Levinson's (1978) statement that mentoring exists as a relationship between mentor and protege far more than any functions performed by mentors. Hence, it is the essence of the relationship itself that separates mentoring from other kinds of workplace relationships. Clearly, mentors make a difference to the working lives of ordinary people, so much so that Daloz believes "if mentors did not exist, we would have to invent them" (Daloz, 1986, p. 16).
176 CHAPTER EIGHT
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Mentoring in work settings is a massive field and increasingly important as organizations become more reliant on the capacity of individuals to learn and create new knowledge. Although a large amount of socio-demographic data were generated through questionnaires and interviews, this study concerned characteristics ascribed to mentors by their proteges. Results were reported and discussed in the previous four chapters. The purpose of this chapter is to outline key findings and implications for practice. Limitations of the study and recommendations for future research are also examined.
Key Findings
Whereas once mentors were available to an exclusive few, the increase in the number of organizationally sponsored programs appears to have equalled the playing field.
Irrespective of age, gender or organizational status, two-thirds of the 1,771 respondents reported having had a mentor, although some relationships were more significant than others.
Most reported to having more than one mentor. Findings indicate that mentoring is seen as more heterogeneous than homogeneous and the notion of a long term mentor, who provides comprehensive support, over a period of up to six years (Kram, 1985) is no longer as common as in the past. Further, as the number of women who reported having mentors was approximately the same as that of men, it appears that women have overcome barriers to obtaining mentors, reported by earlier researchers (Kram, 1985; Hunt & Michael, 1983;
Noe, 1988). There were no reported differences in characteristics ascribed to mentors from cross-gender and single-gender mentoring relationships. Key findings are discussed below.
177 Gender. Approximately equal numbers of men and women were found to have mentors, however most of those functioning as mentors were men. One explanation for this is that there are less women than men in senior management positions. Another is that women may be perceived as not being as advantageous to people's careers as men mentors, so they may not be asked to act as mentors. When women in senior positions take on the mentoring role there may be an attitude of discontent with male colleagues. According to
Denise: "Always with Jan there was incredible discontent, especially with males who thought that she was favouring some people over others. And I think to some extent there was some validity in that accusation." As there are fewer women than men in management positions, women-women mentoring partnerships are more visible. Men may feel resentful when women advance other women and see it as an injustice.
One of the main roles of mentors has been that of succession planning for young leaders as, through mentorship, important links can be made between leadership generations.
Women remain under-represented in that chain, however, subtle changes have taken place and mentoring is no longer a totally male dominated activity. Such developments are transforming workplace relationships as mentoring relationships become more interdependent and challenging, for "women are uniquely located and possess a mentoring potential which is
not acknowledged in the literature" (Stalker, 1994, p. 370). Further exploration into why
women do not perceive themselves as (and others do not perceive them to be) mentors,
warrants further study.
Workplace Relationships. Fifty-six percent of respondents said their mentors were
also their bosses. Compared to proteges in relationships with non-bosses, these proteges
reported that their mentoring relationships were more long term and intentional. Further,
little conflict was reported in relationships when bosses were in the dual role of boss
(supervisor) and mentor (developer). Bosses are in a strategic position to serve as mentors —
they are accessible and increasingly, staff development is regarded as an important part of
178 their job. As the boss's role continues to be transformed by contemporary work settings, greater importance and attention will need to be given to their role as mentors. Their challenge lies in how to provide equal memorial support to all staff. Effective leadership is based on high levels of mutual trust and loyalty (Yukl, 1994) and research has shown that leaders who distance themselves from their followers are generally less effective in work settings (Bass, 1990). A better understanding of leader-follower relationships may come from further researching the role of leader as mentor.
Forty-four percent of people said their mentors were non-bosses ~ co-workers, friends or other. Proteges attributed higher Approachability and Nurturance scores to mentor co-workers than to mentor bosses, indicating that peers were more likely to offer psychosocial mentoring support than bosses. However, people's images of mentoring rarely take into account non-hierarchical, democratic relationships. Although organizational terminology may be changing -- with categories such as "superior- subordinate" softening into "team leader" and "team member", and talk of workplace democracy legitimates egalitarian practices - to engage in discussion of mentoring as a relationship of equals is not yet commonly accepted.
Organizations may need to place greater value on the role of peers as mentors as well as investigating alternative strategies. As mentoring is beneficial for the protege, the mentor and the organization, it would seem important that organizations recognize mentoring as a valued relationship-based activity and reward mentors who demonstrate their commitment and ability to support the learning of others, for "people tend to repeat those activities that result in some reward, and therefore, even though it takes some effort and creativity, rewards for the mentors can and must be present" (Murray & Owen, 1991, p. 23).
179 Mentoring Characteristics. The eight mentoring characteristics described in this study are a description of the essential, defining nature of mentors. Statistical tests of differences on various socio-demographic variables and the Dimensions of Mentoring
Inventory (DOMI) highlighted the following key differences: Women proteges attributed higher Nurturance scores to mentors than men proteges; whereas men proteges attributed higher Competence scores to mentors than women proteges. This is not unexpected as women have traditionally been seen as nurturers. What was unexpected was that there were no statistically detected gender differences encountered in the dimensions of Authenticity,
Approachability, Inspiration, Conscientiousness, Hard Working and Volatility. It may be that there is no gender component or perhaps the scales were not a suitable thermometer to measure sensitive gender differences. It would have been useful to test whether women proteges attributed higher Nurturance scores to women than to men in management positions.
Women have often been accused by other women of emulating the behaviours of men once in management positions.
One could speculate that mentors deemed high in Competence are more likely to be male bosses who are able to provide career support. Those deemed high in Nurturance,
Authenticity and Approachability are more likely to be women co-workers who provide psychosocial mentoring support. Those who are high in Volatility, Inspiration and Hard
Working, are more likely to be high performers and more task oriented, hence they may be
less inclined to perform the role of mentor. It takes time to mentor and it may be that high
performing managers have neither the time nor ability to engage in more emotional and
personally intense aspects of mentoring relationships (Ragins & Cotton, 1991).
Such speculation is supported by the intercorrelations (see Table 14) between the
eight mentoring scales. Authenticity, Nurturance and Approachability were all positively
correlated. These are relationship-oriented characteristics associated with co-workers,
mentors about the same age as their proteges and more likely to be associated with
180 psychosocial support. On the other hand Volatility, Hard Working and Inspiration were negatively correlated with these scales but positively correlated with each other. These are task-oriented characteristics, more likely to be associated with career mentoring support.
Conscientiousness was negatively correlated with Volatility and Approachability and
Competence was negatively correlated with Volatility and Inspiration indicating that both
Conscientiousness and Competence stand alone from the other two major blocks of characteristics.
The Volatile Dimension. Some mentors were deemed to be high in Volatility.
Proteges who attributed high Volatility scores to their mentors were able to observe the mentor's behaviour, utilize the "best" (those actions which teach the learner how to get on in an organization) and discard the worst. It is the Volatility dimension, more than any other, that illustrates quite clearly the active rather than passive role of proteges within mentoring relationships. Mentors have the potential to be either helpful or destructive, yet in most research studies, it is the helpful rather than the potentially destructive side of mentors that has been the subject of intensive investigation. However, it is often through relationships with people, deemed to be high in Volatility, that one is able to build up a resiliency and the capacity to deal with difficult, but worthwhile people. An ability to manage mentors and bosses actively and successfully may be a critical detemiinant of success within organizations.
Individual characteristics predispose some people to become mentors more than others. For example, individuals characterized as high in Nurturance, Authenticity and
Approachability may be altruistic and more relational, providing psychosocial support to others. These individuals may, therefore, be more inclined to act as mentors for more people. On the other hand, mentors characterized as high in Inspiration, Volatility, and Hard
Working may be more inclined to support proteges in task related activities, particularly those
181 associated with career development. When mentoring is task-oriented, intentional and short term, psychosocial support is less important that the ability of the mentor to teach the protege either new skills or how to get on in the organization. These mentors may be drawn more by power than influence and have little time for developing others. Hence, they are more likely to be attracted to a few proteges whom they perceive to have high potential.
Table 20 shows the relationship between mentor characteristics and mentoring functions described by Kram (1985). There needs to be more of a sustained empirical investigation to see how relational and career functions blend with mentor characteristics.
Interestingly Competence and Conscientiousness, not represented in this table, were the only differences found among industry groups for the eight mentor characteristics. Although these differences were slight, further investigated is warranted.
Table 20 Mentoring Functions and Mentor Characteristics
Psychosocial Functions Career Functions
Role modelling (peers, boss) Sponsorship (boss)
Acceptance and confirmation (peers) Exposure and visibility(boss)
Counselling (friends) Coaching (boss)
Friendship Challenging assignments (boss)
Mentor Characteristics: Mentor Characteristics:
- Authenticity - Volatility
- Nurturance - Hard Working
- Approachability - Inspirational
Adapted from Kram (1985)
182 Mentoring Relationships. The third phase of this study, Mentoring in Context, looked at how these eight mentoring characteristics manifested themselves in relationships and in work settings. How did mentors high in one or more of the mentoring scales differ from those low in those scales? Findings indicated that, regardless of the characteristics of mentors, five key aspects of the mentoring relationship were common to most stories. They were as follows:
• Belief in the protege's capabilities, and through that belief proteges gained greater visibility. This indicates that mentoring is as much, if not more about, "being" as it is about
"doing". Mentors recognized talents in proteges that may have been unknown to others and to proteges themselves.
• A desire on the part of proteges to be mentored, indicating that proteges are active participants in the process. Traditionally, mentoring has been associated with nurturing and protection and it was the mentors who played the active role in both choosing proteges and in relationships. Mentors were sponsors, guides, coaches, counsellors, godfathers and godmothers and the relationship was similar to that of a good substitute parent to an adult child (Anderson & Shannon, 1988). Today proteges are often the active partners in the relationship. As employees now have a less predictable career path they are having to be more self-reliant and take the initiative and responsibility for their own career path rather than waiting for something to happen. It may be that it is the responsibility of individuals to seek out learning opportunities and mentors from both within and outside of the organization. This may be particularly necessary when mentors are Volatile and Hard Working.
• Timing of the relationship, usually when proteges were in a new position or a life transition.
• Reciprocity, with both parties gaining from the relationship. Whereas in the past the mentor's main reward was seeing the accomplishments of younger proteges — there was a
183 strong sense of giving back. Now, there is more reciprocity within the relationships and communication between lines of responsibility is enhanced. Older employees are able to learn from younger employees, who in turn are able to learn about the organizational culture from more senior employees. In other words, information see-saws back and forth.
• Affinity — a warm bond of friendship. Mentoring is a special learning relationship between two people. The core to which people are drawn in a relationship does not appear to be behavioural, but of some more essential nature. By searching for an ideal set of characteristics or behaviours there is a danger that the very uniqueness of such relationships will be nullified. It may be that these five themes give mentoring its distinguishing identity rather than any particular roles mentors may perform.
Implications for Practice
With learning as the goal, mentoring is important for all employees, including senior managers who are novices under new rules, new products, new services, and new technologies. Thus, they are more likely to find themselves co-inquirers in the search for work meaning and career growth in the midst of turbulence (Kram & Hall, 1995). Mentoring is a powerful learning tool because it enables the transfer of tacit, as well as explicit knowledge, hence a big part of mentoring today is the transfer of knowledge up and down the organization. As it is important for people to connect with others, not just those higher up in the organization, the need for organizations to value and encourage the formation of quality mentoring relationships through supporting greater opportunities for dialogue and connection between all staff members is essential.
184 Organizations are advised to explore different approaches to mentoring which take account of the increased workplace diversity, together with the nature of the mentoring role itself and the functions it performs. However, research which explores a range of heterogeneous relationships is relatively thin due to the unchallenged assumption that mentoring is a one-to-one developmental relationship between an older and a younger person. The small number of women in senior management positions has led to a number of organizations developing alternative models for relationship-based activities. It has been suggested by a number of writers (Collins, 1982; Giallouakis & Lorenz, 1984) that networks of relationships would benefit women, giving them greater access to support. The reality for women, as it is for men, is that effective mentoring relationships and wide-cast support networks are not mutually exclusive. Network models provide information, support and opportunities from peers as well as people higher up in the organization.
The concept of a Mentoring Circle was introduced by the Association of Management Women. The circles took a different approach from many corporate-sponsored mentoring programs because they were established independently and were not designed to educate or be a tool of upper management. Instead, the thrust was on the personal benefits for the protege as well as the mentor. The notion of co-learning is becoming more important today as part of the emphasis on the learning organization. Mentoring provides a scheme whereby
both the mentor and the protege can work together to build what Pedler et al. (1989) call The
Learning Company.
Finally, the transformed work place calls for a different style of leadership, where senior management models effective action learning principles. Whereas traditional leadership theories have focused on behaviors of leaders (Yukl, 1994), emergent theories focus on qualities of the relationship between leaders and followers, emphasizing that leaders who
distance themselves from followers are less effective (Bass, 1990). Leadership and
185 mentorship appear to be closely aligned. The difficulty is in translating the theory into practice and the opportunities for managers themselves to demonstrate their openness to learning. What better way to provide such opportunities than through mentoring? Mentoring serves to slow people down, value sharing of ideas, exposing members of staff to other parts of the organization. There is a caution here also for organizations implementing formal mentoring programs which often leave the boss out of the loop. Senior managers acting as mentors have an opportunity to revitalize their own leadership theories and practices, as well as an opportunity to engage in critical reflection and review. Mentors also benefit from the opportunity to rejuvenate their careers, and from the chance to be creative. Noe (1988) calls this a chance for mentors to develop their interpersonal skills, to stimulate technical up dating, and to have a positive influence on the protege's job and career attitudes.
Limitations of the Study and Recommendations for Future Research
This study represents an attempt to explore the dimensionality of the psychological, or personalogical aspects of mentor characteristics as seen from proteges' points of view.
However, exploratory factor analysis should be regarded not as final, but rather as a lead for further development of the construct (Gorsuch, 1983). Studies utilizing confirmatory factor analysis are needed to verify the factor structure of mentoring characteristics found in the study and to test alternative models. A study that makes fuller use of all 339 words from phase one, Describing Mentors, including descriptions of mentors that includes words other than simply adjectives, may possibly be more sensitive to issues such as gender.
Although this study is about characteristics of mentors, the development of the
Dimensions of Mentoring Inventory (DOMI) was reliant on descriptions given by proteges.
Such data run the risk of contamination from respondents' response style and memory
186 distortion. Further, data collected from questionnaires were obtained from opportunity rather than random samples, thus decreasing the generalizability of findings. The importance of collecting data from a large number of people in public places and in a wide variety of work settings, however, cannot be over-looked.
The only significant differences found between genders was that women proteges attributed higher Nurturance scores to mentors than did men, whereas men proteges attributed higher Competence scores to mentors than did women. It is paradoxical that although mentoring is often associated with nurturing, many more men than women were reportedly in the mentoring role. The shortage of women in senior management positions mostly excluded them from prominent early studies (Levinson et al., 1978; Roche, 1979).
As more women have entered management ranks comparative studies of mentoring among men and women in managerial positions have grown (Bierema, 1994). Further research into why women don't mentor others is highly recommended.
The relationship exchange between boss and staff members needs further investigation. More than half of the respondents in the current study indicated their mentor was also their boss. Clearly, bosses are well-positioned to support the learning and development of staff. Further research which investigates the correlates of leadership and mentoring with respect to personality characteristics may be useful.
Finally, more research is needed that looks at ways in which organizations can encourage more experienced employees to become mentors. Although the willingness of experienced managers to assume the mentor role is critical to the relationship, very little research effort has been devoted to understanding the motivational basis of assuming the mentor role (Aryee, Chay & Chew, 1996). The sensitive facilitation of mentoring programs, particularly in the context of encouraging increased awareness and understanding of diversity
187 issues, may result in mentoring relationships of lasting benefit to the organization. However, alternative ways, other than more traditional approaches, such as mentoring circles, peer mentoring partnerships, need to be explored within work settings. These alternatives to traditional mentoring models may also serve to acknowledge the under-utilized role of peer mentoring. Hence, the challenging question for organizations is: How can settings or situations conducive to the natural development of mentorships be encouraged? Further research into how organizations can provide opportunities for informal mentoring among a variety of workplace relationships is advisable.
Summary
This study concerned characteristics ascribed by proteges to their workplace mentors. Data were collected from a large number of respondents. These data were factor analyzed resulting in eight mentor characteristics: Authenticity, Volatility, Nurturance,
Approachability, Competence, Inspiration, Conscientiousness and Hard Working. The eight
mentor dimensions described in this study are a description of the essential, defining nature
of mentors. Studies which seek to identify ideal mentoring characteristics and behaviours
may be unconsciously preserving an ancient image of a super person, rather than valuing the
uniqueness of individuals. Clearly there is a growing need for more connectedness within
organizations. As this study has identified, mentors are able to provide this sense of
connection. During interviews, proteges shared memorable incidents to illuminate
characteristics of their mentors. Five themes were identified. These characteristics,
identified through accounts of the relationship itself, may be the key to distinguishing
mentoring from other forms of workplace relationships.
This study investigated characteristics ascribed to mentors by their proteges.
Additional studies utilizing confirmatory factor analysis are needed to'verify the factor
188 structure of mentor characteristics found in this study. Further investigation into characteristics of mentors, particularly those in the dual role of mentor and boss, and differences in perceptions between women mid men are recommended.
It was no easy task to approach people in public places to ask about their mentors.
Yet almost all those approached were willing to talk. Moreover, as previously noted, nearly a third provided their home address and consented to having an interview. Earlier studies had shown that mentoring in the workplace is important. But, because most studies of mentoring have been conducted in organizations, there has been doubt about the extent to which ordinary people understood, let alone, had experience of mentoring. This study has shown that not only do ordinary citizens understand the notion of mentoring, they can recall and describe their mentors in interesting and provocative ways. In some ways, this dissertation is comprised of three studies in one. But its cumulative nature has made a significant contribution to knowledge about the characteristics of mentors.
189 REFERENCES
Alleman, E. (1983). Measuring mentoring: A manual for the leadership development
questionnaire. Mentor, Ontario.
Alleman, E., Cochran, J., Doverspike, J., & Newman, I. (1984). Enriching mentoring
relationships. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 62, (6), 329-332.
Almaas, A. H. (1986). Essence, the diamond approach to inner realization. York Beach,
ME: Samuel Weiser Inc.
Anderson, E., & Shannon, A. (1988). Toward a conceptualization of mentoring. Journal
of Teacher Education. 2, (1), 38-42.
Appelbaum, S., Ritchie, S., & Shapiro, B. (1994). Mentoring revisited: An
organizational behaviour construct. Journal of Management Development. 13. (4),
62-72.
Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming barriers to change
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Aryee, S., Chay, Y. W., & Chew, J. ( 1996). The motivation to mentor among
managerial management. Group and Organization Management. 21^(3), 261-277.
Baker-Miller, J. (1991). The development of women's sense of self. In Jordan, J. V.,
Kaplan, A. G., Baker-Miller, J., Striver, I. P., & Surrey, J. L. (eds.) Women's
Growth in Connection. New York: Guilford Press, 11-27.
Barnett, V. (1997, December 11). Male stereotyping blamed for holding women back. The
Vancouver Sun, D6.
Bass, B.M. (1990). From transactional to uansformational leadership: Learning to share
the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, (4), 19-31.
Bass, B.M., & Stogdill, R.M (1990). Handbook of leadership (3rd edn.) New York:
Free Press.
190 Belenky, M. R, Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women's
ways of knowing. New York: Basic Books.
Bern, S. L (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology. 42, (2), 155-162.
Bennis, W. (1989). On becoming a leader. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Bernard, R. (1994). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches. California: Sage.
Bly, R. (1996). The sibling society. Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Borg, W. R., Gall, J. P., & Gall, M. D. (1993). Applying educational research: A
practical guide (3rd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Boshier, R. (1978). A perspective on theory and model development in adult education.
Paper presented to the Commission of Professors of Adult Education. Portland,
Oregon.
Bowen, D. (1986). The role of identification in mentoring female proteges. Group and
Organization Studies. 11. (1-2), 61-74.
Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (1994). Quantitative data analysis for social scientists.
London: Routledge.
Burke, R. (1984). Mentors in organizations. Group and Organization Studies. 9^ (3),
353-372.
Burke, R., McKenna, C. & McKeen, C. (1991). How do mentorships differ from
typical supervisory relationships? Psychological Reports. 68. 459-466.
Candib, L. B. (1994). Reconsidering power in the clinical relationship. In E. Singer and
M. Milligan (Eds). The empathic practitioner, (135-156), New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University.
Carden, A. (1990). Mentoring and adult career development: The evolution of a theory.
The Counselling Psychologist. 18, (2), 275-299.
191 Carnevale, P. J., Pruitt, D. G., & Carrington, P.I. (1982). Effects of future
dependence, liking and repeated requests for help on helping behaviour. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 45. (1), 9-14.
Caruso, R. E. (1992). Mentoring and the business environment: Asset or liability?
Dartmouth: Business Performance Group.
Cattell, R. B. (1946). Description and measurement of personality. New York: World
Book Company.
Cialdini, R. B. (1993). Influence. New York: Harper Collins.
Clawson, J. (1980). Mentoring in managerial careers. In Derr, C.B.(Ed.), Work.
Family and the Career. New York: Praeger.
Clawson, J. (1985). Is mentoring necessary? Training and Development Journal. 39. (4)
36-39.
Clawson, J. G., & Kram, K. E. (1984). Managing cross-gender mentoring. Business
Horizons. 27. (3), 22 - 32.
Clutterbuck, D. (1985). Everyone needs a mentor: How to foster talent within the
organisation. London: Institute of Personnel Management.
Cohen, L., & Holliday, M. (1982). Statistics for social scientists. London: Harper &
Row. Cohen, N. H. (1995). Mentoring adult learners: a guide for educators and trainers. Florida: Krieger Publishing Company.
Collin, A. (1988). Mentoring. Industrial & Commercial Training. U.K. (March/April),
23-27.
Collins, N. (1983). Professional women and their mentors. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall Inc.
Comrey, A. L., &Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd edn.)
New Jersey: Lawrence Erbaum Associated.
Cook, M. (1979). Is the mentor relationship primarily a male experience? Personnel
Administrator. 24, (11), 82-84.
192 Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7 habits of highly effective people. New York: Simon and
Schuster.
Cunningham, J. B., & Eberle, T. (1993). Characteristics of the mentoring experience: A
qualitative study. Personnel Review, 22, (4), 54-65.
Daloz, L. (1986). Effective teaching and mentoring: Realizing the transformational power
of adult learning experiences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G. B., & Flaga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to
leadership within formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 12, 46-78.
DeWaele, M, Morval, J., & Sheitoyan, R. (1993). Self-management in organizations:
The dynamics of interaction. Toronto: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
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, (5), 539-546.
Erickson, E. (1980). Adulthood. New York: Norton.
Erkut,S., & Mokros, J. R. (1981). Professors as models and mentors for college
students. (Working paper no. 65.) Wellesley, M.A: Wellesley College Centre for
Research on Women.
Fagan, M. (1988). The term mentor: A review of the literature and a pragmatic suggestion.
International Journal of Mentoring, 2, (2), 5-8.
Fagenson, E. A. (1994). Perceptions of proteges' vs non-proteges' relationship with their
peers, superiors and departments. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 45. 55-78.
Fields, W. (1988). Analysis of the concept mentor. International Journal of Mentoring. 2.
(2), 14-19.
Fletcher, J. K. (1996). A relational approach to the protean worker . In D. T Hall &
Associates (Eds.), The career is dead - Long live the career: A relational approach.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
193 Giallouakis, M., & Lorenz, M. (1984). Wo-mentoring: Can it work? Professional
Communication in the Modern World. Proceedings of the American Business
Communication Association. 31st. Southeast Convention, 139-149.
Gibb, S., & Megginson, D. (1993). Inside corporate mentoring schemes: A new agenda
of concerns. Personnel Review. 22, (1), 40-54.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gough, H. G., & Helibrun, A. B. (1965). The adjective check list manual. Consulting
Psychologists Press Inc. Palo Alto: CA.
Gunn, E. (1995). Mentoring: The democratic version. Training, 8, (8), 64-67.
Handy, C. (1990). The age of unreason. Cambridge: Harvard Business School
Press.
Hanlan, A, & Weiss, C. (1981). Moving up women in managerial careers. (Working
paper no. 86.) Wellesley, M.A: Wellesley College Centre for Research on Women.
Hardcastle, B. (1988). Spiritual Connections: Proteges'reflections on significant
mentorships. Theory Into Practice, 27^(3), 201-208.
Hartsock, N. (1983). Money, sex and power. New York: Longman.
Hennig, M., & Jardim, A. (1977). The managerial woman. New York:
Anchor/Doubleday Garden City.
Hillman, J. (1996). The soul's code: In search of character and calling. New York:
Random House, Inc.
Horst, P. (1965). Factor analysis of data matrices. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc.
Huang, A., & Lynch, J. (1995). Mentoring: The tao of giving and receiving wisdom.
San Francisco, CA: Harper.
194 Hunt, D., & Michael, C. (1983). Mentorship: A career training and development tool.
Academy of Management Review, 8, 475-485.
Jackson, D.N. (1976). Jackson personality inventory manual. New York: Research
Press.
Jarvis, P. (1992). Paradoxes of learning: On becoming an individual in society. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jeruchim, J., & Shapiro, P. (1992). Women mentors and success. New York:
Ballantine Books.
Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Josefowitz, N. (1982). Paths to power. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company.
Jossi, F. (1997). Mentoring in changing times. Training. 15, 50-55.
Kadushin, A. (1985). Supervision in social work. (2nd edn.). Columbia University Press.
Kahn, W., & Kram, K. (1994). Authority at work: Internal models and their
organizational consequences. Academy of Management Review, 19. (1), 17-50.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kanter, R. M. (1984). The change masters. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Kirkpatrick, J. J. (1975). Political women. New York: Basic Books.
Klauss, R. (1981). Formalized mentor relationships for management and executive
development programs in the Federal Government. Public Administration Review.
61-72.
Knox, P. L., & McGovern, T. V. (1988). Mentoring women in academia. Teaching of
Psychology. 15, (1), 39-41.
Kram, K. (1983). Phases of the mentoring relationship. Academy of Management
Journal. 26, 608 -625.
Kram, K. (1985). Improving the mentoring process. Training and Development Journal.
39,(4), 19-23.
195 Kram, K. E. (1980). Mentoring Process at Work: Developmental Relationships in
Managerial Careers. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Yale University.
Kram, K. E ., & Bragar, M.C. (1992) Development through mentoring: A strategic
approach. In D. Montros & C. Shinkman (Eds.), Career Development: Theory and
Practice. Chicago Thomas Press.
Kram, K. E., & Hall, D. T. (1995). Mentoring in a context of diversity and turbulence.
In S. Lobel, & Kossek, E. (Eds.), Managing Diversity. London: Blackwell
Publishers.
Kram, K. E., & Isabella, L. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: the role of peer relationships
in career development. Academy of Management Journal. 28. 110-132.
Levinson, D. J., Darrow, C. N., Klein, E. B., Levinson, M. H., & McKee, B.
(1978). The season's of a man's life. New York: Ballantine Books.
Levinson, D.J. (1996). The seasons of a woman's life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Lincoln, I., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage Publications
Marshall, C, & Rossman, G. B. (1995). Designing Qualitative Research (2nd edn.)
Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
McCall, M. W. Jr., Lombardo, M. M, Morrison, A. M. (1988). The lessons of
experience. Lexington, M.A: Lexington Press.
McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power: The Inner Experience. New York: Irvington.
Merriam, S. (1983). Mentors and proteges: a critical review of the literature.
Adult Education Quarterly. 33. (3), 167-173.
Mertz, N. T. (1987). Why women aren't mentored. Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association, Annual meeting, Portland, Oregon.
Missirian, A. K. (1982). The corporate connection. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
Mullen, E. J. (1994). Framing the mentoring relationship as an information exchange.
Technical report. Ames: Iowa State University.
196 Murray, M., & Owen, M. (1991). Beyond the myths and magic of mentoring. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Noe, R. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring
relationships. Personnel Psychology. 41. 457-479.
Nonaka, I., &Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: How Japanese
companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS): Statistics Canada, Pacific Region
May, (1997).
O'Toole, J. (1995). Leading change: The argument for values-based leadership. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pedler, M., Boydell, T., & Burgogyne, J. (1989). Towards the learning company.
Management and Education and Development. 20. (1). 16-25.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. London; Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power. New York: Harvard Business School Press.
Phillips-Jones, L. (1982). Mentors and proteges. New York: Arbor House.
Pratt, D. D. (Ed). (1997). Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education.
Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing.
Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1991). Easier said than done: Gender differences in
perceived barriers to gaining a mentor. Academy of Management Journal. 34. (4),
939-951.
Ragins, B. R., & McFarlin, D. B. (1990). Perceptions of mentoring roles in cross-gender
mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 37. 321-339.
Reich, M. H. (1995). The mentor Connection. In Kerry, T. & Mayes, A. S. (Eds.),
Issues in Mentoring. 136-143.
Rifkin, J. (1995). The end of work: The decline of the global labor force and the dawn
of the post-market era. New York: The Putnam Group.
197 Ritchie, N., & Connolly, M. (1993). Mentoring in public sector management:
Confronting accountability and control. Management Education And Development,
2A Part 2, 256-279.
Roche, G. (1979). Much ado about mentors. Harvard Business Review, 57, (1), 14-28.
Sennett, R. (1993). Authority. London: Faber & Faber Limited.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organisation.
New York: Doubleday Publishers.
Shapiro, E., Haseltine, F., & Rowe, P. (1978). Moving up: Role models, mentors, and
the patron system. Sloan Management Review, 19,(1), 51-58.
Shea, G. (1992). Mentoring. San Francisco: Crisp Publications Inc.
Sheehy, G. (1976). Passages. Toronto: Bantam Books.
Sheldon, A. (1990). A feminist perspective on women as mentors. Mentoring
International, 6, (3), 16-20.
Sleeth, R., & Humphreys, L. (1980). Influence on managerial attitudes: Sex and
androgyny. Proceedings of the Southern Management Association, 269-271.
Stalker, J. (1994). Athene in academe: Women mentoring women in the academy.
International Journal of Lifelong Education. 13, 361-372.
Thomas, D., & Higgins, M. (1995). Mentoring and the boundaryless career: Lessons
from minority experience. Paper presented at The Academy of Management
(August).
Wilson, A., & Elman, S. (1990). Organizational benefits of mentoring. The Academy of
Management Executive, 4, (4), 88-94.
Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in Organizations (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-
Hall.
Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review.
55, (3), 67-75.
Zey, M. (1984). The Mentor Connection. Chicago: Dow Jones-Irwin.
198 APPENDIX 1
LEARNING AT WORK QUESTIONNAIRE
199 SURVEY CN LEARNING AT WORK
Ann Darwin @ 822-3374
1 - Are you a woman or a man? Woman • Man •
2. What is your age? 20-29 years • 50-59 years • 30-39 years • 60-69 years • 40-49 years • 70 +years •
Has there been a significant person at work who had a positive influence on your learning? No • Yes •
If no, please end here. If yes, please continue answering the questions.
4U What role(s) did he / she perform Mentor (comprehensive and high support) • Sponsor (helped with career mobility) • Co-learner (exchanged ideas and experiences) • Coach (gave feedback on performance) • Counsellor (helped with personal growth) • Other (specify) •
«5. What three (3) key words (e.g. kind; tough) best describe this significant person?
©• Was this person? Older than you • Younger than you • About the same age as you • Page 1 of I 200 7m Was this significant person a woman or a man? Woman • Man •
8. Did this significant person work with you in the same organization? No • Yes •
9. What type of organization (e.g. retail, school) were you working in at the time?
1C. Was this person your "boss"? (e.g. your supervisor/senior manager) No • Yes •
11. Was this significant person aware of her/his influence on you? No • Unsure • Yes •
12. Are you willing to talk with me about this relationship? No • Yes •
If yes, please write your name and phone number below.
Name
Phone number:
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey ©
Page 2 of 2 201 APPENDIX 2
MENTORING IN WORK SETTINGS QUESTIONNAIRE
202 UBC MENTORING IN WORK SETTINGS
Ann Darwin
A mentor is someone who encourages, challenges and supports the learning and development of others. Mentoring involves the pairing of a more experienced with a less experienced person for the purpose of career development and psychosocial support. A mentor may be a co-worker, friend or boss (e.g. supervisor/senior manager). You may not have had a mentor, in which case, you will be asked to complete only part of the questionnaire.
You may have had more than one mentor. If so, think of the most significant one and keep this person in mind as you complete this questionnaire. Your cooperation will assist this investigation into Mentoring in Work Settings.
1. Have you ever had a mentor? (Check one) • Yes > Please continue with question 2 • No > If no, please go to page 4, question 10
2. Was this mentor? (Check one only) • A boss: your immediate supervisor • A boss: a senior manager • Your co-worker • Your subordinate • Your friend • Other (Please specify)
3. If your mentor was also your boss, did you experience any conflict between his/her role as your boss and her/his role as your mentor? (Check one only) • A lot • A little • None • My mentor was not my boss
4. Is this person new your mentor? (Check one) • Yes • No •» If no, how long ago was this person your mentor? (Please specify) years ago
5. For how long was this person your mentor? (Please specify) years
6. Was this mentor a woman or a man? (Check one) • Woman • Man
7. In relation to you, was this mentor? (Check one only) • Older than you • About the same age as you • Younger than you
8. Was your mentor aware that she/he was a mentor lo you? (Check one) • No • Yes
-203" P lease turn to next page Page 2
9. Below arc one hundred words-in alphabetical order—which may or may not describe your mentor. Which of these characteristics does (or did) your mentor possess? Please circle cither "Yes" or "No" for each item. Please do not leave any blanks and remember to respond to all one hundred items. Your first impression is usually the most accurate, so work quickly through the list. Most people complete the list in only 3 or 4 minutes.
1. Aggressive Yes No 25. Honest Yes No
2. Ambitious Yes No 26. Humorous Yes No
3. Approachable Yes No 27. Informative Yes No
4. Assertive Yes No 28. Insightful Yes No
5. Attentive Yes No 29. Inspiring Yes No
6. Available Yes No 30. Instructive Yes No
7. Believing Yes No 31. Intelligent Yes No
8. Bright Yes No 32. Interested Yes No
9. Brilliant Yes No 33. Kind Yes No
10. Caring Yes No 34. Knowledgeable Yes No
11. Challenging Yes No 35. Loyal Yes No
12. Committed Yes No 36. Motivated Yes No
13. Communicative Yes No 37. Neurotic Yes No
14. Compassionate Yes No 38. Nice Yes No
15. Competent Yes No 39. Nurturing Yes No
16. Comprehensive Yes No 40. Obsessive Yes No
17. Confident Yes No 41. Open Yes No
18. Conscientious Yes No 42. Opinionated Yes No
19. Considerate Yes No 43. Organized Yes No
20. Consistent Yes No 44. Outrageous Yes No
21. Contradictory Yes No 45. Over-bearing Yes No
22. Cooperative Yes No 46. Passionate Yes No
23. Creative Yes No 47. Patient Yes No
24. Cunning Yes No 48. Picky Yes No
Please turn to next page 204 (Continued) Please re.nember to answer every item.
49. Curious Yes No 75. Positive Yes No
50. Dedicated Yes No 76. Principled Yes No
51. Demanding Yes No 77. Professional Yes No
52. Direct Yes No 78. Respectful Yes No 53. Disciplined Yes No 79. Risk-taking Yes No
54. Driven Yes No 80. Self-centred Yes No 55. Dynamic Yes No 81. Sensitive Yes No 56. Easy-going Yes No 82. Sincere Yes No
57. Eccentric Yes No 83. Smart Yes No
58. Efficient Yes No 84. Spiritual Yes No 59. Egocentric Yes No 85. Stressed Yes No
60. Empathetic Yes No 86. Strict Yes No
61. Empowering Yes No 87. Strong Yes No
62. Encouraging Yes No 88. Stubborn Yes No 63. Energetic Yes No 89. Supportive Yes No
64. Enthusiastic Yes No 90. Thorough Yes No 65. Experienced Yes No 91. Thoughtful Yes No
66. Fair Yes No 92. Tough Yes No 67. Friendly Yes No 93. Trustworthy Yes No
68. Funny Yes No 94. Understanding Yes No
69. Generous Yes No 95. Vindictive Yes No
70. Genuine Yes No 96. Visioning Yes No
71. Giving . Yes No 97. Volatile Yes No
72. Hard Yes No 98. Wild Yes No
73. Hardworking Yes No 99. Wise Yes No
74. Helpful Yes No lOO.Workaholic Yes No
Please turn to last page 205 Page 4 Finally, a few questions about you...
10. Arc you a woman or a man? (Check one) • Woman • Man
11. What is your age in years? (Please specify) years
12. Were you born in Canada? (Check one) • Yes • No > If no, how many years have you lived in Canada? (Please specify \ years
13. Which language from the list below, did you first learn to speak? (Check one only) • English • Spanish • Cantonese • Mandarin • German • Ukrainian • Japanese • French • Punjabi • Vietnamese • Italian Q Hindu • Otltcr (Please specify)
14. Every person has a different family origin, culture and nationality. In addition, each person may have their own sense of who they are. To what cultural group do you feel you belong? (Please specify)
15. In what type of organization do you usually work ? (Check one only) • Construction • Manufacturing • Wholesale Trade • Retail Trade • Transportation • Information & Cultural Services • Finance & Insurance • Real Estate • Professional Services • Scientific and Technical Services • Educational Services • Health Care & Social Assistance • Arts & Entertainment • Recreation & Sports • Agricultural & Forestry • Fishing & Hunting • Accommodation & Food Services • Mining • Public Administration • Other Services 16. In round numbers, about how many employees are in your immediate working unit? (Please specify) employees
17. Does your usual position involve managing other people? (Check one only) • No • Yes > In which of the following positions? (Check one only) • Senior manager • Middle manager • Supervisor/Team Leader • Other (Please specify)
18. Does the organization in which you work have a formal mentoring system? (Clv;ck one) • No • Yes
19. Thinking back over your career, how many mentors have you had in total (including the one you've just described)? (Please specify) mentors. • If you have never had ;i mentor, check here.
20. Have YOU ever been a mentor to someone else? (Check one) • No • Yes Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire
Mentoring in Work Settings Darwin Summer 1997 APPENDIX 3
WORDS USED TO DESCRIBE MENTORS
207 APPENDIX 3
WORDS USED TO DESCRIBE MENTORS
1. Kind 2. Supportive 3. Knowledgeable 4. Intelligent 5. Tough 6. Understanding 7. Caring 8. Honest 9. Fair 10. Encouraging 11. Helpful 12. Patient 13. Open 14. Positive 15. Energetic 16. Hardworking 17. Generous 18. Friendly 19. Experienced 20. Creative 21. Attentive 22. Humorous 23. Enthusiastic 24. Compassionate 25. Strong 26. Thoughtful 27. Smart 28. Demanding 29. Motivated 30. Genuine 31. Professional 32. Instructive 33. Funny 34. Confident 35. Iriformative 36. Approachable 37. Wise 38. Interested 39. Direct 40. Challenging 41. Considerate 42. Easy-going 43. Assertive 44. Giving 45. Organized 46. Respectful 47. Competent 48. Inspiring 49. Sensitive 50. Risk taking 51. Efficient 52. Consistent 53. Trustworthy 54. Visioning 55. Insightful 56. Principled 57. Brilliant 58. Disciplined 59. Dynamic 60. Nice 61. Dedicated 62. Thorough 63. Strict 64. Communicative 65. Curious 66. Believing 67. Empowering 68. Nurturing 69. Sincere 70. Bright 71. Ambitious 72. Available 73. Loyal 74. Conscientious 75. Passionate 76. Co-operative 77. Comprehensive 78. Committed 79. Empathetic 80. Spiritual 81. Accessible 82. Aware 83. Determined 84. Flexible 85. Focused 86. Forthright 87. Grounded 88. Gentle 89. Happy 90. Human 91. Intuitive 92. Non-judgmental 93. Outgoing 94. Perceptive 95. Responsive 96. Reliable 97. Sociable 98. Attitude 99. Analytical 100. Calm 101. Good 102. Loving 103. Personable 104. Reasonable 105. Responsible 106. Sharing 107. Well-educated 108. Authoritative 109. Articulate 110. Adaptable 111. Constructive 112. Clever 113. Capable 114. Decisive 115. Dependable 116. Driven 117. Expecting 118. Firm 119. Goal-oriented 120. Innovative 121. Interesting 122. Involved 123. Obsessive 124. Persistent 125. Powerful 126. Practical 127. Perfectionist 128. Resourceful 129. Sensible 130. Skilled 131. Straight-forward 132. Successful 133. Truthful 134. Willing 135. Mfirming 136. Amiable 137. Accepting 138. Accurate 139. Aggressive 140. Balanced 141. Courageous 142. Clear 146. Calm 147. Detailed
208 WORDS USED TO DESCRIBE MENTORS
T4XTXifigent W." Discreet 15D. TxcentHc 151. Exacting 152. Enlightened 153. Eclectic 154. Exceptional 155. Entrepreneur 156. Genius 157. Gracious 158. Hard 159. Humble 160. Influential 161. Inquisitive 162. Independent 163. Keen 164. Modest 165. Mature 166. Moral 167. Networker 168. Objective 169. Pleasant 170. Progressive 171. People-oriented. 172. Quiet 173. Realistic 174. Relentless 175. Receptive 176. Strategic 177. Sweet 178. Sympathetic 179. Stubborn 180. Safe 181. Self-centred 182. Stable 183. Talented 184. Tenacious 185. Warm 186. Witty 187. Adventuresome 188. Affable 189. Affectionate 190. Achiever 191. Allowing 192. Aclmired 193. Authentic 194. Astute 195. Alluring 196. Business-like 197. Best 198. Beautiful 199. Concerned 200. Cheap 201. Cunning 202. Content 203. Colourful 204. Competitive 205. Cerebral 206. Charismatic 207. Character 208. Compelling 209. Eloquent 210. Marvelous 211. Courteous 212. Cool 213. Catholic 214. Correct 215. Complimentary 216. Classic 217. Comical 218. Compatriot 219. Careful 220. Compromising 221. Developmental 222. delegator 223. Diplomatic 224. Down-to-earth 225. Demonstrative 226. Diversified 227. Enjoyable 228. Egocentric 229. Emotional 230. Ethical 231. Effective 232. Engaging 233. Enterprising 234. Eager 235. Extroverted 236. Formal 237. Familiar 238. Fulfilling 239. Fast 240. Flaky 241. Famous 242. Flair 243. Frustrating 244. Forceful 245. Fun-loving 246. Glamorous 247. Gritty 248. Global 249. Healthy 250. Good-natured 251. Inclusive 252. Innovative 253. mtimidating 254. Informal 255. Intense 256. Intrepid 257. Introverted 258. In-tune 259. Industrious 260. Imaginative 261. Introspective 262. Insecure 263. Impatient 264. Impeccable 265. Knowing 266. Linear 267. Level-headed 268. Light-hearted 269. Meticulous 270. Masterful 271. Modern 272. Maternal 273. Measured 274. Mindful 275. Methodical 276. Non-pressured 277. Non-pushy 278. Neurotic 279. Opinionated 280. Outrageous 281. Over-bearing 282. Out-spoken 283. Outstanding 284. Political 285. Poignant 286. Prudent 287. Particular 288. Problem-solver 289. Proactive 290. Picky 291. Pensive 292. Persuasive 293. Polite 294. Persevering 295. Paranoid 296. Personable 297. Quirky 298. Quality 299. Reflective 300. Real
209 WORDS USED TO DESCRIBE MENTORS
3"0TT"Re?iIierit "lOT.- "RemarkliBIe" 3D1. RuthTess 304. Stimulating 305. Strange 306. Self-directed 307. Serious 308. Stressed 309. Secure 310. Sophisticated 311. Successful 312. Serene 313. Steady 314. Systematic 315. Sharp 316. Thinking 317. Tolerant 318. Contradictory 319. Team-Spirited 320. Tasteful 321. Trail-blazer 322. Unique 323. Unselfish 324. Unconditional 325. Uncircumstantial 326. Versatile 327. Volatile 328. Vivacious 329. Vindictive 330. Well-rounded 331. Wonderful 332. Workaholic 333. Wild 334. Well-read 335. Willful 336. Fun-loving 337. Ever-present 338. Active 339. Magnanimous
210 APPENDIX 4
CANADIAN CENSUS FIGURES
211 Population by sex and age
Back:
1997 Male Female Both sexes i Male ] Female Both sexes • t • i number L % of total population 100.0 100.0 30,286,596 j 14,999,677 15,286,919 j I 11 All ages j 6.33 100.0 j 6.11 1,915,801 j 981,837 j 933,964 ! j JO-4 I 6.551 1,049,529 j 6.77 j 6.54 J5I9r 2,049,449 ; 999,920 j 6.69 7.00.1 6.49 2,027,130 j 1,035,369 1 j 10-14 991,761 ; 6.90 j 1,037,276 j 6.68 ! 6.46 {15-19 j 2,024,088 j 986,812 j 6.92 j 1,032,132 } 6.72'j 6.56 J20-24 J 2,034,482 j 1,002,350 j 6.88 j 1,110,439 j 7.27 j 7.15 125-29 j 2,202,999 ! 1,092,560 I 7.40 ! 1,298,171 j 8.47 j 8.28 j30-34 j 2,564,408 | 1,266,237! 8.65 i 1,364,674 1 8.93 8.77 ;35-39 j 2,705,958 ! 1,341,284 j 9.10 i 1,230,999 ! 8.14 j 8.08 ; 40-44 2,465,924 I 1,234,925 j i 7.21 8.21 j 7.12 2,183,808 j 1,087,815 i j : 45-49 ; 1,095,993 \ 5.92 , 7.31 I 5.85 1,794,124 j 895,037 I ; 50-54 \ 899,087 j 4.57 ; 5.99 I 4.55 1,382,634 i 695,305 j !55-59 j 687,329 I 4.00 ! 4.58 : 4.03 1,209,958 I 616,229 I ^60-64 '.| 593,729 j . . . 1 3.77 ! 3.96-) 3.90 1,141,338 j ;65-69 596,432;! : l 544,906 j 3.63 j i 3.58 986,109 ! 3.26 ; ij70-74 439,037 j 2.93: j 547,072 1 : 2.86 ; 75-79 743,030j 2-45 l 305,627 J 2.04 437,403. j I 1.95 IJ80-84 476,636 j 1.574;l 177,905 I 1.186 it...... , . ..' 298,731 j 1.110 251,625 ; .... (.. 0.831 j ;!85-89 0.546 169,701 j 0.225'! 0.611 ! i 90 and over 127,095 j 81,924 j 0.420 i ; Canada, CANSIM 33,714 j 93,381 I Matrix 6367. This table was created from CANSIM, Statistics Canada's online statistical database. You can retrieve all available data for each series or additional, more detailed series by clicking on the matrix number and identifying your specific requirements. There is a $3 charge per series for retrieving this additional data.
//you have any questions or would like Io obtain more information, contact [email protected]
This table is generated automatically. Problems with the table can be reported 10 [email protected]
212