National Defence Défense nationale National Defence Headquarters Quartier général de la Défense nationale Ottawa, Ontario Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0K2 K1A 0K2 CAN UNCLASSIFIED Workplace Mentorship A Critical Review Gary W. Ivey Military Personnel Research and Analysis, Canadian Armed Forces Kathryne E. Dupre Department of Psychology, Carleton University Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis Journal of Career Development 2020, pp. 1-16, DOI: 10.1177/0894845320957737 Date of Publication from Ext Publisher: September 2020 The body of this CAN UNCLASSIFIED document does not contain the required security banners according to DND security standards. However, it must be treated as CAN UNCLASSIFIED and protected appropriately based on the terms and conditions specified on the covering page. Defence Research and Development Canada External Literature (P) DRDC-RDDC-2020-P165 October 2020 CAN UNCLASSIFIED CAN UNCLASSIFIED IMPORTANT INFORMATIVE STATEMENTS This document was reviewed for Controlled Goods by Defence Research and Development Canada using the Schedule to the Defence Production Act. Disclaimer: This document is not published by the Editorial Office of Defence Research and Development Canada, an agency of the Department of National Defence of Canada but is to be catalogued in the Canadian Defence Information System (CANDIS), the national repository for Defence S&T documents. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (Department of National Defence) makes no representations or warranties, expressed or implied, of any kind whatsoever, and assumes no liability for the accuracy, reliability, completeness, currency or usefulness of any information, product, process or material included in this document. Nothing in this document should be interpreted as an endorsement for the specific use of any tool, technique or process examined in it. Any reliance on, or use of, any information, product, process or material included in this document is at the sole risk of the person so using it or relying on it. Canada does not assume any liability in respect of any damages or losses arising out of or in connection with the use of, or reliance on, any information, product, process or material included in this document. Endorsement statement: This publication has been published by the Editorial Office of Defence Research and Development Canada, an agency of the Department of National Defence of Canada. Inquiries can be sent to: Publications.DRDC-RDDC@drdc- rddc.gc.ca. Template in use: EO Publishing App for CR-EL Eng 2019-01-03-v1.dotm © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (Department of National Defence), 2020 © Sa Majesté la Reine en droit du Canada (Ministère de la Défense nationale), 2020 CAN UNCLASSIFIED Review Journal of Career Development 1-16 ª Curators of the University Workplace Mentorship: A Critical of Missouri 2020 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions Review DOI: 10.1177/0894845320957737 journals.sagepub.com/home/jcd Gary W. Ivey1 and Kathryne E. Dupre´ 2 Abstract Mentoring is a popular workplace practice, bolstered by a substantial body of literature that has underscored its positive outcomes for proteg´ es´ and organizations. Less pronounced are the potential risks and costs associated with workplace mentorship. In this article, we consolidate what is known about workplace mentorship and draw on organizational justice research, self-determination theory, and findings related to indirect exposure to expand on the potentially darker side of workplace mentorship. Our comprehensive review suggests that workplace mentorship appears to have positive consequences in particular circumstances for particular groups of employees, but the conclusiveness of its positive effects is limited by significant gaps in the research. To assist in determining if the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks and costs, we offer a list of considerations for individual employees who are considering engaging in a mentoring relationship and for those implementing workplace mentoring programs. Keywords mentoring, mentoring outcomes, organizational justice, self-determination theory, indirect exposure Mentoring has received a great deal of research attention since Kram’s (1985) seminal work 35 years ago (e.g., Eby et al., 2013; Kammeyer-Mueller & Judge, 2008; Scalise et al., 2019; Turban et al., 2017; Wen et al., 2019). This substantial body of literature has typically focused on the positive outcomes of workplace mentoring for prot´eg´es and organizations and the mentor–prot´eg´e dyad. Despite the strong interest in workplace mentorship, research gaps remain. In particular, there is less research focusing on the limitations and potential negative effects of workplace mentorship (e.g., Dashper, 2019; Young Illies & Reiter-Palmon, 2020) relative to the positive outcomes. In this article, we provide a compre- hensive review of what is known about workplace mentorship, and we highlight potential unintended negative consequences of mentoring and limitations to the existing body of mentorship research. Moreover, we extend the mentoring discussion further by incorporating organizational justice research, self-determination theory, and findings related to indirect exposure to workplace mentorship. 1 Military Personnel Research and Analysis, Canadian Armed Forces, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 2 Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Corresponding Author: Gary W. Ivey, Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis, National Defence Headquarters, 101 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0K2. Email: [email protected] 2 Journal of Career Development XX(X) Mentoring A “mentor” describes a more senior person who takes an interest in the sponsorship of a more junior person (Kram, 1985; Scandura, 1997, 1998), referred to as a mentee or, more commonly, as a prot´eg´e. Mentors tend to have advanced experience and knowledge and a commitment to helping their prot´eg´es achieve career success (Hunt & Michael, 1983; Kram, 1985). Although mentoring has been most often regarded as a developmentally oriented relationship between a mentor and a prot´eg´e (Hunt & Michael, 1983; Kram, 1985; Mullen & Noe, 1999), researchers have more recently demonstrated an interest in broadening the scope of research into the mentoring phenomenon to include multiple mentors (e.g., Lyle & Smith, 2014; San Miguel & Kim, 2015) or multiple prot´eg´es (e.g., Harvey et al., 2010). Regardless of the number of people involved, a mentoring relationship is unique and idiosyncratic (Eby et al., 2013) and is strengthened by an emotional bond between parties (Ghosh & Reio, 2013). Mentor functions have typically been organized into two categories: career-related support and psy- chosocial support (Ghosh & Reio, 2013; Harvey et al., 2010). Career-related support is that which is instrumental to helping prot´eg´es advance within their respective organizations and careers (e.g., pro- vision of exposure and visibility to influential people, coaching, opportunities for challenging assign- ments, and sponsorship, which involves publicly advocating for prot´eg´es’ behaviors and acting as their champion for developmental opportunities and promotions; Kram, 1983; O’Neill, 2005; Shen & Kram, 2011). Psychosocial support is that which strengthens prot´eg´es identity, feelings of competence, and success at work (e.g., counseling, friendship, acceptance; Dreher & Ash, 1990; Fowler & O’Gorman, 2005; Kram, 1985; O’Neill, 2005; Shen & Kram, 2011). Mentoring typically occurs over four phases (Kram, 1983): (a) initiation (mentor and prot´eg´e selection), (b) cultivation (mentoring functions peak, and both mentors and prot´eg´es realize the ben- efits of the relationship), (c) separation (the relationship ends due to job change or geographic dis- persion), and (d) redefinition (the mentoring relationship evolves into a peer-like friendship). The manifestation and duration of these phases may vary depending on whether the mentoring relation- ship is informal or formal. Informal mentoring is the classic form of mentoring, whereby relation- ships between two people develop naturally, without assistance or encouragement from the organization, usually on the basis of perceived competence and interpersonal comfort (Eby et al., 2013). Formal mentoring refers to a more structured relationship between an experienced mentor and a less experienced prot´eg´e developed at the behest of the organization to achieve one or more organizational objectives. Formal mentoring relationships tend to differ from informal relationships in terms of their duration. Informal mentoring relationships usually last between 5 and 7 years, though they can endure for much longer (Kram, 1983, 1985), and formal relationships are usually 1 year in duration (Ragins & Cotton, 1999). Mentors and prot´eg´es tend to prefer the informal men- toring process, where they have the freedom to select their own mentor/prot´eg´e (Chao et al., 1992; Noe, 1988). Furthermore, in comparison to formal mentoring, informal mentoring is more likely to lead to favorable outcomes, such as instrumental and psychosocial support, and less likely to lead to negative mentoring experiences (Eby et al., 2013; Underhill, 2006). The Benefits of Mentoring In their meta-analysis, Allen et al. (2004) stated that the literature examining the positive effects of mentoring on prot´eg´es can be distilled down to two types of studies: (a) those that compare outcomes across prot´eg´es and nonprot´eg´es (e.g., Chao