Which of the following best describes your organization

351

A Summary Analysis And Prescriptions For Mentoring In Multicultural Organiztions

Ray K. Haynes

University of Louisville

This review examines mentoring outcomes for women and minorities in contemporary organizations from a

policy-in-experience perspective. The history of organizational mentoring and its formal and informal

distinctions are addressed. Extant empirical research addressing mentoring outcomes for women and

minorities is reviewed. A gender and ethnicity mentoring typology is presented along with 6 prescriptions

for developing equitable formal mentoring programs.

Keywords: Mentoring, Multicultural Organizations, Career-benefit Outcomes

This paper critically examines the practice of mentoring as an organizationally sanctioned strategy for socializing

newcomers into organizations. In addition, it offers several prescriptions to increase the effectiveness of

organizational mentoring. Historical accounts (Cameron, 1978; Dalton, Thompson, & Price, 1977; Fagenson, 1988;

Kram, 1983; Kram and Isabella, 1985; Levinson, Darrow, Klein, Levinson & McKee, 1978; Spilerman, 1977) and

relatively recent research identified mentoring as an essential mechanism in fostering career development for

employees in organizations (Burke, McKeen & McKenna, 1993; Gaskill, 1993; Pollock, 1995; Reid, 1994). Some

of these articles addressed a number of important issues (type, outcomes, and obstacles) relevant to the mentoring

phenomenon. Although many of these articles made substantive contributions to our understanding of mentoring,

what is most noteworthy is the proliferation of mentoring programs in organizations. This prevailing trend towards

using mentoring as a career development and socializing tool in today’s organizations must be examined for its

practical and theoretical significance in the domain of Human Resource Development. Moreover, it is useful to

examine the efficacy of mentoring in socializing newcomers.

The purpose of this paper is to review and analyze the empirical studies that addressed mentoring outcomes for

women and minorities as compared to their White organizational counterparts in similar mentoring relationships.

According to Caldwell and Carter (1993), business organizations experienced profound changes within the last

decade of the past century. These changes stem from global, societal, economic and demographic trends that

permanently changed the workforce and the ways in which it is developed (Caldwell & Carter, 1993; Galpin, 1996;

Harvey & Brown, 1996). Contemporary organizations are different from those of the past because there is less time

and opportunity for developmental relationships (Gaskill, 1993; Kram & Bragar, 1991; Murray & Owen, 1991; Zey,

1988). In response to these constraints, contemporary organizations appear to rely less on informal developmental

relationships such as informal mentoring (Caldwell & Carter, 1993; Kram & Bragar, 1991, Murray & Owen, 1991;

Zey, 1988). Ironically, these organizations seem to have prematurely adopted the use of formal mentoring as a

socializing tool based upon the popular literature and a paucity of scholarly articles advocating the virtues and

effectiveness of informal mentoring as a socializing tool (Douglas, 1997; Merriam, 1983). For definitional purposes,

informal mentoring is a naturally occurring relationship based on attributes, attraction and, similar interests, where

experienced organizational members provide career and psychosocial support to lesser-experienced organizational

members. Formal mentoring is a program designed and developed by the organization to facilitate structured

mentoring relationships where experienced organizational members provide career and psychosocial development to

lesser-experienced organizational members.

Statement of the Problem

Despite a lack of sound empirical support for mentoring (formal and informal), formal mentoring programs continue

to proliferate overtly, and informal mentoring still manifests itself covertly in organizations. The problem on a

macro-level standpoint is that much of what we know about mentoring is anecdotal and may be anachronistic given

the changes described by Caldwell & Carter (1993). Unlike organizations of the past, contemporary organizations

are no longer stable and are more multicultural. The problem at a micro level, and more germane to the focus of this

paper, is the fact that organizations faced with renewal must replace their old and departing members with new and

younger members who will be selected from contemporary workforce that is increasingly more multi-ethnic and

multicultural (Finkelstein, Seal & Schuster, 1998; Rubow & Jansen, 1990). Moreover, it is predicted that minorities

18-1

352

will account for 62% of the U.S. workforce by year 2005 (U. S. Department of Labor, 1995). According to Forsythe

(2003) by the year 2050, 85% of new entrants to the workforce will be the women and minorities who are now

collectively considered minorities but will become the new majority in the workforce. This reality portends

difficulty for the traditional practice of mentoring (formal and informal) in contemporary organizations. In the past,

mentoring was a relatively simple process. Older or veteran members of an organization would simply guide

younger and newer members of the organization with little or no self-reflection. Wellington (1999), cogently

describes mentoring of the past in this manner “ if the “new boy” has a life history and life circumstances that are

just like those of the “old boy,” then all the “old boy” has to do is to remember what private or secret information

was useful and important for him to know and then pass that information on to the “new boy” (p.xi). In today’s

more multicultural organizations, the mentoring custom is now even more complicated; and new entrant

socialization is less than automatic. Because of this reality, the “new boy” may not look like the “old boy”, and may

also have a different cultural background (Wellington, 1999). As a consequence, the reliance upon age-old customs

and knowledge may no longer be sufficient for mentoring women and minorities.

Theoretical Framework

It should be noted that this paper uses Social Learning Theory as the broad explanatory base to address mentoring

phenomenon. Merriam and Caffarella (1991) stated, “Social learning theories contribute to adult learning by

highlighting the importance of social context and explicating the process of modeling and mentoring” (p.139). This

paper does not focus on the mentoring construct itself or the specific operational nuances of mentoring programs.

For a discussion of the mentoring construct, see Kram (1983), Kram (1986). For a discussion of the history and

operational nuances of mentoring in organizational settings, see Murray and Owen (1991), and Phillips-Jones

(1982). A significant amount of research has been conducted on various aspects of the mentoring phenomenon.

Specifically, research on mentoring in organizations has succeeded in understanding key characteristics of the

mentoring phenomenon. The phases of mentoring have been established (Kram, 1983). The role of the mentor has

been sufficiently defined (Levinson et al., 1978; Noe, 1988; Tack & Tack, 1986) and several studies have

established the outcomes of mentoring (Fagenson, 1988, 1989; Hunt & Michael, 1983; Whitely et al, 1991).

Despite significant research progress and efforts aimed at understanding the organizational mentoring

phenomenon, few studies have attempted to understand the policy implications of using mentoring as a socializing

tool for women and minorities in contemporary multicultural organizations. According to Smith, Smith, and

Markham (2000) very little is known about cross-race and cross-gender mentoring including their impact and

outcomes. This is a policy analytic study examining the experiences of women and minorities who engage in

organizational mentoring programs. It uses Guba’s (1984) policy framework. The policy to be examined is the use

of mentoring (formal and informal) as a socializing strategy in multicultural organizations.

Policy Questions

Three policy questions are proffered in order to examine the mentoring outcomes for women and minority

(women and people of color) protégés who engage in mentoring programs at their respective organizations.

1. Do minority protégés and White protégés of the same organization have different mentoring outcomes

as a result of participating in a mentoring relationship?

2. Do same-race and cross-race mentoring relationships produce different mentoring outcomes?

3. Do same-gender and cross-gender mentoring relationships produce different mentoring outcomes?

These three questions rest squarely in the definitional domain of policy as it is experienced.

Review of the Literature

The review of the literature relevant to this policy examination is divided into three sections. First, the history and

evolution of mentoring is addressed. Second, mentoring’s conceptualizations, definitions, and distinctions are

addressed. Third, and finally, extant empirical research on the mentoring phenomenon as it relates the experiences

of women and people of color are addressed. The empirical research reviewed was selected through keyword

searches within business, educational and psychological databases containing journal and peer reviewed articles on

mentoring women and minorities. The reviewer only selected published articles germane to the mentoring

experiences of women and minorities for this review.

History of Mentoring

History offers us many examples of mentoring relationships (Carden, 1990; Murray & Owen, 1991; Phillips-

Jones 1983). According to Murray and Owen (1991) Homer’s account of the Mentor Telemachus relationship in the

Odyssey illustrates one of the first attempts to facilitate mentoring. Moreover, it was a relatively sophisticated

18-1

353

attempt because it utilized not only the male, Mentor, but it also sought the wisdom and guidance of the female

goddess, Athena. The Athena-Telemachus relationship was perhaps one of the first recorded instances of a cross-

gender mentoring relationship. Historically, mentoring has played a significant role in the continuity and evolution

of art, craft and commerce (Murray & Owen, 1991).

Mentoring’s Conceptualizations, Definitions and Distinctions

Two schools of thought govern the existence of mentoring in business and industry. The first school of thought

relies on the belief that mentoring can be designed and created. The second school of thought rests on the

assumption that mentoring can only occur naturally (Murray & Owen, 1991). The distinction between the first

school of thought and the second is simply a distinction between formal mentoring and informal mentoring.

Mentoring, as it has evolved through the ages, has suffered from conceptual and definitional problems (Carmin,

1988; Carruthers, 1993; Chao et al., 1992; Merriam, 1983). An examination of mentoring’s conceptualizations in

organizational settings suggest a wide degree of variance in the concept prompting numerous definitions. In a

critical review of the literature, Merriam (1983) said that “Mentoring appears to mean one thing to developmental

psychologists, another thing to business people and, a third thing to those in academic settings” (p.169). Despite this

wide degree of variance for the mentoring concept, most mentoring conceptualizations fall into one of two outcome

categories: 1) those that stress professional development and protection, and 2) those that emphasize both

professional and personal development of the mentee (Carruthers, 1993).

Two scholars in particular, seem to have been pivotal in creating the two distinct conceptual categories as

outlined by Carruthers. Kanter (1977) suggests that the mentor is a person of significant power who helps the

protégée climb the organizational ladder through patronage. The mentor according to this conceptualization fights

for the protégé and provides assistance to the protégé. In many instances the protégé gains indirect power by being

associated with the mentor (Kanter, 1977). Kanter’s mentoring conceptualization focuses on the professional

development of the protégé. At the other end of the mentoring continuum is the more elaborate mentoring

conceptualization offered by Levinson et al. (1978) that not only includes professional development but personal

development as well. In this conceptualization, the mentor takes on a series of roles such as teacher, advisor, and

sponsor in a work setting.

Mentoring Outcomes and Empirical Examinations of the Experiences of Women and Minorities

This section first addresses the establishment of mentoring outcomes. Second, it addresses the significant empirical

studies examining mentoring outcomes for women and minorities.

Fagenson (1989) examined mentoring’s effect on several career-benefit outcomes (job satisfaction, career

mobility/opportunity, recognition, security, and promotion). Fagenson found that mentored employees reported

more satisfaction, career mobility/opportunity, recognition and higher promotion rates than non-mentored

employees.

In another study, Dreher and Ash (1990) investigated linkages between mentoring experiences and the outcome

variables of income, promotion, and perceptions of satisfaction with compensation. Their findings suggest that

individuals involved with extensive mentoring relationships obtained more promotions, higher incomes, and

perceived being more satisfied with the salary and benefits than individuals who were not.

Koberg, Boss, Chappell, & Ringer (1994) studied the correlates and outcomes of mentoring among professional

and managerial employees. Significant findings of this study were that men received more mentoring than women;

minorities received more mentoring than whites. Overall mentoring was associated with higher levels of job

satisfaction and lower levels of work alienation. These studies are significant because they establish the efficacy of

mentoring in producing career-benefit outcomes.

The next set of studies discussed directly addresses the policy analytic questions posed in this paper. These

studies although few, are significant because they deal directly with the experiences of women and minority

protégés involved in organizational mentoring. Noe (1988) in a review of the literature on women and mentoring

suggest that women may face a number of barriers that retard equal access to organizational mentoring relationships.

These barriers include tokenism, cross-gender relationship taboos, and persistent negative attitudes and stereotypes

about women.

Thomas (1990) conducted a study examining the influence of race on protégés experiences with respect to the

formation of developmental relationships among black and white managers. Thomas found that white protégés

rarely had developmental relationships with persons of another race. On the other hand, black protégés appeared to

form sixty-three percent of their developmental relationships with whites. This study also found that blacks were

more inclined to form relationships outside the formal lines of authority and outside their departments. Moreover,

same-race relationships provided significantly more psychosocial support than cross-race relationships.

18-1

354

McGuire (1999) used a structuralist approach to examine the effects of employees’ race and sex in accessing

help from their mentors. Data were collected regarding employeees’ informal networks and their mentoring

relationships. McGuire found that male protégés received significantly more instrumental help from their mentors

than did female protégés. Female protégés received significantly more psychosocial or socioemotional help than

male protégés. Mcguire also found that men received more instrumental help (getting one’s work recognized) than

women. McGuire’s findings with respect to race suggest that white employees obtained significantly more

instrumental help from their mentors than did minority employees. Additionally, minority protégés received

significantly more socioemotional help than did white employees. Data obtained from the sex composition of

mentor-protégé relationships indicated that both male and female protégés received significantly more instrumental

help from their male mentors than from their female mentors. Conversely, both male and female protégés received

significantly more socioemotional help from their female mentors than from their male mentors.

Smith, Smith & Markham (2000) conducted a study exploring the nature and impact of diversified mentoring

relationships among university faculty. Their study spanned three specific areas common to the mentoring

phenomenon. (A) mentoring across diverse groups, (B) mentoring functions and (C) mentoring outcomes. The

findings for this study suggest that women reported being in more mentoring relationships than men. Minorities are

not successful in acquiring mentors even though they attempt to find mentors inside and outside their organizations;

moreover their opportunities are even fewer if they desire a same race mentoring relationship. With respect to

mentoring functions, it was found that there was no significant difference in the levels of career and psychosocial

support behaviors for diversified mentoring dyads as compared to homogeneous mentoring dyads. In regards to

mentoring outcomes, whites reported that mentoring produced higher affective commitment and lower intent to

turnover. Minorities reported no significant impact in their levels of affective commitment and intent to turnover

based on an increase in mentoring.

Discussion

The findings relevant to the three policy questions in this review suggests that minorities (women and people of

color) and whites of the same organization have different mentoring experiences. White protégés only have White

mentors. Minority protégés generally have white mentors, rarely have minority mentors and often have to seek

mentoring relationships outside of their functional areas. Same race mentoring dyads wherein both mentor and

protégé are White produced significantly more instrumental help than same race mentoring dyads where the mentor

and protégé were both minority. Generally, these minority mentoring dyads produced more psychosocial help for

the protégés. In regards to gender, both male and female protégés received more instrumental help from male

mentors than from female mentors. Female mentors offered significantly more psychosocial help to both male and

female protégés than did male mentors. Additionally, female mentors offered more instrumental help to their male

protégés than their female protégés. Based upon these findings, it appears as though mentoring outcomes are linked

to the variables of race and gender. If the protégé is White and male instrumental help is virtually assured. If the

protégé is female and/or a minority, (s)he will likely receive psychosocial help but not instrumental help.

The policy of organizational mentoring in its present form(s), in effect, produces disparate treatment for women

and minority protégés as compared to their White male counterparts. As a consequence organizational mentoring is

ineffective and contributes to the status quo. The status quo is that women and minorities are yet to achieve a

critical mass within organizational settings. According to McGurie (1999), the workplace is segregated by race and

gender. This means that White males occupy most positions of power within organizational settings and are

therefore in positions to offer instrumental help to their protégés who are invariably white and male. In stark terms,

women and minorities appear to receive little or no instrumental help from their mentoring experiences yet

instrumental help is what is most needed to vertically integrate women and minorities into organizational settings.

Instrumental help for women and minority protégés will create a critical mass that hopefully will render the need for

specialized programs geared towards integrating women and minorities into organizational settings unnecessary.

Given the demographic the demographic trends which suggest that women and minorities will comprise a

significant portion of the 21

century workforce, organizations should ask why are there disparate outcomes for

women and minorities as compared to majority males engaged in organizational mentoring. The structuralist

approach offer a broad understanding of the outcomes associated with organizational mentoring. According to

McGuire (1999) structuralists examine how individuals’ positions within a social system provide opportunities for

action as well as constrain behavior--- this is known as the opportunity context. If one were to look at the

opportunity context with respect to mentoring for women and minorities, one might readily understand why

mentoring benefits for women and minorities manifest in the form of psychosocial and socioemotional help but not

instrumental help. From the mentoring opportunity contest standpoint, women and minorities are relatively new

18-1

355

entrants into organizational settings. As a consequence, they are yet to be fully vertically integrated into the

organizations. In other words, the opportunity context for women and minorities is yet to mature where women and

minorities can engage in mentoring relationships where not only psychosocial help is offered but instrumental help

as well. Ragins (1997) highlights the importance of considering race and gender in mentoring relationship. These

biographic categories appear to affect mentoring behaviors and ultimately mentoring outcomes.

Before concluding this section, it is necessary to address the distinctions between psychosocial help and

instrumental help. It is not the intent of this paper to endorse one form mentoring help over the other. It is asserted

that in most instances the protégé may view either form of help as being valuable based upon their situational

context. For example, since women and minorities generally occupy low-level positions within organizational

settings and; the ones who attain high-level positions within organizational settings are often in token and/or isolated

positions. It is plausible to suggest that this token or isolated status may cause women and minority mentors and

protégés to suffer from a latent sense of loneliness, insecurity and performance anxiety. As a consequence, minority

mentors and protégés dealing with this set of circumstances may be more inclined to give and seek psychosocial

rather than instrumental help.

Prescriptions for Contemporary Organizational Mentoring

Shapiro, Haseltine, and Rowe (1978) developed a gender-based mentoring typology that reflected the growing

presence of women in organizations. Ragins (1997) examined the linkages between diversity and organizational

mentoring using a power perspective. I propose that to truly reflect the diversity present in contemporary

organizations, there should be an extension of the gender-based typology of mentor-protégé relationships to include

a race and ethnicity. (see Figure 1 below).

Figure 1. Gender and Race Based Typology of Mentor Protégé Relationships

Male Mentor Female Mentor

Majority

Majority Male Mentor & Majority Male

Protégé

Majority Male Mentor &Majority Female

Protégé

Majority Male Mentor &Non-Majority Male

Protégé

Majority Male Mentor & Non-Majority

Female Protégé

Majority Female Mentor & Majority Male Protégé

Majority Female Mentor & Majority Female

Protégé

Majority Female Mentor & Non-Majority Male

Protégé

Majority Female Mentor & Non-Majority Female

Protégé

Non-Majority

Non-Majority Male Mentor & Majority Male

Protégé

Non-Majority Male Mentor & Majority

Female Protégé

Non-Majority Male Mentor & Non-Majority

Male Protégé

Non-Majority Male Mentor & Non-Majority

Female Protégé

Non-Majority Female Mentor &Majority Male

Protégé

Non-Majority Female Mentor & Majority Female

Protégé

Non-Majority Female Mentor & Non-Majority

Male Protégé

Non-Majority Female Mentor & Non-Majority

Female Protégé

Organizations using mentoring as a socialization process for its employees should first recognize that this

mentoring dyad typology represents the full range of mentoring possibilities within contemporary multicultural

organizations. This new typology represents a fundamental base form which one can recognize the breadth and

depth of diversity present in contemporary organizations. Gender, race and ethnicity are biographic categories that

can augment our understanding of other aspects of diversity such as cultural characteristics and individual

differences. Recognizing these characteristics as fundamental ways in which we differ will serve as a gateway

towards building global perspective within organizations.

To improve the experiences and career outcomes for women and minorities involved in organizational

mentoring programs, I proffer the following six suggestions that are intended to provide a framework for the

development of formal mentoring programs that produce equitable rather than disparate mentoring results.

Suggestion # 1: Provide everyone in the organization with access to the mentoring program. Formal mentoring

programs have been marginalized and stigmatized as programs aimed at helping women and minorities. Formal

18-1

356

mentoring should be promoted as an organizational mandate where every employee is encouraged to take part.

Nonrestrictive access will lessen the stigmatization associated with restrictive forms of mentoring.

Suggestion # 2: Enlarge the role and responsibilities of all managers and individual contributors who are stellar

employees to include that of mentor. These individuals with high performing competencies are the best resource for

socializing and instilling protégés with the right attitudes, skills and abilities.

Suggestion # 3: Use the proposed gender and ethnicity typology as a basis for informing and training all employees

of the organization on the mentoring dyad possibilities and their nuances. The gender and ethnicity typology is

simply a starting point from which one might learn, and develop fundamental cultural and behavioral understanding

that transcends gender and ethnicity.

Suggestion # 4: Encourage mentors and protégés to develop a primary mentoring relationship with the requirement

that mentors and protégés establish multiple secondary mentoring relationships that span the mentoring gender and

ethnicity typology. This requirement simply promotes global perspective.

Suggestion # 5: Hold mentors and protégés accountable (through performance planning) for development. This

suggestion addresses mentoring outcomes directly. Mentors and protégés must understand that they will be held

accountable for producing effective and equitable mentoring outcomes that contribute to the renewal of the

organization.

Suggestion #6: Create cross-functional mentoring forums where mentors and protégés can provide progress reports

on the protégé’s development. These organization-wide, cross-functional mentoring forums are designed to anchor

mentoring squarely in organizational culture. By engaging in these open forums, mentoring best practices can be

shared, and mentors and protégés can gain cross-functional exposure based upon their developmental

accomplishments. These forums also enable organizational leaders to gain first-hand experience of the human

capital within their organizations.

Conclusion

Organizational mentoring can be a useful tool in facilitating the socialization of employees to their organizations.

However, the ongoing increase of women and minorities in the workforce has created significant challenges for

organizational mentoring. Mentoring in contemporary organizations must now evolve to meet these challenges.

Presently, the experiences of women and minorities engaged in organizational mentoring are not the same as

majority males. These differences and disparate outcomes associated with organizational mentoring portend renewal

and competitive difficulties for organizations. How organizations socialize and integrate new entrants into the

workforce will directly affect their renewal and competitive survival. Policy using mentoring as a socializing tool

must evolve to create mentoring programs that produce equitable outcomes for all employees regardless of gender

and ethnicity.

References

Burke, R. J., McKeen, C. A., & McKenna, C. (1993). Correlates of mentoring on organizations: the

mentor’s perspective. Psychological Reports, 72, 883-896.

Caldwell, B. J., & Carter, E. M. A. (1993). The return of the mentor: Strategies for workplace learning. London.

Washington D.C.: The Falmer Press.

Cameron, S. M. (1978, March). Women in academia: Faculty sponsorship, informal structures, and career success.

Paper presented at annual AERA Meetings, Toronto Canada.

Carden, A. D. (1990). Mentoring and adult career development: The evolution of a theory. The Counseling

Psychologist, 18, 275-299.

Carmin, C. N. (1988). Issues in research on mentoring: Definitional and methodological. International Journal of

Mentoring, 2(2), 9-13.

Carruthers, J. (1993). The principles and practices of mentoring. In J. Caldwell & E. M. A. Carter (Eds.), The

return of the mentor: Strategies for workplace learning (pp. 9-24). Washington D.C.: The Flamer Press.

Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison on mentoring

functions and contrast with nonmentored counterparts. Personnel Psychology, 45, 619-636.

Dalton, G. W., Thompson, P. H., & Price, R. L. (1977). The four stages of professional careers: A new look at

performance by professionals. Organizational Dynamics, 19-42.

Douglas, C. A. (1997). Formal mentoring programs in organizations: An annotated bibliography. Greensboro,

North Carolina: Center for Creative Leadership.

18-1

357

Dreher G. G., & Ash, R. A. (1990). A comparative study of mentoring among men and women in managerial,

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

Fagenson, E. A. (1988). The power of a mentor: Protégés and nonprotégés perceptions of their own power in

organizations. Groups & Organization Studies, 13, 182-194.

Fagenson, E. A. (1989). The mentor advantage: Perceived career/job of proteges versus nonproteges. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 10, 309-320.

Finkelstein, M. J., Seal, R. K., & Schuster, J. H. (1998). The new academic generation: A profession in

transformation. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Forsythe, J. (2003). Diversity works. The New York Times Magazine. September 14, Section 6.

Galpin, T. J. (1996). The human side of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Gaskill, L. R. (1993). A conceptual frame work for the development, implementation, and evaluation of formal

mentoring programs. Journal of Career Development, 20(11), 147-160.

Guba, E.G. (1984). The effect of definitions of policy on the nature and outcomes of policy analysis. Educational

Leadership, 42(2), 63-70.

Harvey, D. & Brown, D. R. (1996). An experiential approach to organizational development (5

ed.). Upper

Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

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

Review, 8, 475-485.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Koberg, C. K., Boss, R. W., Chappell, D., & Ringer, R. C. (1994). Correlates and consequences of protégé

mentoring in a large hospital. Group and organization management,19 , 219-239.

Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 608-625.

Kram, K. E. (1986). Mentoring in the workplace: In D. Hall & Associates (Eds.), Career development in

organizations (pp. 160-201). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kram, K. E., & Bragar, M. C. (1991). Development through mentoring: A strategic approach: In D. Hall &

Associates (Eds.), Career development in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kram, K. E., & Isabella, L. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer relationships in career development.

Academy of Management Journal, 21, 110-132.

Levinson, D. J., Darrow, C. N., Klein, E. B., M. H., Levinson, & McKee, B. (1978). The seasons of a man’s life.

New York: Ballantine Books

McGuire, G. M. (1999). Do race and sex affect employees’ access to help from mentors? Insights from the study of

a large corporation. In A. J. Murrell, F. J. Crosby, & R. J. Ely (Eds.), Mentoring dilemmas: developmental

relationships within multicultural organizations (pp. 105-120). New Jersey: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.

Merriam, S. (1983). Mentors and proteges: A critical review of the literature. Adult Education Quarterly, 33(3),

161-173.

Merriam, S.B., & Caffarella, R.S. (1991). Learning in adulthood. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B., Thomas, T. K., & Zeph, C. P. (1988). Mentoring in higher education: What we know now. Review

of Higher Education, 11(2) 199-210.

Murrary, M., & Owen, M. A. (1991). Beyond the myths and magic of mentoring: How to facilitate an effective

mentoring program. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Noe, R. A. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. Personnel

Psychology, 41, 457-479

Phillips-Jones, L. (1982). Mentors and protégés

. New York: Arbor House.

Phillips-Jones, L. L. (1983). Establishing a formalized mentoring program. Training and Development Journal, 2,

38-42.

Pollock, R. (1995). A test of conceptual models depicting the developmental course of informal mentor-protégé

relationships in the work place. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46, 144-162.

Ragins, B. R. (1997). Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations: A power perspective. Academy of

Management Review, 22, 482-521.

Reid, B. A. (1994). Mentorships ensure equal opportunity. Personnel Journal, 73, 122-123.

Rubow, R., & Jansen, S. (1990). A corporate survival guide for the baby bust. Management Review, 79, 50-52.

Shapiro, E. C., Haseltine, F. P., & Rowe, M. P.(1978). Moving up: role models, mentors, and the “ patron system”.

Sloan Management Review, 19(3), 51-58

Smith J. W., Smith W. J., & Markham S. E. (2000). Diversity issues in mentoring academic faculty. Journal of

Career Development, 26, 251-262.

18-1

358

Spillerman, S. (1977). Careers, labor market structure, and socio-economic achievement. American Journal of

Sociology, 83, 551-593.

Tack, W. L., & Tack, L. (1986). Don’t ignore seasoned managers---The case for management cycling. Sloan

Management Review, 27, 63-70.

Thomas, D. A. (1990). The impact of race on managers’ experiences of developmental relationships (mentoring

and sponsorships): an intra-organizational study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 479-492.

U.S. Department of Labor (1995). Final report on the glass ceiling. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office.

Wellington, S. (1999). Foreword. In A. J. Murrell, F. J. Crosby, & R. J. Ely ( Eds.), Mentoring dilemmas:

developmental relationships within multicultural organizations (pp. xi-xiii). New Jersey: Lawerence Erlbaum

Associates.

Whitely W., Dougherty T. W., & Dreher G. F. (1991). Relationship of career mentoring and socioeconomic origin

to managers’ and professionals’ early career progress. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 331-351.

Zey, M. G. (1988). A mentor for all. Personnel Journal, January, 46-51.

18-1