marginal mentoring: the effects of type of...

© Academy of Management Journal2000. Vol. 43, No. 6, 1177-1194.

MARGINAL MENTORING: THE EFFECTS OF TYPE OFMENTOR, QUALITY OF RELATIONSHIP, AND PROGRAM

DESIGN ON WORK AND CAREER ATTITUDES

BELLE ROSE RAGINSUniversity of Wisconsin—Milwaukee

JOHN L. COTTONMarquette University

JANICE S. MILLERUniversity of Wisconsin—Milwaukee

Employing a national sample of 1,162 employees, we examined the relationship be-tween joh and career attitudes and the presence of a mentor, the mentor's type (formalor informal), the quality ofthe mentoring relationship, and the perceived effectivenessand design of a formal mentoring program. Satisfaction with a mentoring relationshiphad a stronger impact on attitudes than the presence of a mentor, whether the rela-tionship was formal or informal, or the design of a formal mentoring program.

Mentoring has been the focus of much researchand discussion over the past decade. Comparisonsof nonmentored and mentored individuals yieldconsistent results: compared to nonmentored indi-viduals, individuals with informal mentors reportgreater career satisfaction (Fagenson, 1989), careercommitment (Colarelli & Bishop, 1990), and careermobility (Scandura, 1992). Informal proteges alsoreport more positive job attitudes than nonmen-tored individuals (cf. Dreher & Ash, 1990; Koberg,Boss, Chappell, & Ringer, 1994; Mobley, Jaret,Marsh, & Lim, 1994; Scandura, 1997).

Many organizations have attempted to replicatethe benefits of informal mentoring by developingformal mentoring programs (Burke & McKeen,1989). Formal mentoring relationships developwith organizational assistance or intervention,which is usually in the form of matching mentorsand proteges. A third of the nation's major compa-nies apparently have formal mentoring programs(Bragg, 1989), and formal mentoring has been iden-tified as an emerging trend in the new millennium(Tyler, 1998).

Three questions come to mind when viewingthese emerging trends. First, are all mentoring re-lationships created equal? Existing studies implythis assumption by comparing mentored and non-

This study was supported by a 1991 grant from theWomen's Bureau of the U.S. Department of Labor. Wewould like to thank the editor and the three anonymousreviewers for their excellent feedback and help with ourmanuscript: this was reviewing at its best.

mentored individuals without examining within-group differences in the quality of mentoring rela-tionships. Like other work relationships, informalmentoring relationships can vary along a contin-uum: some relationships may be highly satisfying,and others may be marginally satisfying or evendissatisfying. Existing studies may have maskedthis effect by combining individuals with satisfyingand dissatisfying relationships and comparing thisgroup to those with no mentoring relationships. Itmay be possible that individuals in dissatisfyingrelationships gain little from the relationships andthat findings of significant differences between in-formally mentored and nonmentored individualsreflect group averages skewed by highly satisfyingrelationships.

The second, and related, question is: Is informalmentoring associated with more positive work andcareer attitudes than formal mentoring? Even moreto the point: Are formal relationships more effec-tive than no relationships at all? Despite their pop-ularity, little is known about the impact of formalmentoring programs on employee attitudes. An im-portant related question is whether the quality of amentoring relationship is more important than itstype. Are informal mentoring relationships moreeffective than formal relationships, irrespective ofthe level of quality or satisfaction with the relation-ships? Or are highly satisfying formal mentoringrelationships more effective than dissatisfying in-formal relationships?

Finally, in addition to indicating variations inthe quality of formal mentoring relationships, case

1177

1178 Academy of Management Journal December

studies indicate that there may also be substantialvariations in the design and overall effectiveness offormal mentoring programs (Douglas, 1997; Cibb &Megginson, 1993). The third set of questions isthus: To what extent does the design of a formalmentoring program affect job and career attitudes?What types of program characteristics are associ-ated with program effectiveness and satisfyingmentoring relationships?

Given the burgeoning popularity of formal men-toring programs, these questions have particularrelevance for organizations entering the new mil-lennium. The first purpose of this study, therefore,was to compare career and job attitudes amongindividuals with formal mentors, informal men-tors, and no mentors while controlling for and in-vestigating the degree of satisfaction obtained fromthe mentoring relationships. The second purpose ofthis study was to examine the effects of the designand the quality of mentoring programs on careerand work attitudes and on the satisfaction obtainedfrom mentoring relationships. This study providesneeded guidance for organizations developingmentoring programs and, by building upon earlymentorship theory, provides an important empiri-cal foundation for the development of new theoryin this emerging area.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Mentoring in the Workplace

Mentoring and work attitudes. Mentors are gener-ally defined as individuals with advanced experienceand knowledge who are committed to providing up-ward mobility and career support to their proteges(Kram, 1985). Existing theory predicts that effectivementoring should be associated with positive careerand job attitudes (Kram, 1985) and, as reviewed ear-lier, empirical studies have supported this proposi-tion. Although these studies support theory linkingthe presence of a mentor and work attitudes, theyhave only assessed the impact of informal mentors.The impact of formal mentoring and the relation be-tween formal and informal mentoring has receivedlittle attention. Moreover, by grouping both satisfyingand dissatisfying relationships together, these studieshave not been able to examine relationships that areonly marginally satisfying.

Marginal mentoring. Mentoring researchers arebeginning to recognize that there may be consider-able variation in the level of satisfaction obtainedfrom mentoring relationships (cf. Allen & Poteet,1999; Ragins & Scandura, 1999). Like other workrelationships, mentoring relationships fall along acontinuum, and although many mentoring relation-

ships are highly satisfying, some may be marginallysatisfying, dissatisfying, or even, at the very ex-treme end of the continuum, dysfunctional orharmful (Eby, McManus, Simon, & Russell, 2000;Scandura, 1998). Although the proportion of dys-functional or harmful relationships has been foundto be relatively low (Ragins & Scandura, 1997), inpart because people can terminate destructive rela-tionships, a substantial proportion of mentors maysimply be "marginal." As defined here, these mar-ginal mentors may be limited in the scope or degreeof mentoring functions provided. Marginal mentorsmay disappoint their proteges or may not meetsome or even most of the proteges' developmentalneeds. These mentors fall midway on a continuumanchored with highly satisfying relationships onone end and highly dissatisfying relationships onthe other end.

Existing mentorship theory supports the idea of acontinumn and the construct of marginal mentoring.For example, Kram theorized that "[mentoring] rela-tionships are dynamic and changing; while enhanc-ing at one time, a relationship can become less satis-fying and even destructive" (1985: 13). The conceptof differing degrees of satisfaction with the relation-ship is also reflected in the work of Levinson, Darrow,Klein, Levinson, and McKee (1978). Levinson andcolleagues observed that "[mentoring] relationshipsvary tremendously in the degree and form of mentor-ing involved. Mentoring is not a simple, all-or-nonematter" (1978: 100). These authors went on to distin-guish between "good mentors," "bad mentors," and"good enough mentors," those who are limited butstill have value. We call good enough mentors mar-ginal mentors here.

It is critical to gain an understanding of how thefull range of mentoring relationships affects careerand job attitudes. Proteges with highly satisfyingmentors may display positive work attitudes, butthere may be few differences between nonproteg^sand proteges with marginally satisfying or dissatis-fying mentors. As mentioned earlier, studies thatsimply compare mentored and nonmentored indi-viduals are based on group averages that may maskdifferences in relationship satisfaction. Moreover,since mentoring relationships, particularly infor-mal relationships, are voluntary, there may be alower base rate of dissatisfying relationships be-cause people may simply end dissatisfying rela-tionships. Low base rates of dissatisfying mentor-ing relationships may result in a negative skewwhen data are averaged across relationship satisfac-tion. These issues become even more salient whenwe consider formally assigned mentoring relation-ships, as discussed below.

2000 Ragins, Cotton, and Miller 1179

Formal and Informal Mentoring Theory

Formal and informal mentoring relationshipsvary on a number of dimensions that may influencethe satisfaction obtained from a relationship andthe protege's work attitudes (cf. Ragins & Cotton,1999). An informal relationship is often driven bydevelopmental needs (Kram, 1985); the relation-ship helps the mentor address midlife issues andprovides a sense of "generativity," or of making acontribution to future generations (Erickson, 1963).The relationship also meets the protege's early ca-reer needs for guidance, support, and affirmation(Levinson et al., 1978). Informal relationships de-velop by mutual identification: mentors chooseproteges whom they view as younger versions ofthemselves, and proteges select mentors whomthey view as role models. This mutual identifica-tion contributes to the often-cited closeness andintimacy of the mentoring relationship (Kram,1985). Members of informal relationships reportthat mutual attraction or chemistry sparked theirdevelopment (Kram, 1985).

In contrast, formal mentoring relationships usu-" ally develop through the assignment of membersto the relationships by a third party; in somecases, the mentor and protege have not even metbefore the match is made (Murray, 1991). Informalmentors are motivated to enter the relationships bymutual identification and developmental needs,but formal mentors may enter them to meet organi-zational expectations or to be good organizationalcitizens. Although formal mentors in some pro-grams can receive more explicit organizational rec-ognition than informal mentors (Poldre, 1994), theymay also be less likely to receive the intrinsic re-wards related to their developmental life stage. For-mal mentors may therefore be less intrinsically mo-tivated to be in the relationships and may be lesspersonally invested in their proteges' developmentthan informal mentors.

Formal and informal mentoring relationshipsalso differ in their length and structure. Informalrelationships are unstructured; the relationshippartners meet as often as desired or needed over thecourse of the relationships, which usually last be-tween three and six years (Kram, 1985). In contrast,formal mentoring relationships are usually con-tracted to last between six months and one year,and the mode, frequency, and location of contactmay be sporadic or may be specified in a relation-ship contract signed by both parties (Murray, 1991;Poldre, 1994). The shorter duration of a formalmentoring relationship may reduce the opportunityfor the mentor to influence the protege's career andwork attitudes.

Another difference between formal and informalrelationships is their purpose. Informal relation-ships are often focused on helping the protegesachieve long-term career goals (Kram, 1985). Be-cause they are shepherded into positions necessaryfor achieving these goals, proteges may be moresatisfied with their current jobs and careers, whichrepresent progress toward achieving long-termgoals. In contrast, formal mentors are often con-tracted to focus on career goals that are short-termand applicable only to the proteges' current posi-tions (Geiger-DuMond & Boyle, 1995; Murray,1991). Since formal mentoring relationships arepublic relationships that are monitored by programcoordinators who are sensitive to charges of favor-itism, a formal mentor may be less likely than aninformal mentor to intervene on a protege's behalf,even if the protege is not happy with his or hercurrent job or career path. Finally, some formalmentoring programs are not focused on the prote-ges' career goals at all, but are directed towardorienting new employees or providing on-the-jobtraining (Murray, 1991). Combined, these factorsmay limit a formal mentor's ability to shape thework and career attitudes of his or her protege.

Research on Formal and Informal Mentoring

Although the relationship between informalmentoring and work attitudes has been firmly es-tablished in the literature, there has been very littleresearch comparing work attitudes among protegesin formal and informal mentoring relationships,and there have been no studies that controlled forthe quality or satisfaction with the mentoring rela-tionship when comparing informal and formalmentoring. Fagenson-Eland, Marks, and Amendola(1997) found that proteges in informal relation-ships reported that their mentors provided morepsychosocial functions than proteges in formal re-lationships, but their study did not examine atti-tudes or control for relationship satisfaction. Seib-ert (1999) found that formally mentored employeesreported greater job satisfaction than nonmentoredemployees, but the groups did not differ on organi-zational commitment, work role stress, or self-esteem at work. However, his study did not includeinformally mentored employees, and the impacts ofmentor type and relationship satisfaction on jobattitudes were not assessed. In the context of alarge-scale investigation of gender effects in men-toring relationships, the sample in the presentstudy was used to examine the effects of gender onmentoring functions, compensation, promotions,and satisfaction with formal and informal mentor-ing relationships (Ragins & Cotton, 1999). One of


the interesting findings of that study was that whenused as a dependent variable, relationship satisfac-tion was lower in formal than in informal relation-ships. Proteges with formal mentors also receivedless compensation and reported that their mentorsperformed fewer mentoring functions than infor-mal proteges. However, the effects of relationshipsatisfaction, type of mentor, and the presence of amentor on job and career attitudes were not exam-ined in that study, nor was the impact of the designof a mentoring program on program effectivenessand relationship satisfaction. The present studyprovides a more complete picture by examining theeffects of these variables on work attitudes.

To date, only one study has investigated the re-lationship between type of mentor and job attitudesbut, like other studies, this study did not examineor control for relationship satisfaction. Chao, Walz,and Gardner (1992) hypothesized that informalproteges would report higher levels of job satisfac-tion and organizational socialization than formalproteges, who would in turn report higher levelsthan nonmentored individuals. Using a sample of212 informal and 53 formal proteges, the authorsfound that although the mean scores were in thepredicted direction, formal and informally men-tored individuals did not significantly differ inreports of job satisfaction or organizational social-ization. The authors also found that although infor-mally mentored proteges reported more job satis-faction than nonmentored individuals, formalproteges did not significantly differ from nonmen-tored individuals in job satisfaction; however, theformal proteges and nonmentored individuals diddiffer on three of the six organizational socializa-tion scales used in the study.

Although Chao and colleagues' (1992) study tookan important first step toward comparing attitudi-nal differences in formal and informal relation-ships, we sought to take the next step by exploringhow the range of satisfaction in mentoring relation-ships influences work and career attitudes amongformally mentored, informally mentored, and non-'mentored individuals. A finer-grained analysis canreveal important insights regarding the nature ofthe mentoring relationship. For example, will pro-teges in satisfying formal relationships report morepositive work attitudes than proteges in dissatisfy-ing informal relationships? Does a protege's satis-faction with a mentor account for more of the vari-ance in work attitudes than the type of mentor?Does the design of a formal mentoring programaffect work attitudes? Our study is an attempt toaddress this gap in the literature by answeringthese as well as other questions. We also extendedChao's work by investigating six additional depen-

dent attitudinal variables and by controlling for anumber of critical control variables that are theo-retically linked to mentoring and job attitudes.

HYPOTHESES

Mentoring Relationships: Tjrpe, Presence, andSatisfaction

The first hypothesis investigates the relationshipbetween the level of satisfaction reported in men-toring relationships and work attitudes. As dis-cussed earlier, this hypothesis is based on the the-ory that there is a range of satisfaction in mentoringrelationships.

Hypothesis 1. Proteges who report highly sat-isfying informal or formal mentoring will re-port more positive job and career attitudesthan proteges who are marginally satisfied ordissatisfied with their informal or formalmentors.

The second hypothesis involves a comparison ofthe job attitudes of formally mentored, informallymentored, and nonmentored individuals. As dis-cussed earlier, according to existing theory valueson variables will be ranged in the following hierar-chical relationship: informally mentored, highest;formally mentored, midlevel; nonmentored, low-est. We take this examination to the next level bycomparing formally mentored, informally men-tored, and nonmentored individuals' job and careerattitudes across levels of high, marginal, and lowmentor satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2. Within a given level of reportedsatisfaction, proteges with informal mentorswill report more positive job and career atti-tudes than proteges with formal mentors, whoin turn will report more positive attitudes thannonmentored individuals.

Hypothesis 2 essentially compares type and pres-ence of mentor while the degree of satisfaction withthe relationship is controlled for and examined. Itis also important to directly examine whether typeof mentoring relationship accounts for more of thevariance in attitudes than relationship satisfaction.For example, will proteges in a highly satisfyingformal mentoring relationship report more positiveattitudes than proteges in a dissatisfying or evenmarginally satisfying informal relationship? Willproteges in a dissatisfying relationship report morepositive job attitudes than nonmentored individu-als? Since these relationships are exploratory, weexamined them using the following research ques-tion:


Research Question 1. Does the type or the pres-ence of a mentoring relationship account formore of the incremental variance in job andcareer attitudes than the level of satisfactionwith the mentoring relationship?

Design and Characteristics of Formal Program

Our study also breaks new ground by examiningthe relationship between the characteristics anddesign of a formal mentoring program and the ef-fectiveness and outcomes associated with it. Casereports indicate that formal mentoring programsvary considerably with respect to structure, pur-pose, and quality (cf. Gibb & Megginson, 1993). It istherefore reasonable to expect a positive relation-ship between the effectiveness of a mentoring pro-gram, work and career attitudes, and relationshipsatisfaction.

Hypothesis 3. Formal proteges who report be-ing in effective mentoring programs will havemore positive career and job attitudes and re-port greater satisfaction with their mentoringrelationships than proteges who report being inless effective mentoring programs.

Mentorship theorists have suggested that formalprograms that are designed to be similar to informalrelationships should be more effective than pro-grams that are dissimilar to informal relationships(Burke & McKeen, 1989). For example, mentoringprograms that are voluntary, allow members choicein the matching process, and focus on the proteges'career development should have a stronger rela-tionship to work attitudes than mandatory pro-grams with third-party matching that provide justgeneral job orientation.

Hypothesis 4. Proteges in formal programs thatinvolve voluntary participation will view theprograms as more effective and will have morepositive career and job attitudes than protegesin mandatory programs.

Hypothesis 5. Proteges in formal programs thatinvolve participation in matching will view theprograms as more effective and will have morepositive career and job attitudes than proteges inprograms that assign members to one another.

Hypothesis 6. Proteges in formal programsaimed at career development will view the pro-grams as more effective and will have morepositive career and job attitudes than protegesin programs aimed at providing general joborientation.

Mentoring programs may also differ on otherstructural characteristics that may approximate in-formal mentoring. As discussed earlier, becauseformal mentors may not have the same motivationto mentor as informal mentors, they may spend lesstime with their proteges. Another potential differ-ence is that informal mentors report that they re-ceive peer recognition for selecting and polishing"diamonds in the rough" (Ragins & Scandura,1999), but formal mentors may not receive the sametype of peer recognition for their assigned relation-ships. Attempting to address these issues, the de-signers of some formal programs offer membersguidelines for the frequency of interaction (Geiger-DuMond & Boyle, 1995) and offer formal recogni-tion to the mentors for volunteering in the program(Douglas, 1997).

Hypothesis 7. Proteges in formal programs thatojfer guidelines for frequency of meetings andrecognition for the mentors will view the pro-grams as more effective and will have morepositive career and job attitudes than protegesin programs lacking such features.

Finally, formal mentoring programs also vary onmentors' organizational positions. Some programsselect mentors who are direct supervisors of theproteges, whereas other programs select mentorswho are at higher ranks or even in different depart-ments than the proteges (Murray, 1991). There issimilar variation among informal mentoring rela-tionships; informal mentors may or may not be inthe same department or organization as their pro-t6g6s (Kram, 1985). Because of these variations informal relationships, we investigated this variableas a research question:

Research Question 2. Does the rank or depart-ment of a formal mentor affect a protege's re-port of program effectiveness or the protSge'scareer and job attitudes?

METHODS

Procedures and Participants

For our larger study on gender effects in mentor-ing relationships, a national random sample wasobtained using mailing lists of professional associ-ations representing social workers, engineers, andjournalists. In order to obtain a gender-balancedsample, we randomly selected equal numbers ofmale and female names from each mailing list. Atotal of 3,000 surveys were mailed, with 1,000 (500to men, 500 to women) sent to people in each ofthethree occupations. Follow-up surveys and re-minder letters were sent according to a modified


version of the Dillman mail survey method(Dillman, 1978). A total of 1,258 surveys were re-turned, for an initial response rate of 42 percent.Self-employed and retired employees were ex-cluded from analyses. Relatively complete data foranalyses were available for 1,162 respondents, re-sulting in a final response rate of 39 percent. Re-spondents consisted of 654 women and 500 men; 8respondents did not report their gender. The occu-pational breakdown of the respondents was as fol-lows: 362 journalists (31.2%), 414 social workers(35.6%), and 386 engineers (33.2%).

We used an established definition of mentor (Ra-gins, 1989) in our survey: "A mentor is generallydefined as a higher-ranking, influential individualin your work environment who has advanced ex-perience and knowledge and is committed to pro-viding upward mobility and support to your career.Your mentor may or may not be in your organiza-tion and s/he may or may not be your immediatesupervisor." Formal mentoring was defined in thesurvey for the present study as follows: "In order toassist individuals in their development and ad-vancement, some organizations have establishedformal mentoring programs, where proteges andmentors are linked in some way. This may be ac-complished by assigning mentors or by just provid-ing formal opportunities aimed at developing therelationship. To recap: Formal mentoring relation-ships are developed with organizational assistance.Informal mentoring relationships are developedspontaneously, without organizational assistance."

In order to ensure that respondents had a clearunderstanding of the distinction between formaland informal mentors, we asked them to describetheir formal mentoring programs immediately afrerasking them to identify their mentors as formal orinformal. Only individuals who currently had men-tors were used in the subsequent analyses. Of therespondents, 510 (43.9%) reported having informalmentors, 104 (9%) reported having formal mentors,and 548 (47.2%) reported having no mentors. Thementored sample was composed of these 614 pro-teges, of whom 352 were women, 257 were men,and 5 did not report their gender. The protege sam-ple had 348 (57.1%) individuals who were in same-gender mentoring relationships and 261 (42.9%)who were in cross-gender relationships. The me-dian length of the current mentoring relationshipwas 4.0 years, and the average length was 6.7 years.Fifry-three percent of the proteges reported thattheir mentors were also their supervisors. The av-erage age of the proteges was 46 years old; 92 per-cent were Caucasian, and most had completed(63%) or pursued (12%) graduate degrees.

Measures

Career and job attitudes. We used establishedinstruments to measure all career and job attitudes.Seven attitudes were assessed: career commitment,job satisfaction, satisfaction with opportunitiesfor promotion, organizational commitment, proce-dural justice, organization-based self-esteem, andintentions to quit. All measures had acceptable co-efficient alphas (see Table 1 below). Career commit-ment was measured with Blau's (1985) Career Com-mitment Scale. Job satisfaction was measured withthe Quinn and Staines (1979) measure of job satis-faction. Satisfaction with opportunities for promo-tion was appraised with the promotion subscale ofthe Job Description Index (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin,1969). Organizational commitment was measuredwith Mowday, Steers, and Porter's (1979) scale.Procedural justice was measured with the extendedversion of McFarlin and Sweeney's (1992) proce-dural justice scale. Organization-based self-esteemwas measured with Pierce, Gardner, Cummings,and Dunham's (1989) scale. Intentions to quit (turn-over intentions) were measured using a two-itemscale from the Michigan Organizational Assess- •ment Questionnaire (Nadler, Jenkins, Cammann, &Lawler, 1975).

Relationship satisfaction. A protege's satisfac-tion with a relationship was measured by a four-item scale labeled "Satisfaction w ith Mentor" (Ra-gins & Cotton, 1999), given in Appendix A. Thescale used a seven-point Likert response format (1,strongly disagree, to 7, strongly agree). Higher val-ues represent greater satisfaction with the mentor-ing relationship. The coefficient alpha for the scalewas .83, and the mean was relatively high at 5.95.When this continuous scale needed to be trans-formed to a categorical variable for statistical anal-yses or hypothesis testing, we used percentilesplits. Specifically, the upper third, middle third,and lower third were coded "highly satisfying" (3),"marginally satisfying" (2), and "dissatisfying" (1).

Perceived effectiveness of formal mentoringprogram. A six-item instrument, displayed in Ap-pendix B, was used to assess formal proteges' per-ception of the effectiveness of their formal mentor-ing programs. The instrument used a seven-pointLikert scale with responses ranging from 1, "strong-ly disagree" to 7, "strongly agree," with 4 indicatingneither agree nor disagree. The coefficient alphafor the six-item instrument was .79, and the meanwas 4.35.

Design of formal mentoring programs. The de-sign of the formal program was assessed by directquestions. Appendix B gives the questions and theresponses.


Control variables. We controlled for a number ofvariables that are theoretically linked to mentoringand job attitudes (Ragins, 1999a) and have alsobeen regularly employed as control variables inother mentoring research. For example, becauseformal relationships are shorter in duration thaninformal relationships, and contact may shape atti-tudes, the length of a mentoring relationship is animportant control variable that should be includedin comparisons of formal and informal mentoring(Chao et al., 1992). A number of other control vari-ables may affect the relationship between mentor-ing and job attitudes, such as organizational tenure(Colarelli & Bishop, 1990), rank and age (Koberg etal., 1994), and organization size (Dreher & Ash,1990). For example, large organizations may bemore likely to have formal programs and may havemore resources to devote to their programs thansmall organizations (Douglas, 1997). Additionally,because higher-ranking, older, and tenured indi-viduals may have more positive job attitudes thanlower-ranking, younger individuals who are newerto an organization, it is also important to hold thesevariables constant when investigating the relation-

• ship between mentoring and job attitudes.We started with a large list of two sets of control

variables: organizational/demographic variables andmentoring variables. We considered these ten organi-zational/demographic variables as potential covari-ates: occupation, age, race, education, marital status,number of career interruptions, organizational rank,size of organization, tenure in position, and tenure inorganization. We also considered four mentoringvariables that have been found to be related to men-toring outcomes in other studies (Chao et al., 1992;Ragins & McFarlin, 1990; Whitely, Dougherty, & Dre-her, 1991). These variables included whether thementor was the protege's supervisor, the number ofprior mentoring relationships, the length of the men-toring relationship, and the protege's socioeconomicbackground.

In order to preserve power, we selected covari-ates that had significant correlations with the de-pendent variables of work and career attitudes butlow intercorrelations. We used independent vari-able interaction terms to test for homogeneity of theregression assumptions fundamental to covarianceanalyses. On the basis of these criteria, existingtheory, and prior research (Ragins, 1999a), six con-trol variables were employed in the present study:protege's rank, defined as number of levels betweenthe protege and the top of the organization (Fagen-son-Eland et al., 1997; Ragins & McFarlin, 1990),protege's age (Colarelli & Bishop, 1990; Ragins &McFarlin, 1990), protege's occupation (Dreher &Ash, 1990), protege's tenure in organization

(Fagenson-Eland et al., 1997), the size ofthe orga-nization (number of employees; Dreher & Ash,1990), and the duration of the current mentoringrelationship (Chao et al., 1992; Ragins & McFarlin,1990).

RESULTS

Relationship Type, Presence, and Satisfaction

The correlations, means, standard deviations,and alphas for the study variables are displayed inTable 1. Since the attitudinal dependent variableshad moderately high intercorrelations, we usedmultivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) totest Hypothesis 1, which predicts a positive rela-tionship between satisfaction with a mentoring re-lationship and career and job attitudes. This hy-pothesis received strong support (A [Wilk's lambda]= .90, Fi4 890 = 3.38, p < .001). When controllingfor the protege's rank, age, occupation and tenurein the organization, size of the organization, andthe duration ofthe current mentoring relationship,we found that proteges who reported highly satis-fying informal or formal mentoring relationshipsreported greater job satisfaction (F2,451 = 11.17, p <.001), organizational commitment (F2, 451 = 7.74,p < .001), satisfaction with opportunities for pro-motion (F2 451 = 9.11, p < .001), career commit-ment (F2 451 = 14.65, p < .001), organization-basedself-esteem (F2, 451 = 7.17, p = .001), and proce-dural justice (F2 451 = 9.13, p < .001) and lowerintentions to quit (F2, 451 = 7.08, p = .001) thanproteges who reported marginal or dissatisfyingmentoring relationships.

The next step in our analyses was to investigatedifferences between formally mentored, informallymentored, and nonmentored individuals' work at-titudes across levels of mentor satisfaction. Specif-ically, Hypothesis 2 predicts that within a givenlevel of reported satisfaction, prot^g^s with infor-mal mentors will report more positive job and ca-reer attitudes than proteges with formal mentors,who in turn will report more positive attitudes thannonmentored individuals. We used Duncan's mul-tiple range test to assess these contrasted effects.

The adjusted means, displayed in Table 2, indi-cate that the relationships are far more complexand intriguing than originally hypothesized. Wefirst compared job attitudes among nonmentoredand mentored individuals at varying levels of men-tor satisfaction. As expected, nonmentored individ-uals reported significantly less job satisfaction,satisfaction with opportunities for promotion, orga-nizational commitment, career commitment, orga-nization-based self-esteem, and procedural justice


TABLE 1Descriptive Statistics and Correlations^

Variable

1. Protege's age2. Protege's rank3. Organization size4. Protege's

organizational tenure5. Prot6g6's occupation6. Relationship length7. Presence of mentor8. Formal/informal

mentor9. Satisfaction with

mentor10. Perceived program

effectiveness11. Mentor volunteers12. Prot6g6 volunteers13. Method of matching14. Purpose of program15. Meeting frequency

guidelines16. Recognition given to

mentor17. Mentor's rank18. Mentor's department19. Mentor's gender20. Prot6g6's gender21. Prot6g6's career

commitment22. Prot6g6's job

satisfaction23. Prot6g6's

organizationalcommitment

24. Prot6g6's organization-based self-esteem

25. Prot6g6's perceivedopportunities forpromotion

26. Prot6g6's intentions toquit

27. Prot6g6's perceivedprocedural justice

Mean

48.732.484.90

12.38

2.026.760.390.17

23.80

26.14

1.591.730.271.470.57

1.30

1.661.100.420.43

26.26

13.08

73.46

41.97

12.99

5.43

23.76

S.d.

13.342.082.18

10.46

0.806.600.490.37

4.27

7.56

0.490.440.450.500.49

0.46

0.880.310.490.496.40

2.70

18.34

6.41

8.92

3.83

5.49

n

1,1431,0221,1031,092

1,162576816614

640

124

108113109

74110

92

98122615636

1,139

1,123

1,116

1,137

1,107

1,131

1,110

1

- .29**- . 2 1 * *

.54**

- .29**.31**

- . 19**.19**

.07

.26**

.06- . 0 9

.01- . 1 1

.38**

- . 3 1 * *

- . 1 8- . 1 3- . 1 0 *

.34**

.23**

.20**

.24**

.24**

- .12**

- . 2 5 * *

.21**

2

.44**- . 1 3 * *

.09**- . 1 1 *

.01- . 0 1

- . 0 6

- . 1 9 *

.06

.04- . 2 5 *

.10- . 1 3

.06

.26*- . 04- . 0 7- .24**- . 2 1 * *

- . 22**

- .32**

- . 3 2 * *

- .10**

.15**

- . 2 8 * *

3

.04

.12?^*- .14**

.03- . 0 6

- . 02

- . 2 7 * *

, .00- . 1 0- . 0 8

.03- . 1 0

.03

.10

.08

.04- . 2 1 * *- .14**

- . 0 8 * *

- . 1 8 * *

- . 1 7 * *

.02

.03

- . 1 8 * *

4

- . 1 5 * *.23**

- . 1 7 * *.04

.01

.20*

.02- . 0 5- . 0 1- . 2 3

.14

- . 1 9

- . 1 1- . 0 5

.01

.16**

.12**

.13**

.16**

.12**

- . 0 7 *

- . 2 3 * *

.12**

5

- . 1 9 * *.13**.01

- . 0 3

- . 1 1

.03

.21*- . 0 5- . 1 7- . 1 9 *

.14

.06

.06

.14**

.01- . 0 4

.02

- . 0 3

- . 0 7 *

.14**

- . 0 3

.04

6

.03- . 0 9 *

.06

.10

.15

.11- . 0 7

.12

.01

- . 3 1 * *

- . 1 5- . 0 5

.01

.12**

.12**

.13**

.14**

.13**

.01

- . 1 4 * *

.11**

7

.04

.01

.11**

.09**

.05

.07*

.13**

- . 0 1

.03

8

- . 1 1 * *

.01

.00- . 0 1

.17- . 1 4

.17

- . 0 9

- . 3 1 * *- . 2 8 * *- .02

.13**- . 0 1

- . 0 3

.01

- . 0 1

- . 0 4

.01

- . 0 1

9

.46**

- . 1 5- . 1 1- . 0 3- . 1 1

.13

- . 12

.11

.16

.02

.01

.24**

.24**

.19**

.16**

.17**

- . 22**

.21**

10

- . 1 5- . 0 6

.10- . 2 6 *

.45**

- . 1 9

.03

.06- . 12

.23*

.28**

.24**

.25**

.08

.01

- . 1 1

.26**

" Coefficient alphas are on the diagonal for the attitude variables. Rank reflects number of levels between respondent and top oforganization. Organizational tenure and relationship length in years. No correlations could be computed for presence of mentor becauseof the "no mentoring" level (1 = mentor, 0 = no mentor). Other variable codings were as follows: formal/informal mentor: 1 = formalmentor, 0 = informal mentor; mentor and prot6g6 variables: 1 = voluntary, 2 = not voluntary; method of matching: 1 = choice, 0 = nochoice; purpose of program: 1 = career development, 2 = orientation; meeting frequency guidelines: 1 = guidelines, 0 = no guidelines;recognition given to mentor: 1 = recognized, 2 = not recognized; mentor's rank: number of levels between formal mentor and prot§g6;mentor's department: 1 = same department as prot6g6, 2 = different department than prot6g6; mentor and prot6g6 gender: 1 = male, 0 =female. Higher values represent more positive work values and greater intentions to quit.

* p < .05** p < .01

Two-tailed tests.

perceptions than proteges in highly satisfying in-formal mentoring relationships. However, thesedifferences were not found for informal proteges inless satisfying relationships. Proteges in dissatisfy-ing informal relationships did not report more pos-

itive levels than nonproteges for any of the atti-tudes studied; in fact, they reported significantlylower procedural justice perceptions than nonmen-tored individuals. Moreover, informal proteges inmarginally satisfying relationships differed from

2000 Ragins, Cotton, and Miller

TABLE 1 (continued)

1185

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

.57**

-.38** -.37**

.12 .00

-.07 -.08

-.13 -.21*

.18

.13

.01

.07

.06

.11

.02

.06- . 15- . 1 3- . 14- . 1 3

.07

.07

.11

.12 -.03

.13 .24 -.07

.21* -.24 -.01 -.08

.05 .02 .12 .33** .20*

.08 .01 -.21* .04 .05 -.17

.09 -.15 .18 .01 -.19 -.10 .27**

.06 -.30** .15 -.11 .05 .11 .01

.06 -.11 .14 -.22* .06 .06 .02

.07 -.13 .23*-.24* .08 .11 -.02

.15** (.87)

.14** .53** (.83)

.17** .44** .72** (.91)

.03 .09 -.09 .09 .06 -.04 -.04 -.05 -.04

.08 -.01 .02 -.15 -.13 -.14 .25* -.08 .06

.13** .38** .52** .60** (.91)

.01 .25** .44** .50** .36** (.88)

.01 .11 .16 .07 -.09 .15 -.06 -.10 -.04 -.16** -.39** -.65** -.66** -.44** -.38** (.77)

.09 .03 -.04 -.17 .16 -.24* .07 -.03 -.01 .19** .33** .56** .67** .53** .51** -.50** (.89)

nonmentored individuals on only two of the sevenattitudes studied, satisfaction with opportunitiesfor promotion and career commitment. This patternwas even more pronounced for the formal relation-ships. Formally mentored individuals reported

more positive levels than nonmentored individualson only three of the seven attitudes studied (ca-reer commitment, organizational commitment, andorganization-based self-esteem), and those differ-ences were only found among those in highly

( 2 !»5

<s

"a .2 "C ^ CO

15 3

.2 «•

ea

o

TS

au3

eo

o

o

U

Iiu

I

,id o

J

S inQJ CO

ca

Id

^ CD

CD CDIf) t v

K q' . I i CD

CO

ini n

J

oi n

CM

CO

CO

(22

•0

U

JD

i5r H

.78

CD

-6jSCDCO

• —

C3i

COCM

CO r H CO CDH CO ^

oCD ,_^

•~ £2. oi £

O txO rH

O) .^ CO CD T-HCM CO IX C>J COin CM rH r.H rHCM rH tx <^ rH

.a Q) -rH

C2 u O O O

I X

DCM

in o

CD

r Hi nCM

COtxi nr H

i noCD

O>O

O)

CO

COCD

CD TJH

in in

1 I,0 o

So S

Va.lo

ID.

'EHO

2

3 00•a •£> o

t d G3

£ 3

H >OJ 3


satisfying formal relationships. No significant dif-ferences were found between nonmentored indi-viduals and formally mentored individuals withmarginal mentor satisfaction. In fact, proteges indissatisfying formal relationships reported signifi-cantly greater intentions to quit than nonmentoredindividuals. In short, the positive attitudes thatwere associated with the presence of a mentor oc-curred primarily when the relationship was highlysatisfying. Marginal or ineffective mentoring wasgenerally unrelated to positive work and careerattitudes.

A similar pattern of results emerged in compari-sons of formally and informally mentored protegesat varying levels of mentor satisfaction. As dis-played in Table 2, compared to proteges with dis-satisfying informal mentors, proteges with highlysatisfying formal relationships reported more posi-tive attitudes on all of the attitudes except per-ceived opportunities for promotion. In addition,formal proteges who were highly satisfied withtheir mentors reported more organizational com-mitment than informal proteges who had marginalinformal mentors. In sum, the view that informalmentoring relationships will automaticaUy be morebeneficial than formal mentoring relationships isapparently too simplistic; the level of satisfactionin a relationship appears to be the key variable.

Research Question 1 directly addresses this issueby assessing whether the type or the presence of amentoring relationship accounts for more incre-mental variance in job and career attitudes than thelevel of satisfaction with the relationship. We usedhierarchical regression analyses to test the signifi-cance of changes in the multiple squared correla-tion coefficient (Afl ) associated with satisfactionwith a mentor, as compared to the type and thepresence of a mentoring relationship. In the first setof analyses, the covariates were entered in the firststep, followed by either the type of mentor (formalvs. informal) or relationship satisfaction. As shownin Table 3, satisfaction with the relationship wassignificantly related to all of the attitudinal vari-ables when entered either before or after the type ofmentoring relationship. In contrast, the type ofmentoring relationship was not related to any of thework and career attitudes when entered before orafter the mentoring satisfaction variable. Using thesame design, we conducted a second set of analysesfor the presence of mentor variable (1 = currentlyhave a mentor, 0 = no mentor). As in the previousanalysis, the presence of a mentor was entered ei-ther before (in step 2) or after (in step 3) the satis-faction with mentor variable. As in the prior anal-ysis, satisfaction with the mentoring relationshipwas significantly related to all of the attitudinal

variables when it was entered either before or afterthe presence of a mentor; in fact, when rounded,the R^ changes were identical for all but the esteemvariable. The presence of a mentor was signifi-cantly related to job satisfaction, career commit-ment, and organization-based self-esteem, and itdid account for a significant increase in these vari-ables when entered after the mentor satisfactionvariable. However, an inspection of the incremen-tal R^ changes in Table 3 shows that satisfactionwith a mentor still accounted for more of the vari-ance in work attitudes than the presence of amentor.

Design and Characteristics of Formal MentoringProgram

We predicted in Hypothesis 3 that formal pro-teges who reported being in effective mentoringprograms would have more positive career and jobattitudes and would be more satisfied with theirmentors than formal proteges who reported beingin less effective mentoring programs. MANCOVAanalyses were used as tests of the relationship be-tween the perceived effectiveness of a program andwork attitudes. The perceived effectiveness of amentoring program was dichotomized for this anal-ysis with a median split (high effectiveness = 1,low effectiveness = 0). Hypothesis 3 was support-ed: when we controlled for age, rank, occupation,length of mentoring relationship, organizationaltenure, and organization size, formal prot6g6s whoreported being in highly effective mentoring pro-grams reported more positive career and job atti-tudes than formal proteges who reported being inless effective programs (A = .81, Fj 70 = 2.35,p < .05). Follow-up univariate analyses (ANOVAs)revealed significant univariate effects for job satis-faction (F-i 75 = 9.81, p < .01), organizational com-mitment (F-i 7g = 4.06, p < .05), career comm^itment( 1 76 = 9.91, p < .01), and procedural justice(Fl 73 = 5.32, p < .05). Satisfaction with opportu-nities for promotion (F^ 75 = 2.18, p = .14) andintentions to quit (F^ 7g = 2.17, p = .14) ap-proached significance, and organization-based self-esteem was not significantly related to the per-ceived effectiveness of a mentoring program (Fj76 = 1.33, n.s.). The relationship between perceivedprogram effectiveness and satisfaction with a men-tor was assessed with an ANCOVA analysis. Theresults indicated that proteges in effective formalmentoring programs reported more satisfying men-toring relationships than proteges in ineffectiveprograms (Fj yg = 18.67, p < .001).

Although the perceived effectiveness of a formalmentoring program affected career and job atti-

1188 Academy of Management Joumal December

TABLE 3Results of Regression Analysis^

Variable

Career commitmentJob satisfactionOrganizational commitmentOrganization-based self-esteem

Promotion opportunitiesIntentions to quitProcedural justice

ControlVariables''

Step 1

.18***

.08***

.14***

.13***

.05***

.10***

.11***

Mentor

Step 2

.05***

.05***

.03***

.02***(.01*)'=.03***.04***.04***

Satisfaction

Step 3

.05***

.05**

.03*'

.01**(.02*).03**.04**

*

*

.03***

Type

Step 2

.002

.004

.000

.002

.000

.002

.002

of Mentor

Step 3

.000

.001

.000

.001

.000

.000

.000

Presence

Step 2

.02**

.01*

.007

.01*

.008

.002

.003

of Mentor

Step 3

.02**

.01*

.006

.01*

.008

.002

.002

" Values are changes in i? unless otherwise identified. All the attitudinal variables were measured for prot6g6s.^ Control variables included prot6g6's age, rank, tenure in organization, size of organization, and occupation and, for analyses involving

mentored individuals, the duration of the mentoring relationship. Values in this column are fl^s." Value reflects change in R^ when satisfaction with mentor was entered either before (step 2) or after (step 3) type of mentor. A parallel

set of analyses was done with satisfaction with mentor entered either before (step 2) or after (step 3) presence of mentor. Satisfaction withmentor had the same rounded R^ values for both sets of analyses, with the exception of the values in parentheses, which reflect thesatisfaction with mentor R^ when it was entered before and after the presence of mentor.

* p < .05**p < .01

***p< .001All two-tailed tests.

tudes, we found limited support for the hypothesisthat formal mentoring programs designed to he sim-ilar to informal relationships would he viewed asmore effective and would have a stronger relation-ship with work attitudes than programs that weredissimilar from informal relationships. We usedindependent multivariate analyses of covarianceto test the relationships hetween program charac-teristics and work and career attitudes and simpleanalyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) to test the rela-tionships hetween program characteristics and re-ported program effectiveness. The results of theseanalyses are presented in Tahle 4.

One characteristic of formal mentoring programsthat affected some work attitudes was programpurpose. In partial support of Hypothesis 6, theMANCOVAs revealed that programs whose pur-pose was to promote proteges' careers had a signif-icantly stronger relationship with attitudes thanprograms whose purpose was to orient new em-ployees. Follow-up univariate analyses indicatedthat proteges in programs designed to promote theircareers reported significantly greater [p = .01} sat-isfaction with opportunities for promotion andmarginally greater (p = .08} procedural justice per-ceptions than proteges in programs designed forgeneral orientation. However, a program's purposewas not significantly related to proteges' percep-tions of its overall effectiveness.

The structure of a program had a limited effect on

reported program effectiveness. In partial supportof Hypothesis 7, proteges in programs that offeredguidelines for the frequency of meetings reportedthat the programs were more effective than protegeswho were in programs lacking such guidelines.However, meeting guidelines were not significantlyrelated to work attitudes and, in contrast to thesecond part of Hypothesis 7, mentor recognitionwas not significant. Whether the formal mentorreceived recognition in performance appraisals orother types of organizational rewards was unre-lated to attitudes or reports of program effective-ness.

Whether mentor or protege had a choice aboutjoining the mentoring program was not signifi-cantly related to work or career attitudes, nor wasthe method used in matching mentor and prot6g6.Specifically, in contrast to Hypothesis 4, protegesin voluntary programs did not have more positivework attitudes than proteges in mandatory pro-grams. A marginal effect (p = .08}, however, wasfound for reported program effectiveness: protegeswho were in programs where the mentor voluntar-ily entered the program reported that the programswere marginally more effective than proteges inprograms with mandatory participation amongmentors. However, whether a proteg^ had a choiceahout joining a program was not significantly re-lated to reported program effectiveness. We alsofound no support for Hypothesis 5; programs that


TABLE 4Results of Covariance Analyses"

Characteristics of FormalMentoring Programs

Mentor volunteersProt6g6 volunteersMethod of matchingPurpose of program

Meeting frequency guidelinesRecognition given to mentorMentor's rank''Mentor's department

Wilks'sLambda

.90

.78

.64

.68

.68

.86

.78

.82

MANCOVA: Attitudes

0.84 (7, 55)2.38* (7, 59)1.34 (21, 167)2.38** (7, 36)

1.15 (21, 169)1.03 (7,45)0.59(21, 141)2.06' (7, 66)

Significant Attitudes:Univariate F (df)

None at p < .10None at p < .10None at p < .10Opportunities for promotion:

6.19** (1,42)Procedural justice: 3.15^

(1,42)None at p < .10None at p < .10None at p < .10Career commitment: 3.57^

(1, 72)Joh satisfaction: 2.79 ^ (1, 72)Organizational commitment:

5.93** (1, 72)Intentions to quit:

7.21** (1, 72)

ProgramEffectiveness

F(df)

3.05^(1,64)1.34 (1, 69)0.82 (3,66)1.10 (1,43)

5.98*** (3, 68)0.05 (1, 54)0.18 (3, 58)1.02 (1, 75)

ANCOVA

i

Eta

.18

.04

.21

.21

.48

.08

.15

.07

MentorSatisfaction

F(df)

1.50(1,1.72 (1,0.61 (3,1.51 (1,

1.93 (3,0.35 (1,0.84 (3,4.00* (:

64)69)66)43)

68)54)58)

L, 75)

Eta

.14

.15

.16

.20

.26

.19

.11

.20

° Multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted for the prot6g6 attitude variables; simple analysis of covariance(ANCOVA) was conducted for program effectiveness and mentor satisfaction. Values in parentheses are degrees of freedom. Etas are notadjusted for covariates.

• Reflects number of organizational levels between formal mentor and prot6g6.

* ** * *All

P ^p Sp S

.05

.01

.001two-tailed tests.

allowed mentors and proteges to participate in thematching process did not yield more positive atti-tudes and were not viewed as more effective thanprograms that assigned members to one another.

A test of Research Question 2 revealed some in-teresting results. This research question concernsthe effects on protege attitudes and reports of pro-gram effectiveness of the number of organizationallevels between a formal mentor and a protege (men-tor rank) and whether the mentor was in the samedepartment as the protege. Although the mentor'srank did not affect these outcomes, whether thementor was in the same department as the protegeaffected protege attitudes. As indicated in Table 3,although the multivariate effect was marginal (p =.06), follow-up univariate analyses revealed signif-icant effects for organizational commitment andintentions to quit and effects for career commit-ment (p = .06) and job satisfaction (p = .09) thatapproached significance. A review of the adjustedmeans showed that proteges in programs that usedmentors who were in the same departments as the

"proteges expressed marginally more negative career

and job attitudes than proteges in programs thatused mentors from different departments.

We conducted post hoc analyses that assessedthe impact of these various program characteristicson protege satisfaction with the m^entoring relation-ship. As displayed in Table 4, the only programvariable that significantly affected mentor satisfac-tion was the department of the mentor. In line withthe previous findings, prot^g^s in programs thatused mentors who were in the same departments asthe proteges were expressed significantly less sat-isfaction with the mentoring relationship than pro-teges in programs that used mentors from otherdepartments.

Post Hoc Analyses of Gender Effects

An important question that arises is whetherthese findings hold for both women and men. Theimpact of prot6g6 gender and the combination ofmentor and protege gender on the dependent vari-ables in the study were assessed, and some of the


key findings that emerged from these analyses arediscussed below.

MANCOVA analyses indicated that the gendercomposition of a mentoring relationship did notinteract with type of mentor to affect job and careerattitudes (Pillais = .06, F21,1,275 = 1-36, n.s.]. As inother research (Dreher & Ash, 1990; Fagenson,1989), gender did not interact with the presence ofan informal mentor (Pillais = .01, Fy 766 = -85, n.s.),indicating that both men and women reportedequivalent attitudinal benefits from the presence ofan informal mentor. However, it was of particularinterest that a significant interaction was foundbetween the presence of a formal mentor and gen-der [Pillais = .03, F7 427 = 2.07, p < .05), andfollow-up univariate analysis revealed a significanteffect for career commitment 433 = 7.18, p <p.01). An inspection of the adjusted, means indicatedthat although nonmentored men and women re-ported equivalent career commitment (men, x =25.54, women, x = 25.08), men with formal men-tors reported significantly more career commitment(x = 28.37) than women with formal mentors(23.46). In fact, women with formal mentors re-ported significantly less career commitment thanboth the men and women who were not mentored.

Additional analyses of covariance revealed thatalthough formally mentored men and women didnot significantly differ in their satisfaction withtheir mentoring relationships (F^ 75 = 2.11, n.s.),men were more likely than women to report thattheir formal mentoring program was effective(Fl 75 = 3.58, p = .06). Specifically, male protegeswith male mentors [x = 27.38) or female mentors [x= 29.44) reported that their mentoring program wasmore effective than female proteges with male men-tors (x = 23.25).

DISCUSSION

This study addressed two questions that haveparticular relevance for organizations entering thenew millennium. First, we tested the assumptionthat all mentoring relationships are created equaland used the construct of marginal mentoring toexamine differences between individuals with for-mal and informal mentors, and nonmentored indi-viduals. Second, we examined whether the designof a formal mentoring program affected partici-pants' work attitudes, their perception of the effec-tiveness of the mentoring program, and their satis-faction with the mentoring relationship.

The results of our study support Levinson andcolleagues' (1978) theory that mentoring is not asimple, all-or-none matter but falls along a contin-uum of effectiveness. Individuals in highly satisfy-

ing mentoring relationships reported more positiveattitudes than nonmentored individuals, but theattitudes of those in dissatisfying or marginally sat-isfying relationships were equivalent to those ofnonmentored individuals. In some cases nonmen-tored individuals expressed more positive attitudesthan proteges in dissatisfying relationships.

The degree of satisfaction with the mentoringrelationship also accounted for more of the uniquevariance in work attitudes than the type of relation-ship. Although formal mentors are more likely thaninformal mentors to be viewed as marginal, pro-teges in satisfying formal relationships still re-ported more positive work and career attitudesthan proteges in dissatisfying informal relation-ships. Taken together, these results indicate thatsatisfaction with the mentoring relationship ac-counted for more of the variance in job and careerattitudes than the type of mentor or even the pres-ence of a mentoring relationship.

One implication of these results is that studiesthat have shown a significant relationship betweenthe presence of a mentor and positive work atti-tudes may not have captured the full range of men-toring relationships and may therefore be a bit mis-leading. The results of our study indicate that thepresence of a mentor alone does not automaticallylead to positive work outcomes; the outcomes maydepend on the quality of the mentoring relation-ship. Comparisons of formally and informally men-tored proteges may be too simplistic. Future re-search needs to consider within-group differencesin mentoring effectiveness and the quality of thementoring relationship when comparing formaland informal relationships.

Although it is clear that good mentoring may leadto positive outcomes, bad mentoring may be de-structive (Scandura, 1998) and, in some cases, asour study revealed, it may be worse than no men-toring at all. Although truly dysfunctional mentor-ing relationships are likely to terminate (Ragins &Scandura, 1997), relationships that are marginallyeffective may simply endure. Perhaps these rela-tionships endure because the proteges receive lim-ited career help from the mentor, or because theprotege does not want to risk negative repercus-sions from terminating the relationship. Perhapsthese marginal relationships serve needs that aresimply dysfunctional; some individuals may seekdysfunctional work relationships just as they seekdysfunctional home relationships (Ragins, 1999b).Marginal, dependent, or even abusive relationshipsare not restricted by organizational boundaries;they occur within work settings as well as outsideof them, and dysfunctional needs may actuallyspill over from the nonwork to the work domain.-


There should therefore be future research investi-gating the causes and consequences of these mar-ginal mentoring relationships. How do marginalrelationships develop? What functions do theyserve? At what point does the mediocrity of a rela-tionship overcome its functionality and the rela-tionship end? Longitudinal research could be usedto gain a deeper understanding of this gray area ofmediocre mentoring and dysfunctional work rela-tionships.

In addition, longitudinal research could also clarifythe direction of the relationship between satisfyingmentoring and positive work attitudes; does high-quality rnentoring lead to more positive work atti-tudes, or are individuals with positive work attitudesmore likely to be selected for or enter into high-qual-ity mentoring relationships? Although this selectionargument could explain our finding a relationshipbetween attitudes and quality among informally men-tored proteges, it does not explain why we also foundthis association in formally assigned mentoring rela-tionships in which the members did not select oneanother. This observation supports the theory thathigh-quality mentoring relationships have a positiveimpact on proteges' job and career attitudes (Kram,1985).

Although there has been much discussion in thepopular literature about the pros and cons of vari-ous design features of formal mentoring programs(Murray, 1991), the eight design features we exam-ined had relatively limited impacts on attitudesand on degree of satisfaction with a mentoringrelationship. One interesting exception was thatprograms that used mentors from the same depart-ments as their proteges had less satisfying mentor-ing relationships and were marginally associatedwith more negative job attitudes than programs thatused mentors from other departments. One expla-nation for this finding is that restricting selection ofmentors to a given department may also restrict therange of quality of the mentor pool. In addition,mentors from other departments may providefresher insights, a broader organizational perspec-tive, and more effective support for their protegesthan do mentors from the same departments astheir proteges.

Taken together, these findings suggest that the.degree of satisfaction with a mentoring relationshipmay overshadow any particular design feature of aformal mentoring program. In other words, eventhe "best-designed" program may not compensatefor a pool of marginal mentors. Future studiescould therefore focus on how mentoring programscan develop motivated and skilled mentors. Thesestudies could compare programs with various de-grees of stringency in selecting, screening, and

training mentors, as well as variations in the mon-itoring and evaluation of mentor performance. Abetter understanding and measurement of the mo-tivation to mentor (cf. Ragins & Cotton, 1993) maylead to a fruitful diagnostic technique for selectingformal mentors. Our study takes a first step towardunderstanding the relationship between the designof formal programs and desired outcomes. How-ever, the results of this study also suggest that de-sign elements should not be discussed in a vacuum;design is significant only to the extent that it facil-itates the development of satisfying mentoring re-lationships.

Finally, our post hoc analyses revealed thatalthough men and women apparently received equiv-alent attitudinal benefits from the presence of infor-mal mentors and expressed equivalent satisfactionwith their relationships, women with formal mentorswere less satisfied with their formal mentoring pro-grams than their male counterparts, and these womenreported less career commitment than formally men-tored men and nonmentored men and women. Al-though many mentoring programs are developed forwomen (Burke & McKeen, 1989), these findings sug-gest that formal programs may be less effective forwomen than men. The selection of effective mentorsis important for all programs, but it may be critical forprograms aimed at women.

Study Limitations

Several limitations of this study need to be noted.This study relied on cross-sectional data, whichlimits our ability to determine the direction of therelationship between mentoring and work atti-tudes. It is clear that longitudinal research isneeded in this area, despite the difficulties in-volved with discovering informal relationships attheir inception and following them over time. Inaddition, the generalizability of our study was lim-ited by our highly educated, older, and primarilyCaucasian sample.

As in most survey studies, common method vari-ance may have biased the assessment of some of thevariables in this study. In order to lessen this effect,we separated the items assessing the effectiveness offormal mentoring programs, work attitudes, and sat-isfaction with mentors, placing them in different sec-tions of the 15-page survey. Moreover, the indepen-dent variables measuring the presence of a mentoringrelationship and the type of relationship should berelatively free of this bias; these variables were essen-tially held constant across reports of career and jobattitudes. The finding that some design characteris-tics of formal programs were associated with reportedprogram effectiveness (that is, department of mentor)


whereas others were not (voluntary nature andmethod of matching] suggests that common methodbias was not a pressing concern for this variable ei-ther. Satisfaction with a mentoring relationship wassignificantly related to the reported effectiveness of amentoring program (r = .46, p < .01) but, as shown inTable 1, the correlation was lower than many of thecorrelations among the attitudes. Moreover, commonmethod bias could not account for the fact that thepattern of results in this study consistently differedfor satisfaction with the relationship and reportedprogram effectiveness.

Another limitation is that the program characteris-tic questions may be open to self-report bias. Ques-tions about whether matching was a mutual decisionmay reflect true mutuality or subtle compulsion; forinstance, one partner in a mentoring relationshipmight be pressured into the relationship by a sense ofobligation or a fear of insulting the other partner butstill report the relationship as a mutual choice. More-over, although we asked respondents whether theprimary purpose of their formal program was to pro-mote their careers or to orient them to their jobs, someprograms may have had dual, equally weighted pur-poses, hi the future researchers could disentanglethese effects by using case analyses and by askingmore probing questions regarding the purpose of aprogram, the method of matching, and whether par-ticipation was truly voluntary. Finally, although weasked proteges about the effectiveness of their men-toring programs, we did not directly assess the pro-grams' quality. Future research could provide a morein-depth examination of both the quality and effec-tiveness of formal programs.

In conclusion, a formal program is only as good asthe mentor it produces. Formal programs may there-fore be effective to the extent that they recruit skilledand motivated mentors, train the participants, andcreate an organizational environment that fosters thedevelopment of satisfying mentoring relationships.

REFERENCES

Allen, T. D., & Poteet, M. L. 1999. Developing effectivementoring relationships: Strategies from the men-tor's viewpoint. Career Development Quarterly, 48:59-73.

Blau, G. 1985. The measurement and prediction of careercommitment. Journal of Occupational Psychology,58: 277-288.

Bragg, A. 1989. Is a mentor program in your future? Salesand Marketing Management, 141(Septemher):54-59.

Burke, R. J. & McKeen, C. A. 1989. Developing formalmentoring programs in organizations. BusinessQuarterly, 53(3): 76-99.

Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M., & Gardner, P. D. 1992. Formaland informal mentorships: A comparison on mentor-ing functions and contrast with nonmentored coun-terparts. Personnel Psychology, 45: 619-636.

Colarelli, S. M., & Bishop, R. C. 1990. Career commit-ment: Functions, correlates, and management.Group & Organization Studies, 15: 158-176.

Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: Thetotal design method. New York: Wiley.

Douglas, G. A. 1997. Formal mentoring programs inorganizations: An annotated bibliography. Greens-horo, NG: Genter for Greative Leadership.

Dreher, G. F., & Ash, R. A. 1990. A comparative study ofmentoring among men and women in managerial,professional, and technical positions. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 75: 539-546.

Ehy, L. T., McManus, S., Simon, S. A., & Russell, J. E. A.2000. The protege's perspective regarding negativementoring experiences: The development of a taxon-omy. Joumal of Vocational Behavior, 57: 1-21.

Erickson, E. H. 1963. Childhood and society. New York:Norton.

Fagenson, E. A. 1989. The mentor advantage: Perceivedcareer/joh experiences of proteges versus non-prote-ges. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10: 309-320.

Fagenson-Eland, E. A., Marks, M. A., & Amendola, K. L.1997. Perceptions of mentoring relationships. Jour-nal of Vocational Behavior, 51: 29-42.

Geiger-DuMond, A. H., & Boyle, S. K. 1995. Mentoring: Apractitioner's guide. Training and Development,49: 51-54.

Gihh, S., & Megginson, D. 1993. Inside corporate mentor-ing schemes: A new agenda of concerns. PersonnelReview, 22(1): 40-54.

Koherg, G. S., Boss, R. W., Ghappell, D., & Ringer, R. G.1994. Gorrelates and consequences of proteg6 men-toring in a large hospital. Group and OrganizationManagement, 19: 219-239.

Kram, K. E. 1985. Mentoring at work: Developmentalrelationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL:Scott, Foresman.

Levinson, D. J., Darrow, G. N., Klein, E. B., Levinson,M. H., & McKee, B. 1978. The seasons of a man'slife. New York: Knopf.

McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. 1992. Distrihutive andprocedural justice as predictors of satisfaction withpersonal and organizational outcomes. Academy ofManagement Joumal, 35: 626-637.

Mohley, G. M., Jaret, G., Marsh, K., & Lim, Y. Y. 1994.Mentoring, joh satisfaction, gender, and the legalprofession. Sex Roles, 31: 79-98.

Mowday, R., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. 1979. Themeasurement of organizational commitment. Jour-nal of Vocational Rehavior, 14: 224-247.


Murray, M. 1991. Reyond the myths and magic of men-toring: How to facilitate an effective mentoringprogram. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nadler, D. A., Jenkins, G. D., Gammann, G., & Lawler,E. E. 1975. The Michigan organizational assess-ment package: Progress report II. Ann Arhor, MI:Institute for Social Research.

Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Gummings, L. L., & Dunham,R. B. 1989. Organization-hased self-esteem: Gon-struct definition, measurement, and validation.Academy of Management Joumal, 32: 622-648.

Poldre, P. A. 1994. Mentoring programs: A question ofdesign. Interchange, 25(2): 183-193.

Quinn, R. P., & Staines, G. L. 1979. The 1977 quality ofemployment survey. Ann Arhor, MI: Institute forSocial Research.

Ragins, B. R. 1989. Barriers to mentoring: The femalemanager's dilemma. Human Relations, 42: 1-22.

Ragins, B. R. 1999a. Where do we go from here, and howdo we get there? Methodological issues in conduct-ing research on diversity and mentoring relation-ships. In A. J. Murrell, F. J. Groshy, & R. J. Ely (Eds.),Mentoring dilemmas: Developmental relation-ships within multicultural organizations: 227-246.

• Mahwah, NJ: Erlhaum.

Ragins, B. R. 1999h. More than a feeling: Notes onnavigating the dark side of mentoring. Discussantpaper presented at the annual meeting of the Acad-emy of Management, Ghicago.

Ragins, B. R., & Gotton, J. 1993. Gender and willingnessto mentor in organizations. Journal of Management,19: 97-111.

Ragins, B. R., & Gotton, J. 1999. Mentor functions andoutcomes: A comparison of men and women in for-mal and informal mentoring relationships. Journalof Applied Psychology, 84: 529-550.

Ragins, B. R., & McFarlin, D. B. 1990. Perceptions ofmentor roles in cross-gender mentoring relation-ships./ourna7o/Focationa7BeAawor, 37: 321-339.

Ragins, B. R., & Scandura, T. A. 1997. The way we were:Gender and the termination of mentoring relation-ships. Joumal of Applied Psychology, 82: 945-953.

Ragins, B. R, & Scandura, T. A. 1999. Burden orhlessing?Expected costs and henefits of heing a mentor. Jour-nal of Organizational Rehavior, 20: 493-509.

Scandura, T. A. 1992. Mentorship and career mohility:An empirical investigation. Joumal of Organiza-tional Rehavior, 13: 169-174.

Scandura, T. A. 1997. Mentoring and organizational jus-tice: An empirical investigation. Journal of Voca-tional Rehavior, 51: 58-69.

Scandura, T. A. 1998. Dysfunctional mentoring relation-ships and outcomes. Joumal of Management, 24:449-467.

Seihert, S. 1999. The effectiveness of facilitated mentor-

ing: A longitudinal quasi-experiment. Journal of Vo-cational Rehavior, 54: 483-502.

Smith, P. G., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, G. L. 1969. Themeasurement of satisfaction in work and retire-ment. Ghicago: Rand McNally.

Tyler, K. 1998. Mentoring programs link employees andexperienced execs. HR Magazine, 43(5): 98-103.

Whitely, W., Dougherty, T. W., & Dreher, G. F. 1991.Relationship of career mentoring and socioeconomicorigin to managers' and professionals' early careerprogress. Academy of Management Journal, 34:331-351.

APPENDIX A

Scales Developed for This Study

Items are given verhatim. Both scales used a seven-point response format ranging from "strongly disagree"(1) to "strongly agree" (7).

Satisfaction with Mentor a = .83

My mentor:is someone I am satisfied with,has heen effective in his/her role,fails to meet my needs, (reversed)disappoints me. (reversed)

Perceived Program Effectiveness a = .79

The formal mentoring program in my organization iseffective.

The formal mentoring program allows me access tomentors who otherwise would have heen unattainahle.

I am satisfied with the formal mentoring program.The formal mentoring program smoothed the way for

me to get a mentor.I would he unahle to get a mentor if not for the formal

mentoring program.The formal mentoring program is a waste of time,

(reversed)

APPENDIX B

Formal Mentoring Program Design Items andResponses

Voluntary ProgramFor mentors: "Is the participation in the program vol-

untary for mentors?"Yes 34.4%No 50.0Don't know 15.6For prot§g§s: "Is the participation in the program vol-

untary for prot6g6s?"Yes 23.6%No 65.4Don't know 11.0

Method of Matching"We are interested in how mentors and prot^g^s are

1194 Academy of Management Joumal December

matched or connected. Please check the one answer thathest descrihes the matching process."

Mentors and proteges are assignedto each other 63.2%The mentor chooses the protege 5.6The prot6g6 chooses the mentor 3.2It's a mutual decision 15.2Other 6.4Don't know 6.4

Purpose of Program"What is the primary purpose of the mentoring pro-

gram?"Promote the careers of participants 31.5%Promote the careers of womenand/or other minorities* 1.6Provide general orientationfor new employees 28.2Other 32.3Don't know 6.5

Meeting Frequency Guidelines"How often are mentors and prot6g6s required or sug-

gested to meet?"Once a week 35.2%Once a month ' 12Every few months 3.2There are no guidelines for meeting times 37.6Other 7.2Don't know 4.8

''Since only two individuals reported that the purpose oftheir program was to promote the careers of women andminorities, we removed this category from future analysesand recoded the variahle to reflect the two categoriesof career development (1) and general orientation (2).

Mentor's Rank"On average, how many levels ahove the prot6g6s are

the mentors?"The values reported ranged from 0 to 5, with a mean of

1.36 levels.

Mentor's Department"Are the mentors in the same department as the pro-

teges?"Yes 86.5%No 10.3Don't know 3.2

Recognition Given to Mentor"Is the mentor's participation in the mentoring pro-

gram recognized hy the organization in performance ap-praisals and/or organizational rewards?"

Yes 50.8%No 22.2Don't know 27

Belle Rose Ragins is a professor of management at theUniversity of Wisconsin—Milwaukee. She received herPh.D. in industrial-organizational psychology from the Uni-versity of Tennessee at Knoxville. Her research interestsfocus on gender, diversity, and mentoring in organizations.

John L. Cotton is a professor of management at Marquette*University. He received his Ph.D. in social psychologyfrom the University of Iowa. His research interests in-clude employee participation, turnover, and mentoring. •

Janice S. Miller is an assistant professor of managementat the University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee. She re-ceived her Ph.D. in human resources from Arizona StateUniversity. Her research interests include performanceappraisal, compensation, ahd employee development.

marginal mentoring: the effects of type of...

Documents