1 mentoring of scientists and engineers: dyadic and formality effects on career development and...

1

Mentoring of Scientists and Engineers: Dyadic and Formality Effects

onCareer Development

andPsychosocial Interactions

Mike Lyon

2

Outline

Background Objectives Literature Review Research Statement Methodology Analysis Conclusions

3

Background

Many companies have instituted formal mentoring programs which pair promising young employees with experienced senior members.

HOWEVER------Formal, structured programs have been

found to be less effective than informal, spontaneous mentor-protégé pairings.

Not getting glowing scores for success Zey (1984); Chao, Walz and Gardner (1992)

Spontaneous, informal mentoring relationships usually fare better Noe (1988); Chao, Walz and Gardner(1992); Allen and Russell (1997); Hegstad (1999); Douglas and MacCauley (1999)

4

Why Mentor?

Mentoring has long been recognized as a means to pass along business “rules of thumb”, provide introductions to “the right people”, and provide a buffer layer to the new employee as he or she learns the basics of the business.

The goal of mentoring is to facilitate job success for the protégé and for the protégé to become a satisfied, productive employee.

Comparisons made by Zey (1984) and Ragins (1997) of mentored versus unmentored individuals indicate that mentoring can benefit three distinct entities: the protégé, the mentor, and the organization.

5

Mentoring

“The mentor is usually a senior, experienced employee who serves as a role model, provides support, direction, and feedback to the younger employee regarding career plans and interpersonal development, and increases the visibility of the protégé to decision-makers in the organization who may influence career opportunities.” Noe (1988)

6

Effective Mentor Characteristics

1. They are higher up in the organization

2. They are an authority in their field3. They are influential with a “voice” in

the profession4. They are close to the lines of

authority and power5. They are interested in the protégé’s

growth and development6. They are willing to commit time and

emotion to the relationship Collins (1983); Noe (1988); Chao, et al

(1992)

7

Program Structure

Informal mentorships not constructed by the organization arise spontaneously not managed, structured, or formally

recognized by the organization. Formal mentorships

organizationally managed generally created by assignment or

mentor selection designed to pair up employees with

peers, seniors, or outside consultants

8

Mentoring Program Structure

Elements of structure Is the mentoring program developed or implemented

by the organization? (Initiation) Is the mentoring program coordinated or directed by

the organization? (Direction) Are mentoring relationships encouraged by the

organization? (Sustainment) Is the mentoring program reviewed by the

organization? (Monitoring)

Is progress of the mentoring relationship evaluated by the organization? (Improvement)

How do the mentor and protégé meet? (Facilitization)

9

Prior Researchers

Career Development

Bas

ic C

aree

r D

evel

opm

ent

Fun

ctio

n Id

enti

fica

tion

Coa

chin

g -

Act

ivit

ies

Spo

nsor

ing

Adv

ance

men

t - A

ctiv

itie

s

Pro

vidi

ng C

hall

engi

ng A

ssig

nmen

ts -

Act

ivit

ies

Pro

tect

ion

- A

ctiv

itie

s

Fos

teri

ng P

osit

ive

Vis

ibil

ity

- A

ctiv

itie

s

Acc

ess

to R

esou

rces

- A

ctiv

itie

s Burke, 1996 X Chao, Walz and Gardner, 1992 X Coley, 1996 X Collins, 1983 X Hegstad, 1999 X X Kram, 1980, 1988 X X X X X X Lindbo and Schultz, 1998 X X X Misserian, 1982 X X X X X X Munhall and Fitzsimons, 1995 X X Ostroff and Kozlowski, 1992 X Ragins, 1997 X X Schweibert et al., 1999 X Zey, 1984 X X X

Psychosocial

Bas

ic P

sych

osoc

ial F

unct

ion

Iden

tifi

cati

on

Per

sona

l Sup

port

- A

ctiv

ities

Fri

ends

hip

- A

ctiv

itie

s

Acc

epta

nce

- A

ctiv

itie

s

Cou

nsel

ing

- A

ctiv

itie

s

Rol

e M

odel

ing

- A

ctiv

itie

s

Allen and Russell, 1997 X Baron and Greenberg, 1989 X X Clemmons, 1995 X Coley, 1996 X Collins, 1983 X X Crampton and Mishra, 1999 X Douglas and McCauley, 1999 X Goh, 1998 X Kaye and Jacobson, 1996 X Kram, 1980, 1988 X X X X X X Lindbo and Schultz, 1998 X X Misserian, 1982 X X X Moore, 1999 X Parker and Kram, 1993 X Ragins, 1997 X Ragins, Townsend and Mattis, 1998 X X X Schweibert et al., 1999 X X Szymborski, 1996 X Zey, 1984 X X X X

10

Career Development Mentoring

(Kram, 1988)(Ragins, 1997)

(Missirian, 1982Zey, 1984Lindbo, 1998)

Mentoring FunctionsCareer Development

CoachingSponsoring

advancement

Providingchallengingassignments

Protection fromadverse forces

Fosteringpositive visibility

Providing accessto resources

Money, supplylines,communicationlines

Publicizesprotege'sachievements

Free to makemistakes

High standardsof perf ormance

Providesopportunities to learn

Demands seen asopportunities

Thinking more clearly/ creatively

Speaks well ofprotege withsuperiors

Manipulatespolitical f orces

Gains admissionto programs

Gives vision

Teaches the job

Provides insideinf ormation

Provides advice &support

I ntroducescorporatestructure, politics

11

Mentoring FunctionsCareer Development

CoachingSponsoring

advancement


Protection fromadverse forces


Providing accessto resources

Money, supplylines,communicationlines

Publicizesprotege'sachievements

Free to makemistakes

High standardsof perf ormance

Providesopportunities to learn

Demands seen asopportunities

Thinking more clearly/ creatively

Speaks well ofprotege withsuperiors

Manipulatespolitical f orces

Gains admissionto programs

Gives vision

Teaches the job

Provides insideinf ormation

Provides advice &support

I ntroducescorporatestructure, politics

Career Development Mentoring

(Kram, 1988)(Ragins, 1997)

(Missirian, 1982Zey, 1984Lindbo, 1998)

“Main role of a mentor”(Coley, 1996)

Particularly important early in protégé’s career(Missirian, 1982)

Opportunities for networking, rejuvenation of career(Hegsted, 1999)

12

Psychosocial Mentoring

(Kram, 1988)

Mentoring FunctionsPsychosocial

Personal support Friendship Acceptance Counseling Role modeling

Teaching byexample

Sharing dreams

Providing f eedback

Sense ofperspectiveAwareness of contribution torelationship

Opinions heard &valued

Assistance withpersonal lif e

Belief in protege

Building confidence

Encouragement

Overcoming pressures &strains

13

Mentoring FunctionsPsychosocial

Personal support Friendship Acceptance Counseling Role modeling

Teaching byexample

Sharing dreams

Providing f eedback

Sense ofperspectiveAwareness of contribution torelationship

Opinions heard &valued

Assistance withpersonal lif e

Belief in protege

Building confidence

Encouragement

Overcoming pressures &strains

Psychosocial Mentoring

(Kram, 1988)

Found to be critical for female protégés(Ragins, et al, 1998Crampton and Mishra, 1999)

“Belief in the person”(Munhall and Fitzsimmons, 1995)

“Providing advice and moral support in times of stress or crisis”(Collins, 1983)

“… strong, clear, visible organizational value system…”(Lindbo and Schultz, 1998)

14

Dyads

Dyads are described as either Homogeneous -- mentor and protégé

share similar characteristics Diverse – mentor and protégé differ Are typically categorized based on

Gender Race

15

Gender is Dyad Variable

What prompted this selection Women make up 46% of US labor force Women hold 10.6% of the engineering jobs. (Bureau of

Labor Statistics, 1997)

In 1999, women held 5.1% of “clout” titles (Catalyst, 1999)

Mentoring barriers for women Fewer females to serve as mentors for young

females Women less plugged into informal networks

(fewer interactions with persons in power) Visibility resulting from affirmative action scares

mentors Misinterpretation of relationships (cross-gender)

(Noe, 1988; Ragins and Cotton, 1996)

16

Gender-based Perspectives

Men see mentors as: Developing leadership Developing ability to take risks Giving direction Communication

Women see mentors as: Giving encouragement and support Instilling confidence Providing growth opportunities Giving visibility within organization(Collins, 1983)

17

Objective of Study

To study: How are

mentoring activities related to structural factors ?

How do these vary with dyad homogeneity?

MentoringActivity

MentoringProgram

Structure

DyadHomogeneity

CareerDevelopmentOutcomes

Psychosocial Outcomes

18

Significance of Research

No research to date has investigated the impact of mentoring program formality on degree of mentor role activity for a broad spectrum of knowledge workers. Prior researchers have focused on a single organization, trade, or discipline.

Looks at a broad population of high technology workers in aerospace, electronics, Government and private sectors, large firms as well as small firms, and U.S. as well as international organizations.

19

Hypotheses

#1. Formal (structured) programs and informal (unstructured) programs provide the same emphasis on career development factors.

#2. Formal programs and informal programs provide the same emphasis on psychosocial factors.

#3. Emphasis on the career development roles is the same for any make-up of the dyad.

#4. Emphasis on the psychosocial roles is the same for any make-up of the dyad

I nformal

Career Development

Formal

I nformal

Formal

Psychosocial

HomogeneousDyad

HeterogeneousDyad

Career Development

HomogeneousDyad

HeterogeneousDyad

Psychosocial

20

Survey Process

Pilot run with 15 S&Es 22 Organizations POC coordination in each organization Self-scoring survey Respondent anonymity 2 Formats used

Paper Electronic

202 protégé responses

21

Scope of Research

Target population: Engineers and scientists working in Government Industry High-tech sectors

AerospaceComputers / electronicsTennessee Valley as well as outsideAcross spectrum of org. sizes and mentoring program structure.

22

22 Participating Organizations202 protégé responses

Aerojet Corporation Atlantic Research

Corporation Bechtel Defence Research

Establishment Valcartier (Canada)

Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (UK)

ERC Corporation Infinity Technology Israeli Aircraft Industry

(Israel) Mevatec NASA/Marshall Space

Flight Center Owens Corning

Fiberglass

Savannah River Site Stone Engineering Talley Industries Teledyne Solutions US Army Aviation and

Missile Command US Army Research

Laboratory US Army Research

Organization US Missile and Space

Intelligence Command US Naval Air Warfare

Center / China Lake US Naval Surface

Warfare Center / Indian Head

US Space and Missile Defense Command

23

Current Job Title

Aerospace EngineerAnalystChemical EngineerChemistComputer EngineerDesignerElectrical EngineerEngineerEngineering ManagerEnvironmental Engineer

Mechanical EngineerMetallurgistPhysicistProject ManagerResearch ChemistResearch EngineerScientistSystems AnalystSystems EngineerTeam Leader

24

Survey Instrument (Structure portion)

1. The mentoring program was developed or implemented by my organization.

Not at all To a small degree To a large degree Fully

2. Our mentoring program is coordinated or directed by my organization.

Not at all Only occasionally Frequently Constantly

3. Mentoring programs are encouraged by my organization.


4. Our mentoring program is reviewed by my organization


5. My mentoring progress is evaluated by my organization. (e.g. it is part of my performance appraisal process)


6. How I met my mentor

Spontaneous. We just

seemed to “hit it off”

when we met

One of us sought out the other based on comments of other employees

We met in a meeting set up by our organization to bring together perspective mentors and proteges

Our organization paired us without our input.

7. How would you describe your organization’s mentoring program?

informal formal

25

Survey Instrument (Roles portion)

29-question survey created by Noe Internal consistency (=.89career development

=.92psychosocial) Used by

Noe (1988) to study education protégés in assigned relationships (N=139)

Dreher (1990) to study business school graduates (N=320)

Chao (1992) to study mentorship formality Orpen (1995) to study effects on career

success

26

Survey Instrument Roles (con’t)

Item Not at

all

To a small

extent To

some extent

To a large

extent

To a very large

extent

1. Mentor has shared history of his / her career with you. (Coaching)

2. Mentor has encouraged you to prepare for advancement. (Coaching)

3. Mentor has encouraged me to try new ways of behaving in my job. (Acceptance & Confirmation)

4. I try to imitate the work behavior of my mentor. (Role Model) Red portion did not appear on actual survey

27

Survey Instrument (Other metrics)

Dyad genders, races, ages Miscellaneous demographics

Org. size, years in present job, term of mentoring relationship, proximity of offices

“Success” factors (subjective statement from protégé) Effectiveness of mentorship in career

development Effectiveness of mentorship in non-career ways Most important mentoring role Least important mentoring role

28

Dyad Pair ing Process

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Spontaneous Word of Mouth Via a "Mentorship

Fair"

Organizat ion did

pair ing

Percent of respondents

Appr

oach

Demographics of Surveyed Organizations

Organizational I nvolvement

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Not at all To a small

degree

To a large

degree

Fully

Level

Perc

ent

of r

espo

nden

ts Developed byorganization

Coordinated byorganization

Encouraged byorganization

Reviewed byorganization

Evaluated byorganization

American (88%)International (12%)

Ment.Prot.

Male Female

Male 74.3% 2.0%

Female 19.3% 4.4%

< 1 yr

1-5 yrs

6-12 yrs

>12 yrs

11% 31% 18% 40%

Protégé’s Years with Organization

29

Analysis TaxonomyI f eel that the

overall mentoringprogram at myorganization is

eff ective

I f eel that my mentorhas been eff ective in

helping me in mycareer development


helping me in non-career ways

CoachingSponsoring

advancement


Protecting f romadverse f orces


Providing acessesto resources

Personal support Friendship

Acceptance Counseling

Role modeling

1, 2, 23, 24, 25,26

3, 14, 28

4, 5, 6, 7

8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13

15, 16

17, 18, 19

20

21, 22

27, 29

Overall CareerDevelopment Overall Psychosocial

30

H1 and H2 Results

“Developed by Organization”

Developed by organization

FullyTo a large degreeTo a small degreeNot at allM

ea

n o

f O

vera

ll ca

ree

r d

eve

lop

me

nt

sco

re

3.6

3.4

3.2

3.0

2.8

2.6

2.4

Typical trend

I f eel that theoverall mentoringprogram at myorganization is

eff ective





CoachingSponsoring

advancement







Role modeling

1, 2, 23, 24, 25,26

3, 14, 28

4, 5, 6, 7

8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13

15, 16

17, 18, 19

20

21, 22

27, 29


p=.000

p=.002 p=.508

p=.144 p=.001

p=.000 p=.169

p=.002 p=.251

p=.418 p=.786

p=.614

31

H1 and H2 Results

“Coordinated by Organization”

Coordinated by organization

ConstantlyFrequentlyOnly occasionallyNot at all

Me

an

of

Me

nto

rin

g p

rog

ram

is e

ffe

ctiv

e,

ove

rall 4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

Typical trend


eff ective





CoachingSponsoring

advancement







Role modeling

1, 2, 23, 24, 25,26

3, 14, 28

4, 5, 6, 7

8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13

15, 16

17, 18, 19

20

21, 22

27, 29


p=.000

p=.982 p=.815

p=.993 p=.516

p=.908 p=.793

p=.660 p=.165

p=.808 p=.454

p=.991

32

H1 and H2 Results

“Encouraged by Organization”

Encouraged by organization


Me

an

of

Me

nto

r is

eff

ect

ive

in c

are

er

de

velo

pm

en

t

4.2

4.0

3.8

3.6

3.4

3.2

3.0

Typical trend


eff ective





CoachingSponsoring

advancement







Role modeling

1, 2, 23, 24, 25,26

3, 14, 28

4, 5, 6, 7

8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13

15, 16

17, 18, 19

20

21, 22

27, 29


p=.000

p=.005 p=.001

p=.000 p=.431

p=.006 p=.002

p=.052 p=.000

p=.003 p=.008

p=.123

33

H1 and H2 Results

“Reviewed by Organization”

Reviewed by organization


Me

an

of

Ro

le M

od

el (

avg

)

4.4

4.2

4.0

3.8

3.6

3.4

Typical trend


eff ective





CoachingSponsoring

advancement







Role modeling

1, 2, 23, 24, 25,26

3, 14, 28

4, 5, 6, 7

8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13

15, 16

17, 18, 19

20

21, 22

27, 29


p=.000

p=.773 p=.524

p=.282 p=.608

p=.759 p=.098

p=.981 p=.040

p=.692 p=.450

p=.987

34

H1 and H2 Results

“Evaluated by Organization”

Evaluated by organization


Me

an

of

Me

nto

r is

eff

ect

ive

in c

are

er

de

velo

pm

en

t

4.6

4.4

4.2

4.0

3.8

3.6

3.4

3.2

Typical trend


eff ective





CoachingSponsoring

advancement







Role modeling

1, 2, 23, 24, 25,26

3, 14, 28

4, 5, 6, 7

8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13

15, 16

17, 18, 19

20

21, 22

27, 29


p=.000

p=.095 p=.098

p=.032 p=.745

p=.105 p=.002

p=.503 p=.074

p=.027 p=.144

p=.309

35

H1 and H2 Results

“How met Mentor”

How met mentor

PairedIntroducedrecommendedSpontaneousM

ea

n o

f Acc

ep

tan

ce &

co

nfir

ma

tion

(a

vg)

3.5

3.4

3.3

3.2

3.1

3.0

2.9

2.8

Typical trend


eff ective





CoachingSponsoring

advancement







Role modeling

1, 2, 23, 24, 25,26

3, 14, 28

4, 5, 6, 7

8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13

15, 16

17, 18, 19

20

21, 22

27, 29


p=.002

p=.162 p=.007

p=.195 p=.456

p=.328 p=.235

p=.074 p=.038

p=.005 p=.252

p=.033

36

H3 and H4 Results

Homogeneousor

DiverseBetter

?

Males reported more activity in the indicated boxes


eff ective





CoachingSponsoring

advancement







Role modeling

1, 2, 23, 24, 25,26

3, 14, 28

4, 5, 6, 7

8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13

15, 16

17, 18, 19

20

21, 22

27, 29


p=.040

p=.315 p=.081

p=.172 p=.377

p=.037 p=.685

p=.668 p=.467

p=.295 p=.680

p=..006

37

Statistically Significant Findings

Coachin

g

Spons

orship

Chal

lengin

g a

ssig

nment

s

Prot

ectio

n

Expos

ure &

vis

ibilit

y

Ove

rall c

areer d

evelo

pm

ent

Support

Frie

ndship

Acceptan

ce &

confi

rm

atio

n

Counseling

Role

mod

eling

Ove

rall p

rogram

eff

ectiv

ene

ss

- - - -

+

+ + + + + + + + +

+ +

+ + + +

- - - - +

H H H

M M M

Ove

rall p

sychosoc

ial

Homogenous (H) or Diverse (D) is better?

Male (M) or Female (F) report more?

"Developed by organization" increase =>

"Coordinated by organization" increase =>

"Encouraged by organization" increase =>

"Reviewed by organization" inrease =>

"Evaluated by organization" increase =>

"How I met mentor" increase =>

38

Hypotheses

#1. Formal (structured) programs and informal (unstructured) programs provide the same emphasis on career development factors.

#2. Formal programs and informal programs provide the same emphasis on psychosocial factors.

#3. Emphasis on the career development roles is the same for any make-up of the dyad.

#4. Emphasis on the psychosocial roles is the same for any make-up of the dyad

I nformal

Career Development

Formal

I nformal

Formal

Psychosocial

HomogeneousDyad

HeterogeneousDyad

Career Development

HomogeneousDyad

HeterogeneousDyad

Psychosocial

39

Structure Interactions

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

pairingForced

meetingOrg.

mouthWord ofSpontaneous

Const.

Freq.

Occas.

allatNot

How met Mentor

Evalu

ate

d b

y O

rganiz

ati

on

Overall Program Effectiveness

H

40


2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

pairingForced

meetingOrg.


Fully

Lot

Little

allatNot

How met Mentor

Develo

ped b

y O

rganiz

ati

on

Overall Program Effectiveness

H

41


2.3 2.8 3.3 3.8 4.3

ConstantlyFrequentlyOccasionallyNot at all

Const.

Freq.

Occas.

allatNot

Reviewed by Organization

Enco

ura

ged b

y O

rganiz

ati

on

Career Development Score

L

42


3.3 3.5 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.3


Const.

Freq.

Occas.

allatNot

Evaluated by Organization

Enco

ura

ged b

y O

rganiz

ati

on


HL

43


2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

pairingForced

meetingOrg.


Fully

Lot

Little

allatNot

How met Mentor

Develo

ped b

y O

rganiz

ati

on


H

H L

44


3.3 3.5 3.7


Const.

Freq.

Occas.

allatNot

Evaluated by Organization

Revie

wed

by O

rgan

izati

on Psychosocial Score

H

L

H

L

45

Other Demographics

Formality varies with Organization Size

Number of employees

>500300-500100-300<100

Me

an

of

En

cou

rag

ed

by

org

an

iza

tion

3.0

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2

2.0

1.8

Typical resultP=.000

P=.000

P=.000

P=.000

P=.005

1. The mentoring program was developed or implemented by my organization.

2. Our mentoring program is coordinated or directed by my organization.

3. Mentoring programs are encouraged by my organization.

4. Our mentoring program is reviewed by my organization

5. My mentoring progress is evaluated by my organization. (e.g. it is part of my performance appraisal process)

46

Other Demographics

Nationality

Nationality

Non-USUS

Me

an

of

Me

nto

r h

elp

s fin

ish

ass

ign

me

nts

3.3

3.2

3.1

3.0

2.9

2.8

2.7

2.6

Nationality

Non-USUSMe

an

of

Me

nto

r su

gg

est

s st

rate

gie

s o

n w

ork

ob

ject

ive

s

3.7

3.6

3.5

3.4

3.3

3.2

3.1

3.0

47

Other Demographics

Personnel

Years in company

>136-121-5<1

Me

an

of

Sp

on

sors

hip

(a

vg)

3.6

3.4

3.2

3.0

2.8

2.6

Protege's age

60-6950-5940-4930-3920-30

Me

an

of A

cce

pta

nce

& c

on

firm

atio

n (

avg

)

3.5

3.4

3.3

3.2

3.1

3.0

2.9

2.8

P=.008 P=.025

48

Other Demographics

Typical trend

Duration of mentorship

>8 years6-8 years4-5 years1-3 years<1 year

Me

an

of

Sp

on

sors

hip

(a

vg)

4.0

3.8

3.6

3.4

3.2

3.0

2.8

2.6


eff ective





CoachingSponsoring

advancement







Role modeling

1, 2, 23, 24, 25,26

3, 14, 28

4, 5, 6, 7

8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13

15, 16

17, 18, 19

20

21, 22

27, 29


p=.018

p=.002 p=.000

p=.000 p=.001

p=.004 p=.089

p=.026 p=.001

p=.000 p=.008

p=.007

Duration of Mentorship

49

Most Important Role

Most important factor29

28

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

11

10987654321

Pe

rce

nt

20

10

0

Protege gender

Female

Male

• Assigning responsibilities that increase the protégé’s contact with people in the organization who may judge the protégé’s potential for future advancement

• Providing support and feedback regarding the protégé’s technical performance • Providing assignments that increase written and personal contact with higher levels of

the organization

50

Least Important Role

Least important factor

29

28

27

26

23

17

16

15

13

12

11

10975431

Pe

rce

nt

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Protege gender

Female

Male

• Interacting with the mentor socially outside work • Having the mentor invite the protégé to join him/her for lunch

51

Need More

Wish there was more of this factor

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

11

1098654321

Pe

rce

nt

20

10

0

Protege gender

Female

Male

• Mentor suggests specific strategies for achieving protégé’s career goals

52

Findings

Two activities most strongly relate to overall protégé career development:

Getting assignments with high levels of visibility in the organization (r = .86)

Getting assignments that are recognized as preparatory for leadership position (r = .87)

Organizations over 300 employees have lower mentoring program structure

Male and female protégés seem to want the same things out of a mentoring relationship

US mentorships = non-US mentorships

53

Conclusions/Recommendations

Program structure does influence mentoring roles. The influence is generally positive.

Organizations should have a reasonably structured and monitored mentoring program.

Sufficient to let the protégés know that the organization is concerned about them as employees and as individuals

Should not dominate or dictate the relationship.

Dyad homogeneity influences mentoring roles – homogeneous dyads result in more positive outcome

Protégés should seek out mentors who can and will identify and provide the protégé with challenging assignments that have high visibility within the organization.

54

Areas for Further Study

Additional research is necessary to investigate the nature of the six structural elements and their components and determine the more elemental contributions of structure to mentoring program activity.

If teams rather than individuals serve the mentoring function, how would the results compare to those of the present study?

At a size of approximately 300 employees, high technology organizations change from relatively hands-on participation in their mentoring programs to a more hands-off approach. Why?

55

Areas for Further Study (con’t)

As mentoring relationships age, the period of time between one and five years is seen to be significant in increasing the intensity of the relationship in the measured areas. Why?

There is a decrease in the intensity of the individual mentor roles in relationships longer than about 7 years. Why?

Parallel surveys of mentoring roles and Herzberg motivator-hygiene assessment may produce an informative relationship.