chaperone
Post on 29-Mar-2016
215 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
chaperone
“How Mentoring
creates
Economic Development”
Written By
W. Douglas Minter Jr.
Knoxville Chamber/Innovation Valley
11607
2
about the Author
There is a relatively small segment of leaders in the business world; individuals who seem able to build
relationships, trust, and rapport with almost anyone, and then are able to broker the relationships and
make connections between people, creating partnerships and alliances, and motivating forward
momentum to ‘get things done.’ W. Douglas Minter is one of those people, and ‘getting things done’
and driving results—through collaboration, partnerships, and relationships—as business development
manager for the Knoxville Chamber Partnership, that is what he is all about. With an enthusiastic and
genuinely friendly attitude, Doug radiates a sincere passion for delivering value and benefits to the East
Tennessee business community. An insurance agent by training, Doug earned his B.A. in Political Science
at University of Tennessee. Minter’s interesting work life began when he graduated “Honor Man” in
boot camp with the USMC. He served for eight years in the reserves and saw combat during Operation
Desert Storm serving on the front lines clearing mine fields in Kuwait. Minter then served three years
with the United States Forestry Department as a firefighter with the Deschutes National Forest. He cites
11607
3
one of the hallmarks of his time was being able to save Clint Eastwood’s home in Sun Valley from
burning in a very large forest fire. After flirting with aspirations of following his father’s footsteps in
politics the entrepreneurial flame won him over. He spent a few years as a comedian and was voted the
University of Tennessee’s “funniest man”. He was also a Doritos’s College Comedy finalist ranked as one
of the top ten funniest students in college America. Minter and a partner started Silver Cloud Valet in an
apartment and became one of the first full service Valet Parking companies in the region. They started
with one employee and grew it to over 60 employees in three years. Minter then joined his family in
running The Casey Jones Insurance Group. He became Vice President of the firm and grew the small
agency into the largest owned African-American independent insurance firm in the State of Tennessee
2008. . In 2005 he bought the firm and grew by 30% each year until selling the firm in 2008.
Minter was recruited by the Knoxville Chamber for his small business expertise to run the small business
outreach department of the chamber’s Innovation Valley region which encompasses five counties in
East Tennessee. Minter now counsels over 150 businesses each year assisting them in becoming
successful. Minter started the Propel Mentor Protégé program which is one of just a handful of
programs like it within chambers across the country. Currently professors from Cal Poly and Harvard are
researching his program.
Throughout it all, Doug has repeatedly proved his ability to lead through diverse and challenging
situations. He is an excellent agent of change and has a documented track record of accomplishments
that include the turnaround of chaotic and struggling operations; start-up and management of new
businesses; creation and launch of new and improved ways to help grow businesses and motivate
people.
11607
4
contents • Conclusion Why have a preface begin with the end in mind!
• Chapter One Honor(Wo)Man – Basic Training: Leading and Following
• Chapter Two HITS HAPPEN!!! – Managing Failure: the Fastest Road to
Success
• Chapter Three Chambers of Commerce - Please Try This at Home!!!
• Chapter Four The Great Mentor
• Chapter Five The Great Protégé
• Chapter Six Wielding Cupid’s Bow - How to Make Great Matches
• Chapter Seven Marketing –The Management of Apathy
• Chapter Eight Show Me the Money! - Measuring the ROI
• Chapter Nine White Men CAN Jump - Diversity & Inclusion Matters
• Chapter Ten Size Matters – How to Measure Results
appendix “An ode to DIY”
• Research - Harvard/Cal Poly Study
• Reports - PROPEL Mentor Protégé Program Results
• Testimonials - Words from Mentors & Protégés
• Resources – Valuable links Related to Each Chapter
• Casting Call - How to select a Director of A Mentor/Protégé
Program
11607
5
chapter One - Honor (Wo)Man Basic Training: Leading and Following
• The Story
• The Moral
11607
6
chapter Two - HITS HAPPEN!!! Managing Failure: the Fastest Road to Success
The Story
The Moral
11607
7
chapter Three - Chambers of Commerce Please Try This at Home!!!
• The Story
• The Moral
• The Knoxville Chamber of Commerce sees business to business mentoring as a function of local
economic development. Based on this assumption we have opted to create a formal Mentor
Protégé program. Our Mentors are gleaned from those members with high status which we call
our “Premier Partners”. Our protégés are selected by a small committee who vets the
applicants on three things: revenues, innovation, and market distinction. In our first 6 months of
the program protégés landed over $5 million in new contracts. Since inception of the program in
January of 2010 our protégés have maintained 94 employees and grown that number to 140.
This is a growth of over 67% over their original baseline. Revenue growth for the same time
period shows an increase of 39%. See the attached economic impact of our program for fiscal
year July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011.
• We think that other organizations can follow this model as long as the 5 basic best practices for
the program infrastructure exist. (Please see best practices section):
• We think this model can be duplicated at any organization with a mission to facilitate the
growth of small business. We think the following 10 ideas can be applied unilaterally between
governmental and non-governmental mentor protégé programs:
• Partner with local Chamber of Commerce.
• Size of protégé class should be limited to 10% of the mentor population.
• Protégés and Mentors should have personality test and or reviews.
• Protégés should be required to be in program for 3 years. Two years of mentorship and one year
of giving back to the program. We follow the philosophy of Learn, Earn, and Return. In the third
year we ask for high producing protégés to become mentors to replenish the pool.
• Protégés should be required to attend monthly classes to learn technical back office items. We
call our monthly classes a “street mba”. We utilize the industry leading SMLS(Strategic
Management Learning System).
• Networking socials for protégés and mentors should be done collectively and as separate
groups.
11607
8
• Instruction on relationship building for both the mentors and protégés should be a part of the
curriculum.
• Mentors should be required to spend at least two hours a month with protégé
• Partner with local media to highlight the program and do monthly profiles on the mentor
protégé teams.
• Reporting of revenues, objectives, contracts, economic impact is critical to showing the ROI of
the program.
• Companies can and do band together through mentorship without formal programs. This is
done either through loose or non binding terms where there is a mutual benefit based on some
ROI and or specific project or client. However we believe that a formal Mentor Protégé program
allows for an organized way to share best practices and networks between companies. It allows
for a formal pathway for firms to band together for mutual benefit while using the
endorsements of others and their resources to allow for better due diligence. As companies
band together on their own, large firms have the control. Smaller firms typically do not have the
resources to provide the same level of due diligence. Formal mentor protégé programs allow for
a standard of interactions, ethics, respect, and learning that may not exist in totality with direct
informal b to b interactions. The best examples of b to b mentoring outside of formal programs
can be mutually beneficial. However, the success of these ventures are difficult to track and the
best ROI from those partnerships typically occur among family owned businesses that transfer
from family to family. ROI also is evident when companies band through “teaming agreements”
and “joint ventures” , however this is typically common when both firms are participating in
federal government, municipal, and or minority based contracting where those arrangements
are encouraged. These clusters of b to b bands tend to be seen when procurement
opportunities require such. Outside the government and municipal world mentoring tends to be
less defined. Our philosophy is that the mentor protégé arrangement through a CofC can
operate with or without the influence of government contracting and can also be a feeder
source to this world or an exit plan for government contractors wishing to grow their business in
the commercial world.
• As it relates to the government sector and in cases where large domestic and global firms have
goals to do business with small, minority, and veteran owned businesses the bands of
companies working together is more prevalent as it is a requirement of the client. For example
Volkswagen built its first plant in the United States in Chattanooga, Tennessee. As a part of its
procurement goals they set goals for the percentage of their spend, to go to small and minority
businesses. In their communications with the business community they encouraged “teaming
agreements” and “joint ventures”. As a result clusters of automotive and other suppliers have
joined forces to bid on opportunities. Additionally Volkswagen fosters networking between “tier
one” or primes with smaller companies. Mentoring is less formally conducted with Tier One
suppliers and their subcontractors. However this mentorship is specific and narrowly focused on
11607
9
the specific job at hand. These relationships are most often temporary in nature and may not
address other issues in the development of that small business.
• Based on our findings there are 5 key best practices:
• Have a pool of Mentors who have the desire to Mentor. We follow the rule of 10%. If the pool
of Mentors is 200 members and 10% of those should be able to be mined as Mentors. Which
means you can have a class of 20 protégés.
• The organization should have direct access to the mentors through their organization, i.e. the
Mentors are members of your organization. Third party access of another organization’s
members can be cumbersome and most organizations are very protective of their databases. If a
third party is needed to access Mentors then we suggest partnering with a CofC. Generally CofC
are the largest business based organization in a region or city.
• Have a fulltime program administrator who has been an entrepreneur to facilitate the program.
This person is the link between the mentors and protégés and drives the direction of the
program, sets the proper expectations and tracks results.
• Location of the program is important and a proper meeting space is needed to facilitate
meetings, networking, and classroom instruction. The physical location should be a hub that is
centrally located to other resources. We also encourage arming the mentors and protégé with
the latest free or low cost video conferencing equipment. Currently we have found that we can
video link our mentor, protégés, and other business resource partners for about $300 per
participant annually.
• Create a formal support network of partners from other business resource groups i.e., SCORE,
SBDCs, college and universities, economic development agencies and the like.
11607
10
chapter Four - The Great Mentor • The Story
• The Moral
11607
11
chapter Five - The Great Protégé
The Story
The Moral
11607
12
chapter Six - Wielding Cupid’s Bow How to Make Great Matches
• The Story
• The Moral
11607
13
chapter Seven - Marketing The Management of Apathy
• The Story
• The Moral
11607
14
chapter Eight - Show Me the Money! Measuring the ROI
• The Story
• The Moral
11607
15
chapter Nine - White Men CAN Jump Diversity & Inclusion Matters
• The Story
• The Moral
11607
16
Chapter Ten - Size Matters How to Measure Results
• The Story
• The Moral
11607
17
Appendix An ode to DIY
11607
18
Research Presenter Symposium Submission for 2011 Academy of Management Meeting
THE YIN & YANG OF MENTORING: EXPLORING THE CONTINUUM OF MENTORING
RELATIONSHIPS AND EXPERIENCES
Organizers: Additional Authors/Participants:
Dawn E. Chandler
College of Business
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Phone: (805) 756-1760
dachandl@calpoly.edu
Shoshana Dobrow
School of Business
Fordham University
1790 Broadway, Suite 1314
New York, NY 10019
212.636.7304
dobrow@fordham.edu
Wendy Marcinkus Murphy
Management Division
Babson College
Babson Park, MA 02457
Phone: (617) 816-5388
wmurphy@babson.edu
Discussant:
Belle Rose Ragins
Professor of Human Resource Management
Sheldon B. Lubar School of Business
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
3202 N. Maryland Avenue
11607
19
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53211
Telephone: (414) 229-6823
Ragins@uwm.edu
Marcus M. Butts, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Management
University of Texas at Arlington
College of Business Administration
701 S. West Street, Suite 212
Arlington, TX 76019-0467
Phone: (817)-272-3855
Email: mbutts@uta.edu
John F. Capman
Department of Psychology, Box B 8-215
Baruch College, City University of NY
One Bernard Baruch Way
New York, NY 10010
Phone: (646) 312-3809
capman84@yahoo.com
Lillian T. Eby, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
228 Psychology Building
The University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602
Phone: 706-542-2174
Fax: 706-542-3275
Kyle Ehrhardt
Sheldon B. Lubar School of Business
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
3202 N. Maryland Avenue
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53211
Phone: 414-229-2536
kpe@uwm.edu
Lisa Finkelstein
Department of Psychology
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, IL 60115
Phone: (815) 753-0439
lisaf@niu.edu
Additional Authors/Participants Cont’d:
Monica C. Higgins
Graduate School of Education
Harvard University
11607
20
Cambridge, MA 02138
Phone: (617) 496-8826
monica_higgins@gse.harvard.edu
Kurt Kraiger
Department of Psychology
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
Phone: (970) 491-6821
kurt.kraiger@colostate.edu
Karen S. Lyness
Department of Psychology, Box B 8-215
Baruch College, City University of New York
One Bernard Baruch Way
New York, NY 10010
Phone: (646) 312-3842
Karen.Lyness@verizon.net
Kristina Matarazzo
Department of Psychology
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, IL 60115
Douglas Minter
Business Development Manager, Knoxville
Chamberof Commerce
17 Market Square, Ste 201Knoxville, TN
37902
Phone: 865-246-2662
dminter@knoxvillechamber.com
Dianne Murphy
Sheldon B. Lubar School of Business
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
3202 N. Maryland Avenue
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53211
Phone: 414-791-3426
ddmurphy@uwm.edu
Belle Rose Ragins
Sheldon B. Lubar School of Business
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
3202 N. Maryland Avenue
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53211
Phone: (414) 229-6823
Ragins@uwm.edu
phone: 773/368.8881
kmataraz@gmail.com
11607
21
11607
22
"We have received signed statements from all intended participants agreeing to
participate in the entire symposium, AND that they are not in violation of the Rule of Three + Three. "
Signed: Dawn Chandler, Shoshana Dobrow & Wendy Marcinkus Murphy, January 10, 2010
THE YIN & YANG OF MENTORING: EXPLORING THE CONTINUUM OF MENTORING
RELATIONSHIPS AND EXPERIENCES
________________________________________________________________________
Abstract
This symposium’s purpose is to broaden our understanding of mentoring relationships at opposite ends
the mentoring relationship continuum, ranging from positive and high-quality relationships to negative
and dark experiences. Mentoring has been and remains critically important in an increasingly turbulent
economy and competitive job market marked by numerous career transitions by individuals and by steep
learning curves in a technologically-sophisticated, global environment. The four papers balance the yin
and yang of mentoring in relation to workplace discrimination, maintaining or dropping out of
relationships, mentor and protégé reports of bad experiences, and the benefits and challenges of
interorganizational mentoring. These studies stretch our research agendas and expand how we understand
mentoring and its relevance in practice. The presentations will explore (i) the relational buffering of
mentoring for employees of color from the negative effects of workplace discrimination; (ii) the factors
that affect perceptions of relationship quality and dropping out of a formal mentoring program; (iii) the
synchronous (time 1 to time 1, time 2 to time 2) and lagged (time 1 to time 2) associations between
mentor and protégé reports of bad experience, and at the stability of bad experiences from both persons’
perspective over time; and (iv) the nature of interorganizational mentoring and its benefits and challenges.
The symposium will end with a thematic discussion around central positive and negative mentoring
questions underpinning the presentations and will prod audience members and participants to brainstorm
questions relevant to future research.
Submitted to: CAR, HR
Keywords:
11607
23
CAR: Careers, mentoring, developmental relationships
HR: Formal mentoring programs, mentoring, career development
OVERVIEW OF THE SYMPOSIUM
The first 15 years of mentoring research focused on the “traditional” mentoring relationship,
which was implicitly assumed to bring significant value to protégés, mentors, and organizations. Over
time, however, researchers began to explore the “dark side” of mentoring, articulating a host of negative
experiences that may accompany participation in a mentoring relationship (e.g., Eby, Butts, Lockwood &
Simon, 2004; Eby & McManus, 2004; Scandura, 1988). Consistent with the idea that mentoring can
involve good and bad experiences, researchers highlighted a continuum of relationships ranging from
11607
24
highly satisfying to dissatisfying (Ragins, 2005; Ragins, Cotton, & Miller, 2000; Ragins & Verbos, 2007).
In stark contrast to negative experiences stand high-quality mentoring relationships, which are borne of
Positive Organizational Scholarship, and include the subjective experiences of vitality, connectivity, and
mutual regard, among others (Dutton & Ragins, 2007). High-quality connections can be considered
“transcendental” in that they potentially “surpass all others” and are “beyond common thought or
experience” (Dictionary.com, 2010). Taken together, negative experiences and high-quality relationships
represent “the yin and yang of mentoring,” that is the dark and negative and the positive and bright in
mentoring.
This symposium focuses on new insights and understandings of these two ends of the mentoring
continuum. The Academy theme overview notes that the Chinese word for crisis, “wei-ji,” “is made up of
the two characters representing danger and opportunity” and notes that as management scholars, we
should seek to turn challenges into opportunities and contribute to the debate on critical business issues
(Academy of Management “East Meets West” overview, 2010). Our aim is to bring value to the
mentoring debate by asking enlightened questions and offering sound insight around how to create
conditions for high-quality, transcendental relationships, both formally assigned and informally
cultivated, as well as to mitigate the challenges of negative experiences and lessen the likelihood of their
occurrence.
During the symposium, the presenters address a number of questions related to these topics,
including: What are the functions and outcomes of high-quality mentoring relationships? How can
mentoring relationships bring about positive outcomes and create buffer against negative outcomes for
people of color and other disadvantaged groups? How can individuals establish relationships so that
negative experiences are less likely to occur? What is the association between mentor and protégé reports
of bad experiences over time? What are the benefits of and challenges associated with business-to-
business mentoring?
11607
25
This symposium has balance in terms of having papers that address both negative experiences
and high-quality relationship, papers that have diverse samples, and a variety of methods, including
longitudinal, qualitative and quantitative designs. Taken together, the four paper presentations address
both formal and informal mentoring relationships, individual and organizational-level relationships, as
well as positive and negative outcomes.
Symposium Structure and Summary of the Contributions
The papers are ordered to move from positive (Ragins, Lyness, Ehrhardt, Murphy, and Capman)
to negative, and ending with both positive and negative (Chandler, Higgins, & Minter) for a balanced
view of mentoring that begin to fill the gaps in our knowledge of the yin-and-yang of mentoring
relationships. These studies contribute to the theoretical extension of the yin and yang of mentoring by
introducing empirical research on the effects of high-quality mentoring—as a means to buffer against
discrimination—identifying factors associated with retention in and satisfaction associated with a
program in a negative economic context, offering a more complex view of the effects of negative
mentoring experiences over time, and introducing positive effects of and challenges associated with
interorganizational mentoring as a new area of scholarly attention. In addition, the authors employ several
different methodological approaches for understanding high-quality relationships and negative mentoring
experiences that include exploring longitudinal effects as well as qualitative interviews. The proposed 90
minutes will include four presentations with allotted time for specific questions following each paper and
facilitated discussion.
First, Ragins, Lyness, Ehrhardt, Murphy, and Capman test the relational buffering effect in a
sample of 617 White and 199 protégés of color. They found that high quality informal mentoring buffered
protégés of color, but not Whites, from the negative effects of ambient discrimination on organizational
commitment. Those with formal mentoring relationships did not experience this buffering effect. While
11607
26
high quality informal mentoring helped protégés of color maintain their organizational commitment in the
face of a discriminatory workplace, these relationships were unable to buffer them from the effects of
discrimination on promotions, or their expectations about racial barriers to their future career success.
White mentors were associated with more frequent promotions for both White protégés and protégés of
color in less discriminatory environments; however, this advantage held for Whites but disappeared for
protégés of color in discriminatory environments. Although protégés of color are often advised to seek out
White mentors, the results shed new light on these assertions by highlighting the potential tempering
effect of organizational context on the effectiveness of mentoring relationships.
In the second presentation, Finkelstein, Kraiger, and Matarazzo discuss a year-long
formal mentoring program created for a state-wide employment system in the western United
States. The implementation of the program happened to coincide with a difficult economic
downturn in the state during which many employees were being laid off or asked to take on the
work of others, and thus employee development was no longer at the forefront of priorities. In
their study they look at how factors impacted perceived relationship quality and outcomes,
including their likelihood to drop out of the program. A FEW MORE SENTENCES
HERE…SHASA?
The third contribution by Eby and Butts take a longitudinal perspective to explore the relationship
between mentor and protégé reports of bad mentoring experiences over time. The study uses two waves
of data collected from intact mentor-protégé dyads to examine the synchronous (time 1 to time 1, time 2
to time 2) and lagged (time 1 to time 2) associations between mentor and protégé reports of bad
experiences. The authors also look at the stability of bad experiences from both persons’ perspective over
time. Their findings indicate that there is some stability in bad experiences over time but there is also
variability. They also find significant cross-source synchronous and lagged relationships between mentor
and protégé reports of bad experiences. Their study highlights the dynamic nature of bad experiences in
11607
27
mentoring relationships, the importance of studying relationships over time, and provides a more fine-
grained examination of the association between mentor and protégé reports of bad experiences.
Finally, Chandler, Higgins, & Minter introduce a new level of mentoring analysis and an
associated construct: inter-organizational mentoring. Using survey and interview data, they examine the
experiences of mentor and protégé participants involved in a Chamber of Commerce facilitated business-
to-business mentoring program. While a strong body of research has explored mentoring in terms of its
individual participants, their informal and formal relationships and formal mentoring program
charateristics, no research has considered mentoring when the participants are paired with the intention of
aiding the businesses of which they are a part. The Chamber of Commerce program represents just one of
a number of types of inter-organizational pairings in place across the United States (others include
environmental and school district mentoring programs) that have not received scholarly attention. Survey
and interview data included questions aimed at understanding what participants gained from the
mentoring experience, challenges in working together, suggestions for the business-to-business program,
efforts taken to make the relationship of high quality. Data have been content analyzed by one author and
will be by a second author prior to the presentation. The study intends to shed light on what leads to high-
quality interorganizational relationships as well as challenges that face partnerships.
Following the presentations, Belle Rose Ragins will identify themes that have emerged and offer
her thoughts on the future of the mentoring literature. To facilitate discussion between the presenters and
the audience, she will begin by highlighting links among the symposium contributions and offering
questions relevant to the development of a future research agenda.
Relevance of this Symposium to the Careers and Human Resources Divisions
Research on mentoring has flourished in the area of careers and the importance of interpersonal
relationships has many applications for human resources management. For career scholars, this
11607
28
symposium offers innovative studies at the forefront of positive and negative mentoring research. For
human resource management scholars, this symposium emphasizes how the globalization of careers
affects both the antecedents and consequences of mentoring support. For one, it suggests that human
resources representatives should create programs that emphasize the need for employees to foster their
own developmental relationships. This symposium should provide insights for human resource scholars
and professionals interested in understanding and improving the effectiveness of cross cultural
developmental relationships. SHASA? This session should provide guidance and relevant questions for
both scholars and practitioners looking to foster effective developmental relationships in a variety of
contexts.
PRESENTATION #1
Can the Yin of Mentoring Counter the Yang of a Discriminatory Workplace?
Relational Quality and Mentor Race as Potential Buffers to Workplace Discrimination
Belle Rose Ragins
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Karen S. Lyness
Baruch College
Kyle Ehrhardt
Dianne Murphy
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
11607
29
John F. Capman
Baruch College
Relational perspectives on mentoring hold that the quality of the relationship is central to its
effectiveness (Ragins & Verbos, 2007; Ragins, in press) and that effective mentoring is particularly
important for people of color (Blake-Beard, Murrell & Thomas, 2007; Ragins, 2007; Thomas, 2001;
Thomas & Gabarro, 1999). High quality relationships may buffer workers from the effects of negative
workplaces (Dutton & Ragins, 2007). Extending this “buffering hypothesis” (Cohen & Wills, 1985) to
the diversity and mentoring arena, we test the proposition that high quality mentoring buffers protégés
from the adverse effects of discriminatory workplaces (cf., Ragins, 2002, 2007). Our study tests this
“Relational Buffering Hypothesis” by examining whether and under what conditions high quality
mentoring buffers protégés from the negative effects of racial discrimination at work. We know that
mentoring can be a powerful tool for creating inclusive workplaces (Blake-Beard et al., 2007; Ragins,
2007), but what is the full reach of this relationship? Can high quality mentors buffer protégés,
particularly protégés of color, from the adverse effects of workplace discrimination?
Our study had four objectives. The first was to test the Relational Buffering Hypothesis and
examine whether high quality mentoring can buffer protégés from the effects of workplace
discrimination. The second was to test the assertion that White mentors are preferable to mentors of
color, irrespective of environmental context. Diversified mentoring theory holds that White mentors have
more power than mentors of color, and are therefore better able to provide career support to their protégés
(Ragins, 1997). Existing research has found that the presence of White male mentors is associated with
greater compensation, and protégés of color are often advised to seek out White mentors because of the
power they can bring to the relationship (Dreher & Cox, 1996; Dreher & Chargois, 1998). However,
diversified mentoring theory also points out that the organization’s diversity climate plays a powerful role
in these relationships (Ragins, 1997). A key question, therefore, is whether White mentors are able to
11607
30
buffer their protégés from the effects of discriminatory environments. The third objective was to examine
whether the buffering from these relationships extends to formally assigned mentoring relationships.
Although formal relationships are generally less effective than informal relationships (Underhill, 2006),
relational quality matters more than the type of relationship (Ragins, Cotton, & Miller, 2000), so it is
important to assess whether high quality formal relationships can also buffer protégés from the effects of
workplace discrimination. Last, we wanted to explore whether White protégés also experience these
buffering effects. Existing research has found that although Whites are less likely to be the direct targets
of racial discrimination than people of color, they still suffer from the effects of discriminatory
workplaces (Gonzalez & DeNisi, 2009; McKay et al., 2007) and the “second hand smoke effects” of
ambient forms of workplace harassment (Chrobot-Mason et al., 2010; Glomb et al., 1997; Hitlan,
Schneider & Walsh, 2006; Raver & Gelfand, 2005). Our study focuses on ambient racial discrimination,
which involves the exposure to racial discrimination aimed at others in the workplace, and therefore
captures the experiences of both White protégés and protégés of color.
METHOD
Web surveys were completed by 4,043 college alumni who were employed in organizations in the
U.S. and worked a minimum of 10 hours per week. We restricted our sample to those who had mentors
when they took the survey (20%; n = 816). The protégés’ average age was 37 and their average
organizational tenure was 4 years. Of those reporting their gender, 39% (n = 323) were men and 61% (n
= 496) were women. The sample included 199 protégés of color (57 African-Americans, 59 Latinos, 56
Asians, 3 Native Americans, 24 multi-racial) and 617 White protégés. In terms of type of mentor, 74% (n
= 146) of the protégés of color had informal mentors and 26% (n = 52) had formally assigned mentors.
Equivalent proportions were found for Whites; 74% (n = 457) were informally mentored and 26% (n =
158) had formal mentors. In terms of racial composition of the relationship, 33% (n = 64) of the protégés
of color had same-race mentors, while 67% (n = 132) had a mentor of a different race. In contrast, for
Whites, 89% (n = 540) had a same-race mentor while 11% (n = 68) were in a cross-race relationship.
11607
31
Established instruments were used for all measures; alphas were all acceptable (ranging from .79 to
.90). Ambient workplace discrimination was measured with a 10-item subscale of James, Lovato &
Cropanzano’s (1994) Workplace Prejudice and Discrimination Inventory that measures awareness of
discrimination aimed at others at work (“At work, minority employees receive fewer opportunities”,
“There is discrimination where I work.”). Quality of mentoring relationship was assessed with Ragins
and Cotton’s (1999) 4-item Satisfaction with Mentoring Scale. Dependent variables included Meyer,
Allen and Smith’s (1993) 6-item measure of organizational commitment, the length of time since last
promotion, and McWhirter’s (1997) 4-item measure of perceived racial barriers to career success (“In
my career, I will probably be treated differently because of my racial/ethnic background.”). Hierarchical
regression analyses were used to test relationships. Control variables included gender, education,
organizational size, organizational tenure, length of mentoring relationship, whether the mentor was the
protégé’s direct supervisor, and type of relationship (informal or formal). Racial identity (Sellers et al.,
1997) was controlled in analyses involving protégés of color.
RESULTS
Initial correlational analyses illustrated the negative effects of ambient workplace discrimination for
both White protégés (W) and protégés of color (POC). For example, protégés’ reports of discrimination
was negatively related to organizational commitment for both POC and Whites (r = -.33, -.29; p<.01,
respectively). The quality of their mentoring relationship made a difference; compared to those in low
quality relationships, those in high quality relationships reported more organizational commitment (r =.21
(POC); r =.19 (W); p≤.001), and protégés of color were less likely to anticipate racial barriers to their
career success (r = -.23, p<.001) ). However, relational quality did not predict promotions for either
group.
High quality mentoring buffered protégés of color from the negative effects of discrimination on
organizational commitment, but did not buffer them from the effects of discrimination on promotions or
11607
32
anticipated race-related barriers to their career success. A three-way interaction was found between
quality of mentoring relationship, ambient discrimination and protégé race in predicting organizational
commitment (β = .22, p<.05; R2 for step=.17, p<.001). Follow-up sub-group analyses revealed that
relational quality interacted with discrimination in predicting organizational commitment for protégés of
color, but not for Whites.
Both White protégés and protégés of color who perceived discrimination reported less
organizational commitment than those who did not, but relational quality only moderated this relationship
for people of color. Protégés of color reported less organizational commitment in environments with
greater discrimination, but this effect only held for those with low quality relationships. There were no
significant differences in reports of organizational commitment across levels of discriminatory
environments for protégés of color in high quality relationships. However, for Whites, high quality
mentoring relationships were associated with greater organizational commitment than low quality
mentoring irrespective of the level of ambient discrimination experienced in their workplace. These
results suggest that high quality mentoring predicts organizational attachment for both protégés of color
and White protégés, and that quality of mentoring appears to buffer the effects of discriminatory
workplaces for protégés of color.
Turning to mentor race, protégés in same-race relationships did not report higher quality
relationships (r (POC)= -.02; r (W)= -.002, ns) or less discrimination (r (POC) =.08; r (W) =-.02, ns) than
those in cross-race relationships. A significant three-way interaction was found between protégé race,
race of mentor and discrimination in predicting promotions (β=-.17, p<.05; R2 for step=.07, p<.001).
Follow-up analyses revealed that White mentors were associated with more frequent promotions for both
White and protégés of color in low-discrimination environments; however, in high-discrimination
environments this advantage held for White protégés but not for protégés of color. These findings
suggest that White mentors may be beneficial for protégés of color in workplaces that foster racial
equality, but in discriminatory environments, White mentors may be unable, or unwilling, to help their
11607
33
protégés of color advance. A key implication of this finding is that the common practice of advising
protégés of color to seek White mentors needs to be tempered with an assessment of the organizational
context.
Although we controlled for the type of mentor in the above analyses, we also wanted to explicitly
examine whether these relationships held for those with formal mentors. We conducted separate analyses
for those with formal and informal mentors, and found the effects held only for those with informal
mentors. Irrespective of relational quality, mentor or protégé race, formal mentors did not buffer their
protégés from the effects of ambient discrimination.
Taken together, the findings of this study suggest that although protégés of color report more
positive career attitudes and outcomes in the presence of high quality mentors, mentors can only do so
much to buffer them from the effects of a discriminatory workplace. High quality mentoring may help
maintain the protégé’s commitment to the organization in the face of discrimination, but it cannot alter the
ultimate effects of discrimination on promotions or the protégé’s perceptions of the role that race may
play in their future career success. In essence, the yin of mentoring may not be enough to counter the
yang of organizational discrimination.
PRESENTATION #2
The Show Must Go On: What Predicts Mentoring Program Retention and Satisfaction in an
Economic Crisis?
Lisa Finkelstein
Northern Illinois University
11607
34
Kurt Kraiger
Colorado State University
Kristina Matarazzo
Northern Illinois University
In mid-2008, we set out to create a mentoring program from the ground up for a state-wide
employment system in a western U.S. state. Our associated research goal was to test a comprehensive
model of individual, organizational, and process influences on the effectiveness of formal mentoring
programs. We created a model, based largely on direction from Wanberg, Welsh, and Hezlett (2003), that
included mentee and mentor individual difference variables (proactive personality and self-theory),
department-level variables (organization support climate and learning climate), an experimental
(manipulated) goal-progress intervention, and mediating mechanisms (such as similarity, communication,
respect, and relationship quality). Our planned outcomes included not only perceived learning and
organizational commitment, but also actual improvements on a 360 competency measure as well as
comparisons on that measure between mentored and non-mentored employees. We also planned a
longitudinal data collection procedure, collecting data from both mentees and mentors quarterly and
immediately after monthly meetings. Because many departments (that function independently) were
committed to the program, we planned to examine climate variables at an organizational level. Several
scholars (e.g., Finkelstein & Poteet, 2007) have argued that the broad stroke comparison of “informal” vs.
“formal” mentoring avoids the question of what specifically can be done to maximize the effectiveness of
formal programs. Data such as these would make address that question and make a large contribution to
our knowledge of the specific factors and underlying procedures that lead to success in formal programs.
As the study was being pitched to the decision makers in the State government system, there was
a great deal of excitement around an official mentoring program. Several HR directors across the
11607
35
departments pledged mentoring pairs, and support for the program and the accompanying research project
was firm enough to propose and receive a small grant to support the project. Things were looking great.
And then…
And then when we began to recruit mentors and mentees to start an extensive matching process,
excitement for the program cooled off. The economy in the state was starting to downturn, and although
the program was of no cost to the departments, it did require pairs to meet at least once per month during
work time. Several departments backed out or wished to delay participation. Around the same time the
state cancelled their plans for the statewide 360 system (and thus by proxy eliminating one of the most
exciting features of our research design).
When we had originally planned to kick-off the project (after a few labor-intensive months of
developing research materials, an on-line training program, a mentoring guidebook, and matching
surveys), we instead redoubled our efforts toward recruitment. We received permission from the state
director of personnel to send a recruitment email statewide directly to potential participants. Eventually
we accumulated enough interest to kick-off the program again, although in three separate starting cycles
to accommodate various department needs.
Matching was done to create within-department pairs (with the intent of looking at organizational
variables at the department level). Two of the authors used surveys that assessed specific job level,
competency interests, desires in a mentor/mentee, ‘deal-breakers’, and general interests to hand-match as
many pairs as possible. Our initial count at the end of the match process was 197 pairs across 18
departments. Mentors and mentees were informed of their match in an email that included the mentoring
guidebook and a link to the on-line training program to complete together in their first meeting. As part of
that training, pairs were to engage in an exercise to help them get to know each other, and to create a
mentoring agreement and to set initial goals (driven by the mentee’s needs). They were instructed to
complete brief (5 minute) after-meeting check in surveys each time they met, and also received a pre-
11607
36
program questionnaire to assess individual differences, climate perceptions, and demographics. Halfway
through the program a randomly selected pairs received a goal-progress intervention in which they were
fed back their reported data on how frequently they were meeting, asked to reflect on their satisfaction
with this, and asked to assess progress in their goals and if they’d like to change them or create new ones.
Only 138 pairs met at least one time. We later learned that several pairs never received our email
(blocked by their server) or didn’t see it. Other pairs decided, by the time the program actually launched,
that they were no longer interested due to an increased workload and fear of layoffs. Each month after we
sent a check-in email reminder, we received a wave of disheartening emails of people dropping the
program. In some cases there was no chemistry in the match, but the majority of drop-outs cited lack of
time as the main reason. Ultimately, only 58 pairs completed the one-year program. This is both the bad
news and the good news.
Clearly we were quite disappointed at the attrition rate, but 58 pairs survived – despite increased
work pressures and general low morale due to the ‘state of the state.’ Though we were not able to test the
complete multi-level model we intended, we did receive enough data at different time periods to create
composite variables to investigate such questions as:
1. How does mentee and mentor proactive personality and mentee self theory relate to
relationship satisfaction, learning and self-rated competencies, commitment, and retention?
2. How do perceptions of similarity (surface and deep level) relate to relationship satisfaction,
learning and self-rated competencies, commitment, and retention?
3. Did the goal progress intervention have an impact on those outcomes?
4. Does perceived relationship quality mediate these relationships?
5. How do individual perceptions of perceived organizational support and learning climate
moderate the effects of the above variables on the outcomes?
11607
37
The results show a primary determinant of program effectiveness was perceived similarity of the
mentor and mentee. Perceived similarity was measured for factors such as life experiences and
background. There were strong significant relationships between Early, Late, and Overall Perceived
Similarity and Early, Late, and Overall Learning. There was also a significant relationship between Late
and Overall Perceived Similarity and self-ratings of interpersonal competence. Thus, the more mentees
perceived their mentor to be similar to them, the more they felt they learned throughout the program, and
the higher they rated their interpersonal competence at the end of the program. Perceived similarity was
also directly related to relationship quality and to pair retention.
Follow-up mediation analyses revealed that the observed relationships between perceived
similarity and mentee learning were fully mediated by the quality of the relationship between the mentor
and mentee. Thus, it appears that when mentees perceive themselves as more psychologically similar to
the mentor, the two develop a stronger relationship in terms of factors such as satisfaction,
communication, and respect. A stronger relationship, in turn, leads to both greater learning and
development by the mentee, and a longer mentoring relationship.
Importantly, we found main effects for the goal-progress intervention on both dyad quality and on
pair retention. Mentees in pairs who received this email and returned the exercise rated the overall quality
of their relationship to be higher than pairs who did not. Additionally, pairs receiving the email met
longer than did pairs who did not receive the email; the relationship between the intervention and
retention was fully mediated by the effects on relationship quality.
There are several explanations as to why this effect may have occurred. One is that the reminder
may have served as a reminder that someone was “watching them,” and hence interpreted as either
organizational support (e.g., Eby et al. 2004) or a call for increased accountability (Eby & Lockwood,
2005). Alternatively, the reminder may have triggered self-regulatory behaviors on the participants. For
example, Sitzmann and colleagues (Sitzmann & Ely, 2010; Sitzmann, Bell, Kraiger, & Kanar, 2009) has
11607
38
shown that simple prompts such as “are you trying your hardest to reach your goals?” can improve
training performance.
Finally we found some evidence of moderation of perceived organizational support for several,
but not all outcomes. The overall message appears to be that perceived support can sometimes enhance
the positive effects of similarity. For example, mentee organizational commitment was increased only
when both similarity and perceived support were high. Our general lack of findings regarding
organizational commitment could be in part due to the current economic situation with the state. A strong
situation (cf. Mischel, 1977) such as this, that affects all employees on a daily basis, is bound to trump the
effects of a once-a-month intervention.
During our presentation we will present the statistical details of these findings and further discuss
the implications of our findings for formal programs, particularly in the light of forces working against
them. The show can go on.
PRESENTATION #3
Title
Lilian T. Eby
PRESENTATION #4
The Yin & Yang of Inter-Organizational Mentoring
Dawn E. Chandler
California Polytechnic State University
11607
39
Monica C. Higgins
Harvard University
Douglas Minter
Knoxville Chamber of Commerce
Over the past 30 years, an impressive body of mentoring studies has examined mentoring
functions, outcomes, types of alternative relationships, formal programs, diversified relationships,
antecedents, negative experiences, among other mentoring topics (e.g., see Eby & Allen, 2007, Ragins &
Kram, 2007, Noe, Greenberg & Wang, 2003, Wanberg, Welsh & Hezlett, 2003 for reviews). Throughout,
it has been substantiated that mentoring and other developmental relationships—relationships that
contribute to personal growth and career advancement—are key relational vehicles for protégé learning
and development and for organizational benefits such employee training, retention and commitment (see
Table 1 for mentoring benefits) (e.g., Allen et al, 2004, Laband & Lentz, 1995, Lankau & Scandura, 2002,
Zey, 1984).
Most of the field’s studies—sans research on formal mentoring programs, which focuses on
organizational characteristics such as training and volunteerism that affect participant outcomes (e.g.,
Allen, Eby & Lentz, 2006)—occur at an interpersonal level of analysis, that is between individuals. While
most empirical research until the mid-90s focused on the traditional mentoring relationship that involves a
senior, more experienced mentor and a relatively junior protégé, over time, researchers have identified
various types of interpersonal developmental relationships—e.g., peer relationships, intra-team
mentoring—that vary in the type and amount of support they provide a protégé (e.g., Eby, 1997; Hall &
Kahn, 2001).
Practice, however, is outpacing researchers’ efforts to understand mentoring phenomena. The
organizational landscape is littered with learning partnerships between organizations of greater and lesser
knowledge and capability with the intention of furthering one or more organizations’ capabilities. Intra-
11607
40
organizational mentoring arrangements are occurring in such industries an environmental and defense
contracting (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, 2002; Department of Defense Mentor Protégé
Program, 2011). To date, a handful of practitioner writings, either in the form of conference proceedings
(White House Council on Environmental Quality & The National Environmental Education & Training
Foundation Conference Proceedings, 1998) or online anecdotes associated with programs (Department of
Defense Mentor-Protégé Program, http://www.acq.osd.mil, 2011) have made their way online, yet no
scholarly research has considered these alliances.
This study takes a qualitative approach to understanding this phenomenon. Its significance lies in
its dual goals to begin to bridge this gap between practice and research and to further the literature by
introducing inter-organizational mentoring (alternatively referred to as business-to-business mentoring) as
a subject of study.
Inter-organizational mentoring
What is inter-organizational mentoring and what are its benefits? According to the Institute for
Corporate Environmental Mentoring (1998), inter-organizational (“business-to business”) mentoring is an
application of the traditional mentoring relationship involving the senior mentor and junior protégé.
Under inter-organizational environmental mentoring, organizations benefit from other organizations with
greater expertise by gaining greater access to resource and experience in developing and pursuing
environmental strategies (9). In “Environmental Mentoring: Business to Business, Peer to Peer,” the
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality describes environmental mentoring as “…a tool that can help
a company achieve environmental results, with benefits to both the mentor and mentee and the industry
sector. Benefits of mentoring include greater efficiency in achieving solutions, networking, and enhanced
public image” (2: 2002). In a similar mentoring arrangement not aimed at the environmental industry, the
Department of Defense (2008) “assists small businesses (Protégés) to successfully compete for prime
11607
41
contract and subcontract awards by partnering with large companies (Mentors) under individual, project-
based Agreements” (http://www.acq.osd.mil).
Common among these inter-organizational mentoring applications is a partnership between an
organization or group of organizations as mentors and as protégés. The partnerships can be structurally
arranged in various ways, including as associations, in which a larger facility organizes its smaller-sized
competitors into an industry network (association members mentor each other) with the goal of helping
the industry’s image and overall capability, or as supply chain mentoring, in which a larger company with
few peers chooses to mentor its suppliers on best practices. Table 1 on page 6 shows five such structural
mentoring arrangements as well as accompanying benefits purported in practitioner writings (e.g., White
House Council on Environmental Quality & The National Environmental Education & Training
Foundation Conference Proceedings, 1998). We assert inter-organizational mentoring is a tool that can
help a company achieve enhanced strategic and technical results, with benefits to both the mentor and
protégé and the industry sector.
This study involved an examination of 16 mentor and 17 protégé participants in an ongoing three-
year “business-to-business” mentoring program facilitated by a Tennessee Chamber of Commerce. The
first two years protégés are paired with a mentor organization and in year three they become mentors for
another firm. The mentoring firms represent industries such as real estate development, information
technology, regional hospitals, engineering, construction, public relations, dry cleaning, cellular phone,
and financial services. The combined 2009 revenues of the mentors was over $2.6B. Protégés businesses
represent such industries as restaurants, reverse pharmacy distribution, project management, trucking,
military staff augmentation, manufacturing, accounting, janitorial, nuclear and equipment testing, and
safety consulting. The protégé organization representatives are diverse in ethic and gender backgrounds
with nine of the owners being women, nine being minorities, four veteran owned firms, and one of the
owners being from India.
11607
42
Survey and interview data, collected between the first six months to a year into the program,
included questions aimed at understanding what participants gained from the mentoring experience,
challenges in working together, suggestions for the business-to-business program, and efforts taken to
make the relationship of high quality, and factors that lead to successful relationships. Data have been
content analyzed by one author and will be by a second author prior to the presentation. As a third prong
to the qualitative approach, the authors will content analyze a handful of conference proceedings and
online reports of these partnerships for themes related to mentoring benefits, challenges, and the nature of
inter-organizational mentoring. We anticipate introducing a typology of relationships based on the
empirical data analysis. Our presentation will report findings associated with this three-pronged
qualitative approach.
REFERENCES
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., & Lentz, E. (2006). The relationship between formal mentoring program
characteristics and perceived program effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 59: 125-153.
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lima, L., & Lentz, E. (2004). Mentoring benefits: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 127–136.
Allen, T.D. & Eby, L. (2007) (eds.) The Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring: A Multiple Perspectives
Approach. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, Inc.
Blake-Beard, S. D., Murrell, A., & Thomas, D. (2007). Unfinished business: The impact of race
on understanding mentoring relationships. In B. R. Ragins and K. E. Kram (Eds.) The handbook of
mentoring at work: Theory, research and practice (pp. 223-247). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Chrobot-Mason, D., Ragins, B. & Linnehan, F. (2010) The Second Hand Smoke Effect: Race and
awareness of racial harassment in the workplace (under review).
11607
43
Cohen, S. & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological
Bulletin, 98, 310-357.
Department of Defense, Office of Small Business Programs, Mentor Protégé Program (2008).
http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/mentor_protege/
Dreher, G. F., & Cox, T. H. Jr. (1996). Race, gender, and opportunity: A study of compensation
attainment and the establishment of mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 297-308.
Dreher, G. F. & Chargois, J. A. (1998) Gender, mentoring experiences, and salary attainment among
graduates of a historically Black University. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 401-416.
Dutton, J. & Ragins, B. R. (Eds.) (2007). Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a
theoretical and research foundation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates
Eby, L.T., Butts, M., Lockwood, A., & Simon, S.A. (2004). Protégés’ negative mentoring experiences:
Construct development and nomological validation. Personnel Psychology, 57, 411-447.
Eby, L. T., & Lockwood, A. (2005). Protégés’ and mentors’ reactions to participating in formal
mentoring programs: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 441-458.
Eby, L.T. (1997). Alternative forms of mentoring in changing organizational environments: A conceptual
extension of the mentoring literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 125-144.
Finkelstein, L. M., & Poteet, M. L. (2007). Best practices in formal mentoring programs in organizations.
In T. Allen & L. Eby (Eds.). The Blackwell handbook of mentoring. Malden, MA: Blackwell Press.
Glomb, T. M., Richman, W. L., Hulin, C. L.,Drasgow, F., Schneider, K. T., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997).
Ambient sexual harassment: An integrated model of antecedents and consequences. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71 (3), 309-328.
Gonzalez, J., & DeNisi, A.S. (2009). Cross-level effects of demography and diversity climate on
organizational attachment and firm effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 21-40.
Hall, D.T., & Kahn, W.A., (2001). Developmental relationships at work: a learning perspective. From
Cary Cooper and Ronald J. Burke (Eds.), The New World of Work. London: Blackwell, 2001, 49-
74.
Hitlan, R. T., Schneider, K. T. & Walsh, B. M. (2006). Upsetting behavior: Reactions to personal and
bystander sexual harassment experiences. Sex Roles, 55, 187-195.
11607
44
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Pollution Prevention Program.(2002). Environmental
Mentoring, Business to Business, Peer to Peer. (June 20, 2002).
Institute for Corporate Environmental Mentoring (1998). Business helping business corporate
environmental mentoring conference proceedings. www.neetf.org.
James, K., Lovato, C., & Cropanzano, R. (1994). Correlational and known-group comparison validation
of a workplace prejudice/discrimination inventory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1573-
1592.
Laband, D.N., & Lentz, B.F. (1995). Workplace mentoring in the legal profession. Southern Economic
Journal, 61, 783-802.
Lankau, M.J., and Scandura, T.A. (2002). An investigation of personal learning in mentoring
relationships: content, antecedents, and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, vol. 45, no.
4, pp. 779-790.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations:
Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 538-
551.
McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., Tonidandel, S., Morris, M. A., Hernandez, M., & Hebl, M. R. 2007. Racial
differences in employee retention: Are diversity climate perceptions the key? Personnel Psychology,
60: 35-62.
McWhirter, E. H. (1997). Perceived barriers to education and career: Ethnic and gender differences.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 124-140.
Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.),
Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333-352). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Noe, R.A., Greenberger, D.B., & Wang, S (2002). Mentoring: What we know and where we might go. In:
G.R. Ferris & J.J. Martoccio (Eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (Vol.
21, pp. 129-174). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Ragins, B.R. (in press). Relational mentoring: A positive approach to mentoring at work. To appear in
K. Cameron and G. Spreitzer (Eds.) The Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Ragins, B. R. (2007). Diversity and workplace mentoring relationships: A review and positive social
capital approach. In T. D. Allen and L. T. Eby (Eds.) Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple
perspectives approach. (pp. 281-300). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Ragins, B. R. (2002). Understanding diversified mentoring relationships: Definitions, challenges and
strategies. In D. Clutterbuck & B. R. Ragins, Mentoring and diversity: An international perspective
(pp. 23-53). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
11607
45
Ragins, B. R. (1997) Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations: A power perspective.
Academy of Management Review, 22, 2, 482-521.
Ragins, B. R. & Cotton, J. L., (1999) Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and women
in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 4, 529-550.
Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: The effects of type of mentor,
quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes. Academy of Management
Journal, 43, 6, 1177-1194.
Ragins, B.R., and K.E. Kram (eds) (2007), The Handbook of Mentoring at Work: Theory, Research, and
Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Ragins, B. R. & Verbos, A. K. (2007) Positive relationships in action: Relational mentoring and
mentoring schemas in the workplace. In Dutton, J. & Ragins, B. R. (Eds.) Exploring positive
relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation. (pp: 91-116) Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Raver, J. L. & Gelfand, M. J. (2005). Beyond the individual victim: Linking sexual harassment, team
processes, and team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48 (3), 387-400.
Sellers, R. M., Rowley, S. A. J., Chavous, T. M., Shelton, J. N., & Smith, M. A. (1997). Multidimensional
inventory of Black identity: A preliminary investigation of reliability and construct validity. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 805-815.
Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. (2010). Sometimes you need a reminder: The effects of prompting self-regulation
on regulatory processes, learning, and attrition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 132-144.
Sitzmann, T., Bell, B. S., Kraiger, K., & Kanar, A. M. (2009). A multilevel analysis of the effect of
prompting self-regulation in technology-delivered instruction. Personnel Psychology, 62, 697-734.
Thomas, D. A. (2001) The truth about mentoring minorities: Race matters. Harvard Business Review,
April, 99-107.
Thomas, D. A. & Gabarro, J. J. (1999). Breaking through: The making of minority executives in
corporate America. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.
Underhill, C. M. (2006). The effectiveness of mentoring programs in corporate settings: A meta-
analytical review of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 292-307.
Wanberg, C. R., Welsh, E. T., & Hezlett, S. A. (2003). Mentoring research: A review and dynamic
process model. In J. J. Martocchio & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources
management (Vol. 22, pp. 39-124). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
White House Conference Center (1998). Business helping business corporate environmental mentoring
conference proceedings. Jointly sponsored by The White House Council on Environmental Quality
and The National Environment Education and Training Foundation.
Zey, M., (1984). The mentor connection. Homewood, IL: Dow-Jones-Irwin.
11607
46
Table 1 – “Interpersonal” Versus Inter-Organizational Mentoring
“Interpersonal” (Between Individuals) Inter-Organizational (Between
Organizations)
Key Features
Dyadic, network, team or organizational mentoring vehicles that aid a focal person’s (protégé’s) development.
Mentoring functions imparted to protégé drive personal and professional growth
Developmental relationships offer varying types of and amount of functions
An organization or group of organizations as mentors and as protégés
Varying types of support based on the structural arrangement (type of relationship)
Types of
Relationships
Traditional mentoring relationship
Developmental network
Peers
Intra-team
Supply chain
Association
Government,
Business-to-business
11607
47
Professional group association
Family members
Friends
(larger to smaller)
Peer
Benefits*
Protégé
Heightened job satisfaction
Heightened job commitment
Enhanced personal learning
Greater career advancement
Heightened compensation
Organizational
Greater employee retention
Improved employee training
Greater employee commitment
Improved industry image
Lowered costs
Expanded networking opportunities
Widened knowledge base
* In the case of interpersonal relationships, the benefits have been substantiated by a significant number of
empirical studies. Since there is a paucity of inter-organizational/business-to-business mentoring studies, the
purported benefits have been asserted in practitioner reports, not on the basis of empirical investigation.
RULE OF THREE STATEMENTS (In alphabetical order by last name)
11607
48
Dear Program Chairs:
This e-mail is written to confirm that I have been invited to participate in a paper symposium
being organized by Shoshana Dobrow, Dawn Chandler and Wendy Murphy for the 2011 meeting of the
Academy of Management. I have agreed to be available during the meeting dates and to participate in the
session, should it be selected by the program chairs. I further agree that my participation will not violate
AOM's "Rule of Three."
Best,
Marcus Butts
Dear Program Chairs:
This e-mail is written to confirm that I have been invited to participate in a paper symposium
being organized by Shoshana Dobrow, Dawn Chandler and Wendy Murphy for the 2011 meeting of the
Academy of Management. I have agreed to be available during the meeting dates and to participate in the
session, should it be selected by the program chairs. I further agree that my participation will not violate
AOM's "Rule of Three."
Best,
Lillian Eby
Dear Program Chairs:
Should the symposium be accepted, my participation will not violate AOM's rule of three.
11607
49
Kyle Ehrhardt
Dear Program Chairs:
This e-mail is written to confirm that I have been invited to participate in a paper symposium
being organized by Shoshana Dobrow, Dawn Chandler and Wendy Murphy for the 2011 meeting of the
Academy of Management. I have agreed to be available during the meeting dates and to participate in the
session, should it be selected by the program chairs. I further agree that my participation will not violate
AOM's "Rule of Three."
Best,
Lisa Finkelstein
Dear Program Chairs:
This e-mail is written to confirm that I have been invited to participate in a paper symposium organized
by Shoshana Dobrow, Dawn Chandler and Wendy Murphy for the 2011 meeting of the Academy of
Management. I have agreed to be available during the meeting dates and to participate in the session,
should it be selected by the program chairs. I further agree that my participation will not violate AOM's
"Rule of Three."
My contact information is below.
Cordially,
Kurt
11607
50
Dear Program Chairs:
This e-mail is written to confirm that I have been invited to participate in a paper symposium organized
by Shoshana Dobrow, Dawn Chandler and Wendy Murphy for the 2011 meeting of the Academy of
Management. I have agreed to be available during the meeting dates and to participate in the session,
should it be selected by the program chairs. I further agree that my participation will not violate AOM's
"Rule of Three."
Sincerely,
Monica Higgins
Dear Program Chairs:
This e-mail is written to confirm that I have been invited to participate in a paper symposium being
organized by Shoshana Dobrow, Dawn Chandler and Wendy Murphy for the 2011 meeting of the
Academy of Management. I have agreed to be available during the meeting dates and to participate in the
session, should it be selected by the program chairs. I further agree that my participation will not violate
AOM's "Rule of Three."
Best,
Karen Lyness
Dear Program Chairs:
This e-mail is written to confirm that I have been invited to participate in a paper symposium organized
11607
51
by Shoshana Dobrow, Dawn Chandler and Wendy Murphy for the 2011 meeting of the Academy of
Management. I have agreed to be available during the meeting dates and to participate in the session,
should it be selected by the program chairs. I further agree that my participation will not violate AOM's
"Rule of Three."
Sincerely,
Kristina Matarazzo
Dear Program Chairs:
This e-mail is written to confirm that I have been invited to participate in a paper symposium being
organized by Shoshana Dobrow, Dawn Chandler and Wendy Murphy for the 2011 meeting of the
Academy of Management. I have agreed to be available during the meeting dates and to participate in the
session, should it be selected by the program chairs. I further agree that my participation will not violate
AOM's "Rule of Three."
Best,
Douglas Minter
Dear Program Chairs:
This e-mail is written to confirm that I have been invited to participate in a paper symposium being
organized by Shoshana Dobrow, Dawn Chandler and Wendy Murphy for the 2011 meeting of the
Academy of Management. I have agreed to be available during the meeting dates and to participate in the
11607
52
session, should it be selected by the program chairs. I further agree that my participation will not violate
AOM's "Rule of Three."
Best Regards,
Dianne Murphy
Dear Program Chairs:
This e-mail is written to confirm that I have been invited to participate in a paper symposium organized
by Shoshana Dobrow, Dawn Chandler and Wendy Murphy for the 2011 meeting of the Academy of
Management. I have agreed to be available during the meeting dates and to participate in the session,
should it be selected by the program chairs. I further agree that my participation will not violate AOM's
"Rule of Three."
Sincerely,
Belle Rose Ragins
11607
53
Reports PROPEL Mentor Protégé Program Results
Propel Results July, 2010- June, 2011: http://issuu.com/dougminter/docs/knoxville_chamber
Proplel Results July, 2011 – June, 2012: Pending
11607
54
Testimonials Words from Mentors & Protégés
11607
55
Resources Valuable links Related to Each Chapter
Chapter One
Chapter Two
Chpater Three
Chapter Four
Chapter Five
Chapter Six
Personality Test:
www.annimalinyou.com
Chapter Seven
Chapter Eight
Chapter Nine
Chapter Ten
11607
56
Casting Call How to select a Director of a Mentor/Protégé Program
top related