Christine Raneri February 10, 2000
In order to stay competitive and survive, corporations are becoming leaner, tighter working units, which are facing major structural and design changes and have to reevaluate their corporate strategy. Corporations that were built as multi-layered hierarchical power houses are now downsizing and implementing TQM, reward systems and allocating more money to training programs. These corporations are also restructuring work environments to be more diverse, cooperative and team based. An organization�s key asset is its people and since these changes are making career stability seem more unstable, corporations need to retain and recruit workers by providing them with the key skills and abilities that will make them more marketable both inside and outside of the organization. One way corporations are doing this is through the strategy of mentoring. If implemented and nurtured correctly, mentoring can be the key to a corporation�s survival and individual�s professional and personal development, but unless these relationships are nurtured with both individual and organization needs in mind, they can become stressful relationships which cause conflict within both parties, filtering negatively throughout the corporation.
The term mentoring is a process that enables an individual (prot�g�) to develop personal and professional growth as a result of a special relationship with another individual (mentor) who serves as a guide (Kram, 1985). The mentor takes the prot�g� under his/her wing, per se, and helps to socialize the fledgling into corporate culture and political ways. The mentor communicates information, personal insight, tips, techniques and advice regarding the corporation�s culture: who the key people are, strategies within the organization etc., and the corporate politics: how work gets accomplished. Other functions of the mentor are to provide support, direction, and feedback regarding career plans and personal development (Levinson et. al., 1978). The mentor achieves this by providing exposure, protection and challenge (career plans) to the prot�g� all the while increasing the prot�g�s sense of identity, and competencies (personal development). Overall, mentorships are implemented to help remove barriers within a corporation in order to help the prot�g� move within it (Stokes, 1994). Mentorship programs first began in the 1970�s as a training tool for managers. It was a way to ease the manager-to-be into the position more effectively. Due to this idea of moving up the corporate ladder, the mentor/prot�g� relationship was seen as an honor and allowed to a select few, consisting mostly of young white males who came from prestigious backgrounds, but as corporations become flatter, creating fewer opportunities to advance, corporations changed the look of the mentorship relationship to encompass all employees of a corporation (Stokes, 1994). Since it has been realized that people are a corporation�s greatest tool for survival, in order to retain and recruit the best employees, organizations need to continually assess the affects that the implementation of new strategies, such as mentoring, will have on the corporation. If implemented correctly, mentorship programs provide many benefits to fulfilling an individual�s needs both professionally and personally, which will positively filtrate throughout the organization.
Mentorships report faster promotion rates, increased compensation, increased job satisfaction, accelerated career mobility, and reduced role conflict and role ambiguity for the prot�g� (Russell, 1997). Mentors benefit in that their internal satisfaction has been met, they gain a renewed outlook on their jobs, the organization and themselves and they receive organizational recognition, which increases ones job satisfaction (Levinson, et al., 1978). Due to happier and more satisfied workers organizations see the benefit through increased productivity, enhanced organization-wide communication, and lower levels of turnover (Russell, 1997). Prot�g�s are thought to benefit the most from a mentor relationship and in a more direct way. Individuals who have had mentors are shown to socialize into the corporate culture quicker, have greater job satisfaction, increased pay and faster advancement. As newcomers to an organization, individuals feel lost, confused, have low self-identity and question their abilities to do the job. Mentors are known to reduce feelings of ambiguity for a prot�g�, and do it in a shorter period of time compared to someone who did not have a mentor. This is due to one of the mentors many functions of showing the prot�g� the �ropes,� introducing him to co-workers, sharing tips such as dress code, where the bathrooms are and most important explaining what the prot�g�s job duties are. In a study conducted by Roche (1979), out of 1,250 executives surveyed, two-thirds reported having had a mentor and of these two-thirds, one-third of them reported having at least 2 mentors throughout their careers. This finding alone shows that a large number of high ranked executives have had mentors, leading one to roughly conclude that mentors can help advance one�s career. This study�s greatest finding, however, was in the fact that one-half of the executives who had a mentor reported very high satisfaction with their career progress and greater pleasure in their work (56 hour work week was average) where only 4 in 10 of those reporting not having had a mentor where satisfied. Another finding by Roche (1979) was that executives who had a mentor earned more money at a younger age. Executives who had a mentor were, on average, 2 years younger than the average respondent and had a 28% increase in salary and a 65% increase in bonus. This high level of success is due to the power the prot�g� has received by being in a relationship with a mentor. Mentors provide �reflected power� (Roche, 1979). Reflected power is power that a mentor has acquired through the years, that now the prot�g� acquires thru affiliation with the mentor. This power enables a prot�g� to access opportunities not otherwise attainable to a lower level employee (Roche, 1979). When one is asked to list the benefits of a mentorship, he/she is most likely going to list benefits to the prot�g� with little thought of the mentor. In a study done by Burke (1984), when prot�g�s were asked about the possible benefits their mentors might gain from the relationship, over half reported that they did not see any benefit for the mentor. Research continually shows, however, that mentors do gain from this relationship. It might not be as outwardly visible as benefits that the prot�g� might receive, but they still are important benefits for the mentor. Research for example, has shown mentors to benefit by ways of internal satisfaction, a rejuvenated outlook and organizational recognition that they recognize by being applauded for good work (Levinson, et. al., 1978).
Most mentors are older and have reached a plateau in their career in terms of future advancement. These members are satisfied with the position they hold, and would now like to share their wealth of experience and knowledge with others. They benefit from an internal satisfaction of feeling that their past experiences are important and can be used to help someone else whose shoes they were once in. This reappraisal of ones past is a central development task at midlife. Mentors also gain a new outlook due to their role. Prot�g�s are usually fresh out of college with energy to learn and grow. They bring new ideas and outlooks which naturally rubs off onto the mentors who become rejuvenated in their own careers, improving performance of their jobs (Levinson et al., 1978). Kathy Kram, the most published researcher in the topic of mentorship�s found a third benefit to mentors, which is organizational recognition. This recognition can come from peers admiration and respect for the senior mentor whom they worked with directly or heard about through their peers and mentors can receive recognition from higher ranked officials acknowledging the good work the mentor is doing by verbal cues (good job) or bonuses (Kram, 1985).
When the individuals are benefited from a mentoring relationship so, too will the organization. It has been shown that with greater job satisfaction comes increased productivity. This increased productivity benefits the organization in that they have less turnover, and absenteeism, but most important to one�s bottom-line, is that increased productivity allows the corporation to stay competitive. This is not the only benefit that organizations receive from successful mentorships. They also aid in the development of managerial type talent (Hunt, 1983). This is true as long as the mentor him/herself is well educated and rehearsed in his/her job duties and the corporate culture (a corporation is only as good as its people). Organizations are also better able to keep a handle on issues that could become a bigger problem if not detected. Mentors can act as an organization�s eyes and ears along the �pipeline� and forewarn the necessary people if he/she suspects animosity among the departments so that an organization can block the flame from gaining further fuel (Wilson & Elman, 1990).
As shown through numerous studies and first hand accounts, mentoring can be a very beneficial and powerful tool for individuals and corporations alike, but with anything, where there are benefits, there are costs. 90% of mentoring research has looked at the successful mentoring relationships leaving only a handful of researchers studying the unsuccessful mentorships and repercussions that follow. Kram (1985) was the first to acknowledge that although a mentorship starts out successful, it has the ability over time, to become �dissatisfying and destructive as individual needs and organizational circumstances change� (Kram, 1985). She defined this relationship between the prot�g� and mentor as �destructive.�
Since mentorships are based around the communication of two individuals the relationship has the opportunity to become very intense. Conflict is inevitable but can also be seen as a valuable learning tool for the prot�g�. Conflict is part of a corporation�s daily life and prot�g�s would be smart to be aware of the conflicts that arise within the mentor relationship and learn how to analyze and manage them so that when they occur between other staff or customers the prot�g� will be better able to handle himself professionally. It is when this conflict is not managed properly that the mentor relationship becomes dysfunctional which, in turn, will have serious consequences for both individuals and the organization.
Since mentor relationships can be stripped down to becoming the communication between two people, a social psychology approach can be integrated (Duck, 1994). This approach takes the general relationship between two people and places them in the work environment to see how the dynamics can be similar. This adapted literature combined with mentor research has identified interactions between mentor and prot�g� that have the potential to be destructive. These interactions were categorized into four types of destructive relationships: �Negative� relationships entail the mentor taking on a role of a bully or tyrant. �Sabotage� is the relationship that looks at behaviors between the dyad that are vengeful. When the behaviors between the dyad are said to be genuinely good, but conflicts arise, the relationship can be said to be �Difficult.� A relationship typed as �Spoiling� occurs when one or both parties feel betrayed by the other and therefore regret beginning the relationship (Scandura, 1998).
The mentor/prot�g� in a �difficult� relationship can be described as both individuals having good intentions but the problem is conflicting views on a particular subject. Consider the conflict between success versus a family. A mentor may want to see his prot�g� move into a more prestigious position so he innocently (in his mind) suggests to his prot�g� that she not have another child (which she was considering) so that she can put more time and energy into getting this new position. Despite good intentions, the problem lies in that there is a conflict between how the dyad views success. This can cause the prot�g� and the mentor stress and anxiety. Neither feels like the other hold the right values (Scandura, 1998). Another conflict that often arises between the two is time. Much time and energy are needed inorder to cultivate a great mentorship, but if one party does not give the time than the relationship remains stagnant and one is bound to suffer (Stokes, 1994). The victim is usually the prot�g�, according to a survey that found most mentors said they had a hard time finding an hour in a month to meet with the prot�g�. The best way to deal with conflicting values and time commitments is for both individuals, at the beginning of the relationship, to share expectations of what they are hoping to gain from the mentorship, and for both parties to be honest with the other so that the relationship may be built on trust (Geiger, 1995). If this does not work, the prot�g� can either stay and become submissive or terminate the relationship and hope to find a mentor that s/he feels better matches her values.
If the conflict doesn�t become remedied and the prot�g� decides to terminate this potentially positive relationship, s/he has two options on how to end the relationship. The prot�g� can either talk with the mentor to create a mutual feeling of exit or the prot�g� can go behind the mentor�s back and terminate the relationship without voicing it. This last option is the option most used since prot�g�s feel threatened by the high positions mentors hold. If the mentor found out after the fact, the mentor might feel betrayed.
This type of interaction falls under the �spoiling� relationship. Spoiling can also occur if one member feels betrayed due to the other stealing ideas and taking full credit, or when a mentor feels that the prot�g� is not performing as well as s/he should which reflects poorly on the mentor who will have his competence, in picking and cultivating good talent, scrutinized by peers. This same scenario can also be reversed in that the prot�g� may feel betrayed if his particular mentor has come short in holding the proper skills or power to help the prot�g� succeed within his/her career. All of these examples create a sense of anger and frustration in the individual who feels like s/he has wasted time and energy in a dead end relationship. Even if the relationship becomes terminated, feelings of betrayal last a long time. If this anger stews long enough, the victim may choose to react, by getting revenge on the betrayer (Scandura, 1998).
This destructive behavior leads to a relationship based on �sabotage.� Sabotage can be done either directly with verbal insults or indirectly by ruing ones reputation within the corporation or worse yet within the industry. When relationships reach this level, it may be time to look at professional interventions such as mediators. Another example of sabotage is when a mentor tries to delay or sabotage a prot�g�s chances at promotion because the mentor has become dependent on using the prot�g� as personal assistant. This type of abuse leads into the last destructive relationship labeled as �negative.� In this type of relationship the mentor is seen as a tyrant and bully who exploits the prot�g�s role in the relationship for the mentor�s own personal gain. This exploitive behavior can lead the prot�g� to stay in the relationship out of fear for the mentor�s power within the corporation or s/he can terminate the relationship, which leads back through the cycle of destructive relationships (Scandura, 1998).
Since mentorships are open to all employees, and since women are infiltrating the workforce in large numbers a fifth destructive relationship has emerged labeled �harassment�(Ragins, 1997). Although there are large numbers of women in the workforce, there are few who are high enough in a corporation to act as a mentor. This leads to a relationship formed between the different genders, which can become destructive if seen as imbalanced in power. Sexual harassment and ultimatums, for example, are clear dysfunctional behaviors that are focused on power more than sex. Power differentials are not always the culprit of dysfunction, but become issues when used to dominate or control the prot�g�. Another problem, which is not about power, is when the mentor relationship becomes a sexual (mutual) one. Due to an unclear boundary between what is personal and what is professional, peers might become jealous of favoritism that is being displayed. The best possible solution is for the relationship to be terminated on the professional level. Mentors who are faced with rumors that they are harassing their prot�g�s or that they chose their prot�g�s because they are �cute� can be remedied by the mentor mentoring a group of at least 3 individuals of mixed gender so that rumors are harder to be created (Odiorne, 1985).
All of these negative behaviors do not go unnoticed within the organization. The negative energy between individuals becomes very costly on an organization in multiple ways. When energy becomes negative it is not being used at its full potential and drags individuals down from participating in more productive activities. This decrease in energy causes a decrease in job satisfaction that ripples into decreased productivity. Dysfunctional relationships also have the potential of increasing turnover and absenteeism rates which causes production to slow down and ripples to the employees who are now angry for having to work longer hours.
Mentor relationships are unique and specific to the individuals involved. Although there is no one best way or specific model to use in order to achieve a successful mentorship, there are features within an organization that can either create or interfere with conditions that support a successful mentor relationship. In order to create an environment that fosters more positive relationships they need to look at such organizational features as reward systems, work design, the culture of the corporation and an individuals skills and values (Kram, 1985).
Organizations need to focus their reward structures not only to recognizing ones performance, but also the benefits received from ones social relationships. Monetary bottom-line rewards set a tone that forming relationships between individuals (as in mentoring) is unimportant. Higher-level workers who see becoming a mentor time consuming and a waste of time, if no recognition is to come out of it, are likely not to support mentoring. Only when individuals find opportunities for personal growth and are rewarded for their skills will they support mentorships, therefore becoming a mentor (Kram, 1985). As with reward systems, a corporation�s culture impacts the tone for whether or not an individual will engage in forming mentor relationships. Organizations do this by defining what behaviors and attitudes are valued within the company. A corporation that rewards employees for helping each other learn new skills and leaders who have been mentored in their past jobs are more likely to engage in successful mentor programs than those corporations that are result-oriented and who are more concerned with maximizing technology (Collins & Scott, 1978). Organizations also need to restructure their work environment in order to create a successful mentor program. If the work is autonomous and individuals are secluded from others, there will be little opportunity to create social ties among co-workers and people at different levels. A way to eleviate this interference is for the organization to restructure the work environment into a team-based atmosphere (Kram, 1985). This does not automatically create mentorships, but it does allow workers to become socialized more quickly, learn new skills and receive feedback which are functions found to be in a traditional mentor relationship.
Since there are no set rules that govern mentor programs, some sensible ethical rules for mentoring have been developed by George Ordaine (1995), a professor and an author of over 200 articles and 19 books based on strategic management. He believes that mentorships should be temporary, with annual review, so not to let what he terms as a�crown princes� to emerge. Crown Princes are prot�g�s who have received a bit of power and so become cocky and slack off, thinking that their newfound power will cushion them with supervisors. Besides making the relationship temporary, another way to bring a prot�g� off his/her high horse is to have a mentor step back from the campaigning role and let prot�g�s sink and swim for themselves every once in a while. This is a good way for prot�g�s to learn humbleness. A mentor should have two or three mentors so not to be charged with favoritism or harassment. Mentors need not demand gratitude in the form of ultimatums from the prot�g�, such as sexual favors, playing the role of a secretary and running meaningless errands (Ordaine, 1995). A mentor should not be a prot�g�s supervisor or supervisor�s boss. Supervisors are already thought to be coaching the employee for specific reasons and conflict can arise when performance appraisals are due or promotions come up (Geiger, 1995). In Ordaine�s view, a mentor�s key role is to create a relationship that is based on trust. Without it there is no relationship and so no commitment (Ordaine, 1995). Mentoring is a proven method for developing individual and organization success. However, if an organization fails to assess this beneficial strategy for its problems, it can become the strategic tool that helps in the corporations ruin. Once organizations understand the problems that can arise, they will be able to improve on this �indispensable� (Myers, 1985) method putting a corporation ahead of its competition.
References
Duck, S. (1994). Strategens, spoils, and a serpent�s tooth: On the delights and dilemmas of personal relationships. The dark side of communication. N.J.:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Geiger, A. (1995). Mentoring: A practioner�s guide. Training and Development, 51- 54.
Hunt, D. (1983). Mentorship: A career training and development tool. Academy of Management Review. 8, 475-485.
Kram, K. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Levinson, D.J., Klein, E.B., Levinson, M.H., & McKeen. (1978). The Seasons of a man�s life. New York: Knopf.
Myers, D.W., & Humphreys, N.J. (1985). The caveats in mentorship. Business Horizon, 28: 9-14.
Odiorne, George. (1985). Mentoring- an American management innovation. Personnel Administrator.
Roche, G. (1979). Much ado about mentoring. Harvard Business Review. 57, 14-28.
Russell, J. (1997). The changing nature of mentoring in organizations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 1-14.
Scandura, T. (1998). Dysfunctional mentoring relationships and outcomes. Journal of Management. 24, 449-467.
Stokes, S. (1994). Networking with a human face. Information Systems Management, 34-40.
Wilson & Elman. (1990). Organizational benefits of mentoring. Acadamy of Management Executive, 4: 88-94.
