Content uploaded by Amanda Gudmundsson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Amanda Gudmundsson on Jun 22, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
The relationship between
mentee-mentor gender
combination and the provision
of distinct mentoring functions
Jane L. Fowler
School of Human Services, Griffith University, Brisbane,
Australia and West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
Amanda J. Gudmundsson
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia, and
John G. O’Gorman
Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationships between specific gender
combinations of mentor-mentee and distinct mentoring functions.
Design/methodology/approach – Of the 500 participants, 272 were mentees and 228 were mentors
from public- and private-sector organisations, representing all four gender combinations of
mentor-mentee. Participants completed a 36-item measure of mentoring functions.
Findings – Hierarchical regression analyses revealed few significant relationships between gender
and mentoring functions. As far as mentees were concerned, female mentors provided personal and
emotional guidance to a greater extent than male mentors; female mentors provided career
development facilitation to a greater extent than male mentors and female mentees were provided with
career development facilitation to a greater extent than male mentees; also female mentees were
provided with role modelling to a greater extent than male mentees. As far as mentors were concerned,
there were no significant differences in the functions provided to female and male mentees.
Research limitations/implications – The study emphasized the need to use measurement tools
that examine distinct, rather than categories of, mentoring functions. The findings also suggest that
gender may not be as influential, with regard to mentoring functions, as has previously been proffered.
Knowledge about the relationships between gender and particular mentoring functions may be
beneficial for potential and actual mentees and mentors as they make decisions about becoming
involved in mentoring relationships, engage in contracting processes, and monitor and review their
relationships.
Originality/value – The study was the first to explore the perceptions of both mentees and mentors
on gender differences in mentoring functions provided, using an adequate sample and a mentoring
instrument designed on a gender representative sample.
Keywords Gender, Mentoring, Mentors
Paper type Research paper
Mentoring is the relationship between a person with advanced experience and
knowledge and a more junior person who seeks assistance, guidance and support for
their career, personal and professional development (Fowler and O’Gorman, 2005).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0964-9425.htm
WIMR
22,8
666
Received May 2007
Accepted August 2007
Women in Management Review
Vol. 22 No. 8, 2007
pp. 666-681
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0964-9425
DOI 10.1108/09649420710836335
Early research on mentoring (Kanter, 1977; Kram, 1980; Levinson, 1978) recognised the
importance of gender in developmental relationships. Over the past 20 years, with a
rapid increase in the number of women in the workforce (O’Neill et al., 1999; Tharenou,
1997) and their entry into managerial positions, it is not surprising that gender has
become a major focus in mentoring research and practice. Many organisations have
established mentoring programs aimed specifically at the development and
advancement of women (Clutterbuck and Ragins, 2002). Research has focussed on
the impact of gender on the processes that occur within mentoring relationships,
specifically the relationships between gender and the mentoring functions provided.
Research in this area, however, has been limited by inadequate samples and
measurement tools, a focus on categories rather than distinct mentoring functions, and
investigation of the issue from the mentees’ perspectives only.
Literature review
One of the earliest investigations of the impact of gender on mentoring functions was
conducted by Kram (1980, 1985). Kram’s qualitative study noted that cross-gender
relationships tended to be limited in the functions they provided. For example, she
suggested that friendship and other important functions that involve one-on-one contact
(e.g. coaching and counselling) may be limited in cross-gender relationships due to
anxiety about informal interactions and scrutiny by other members of the organisation.
As Kram’s sample (which incorporated 18 mentoring relationships from a single
organisation) included only one female mentor, it can be assumed that her conclusions
about cross-gender relationships are based on male-mentor/female-mentee dyads.
Since, Kram’s (1980, 1985) early work, much of the research on gender and
mentoring has taken a more quantitative, empirical approach. Although most studies
have investigated the effects of mentee or mentor gender alone, some researchers have
recognised the importance of investigating the effect of the mentee-mentor gender
composition on the mentoring relationship (Hunt and Michael, 1983; Koberg et al., 1998;
Ragins, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1999; Sosik and Godshalk, 2000a, b).
Research on the relationships between mentee gender and mentoring functions has
yielded mixed results. Those studies demonstrating a gender difference have, in general,
found that female mentees are more likely than male mentees to report experiencing
psychosocial functions from their mentors (Burke, 1984; McGuire, 1999; Noe, 1988;
Reich, 1986; Stonewater et al., 1990). For example, Stonewater et al. (1990) found that
women described the nature of their “helping relationships” in terms of personal
connections and support, whereas men described an objective sense of encouragement
related to their work. Similarly, McGuire (1999) found that men received significantly
more instrumental help, and women received significantly more socio-emotional help
from their mentors. Allen and Eby (2004) found that mentors reported providing more
psychosocial mentoring to females but no relationship between career- related mentoring
and mentee gender. In contrast to these findings, other researchers (Koberg et al., 1998;
Ragins and McFarlin, 1990; Turban and Dougherty, 1994) found no differences in the
functions provided to male and female mentees.
As with mentee gender, examination of the impact of mentor gender on the
provision of mentoring functions has met with mixed results. Burke (1984) reported
that female mentors performed more psychosocial functions and had a greater impact
on the career aspirations of their mentees than male mentors. Gaskill (1991) found that
Mentee-mentor
gender
combination
667
female mentees with female mentors reported that their mentors “served as a role
model” and “enabled the exploration of personal concerns” to a greater extent than
male mentors. When mentors were asked about the functions they provided, Burke
et al. (1990, 1993) found that female mentors provided more career development and
psychosocial functions than male mentors. Also asking mentors, Allen and Eby (2004)
found that female mentors reported providing more psychosocial mentoring and that
male mentors reported providing more career mentoring to their mentees. In contrast to
these conclusions, however, Ragins and McFarlin (1990) found that mentor gender did
not significantly influence mentees’ perceptions of the extent to which career
development and psychosocial functions were provided by mentors. Similarly, Ensher
and Murphy (1997) did not report that female mentors provided more psychosocial
support than male mentors.
It is important to note that the studies finding no gender differences measured
mentoring functions with instruments designed on the basis of findings from
samples dominated by males (Kram, 1980, 1985). Conversely, those studies that found a
gender difference have utilised qualitative and other survey methodologies.
Instruments designed on findings from a non-representative sample may have failed
to adequately identify dimensions on which gender may have emerged as an important
distinguishing factor.
Focussing only on the gender of the mentee or mentor may obscure potentially more
important findings with respect to the combinations of mentor and mentee gender
(Hunt and Michael, 1983; Koberg et al., 1998; Ragins, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1999; Sosik and
Godshalk, 2000a, b). Consistent with Kram’s (1980, 1985) observations, other
researchers have found that psychosocial functions are those most likely to be affected
by the gender composition of the relationship. For example, Reich (1985, 1986)
found that female-female relationships reported closer friendship and personal bonds
and Ragins and McFarlin (1990) reported that the gender composition of the
mentor-mentee dyad influenced 2 of 11 measured mentor roles (viz. social roles and
role modeling). Similarly, Cordes and Gibson (1996) found that the dyad composition
had more impact on some functions than others. Specifically, mentees in same-gender
dyads reported significantly more role-modelling, counselling, and confidence
building. However, Allen and Eby (2004) did not find support for their hypothesis
that gender composition would be related to career or psychosocial mentoring.
In general, these studies have concluded that same-gender mentoring relationships
provide a greater extent of psychosocial functions than cross-gender relationships.
Notably, in the studies that measured distinct functions rather than categories (Cordes
and Gibson, 1996; Ragins and McFarlin, 1990), only specific psychosocial functions were
significantly different, thus indicating the importance of examining distinct functions.
Caution needs to be exercised, however, in extending these conclusions about same-
and cross-gender relationships. For instance, the functions provided in a cross-gender
relationship comprising a male mentor with a female mentee may be different from
those provided by a female mentor to a male mentee. In recognition of this complexity,
several researchers (Burke, 1984; Burke et al., 1990; Sosik and Godshalk, 2000a, b) have
investigated the impact of the specific gender combination on mentoring functions
provided. Burke and his colleagues (Burke, 1984; Burke et al., 1990) found, consistent
with other studies, that psychosocial functions were provided to a greater extent when
women were involved as either mentees or mentors, and this effect was most
WIMR
22,8
668
pronounced in female mentors. McGuire (1999) found that both male and female
mentees received more instrumental help from their male mentors and more
socio-emotional help from their female mentors. Female mentors, interestingly,
differentiated between their mentees, providing less instrumental and more
socio-emotional help to their females than males. Allen and Eby (2004) found that
male mentors reported providing a similar degree of psychosocial mentoring to male
and female mentees and that female mentors reported providing a greater degree of
psychosocial mentoring to female mentees than to male mentees.
The only study to compare all four gender combinations (although the
female-mentor/male-mentee combination was under-represented in comparison to the
other three) across distinct functions, rather than categories, was conducted by Ragins
and Cotton (1999). They found that gender composition affected two psychosocial
functions: female mentees with female mentors were significantly more likely to report
engaging in social activities than female mentees with male mentors, and male mentees
with female mentors were significantly less likely than all other gender combinations
to report that their mentor provided acceptance roles.
In general, studies investigating the impact of gender composition on mentoring
functions have found that psychosocial functions are more common when a female
mentor is involved, particularly with a female mentee. Interestingly, several studies
reported that career functions are more common in male-mentor/female-mentee
relationships (Burke, 1984; McGuire, 1999; Ragins and Cotton, 1999; Sosik and
Godshalk, 2000a, b) and that mentoring functions are less extensive when the mentee is
male (Burke, 1984; Burke et al., 1990, 1993; Ragins and Cotton, 1999; Sosik and
Godshalk, 2000a, b). These conclusions, however, are based on findings from studies,
with the exception of that conducted by Ragins and Cotton (1999), that investigated
categories rather than distinct mentoring functions. Indeed, Ragins and Cotton’s
finding that the particular gender composition of the relationship has an effect on
distinct mentoring functions strongly supports the notion that relationships between
these variables should be further investigated.
The current study
The current study is designed to address several methodological limitations of
previous research. For example, research to date has been limited by small sample
sizes, particularly in regard to the female-mentor/male-mentee relationship. Although
this limitation to some extent reflects the low representation of that particular
combination in the workplace (Hunt and Michael, 1983; Ragins, 1994, 1999), an
adequate number of participants need to be recruited from each gender combination in
order to draw conclusions about the impact of gender combination on mentoring.
A second limitation is that researchers have generally used instruments to measure
mentoring functions that were developed on Kram’s (1980, 1985) original findings
derived from a sample dominated by males working in a single organisation.
Considering the changes that have taken place in the workforce since 1980, particularly
in relation to the increase in the number of women (O’Neill et al., 1999), and findings
that mentoring relationships are affected by some features of an organisation (Kram
and Isabella, 1985), these instruments may no longer have sufficient validity. In
particular, these instruments may fail to adequately identify dimensions on which
gender may emerge as an important distinguishing factor.
Mentee-mentor
gender
combination
669
Previous research has also been limited by the measurement of “categories”
(e.g. psychosocial and career) rather than “distinct” mentoring functions. Although a
vast body of literature supports the two-factor conceptualisation of mentoring as the
basis for measurement of mentoring functions (Allen and Eby, 2004; Noe, 1988), it is
more theoretically and practically useful to be able to distinguish which particular
functions impact on, and are impacted on, other variables such as mentoring outcomes
and gender (Cordes and Gibson, 1996; Fowler and O’Gorman, 2005). The few studies
that investigated distinct functions (Cordes and Gibson, 1996; Ragins and McFarlin,
1990) found that it was specific psychosocial functions that were significantly different
in regard to gender, thus emphasising the importance of examining distinct functions
rather than categories.
Most studies investigating mentoring functions have examined the issue from the
mentees’ perspective. Kram (1980, 1985), Burke et al. (1993) and, more recently, Allen
and Eby (2004), are among the few exceptions to this. Several researchers have
suggested the need to gain the perspectives of mentors about the extent to which they
provide mentoring functions (Noe, 1988; Ragins, 1999).
Finally, several researchers have discussed the importance of controlling for
variables that may vary by mentee or mentor gender and may also affect mentoring
processes (Ragins, 1999; Ragins and Cotton, 1999; Ragins and McFarlin, 1990). In
particular, two variables are considered important: whether the relationship is informal
(i.e. emerged or developed spontaneously out of informal interactions between mentee
and mentor) or formal (i.e. assigned or selected through the organisation), and whether
or not the mentor is the mentee’s supervisor. Indeed, several researchers have found
differences in the type of mentoring functions provided when comparing formal
and informal relationships (Chao et al., 1992; Fagenson-Eland et al., 1997; Ragins and
Cotton, 1999) and comparing the functions provided by supervisory mentors with
non-supervisory mentors (Burke et al., 1993; Fagenson-Eland et al., 1997; Ragins and
Cotton, 1999, Ragins and McFarlin, 1990; Sosik and Godshalk, 2005). To add
complexity to these findings, researchers have found that males are significantly more
likely to have formal mentors (Ragins and Cotton, 1999) and that females may be more
likely to develop mentoring relationships with their supervisors (Ragins and McFarlin,
1990). The significance of these findings, for the current study, is that because these
variables may vary by gender, they should be controlled for in analyses that
investigate the impact of gender on mentoring functions.
The purpose of the present study is to investigate the relationships between specific
gender combinations of mentor-mentee and distinct mentoring functions. In doing so, a
sample that represents all four combinations of mentor-mentee will be recruited.
The study will use a measure of distinct mentoring functions developed on an
appropriate sample (mentees and mentors from a range of organisations, representing
all four gender combinations) and will investigate the issue from the perspectives of
both mentees and mentors. Variables that have been found to vary by gender and
impact on mentoring functions will be controlled for in analyses.
Method
Participants
Data were collected from 272 mentees and 228 mentors (response rate 50 per cent) from
eight public-sector and five private-sector organisations. Of the 272 mentees, 147 were
WIMR
22,8
670
females (71 mentored by males, 75 mentored by females, and one with missing mentor
gender data) and 125 were males (93 mentored by males and 32 mentored by females).
Of the 228 mentors, 123 were males (69 who mentored males, 53 who mentored females,
and one with missing mentee gender data) and 105 were females (41 who mentored
males and 64 who mentored females). Thus, all four gender combinations of
mentor-mentee were represented.
The age of the mentees ranged from 17 to 58 years (M¼31.96; SD ¼8.62) and
mentors from 23 to 64 years (M¼41.31; SD ¼8.82). Mentors were an average of
10.17 years (SD ¼10.54) older than their mentees. In 267 (53.4 per cent) of the
relationships, the mentor was two organisational levels higher than the mentee, in 169
(33.8 per cent) one level higher, and in 22 (4.4 per cent) both were employed at the same
level. Of the 500 participants, 481 (96.2 per cent) reported being employed in the same
organisation as their mentor or mentee. The average duration of the mentoring
relationships reported on was three years and two months for mentees and two years
and five months for mentors. Of the 500 relationships, 325 (65 per cent) were informal
(i.e. emerged or developed spontaneously from informal interactions) and 172 were
formal (i.e. assigned or selected through the organisation).
Measure and procedure
A 36-item instrument (Fowler and O’Gorman, 2005) was used to measure eight categories
of mentoring functions: personal and emotional guidance; learning facilitation; coaching;
advocacy; career development facilitation; role modelling; strategies and systems advice;
and friendship. Participants were asked to rate the extent to which each of the 36 items
occurred in their relationships, on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (moderately) to
7 (very much).The following stems were provided “If youare the mentor, to what extent do
you see yourself as ... [e.g. someone who provides strategic advice for handling certain
situations and/or people]” and “If you are the mentee, to what extent do you see your
mentor as ...” Respondents were asked to focus on a particular mentoring relationship
during the 30 minutes it took to complete the questionnaire.
Results
To examine the relationships between gender and mentoring functions, hierarchical
regression analyses (HRAs) were performed separately on mentee and mentor data
with each of the eight mentoring functions serving in turn as the dependent variable.
The independent variables were entered in two steps: mentee and mentor gender were
entered to investigate their impact, followed by a mentee-mentor gender product term
to examine whether the interaction of mentee and mentor gender added significantly to
the prediction of mentoring functions (Cohen and Cohen, 1983).
Because several studies have found that the formality and supervisory nature of the
relationship may differ by gender, and can impact on mentoring processes, these
variables were controlled in the analyses. First,
x
2
tests found no significant
differences between male and female participants in regard to the formality
(for mentees,
x
2
(1, N¼271) ¼0.561, p¼0.454; and for mentors,
x
2
(1, N¼220) ¼0.270, p¼0.604) or supervisory structure of the relationships
(for mentees,
x
2
(1, N¼270) ¼1.127, p¼0.288; and for mentors,
x
2
(1, N¼220) ¼0.509, p¼0.476). Second, after conducting the HRAs, the data were
re-analysed with formality and supervisory structure of the relationship entered at the
Mentee-mentor
gender
combination
671
first step to control for them before examining the relationships between gender and
mentoring functions. Although they were found in several of the analyses to have a
significant relationship with the dependent variable, there was no impact on the
inferences drawn regarding the relationships between gender and mentoring functions
(and therefore that step of the analyses has not been reported here).
Table I displays the standardised regression coefficients (
b
), R
2
, the change in R
2
after entry of the mentee-mentor product term, and Rand Ffor the full regression model
for each of the eight analyses for mentees. Rfor regression was significant for four of the
dependent variables: personal and emotional guidance, career development facilitation,
role modelling, and friendship. With personal and emotional guidance as the dependent
variable, step 1 of the model with mentee gender and mentor gender in the Equation
(R
2
¼0.05, F(2, 268) ¼7.20, p,0.01) was significant. The significant variable was
mentor gender. Specifically, as far as mentees are concerned, female mentors provided
personal and emotional guidance to a greater extent than male mentors.
With career development facilitation as the dependent variable, step 1 of the model
with mentee gender and mentor gender in the equation (R
2
¼0.06, F(2, 268) ¼8.02,
p,0.01) was again significant. The significant variables were mentee gender and
mentor gender. Specifically, as far as mentees are concerned, female mentors provided
career development facilitation to a greater extent than male mentors, and female
mentees were provided with career development facilitation to a greater extent than
male mentees.
With role modelling as the dependent variable, step 1 of the model with mentee
gender and mentor gender in the equation (R
2
¼0.04, F(2, 268) ¼5.95, p,0.01) was
again significant. The significant variable was mentee gender. Specifically, as far as
mentees are concerned, female mentees are provided with role modelling to a greater
extent than male mentees.
Dependent variable
Independent variable PEG LF COA ADV CDF RM SSA FRD
Step 1
Mentee gender 20.12 20.11 20.09 20.04 20.13 *20.17 ** 20.02 20.08
Mentor gender 20.16 ** 20.05 20.09 20.08 20.16 ** 20.09 20.14 *20.10
R
2
0.05 ** 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.06 ** 0.04 ** 0.02 0.02
Step 2
Mentee gender 20.10 20.09 20.08 20.05 20.11 20.19 ** 20.01 20.11
Mentor gender 20.17 ** 20.06 20.10 20.07 20.18 ** 20.07 20.15 *20.08
Mentee £mentor gender 20.05 20.05 20.02 0.05 20.08 0.10 20.04 0.11
DR
2
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 *
R0.23 0.14 0.17 0.11 0.25 0.23 0.15 0.18
F(3, 267) 5.00 ** 1.77 1.94 1.07 5.90 ** 4.79 ** 2.13 2.85 *
Notes: Standardised regression coefficients are displayed; PEG – personal and emotional guidance;
LF – learning facilitation; COA – coaching; ADV – advocacy; CDF – career development facilitation;
RM ¼role modelling; SSA ¼strategies and systems advice; FRD – friendship; because component
scores were used in the analyses the means for the dependent variables were zero and the standard
deviations were one; the correlations between mentoring functions were zero due to using an
orthogonal method of rotation that resulted in independent components;
a
one case had missing data,
and therefore N¼271; *p,0.05; **
p,0.01
Table I.
Summary of HRAs for
gender predicting
mentoring functions
reported by mentees
(N¼271
a
)
WIMR
22,8
672
Finally, for mentees, overall Rwas significant with friendship as the dependent
variable. However, neither step 1 nor 2 of the analyses were significant indicating that
gender was not a significant predictor of the provision of friendship by mentors.
A second set of HRAs was performed to examine the relationships between gender
and the eight mentoring functions as perceived by mentors (Table II). Rwas not
significant for any of the dependent variables indicating that, as far as mentors are
concerned, gender does not have a significant impact on the provision of mentoring
functions.
Discussion
The current study was the first to explore the perceptions of both mentees and mentors
on gender differences in mentoring functions provided, using a mentoring instrument
designed on a gender representative sample. The dual finding in this study – that few
statistically significant relationships occur between gender and mentoring functions,
but that some particular functions are indeed affected by gender of mentee or mentor –
is both interesting and interpretable in terms of prior research and relevant theory and
has a range of implications for mentoring theory and practice.
Despite the literature on mentoring being replete with claims about the importance
of examining the impact of mentee gender, mentor gender, and/or gender composition
of the mentoring relationship on mentoring functions, the current findings indicate that
the effects of gender are limited to only a few mentoring functions. Specifically, the
mentees in this study perceived gender as an influencing factor in only three of eight
mentoring functions provided (viz., personal and emotional guidance, career
development facilitation, and role modelling) and mentors did not perceive gender
(neither of mentee nor mentor) to influence the extent to which mentoring functions
were provided.
Dependent variable
Independent variable PEG LF COA ADV CDF RM SSA FRD
Step 1
Mentor gender 20.12 20.01 0.02 0.03 20.08 20.17 *0.00 20.06
Mentee gender 20.11 20.13 *20.11 0.04 20.07 0.03 20.01 20.04
R
2
0.03 *0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.03 *0.00 0.01
Step 2
Mentor gender 20.13 20.01 0.02 0.03 20.08 20.17 *0.00 20.06
Mentee gender 20.10 20.14 *20.12 0.04 20.06 0.03 20.01 20.04
Mentee £mentor gender 20.04 0.03 0.15 *0.01 20.07 0.04 20.01 20.02
DR
2
0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
R0.18 0.14 0.18 0.05 0.13 0.17 0.01 0.08
F(3, 216) 2.39 1.43 2.54 0.18 1.26 2.17 0.01 0.41
Notes: Standardised regression coefficients are displayed; PEG – personal and emotional guidance;
LF – learning facilitation; COA – coaching; ADV – advocacy; CDF – career development facilitation;
RM – role modelling; SSA – strategies and systems advice; FRD – friendship; because component
scores were used in the analyses the means for the dependent variables were zero and the standard
deviations were one; the correlations between mentoring functions were zero due to using an
orthogonal method of rotation that resulted in independent components;
a
eight cases had missing data,
and therefore N¼220; *p#0.05
Table II.
Summary of HRAs for
gender predicting
mentoring functions
reported by mentors
(N¼220
a
)
Mentee-mentor
gender
combination
673
This finding is similar to a recent study by Levesque et al. (2005) that found little
difference between men’s and women’s perceptions of important mentoring
behaviours. In fact, that study found that across 16 mentoring behaviours, there
were gender differences in the perceived importance of only two behaviours (viz.,
championing and acceptance and confirmation). Interestingly, Levesque and her
colleagues used an open-ended survey question that did not pre-determine “important
mentoring functions” but allowed participants (males and females) to generate their
own list of important mentoring functions. Similarly, the current study used an
instrument that was developed on a gender representative sample, commencing with a
qualitative investigation of mentoring functions as perceived by mentors and mentees.
In contrast, many studies that have investigated gender and mentoring functions have
used instruments designed on the basis of findings from male-dominated samples,
which may have failed to adequately identify dimensions on which gender may be an
important distinguishing factor. Further, the finding that the provision of some
mentoring functions is affected by gender emphasises the importance of measuring
distinct rather than broad categories of mentoring functions.
Although results of the current study indicate that gender may not be an
influencing factor across the spectrum of mentoring functions, there were three distinct
mentoring functions on which mentee and/or mentor gender did impact. These three
dimensions warrant examination and interpretation. First, mentees perceived that
female mentors provided personal and emotional guidance to a greater extent than
male mentors, regardless of the gender of the mentee. This finding concurs with those
of several studies that found that female mentors were more likely than male mentors
to provide some form of psychosocial support to their mentees (Burke, 1984; Burke
et al., 1993; Gaskill, 1991) and is supported by the wealth of developmental and social
psychology literature that shows that women, compared to men, place considerable
emphasis on providing emotional support and maintaining interpersonal relationships
(Cross and Madson, 1997; Feldman, 1999; Gilligan, 1982). Indeed, it could be that
gender norms encourage women to provide personal and emotional guidance to a
greater degree than men. Recently, Levesque et al. (2005) found that acceptance and
confirmation (which has similar characteristics to the personal and emotional guidance
function measured in the current study) was one of only two mentoring functions on
which gender differed, with women reporting it as a more important function than
did men.
Second, as far as mentees are concerned, female mentors provided career
development facilitation to a greater extent than male mentors (regardless of the
gender of the mentee), and female mentees were provided with career development
facilitation to a greater extent than male mentees (regardless of the gender of the
mentor). These findings concur with those of Burke and his colleagues (Burke, 1984;
Burke et al., 1990, 1993) who reported that female mentors had a greater impact on the
career aspirations of their mentees than male mentors. Again, these studies used
alternative methodologies to instruments based on non-representative gender samples.
There may be several reasons for these findings regarding career development
facilitation. It is possible that the vast amount of popular and academic literature that
focuses on barriers for women may have filtered down to practice and mentors are
aware of the importance of providing career development facilitation to women. For
example, Tharenou (2005) found that women reported receiving more mentor career
WIMR
22,8
674
support than men, and that this support increased women mentees’ advancement more
than it did men’s. In this case, it is reasonable to expect that female mentors in
particular (who were once in junior positions themselves and clearly remember the
need for advice and assistance with career development) would be aware of the
importance of providing assistance with career development and do so regardless of
whether they are mentoring males or females.
In response to their finding that male mentors reported providing more
career-related mentoring, Allen and Eby (2004) commented that, in male-dominated
cultures, female mentors may not believe that they are able to compete with male
mentors in terms of providing career-related support to their mentees. However, the
current study, in finding that female mentors provided more career development
facilitation, suggests it is possible that female mentors attempt to overcome this aspect
of male-dominated cultures by going out of their way to provide career-related support.
It may also be that female mentors provide more career development facilitation to
maintain a balance with their traditionally acknowledged provision of personal and
emotional guidance in developmental relationships. According to Ragins (1997),
minority mentors (in this case women) should strongly identify with their minority
mentees (in this case female mentees per se and male mentees with female mentors)
and feel an intense sense of fulfilment and contribution from passing along their
strategies for career advancement. Hence, minority mentors provide career
development facilitation to both female and male mentees.
It is also possible that female mentees, given their difficulties in committing to
competitive success (Gilligan, 1982), are increasingly aware of the need to seek out
advice and assistance with career development from their mentors to enhance their
skills and knowledge in order to learn to compete and advance in their work
environments. Indeed, Marongiu and Ekehammar (1999) postulated that women need
to emphasise their managerial aspirations in order to be recognized as potential
managers, whereas men may take it for granted that a career path will take them into
managerial positions. Thus, female mentees may seek career development more
actively than male mentees, who tend to see more established career paths. The active
seeking out of career development facilitation, or any mentoring functions by mentees,
should not be overlooked in this exchange relationship. The reciprocal nature of a
mentoring relationship would suggest that mentees purposefully and actively seek out
specific mentoring functions from their mentors, not that mentors indiscriminately
determine what functions to provide. In this case, it may be that female mentees were
provided with career development facilitation to a greater extent than male mentees
because they actively sought that function from their mentors.
Third, it was the perception of mentees that female mentees are provided with role
modelling to a greater extent than male mentees (regardless of the gender of the
mentor).
This differs from several studies that have found role-modelling to be more
prevalent in same-gender mentoring relationships (Cordes and Gibson, 1996; Gaskill,
1991; Ragins and McFarlin, 1990; Scandura and Williams, 2001). However, a recent
study by Singh et al. (2006) that examined how “young career-minded women” use role
models may provide some explanation for this finding. They noted that young women,
recognising the need to develop certain aspects of self for career development, use both
senior women and men as role models. For young women, these characteristics and
Mentee-mentor
gender
combination
675
qualities are associated with leadership but not necessarily with femininity (Singh et al.,
2006). Indeed, it would be wise for females to use both sexes as role models, in order to
draw on a wider range of attitudes, skills, and behaviours for the purpose of developing
themselves as professionals (Bucher and Stelling, 1977). Interestingly, Javidan et al.
(1995) found that although female subordinates did not have difficulty in accepting
superiors of either sex as role models, male subordinates did not see their female
superiors as role models. Again, the “seek and provide” reciprocity argument may be in
play here. Female mentees, more than male mentees, may actively seek role-modelling
from their mentors, regardless of whether those mentors are males or females, to
develop leadership and management attitudes, skills, and behaviours. In turn, mentors
may respond by actively providing role-modelling to female mentees.
Gender differences in the provision of mentoring functions may be influenced by an
individual’s beliefs and experiences. Indeed, Levesque et al. (2005) pointed out that
mentors’ beliefs and past experiences will direct them toward mentoring behaviours
they value or at which they are proficient. Using this argument, it would be
logical that female mentors would provide personal and emotional guidance, a function
that women both traditionally value and at which they are proficient, to a greater
extent than male mentors. Similarly, female mentors would provide career
development facilitation, a function which they strongly value because of their past
experiences with barriers to the career development and advancement of women, more
so than male mentors.
The fact that mentors in this study did not recognise gender differences in the
provision or receipt of mentoring functions may have little bearing on this argument.
Indeed, an individual’s perception is their reality and, arguably, mentees are in a better
position to identify what they are receiving from a mentor, than a mentor is to identify
what they are providing. This is not intended to discount the perceptions of mentors
regarding the provision of mentoring functions. However, an individual is more likely
to be able to recognise, for example, that someone is a role model for them, than the
“role model” is to identify that they are providing that function. Further, given that
mentors and mentees perceive similarly the functions that are provided in mentoring
relationships (Fowler and O’Gorman, 2005) it is clear that mentors are not lacking
awareness of the mentoring functions provided or received. It appears in the current
study, however, that mentors do not perceive gender differences in the provision of
those functions.
Theoretical and practical implications
The dual finding in this study – that few statistically significant relationships occur
between gender and mentoring functions, but that some particular functions are indeed
affected by gender of mentee or mentor – has a range of implications for mentoring
theory and practice. For example, the finding that the effects of gender were important
for only some mentoring functions emphasises the need to examine distinct rather than
categories of functions. Previous research (Dreher and Ash, 1990; Noe, 1988; Scandura
and Katerberg, 1988) that has focussed on broad categories of “psychosocial” and
“career” functions may have led to generalised conclusions about the distinct functions
that make up those categories. This study has shown, for example, that personal and
emotional guidance and role modelling (arguably both psychosocial-related functions)
behave differently as far as gender is concerned. This has wider implications for
WIMR
22,8
676
mentoring research, extending beyond investigations of the impact of gender, by
suggesting that mentoring should not be examined as a two-category concept.
The findings of the current study also suggest that gender may not be as influential,
in regard to mentoring functions, as has previously been proffered. Some researchers
(Ragins and McFarlin, 1990; Scandura and Ragins, 1993) have argued that gender role
orientation may be a more influential factor than gender per se. Indeed, an interesting
study would be the investigation of gender role orientation of mentor-mentee dyads
and their impact on mentoring relationships, given the changing attitudes, dynamics
and roles in modern organisations. It may also be possible that, in capturing current
perceptions of mentees and mentors, this research has fallen short of capturing the
dynamic nature of mentoring relationships as they change over time. Again, gender
may have an impact with female and/or male mentors more likely or able to provide,
and female and/or male mentees more likely to seek, particular mentoring functions at
different stages of a relationship. Longitudinal research would allow investigation of
possible changing interactions between gender and the provision of mentoring over the
course of a relationship.
The findings of this study also have a range of implications for mentoring practice.
For example, knowledge about the relationships between gender and particular
mentoring functions may be beneficial for potential and actual mentees and mentors as
they make decisions about becoming involved in mentoring relationships, engage in
contracting processes, and monitor and review their relationships. To this end, mentees
and mentors could be educated about the impact of gender on mentoring. Mentees who
are confident in their knowledge about mentoring functions and gender are more likely
to approach mentors and discuss needs and expectations. Specifically, a mentee who is
particularly seeking personal and emotional guidance and/or career development
facilitation in a mentoring relationship may be wise to choose a female mentor.
However, rather than assuming that certain functions are less likely with male
mentors, adequate training could assist males in developing the necessary skills for
providing these particular functions. As Kram and Hall (1995) suggested, although the
“relational” competencies required of mentors are provided more easily by women than
men, males can face the challenge of considerable personal learning about relationship
skills if they want to build effective developmental relationships. At the same time,
informal mentoring relationships and formal mentoring programs may benefit from
focusing less on the gender of mentee and/or mentor and more on developing the range
of functions that are present in mentoring relationships.
This study was the first to comprehensively examine the impact of gender on
distinct mentoring functions using an adequate sample and an appropriate
measurement tool. Recruiting a gender representative sample of mentees and
mentors allowed investigation of all four gender combinations (including a relatively
representative sample of female mentor-male mentee relationships), thus extending
research beyond the same- or cross-gender comparisons of earlier work. Further, the
study used a measurement tool that was designed on a gender representative sample
and was thus more likely to identify mentoring functions on which gender may differ.
Of course, it would be useful to test the findings regarding gender differences on
another sample of mentees and mentors before they can be considered established.
The current research has provided a new understanding of relationships between
gender and mentoring. Rapid changes in the workforce and workplace provide strong
Mentee-mentor
gender
combination
677
rationale for updating and continuing research on mentoring in an attempt to advance
mentoring theory and guide mentoring practice. To the extent that research can
document the changing nature of mentoring relationships (Eby, 1997; Ragins, 1997),
more opportunity can be provided for individuals and organisations to advance their
practices in mentoring relationships.
References
Allen, T.D. and Eby, L.T. (2004), “Factors related to mentor reports of mentoring functions
provided: gender and relational characteristics”, Sex Roles, Vol. 50, pp. 129-39.
Bucher, R. and Stelling, J. (1977), Becoming Professional, Sage, Beverley Hills, CA.
Burke, R.J. (1984), “Mentors in organizations”, Group & Organization Studies, Vol. 9, pp. 353-72.
Burke, R.J., McKeen, C.A. and McKenna, C. (1990), “Sex differences and cross-sex effects on
mentoring: some preliminary data”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 67, pp. 1011-23.
Burke, R.J., McKeen, C.A. and McKenna, C. (1993), “Correlates of mentoring in organizations:
the mentor’s perspective”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 72, pp. 883-96.
Chao, G.T., Walz, P.M. and Gardner, P.D. (1992), “Formal and informal mentorships:
a comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentored counterparts”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 45, pp. 619-36.
Clutterbuck, D. and Ragins, B.R. (2002), Mentoring and Diversity, Butterworth Heinemann,
Oxford.
Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1983), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the
Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Cordes, C.L. and Gibson, L.K. (1996), “An investigation of the receipt and efficacy of seven
distinct mentoring functions”, paper presented at Academy of Management, Cincinnati,
Ohio, OH.
Cross, S.E. and Madson, L. (1997), “Models of the self: self-construals and gender”, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 122 No. 1, pp. 5-37.
Dreher, G.F. and Ash, R.A. (1990), “A comparative study of mentoring among men and women in
managerial, professional, and technical positions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75,
pp. 539-46.
Eby, L.T. (1997), “Alternative forms of mentoring in changing organizational environments:
a conceptual extension of the mentoring literature”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 51,
pp. 125-44.
Ensher, E.A. and Murphy, S.E. (1997), “Effects of race, gender, perceived similarity, and contact
on mentor relationships”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 50, pp. 460-81.
Fagenson-Eland, E.A., Marks, M.A. and Amendola, K.L. (1997), “Perceptions of mentoring
relationships”, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 51, pp. 29-42.
Feldman, D.C. (1999), “Toxic mentors or toxic prote
´ge
´s? A critical re-examination of
dysfunctional mentoring”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 9, pp. 247-78.
Fowler, J.L. and O’Gorman, J.G. (2005), “Mentoring functions: a contemporary view
of the perceptions of mentees and mentors”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 16,
pp. 51-7.
Gaskill, L.R. (1991), “Same-sex and cross-sex mentoring of female prote
´ge
´s: a comparative
analysis”, The Career Development Quarterly, Vol. 40, pp. 48-63.
Gilligan, C. (1982), In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
WIMR
22,8
678
Hunt, D.M. and Michael, C. (1983), “Mentorship: a career training and development tool”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 8, pp. 475-85.
Javidan, M., Bemmels, B., Devine, K.S. and Dastmalchian, A. (1995), “Superior and subordinate
gender and the acceptance of superiors as role models”, Human Relations, Vol. 48,
pp. 1271-84.
Kanter, R.M. (1977), Men and Women of the Corporation, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Koberg, C.S., Boss, R.W. and Goodman, E. (1998), “Factors and outcomes associated with
mentoring among health-care professionals”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 53,
pp. 58-72.
Kram, K.E. (1980), “Mentoring processes at work: developmental relationships in managerial
careers”, Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 05B (UMI No. 8025206).
Kram, K.E. (1985), Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in Organizational Life, Scott,
Foresman and Company, Glenview, IL.
Kram, K.E. and Hall, D.T. (1995), “Mentoring in a context of diversity and turbulence”, in
Kossek, E.E. and Lobel, S. (Eds), Managing Diversity: Human Resources Strategies for
Transforming the Workplace, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA, pp. 108-36.
Kram, K.E. and Isabella, L.A. (1985), “Mentoring alternatives: the role of peer relationships in
career development”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 110-32.
Levesque, L.L., O’Neill, R.M., Nelson, T. and Dumas, C. (2005), “Sex differences in the perceived
importance of mentoring functions”, Career Development International, Vol. 10, pp. 429-43.
Levinson, D.J. (1978), The Seasons of a Man’s Life, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY.
McGuire, G.M. (1999), “Do race and sex affect employees’ access to and help from mentors?
Insights from the study of a large corporation”, in Murrell, A.J., Crosby, F.J. and Ely, R.J.
(Eds), Mentoring Dilemmas: Developmental Relationships within Multicultural
Organizations, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 105-20.
Marongiu, S. and Ekehammar, B. (1999), “Internal and external influences on women’s
and men’s entry into management”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 5,
pp. 421-33.
Noe, R.A. (1988), “An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring
relationships”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 457-79.
O’Neill, R.M., Horton, S. and Crosby, F.J. (1999), “Gender issues in developmental
relationships”, in Murrell, A.J., Crosby, F.J. and Ely, R.J. (Eds), Mentoring Dilemmas:
Developmental Relationships within Multicultural Organizations, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ,
pp. 63-80.
Ragins, B.R. (1994), “Gender and mentoring: a research agenda”, paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of Southeastern Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA.
Ragins, B.R. (1995), “Diversity, power and mentoring in organizations: a cultural, structural and
behavioral perspective”, in Chemers, M., Costanzo, M. and Oskamp, S. (Eds), Diversity in
Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 91-132.
Ragins, B.R. (1997), “Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations: a power perspective”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22, pp. 482-521.
Ragins, B.R. (1999), “Where do we go from here, and how do we get there? Methodological issues
in conducting research on diversity and mentoring relationships”, in Murrell, A.J.,
Crosby, F.J. and Ely, R.J. (Eds), Mentoring Dilemmas: Developmental Relationships within
Multicultural Organizations, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 227-47.
Mentee-mentor
gender
combination
679
Ragins, B.R. and Cotton, J.L. (1999), “Mentor functions and outcomes: a comparison of men and
women in formal and informal mentoring relationships”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 84, pp. 529-50.
Ragins, B.R. and McFarlin, D.B. (1990), “Perceptions of mentor roles in cross-gender mentoring
relationships”, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 37, pp. 321-39.
Reich, M.H. (1985), “Executive views from both sides of mentoring”, Personnel, Vol. 62, pp. 42-6.
Reich, M.H. (1986), “The mentor connection”, Personnel, Vol. 63, pp. 50-6.
Scandura, T.A. and Katerberg, R.J. (1988), “Much ado about mentors and little about
measurement: development of an instrument”, paper presented at Academy of
Management, Annaheim.
Scandura, T.A. and Ragins, B.R. (1993), “The effects of sex and gender role orientation on
mentorship in male-dominated occupations”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 43,
pp. 251-65.
Scandura, T.A. and Williams, E.A. (2001), “An investigation of the moderating effects of gender
on the relationships between mentorship initiation and prote
´ge
´perceptions of mentoring
functions”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 59, pp. 342-63.
Singh, V., Vinnicombe, S. and James, K. (2006), “Constructing a professional identity: how
young female managers use role models”, Women in Management Review, Vol. 21,
pp. 67-81.
Sosik, J.J. and Godshalk, V.M. (2000a), “The role of gender in mentoring: implications for
diversified and homogenous mentoring relationships”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 57, pp. 102-22.
Sosik, J.J. and Godshalk, V.M. (2000b), “Examining gender similarity and mentor’s supervisory
status in mentoring relationships”, Mentoring and Tutoring, Vol. 13, pp. 39-52.
Sosik, J.J. and Godshalk, V.M. (2005), “Examining gender similarity and mentor’s supervisory
status in mentoring relationships”, Mentoring and Tutoring, Vol. 13, pp. 39-52.
Stonewater, B.B., Eveslage, S.A. and Dingerson, M.R. (1990), “Gender differences in career
helping relationships”, The Career Development Quarterly, Vol. 39, pp. 72-85.
Tharenou, P. (1997), “Explanations of managerial career advancement”, Australian Psychologist,
Vol. 32, pp. 19-28.
Tharenou, P. (2005), “Does mentor support increase women’s career advancement more than
men’s? The differential effects of career and psychosocial support”, Australian Journal of
Management, Vol. 30, pp. 77-109.
Turban, D.B. and Dougherty, T.W. (1994), “Role of prote
´ge
´personality in receipt of mentoring
and career success”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 688-702.
About the authors
Jane L. Fowler is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Human Services at Griffith University, Logan,
Australia. She is Convenor of the professional skills stream of the human services degree
program and has been recognised for her innovative teaching practices through national awards.
Her research interests include mentoring relationships and a wide range of teaching and learning
processes and practices. She is an Industrial and Organisational Psychologist, a fellow of the
Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, and at the time
of completing this manuscript was a visiting professor at West Virginia University, USA.
Jane L. Fowler is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: j.fowler@griffith.edu.au
Amanda J. Gudmundsson is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Management, Queensland
University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. She is the Coordinator of the Human Resource
WIMR
22,8
680
Management Program within the Faculty of Business and pursues research and teaching
activities across a range of human resource functional areas. She is an industrial and
organisational psychologist and member of the Australian Psychological Society and the
Australian Human Resources Institute.
John G. O’Gorman is currently Pro-Vice-Chancellor at Australian Catholic University,
Australia with responsibilities that include quality for the institution. He was previously
Foundation professor of psychology and Dean of the Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences
at Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. He is a former Chair of the College of Organisational
Psychologists of the Australian Psychological Society.
Mentee-mentor
gender
combination
681
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
