chaperone

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

[email protected]

Shoshana Dobrow

School of Business

Fordham University

1790 Broadway, Suite 1314

New York, NY 10019

212.636.7304

[email protected]

Wendy Marcinkus Murphy

Management Division

Babson College

Babson Park, MA 02457

Phone: (617) 816-5388

[email protected]

Discussant:

Belle Rose Ragins

Professor of Human Resource Management

Sheldon B. Lubar School of Business

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

3202 N. Maryland Avenue

mailto:[email protected]


11607

19

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53211

Telephone: (414) 229-6823

[email protected]

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: [email protected]

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

[email protected]

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





Phone: 414-229-2536

[email protected]

Lisa Finkelstein

Department of Psychology

Northern Illinois University

DeKalb, IL 60115

Phone: (815) 753-0439

[email protected]

Additional Authors/Participants Cont’d:

Monica C. Higgins

Graduate School of Education

Harvard University


x-msg://38/[email protected]



11607

20

Cambridge, MA 02138

Phone: (617) 496-8826

[email protected]

Kurt Kraiger


Colorado State University

Fort Collins, CO 80523

Phone: (970) 491-6821

[email protected]

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

[email protected]

Kristina Matarazzo



DeKalb, IL 60115

Douglas Minter

Business Development Manager, Knoxville

Chamberof Commerce

17 Market Square, Ste 201Knoxville, TN

37902

Phone: 865-246-2662

[email protected]

Dianne Murphy





Phone: 414-791-3426

[email protected]

Belle Rose Ragins





Phone: (414) 229-6823

[email protected]

phone: 773/368.8881

[email protected]





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


Karen S. Lyness

Baruch College

Kyle Ehrhardt

Dianne Murphy


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


11607

34

Kurt Kraiger

Colorado State University

Kristina Matarazzo


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

http://www.acq.osd.mil/

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.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/

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.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/mentor_protege/

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







Best,

Lillian Eby


Should the symposium be accepted, my participation will not violate AOM's rule of three.

11607

49

Kyle Ehrhardt







Best,

Lisa Finkelstein


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






"Rule of Three."

Sincerely,

Monica Higgins


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




Best,

Karen Lyness



11607

51




"Rule of Three."

Sincerely,

Kristina Matarazzo







Best,

Douglas Minter





11607

52



Best Regards,

Dianne Murphy






"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

http://issuu.com/dougminter/docs/knoxville_chamber

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

http://www.annimalinyou.com/

11607

56

Casting Call How to select a Director of a Mentor/Protégé Program

chaperone

Documents

Transcript of chaperone