Citation
The relationship of mentoring on organizational culture, work environment, and career advancement of public school administrators in Colorado school districts

Material Information

Title:
The relationship of mentoring on organizational culture, work environment, and career advancement of public school administrators in Colorado school districts
Creator:
Cabrera, Ronald G
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xvii, 262 leaves : illustrations, forms ; 29 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Mentoring in education ( lcsh )
School administrators ( lcsh )
Mentoring in education ( fast )
School administrators ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 232-243).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Doctor of Philosophy, School of Education and Human Development.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Ronald G. Cabrera.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
23451201 ( OCLC )
ocm23451201
Classification:
LD1190.E3 1990d .C32 ( lcc )

Full Text
THE RELATIONSHIP OF MENTORING ON ORGANIZATIONAL
CULTURE, WORK ENVIRONMENT, AND CAREER
ADVANCEMENT OF PUBLIC SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS
IN COLORADO SCHOOL DISTRICTS
by
Ronald G. Cabrera
B.A., University of Colorado, 1977
M.A., University of Colorado, 1985
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
School of Education
1990


1990 by Ronald G. Cabrera
All rights reserved.


This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree by
Ronald G. Cabrera
has been approved for the
School of
Education
by
Martin Tessmer
Oct* <32#/?^
Date


Cabrera, Ronald G. (Ph.D., Education)
The Relationship of Mentoring on Organizational Culture, Work
Environment, and Career Advancement of Public School
Administrators in Colorado School Districts
Thesis directed by Professor Bob L. Taylor
The principal problem of the study was to determine what
relationships exist between mentoring and organizational
culture, mentoring and work environment, and mentoring and
career advancement of Colorado public school administrators/
Data were gathered two ways: (1) a survey instrument was
mailed to a random sample of 500 Colorado public school admini-
strators, and (2) structured interviews of 18 mentored admini-
strators from the original sample were performed. The return
rate was 70.4% (352 respondents). One hundred and sixty-four
respondents were mentored.
Survey data were statistically analyzed using t-tests,
Chi-square, ANOVA, and ANCOVA computations. The level of
significance was set at p < .01. Interview data were analyzed
to complement quantitative findings.
The five major findings were:
(1) A positive relationship was found between mentoring and
career advancement. Mentored administrators spent less time in
their current position (due to mobility), were promoted more
often, were younger than their counterparts, and received more
personal guidance to become administrators.


V
(2) No relationship existed between mentoring and
organizational culture.
(3) No relationship existed between mentoring and work
environment. Though not statistically significant, several
positive trends suggested that mentored administrators felt
better about their job, enjoyed their work place more, and
displayed greater self-confidence than non-mentored
administrators.
(4) A positive relationship was found between mentored
female administrators and career advancement. No relationship
existed among mentoring and organizational culture and mentored
female administrators; however, there was a positive relation-
ship between mentoring and work environment and mentored female
administrators. Notably, these findings were true only when
comparing mentored female administrators to non-mentored
female administrators.
(5) No unique relationship existed among minority
administrators and mentoring and career advancement, organi-
zational culture, and work environment. However, interview
data for mentored minority administrators showed mentoring to
be beneficial.
Three recommendations follow:
(1) School districts and universities need to develop
mentoring programs to cultivate proteges into the administrative
ranks.


vi
(2) Gender and ethnic issues must be studied. Mentoring
relationships alone are unable to offset institutional bias and
discrimination.
(3) Policies for recruiting and nurturing minority
administrators should include mentoring relationships to help
in the socialization succession process of the organization.
The form and content of this abstract are approved. I
recommend its publication.
Signed
Bob L.
layior
&


CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................... xv
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION........................................ 1
Definition of Mentor.............................. 4
Focus of the Study................................ 9
Purpose of the Study............................. 10
Significance of the Study........................ 11
Assumptions...................................... 11
Statement of the Problem......................... 12
Research Questions............................. 12
Statements of Hypotheses......................... 13
Delimitations of the Study....................... 18
Limitations of the Study......................... 19
Definition of Terms.............................. 20
Methodologies and Strategies to Investigate
Research Questions............................. 28
Procedure and Sample Population ............... 28
Organization of Study ........................... 29
II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE....................... 32
Introduction..................................... 32
Organization of Chapter ......................... 33
Mentoring Relationship as a Concept ............. 36


viii
Rationale for Mentoring Relationships ... 36
Role of the Mentor........................ 40
Mentor Types.............................. 43
Mentoring Relationship Development........ 44
Mentoring in Professional Education .... 50
Mentor's Benefits ............................... 54
Emotional Affection and Empathy ............... 55
Adult Development/Generative Growth .... 56
Enhanced Personal Attributes.............. 57
Mentor Multiplier Effect.................. 59
Protege's Benefits.......................... 60
Career Advancement........................ 60
Professional Growth and Development .... 62
High Aspirations and Support.............. 63
Mentoring in Education.................... 64
Career Planning ............................... 65
Sponsorship............................... 66
New Skills and Knowledge.................. 67
Exposure and Visibility ....................... 68
Protection................................ 68
Acceptance Within Organizational Culture. . 70
Organization's Benefits ......................... 71
Organizational Culture.................... 71
Work Environment.......................... 72
Improved Communication
73


IX
Accelerated Training........................... 74
Improved Induction Process..................... 76
Organized Critical Mass for Change............. 78
Established Management Team ................... 79
Mentoring Relationships and Women ............... 80
Establishment of the Relationship ............. 80
Problems in the Mentoring Relationship. . 82
Benefits....................................... 85
Mentor's Role for Women........................ 86
Womentoring.................................... 88
Mentoring Relationships and Minorities. ... 89
Positive Potential............................. 89
Problems....................................... 89
Succession Socialization....................... 90
The Need for Close Relationship................ 91
Minority Women................................. 91
Summary.......................................... 93
III. METHODOLOGY OF DATA GATHERING...................... 95
Introduction..................................... 95
The Process...................................... 96
Questionnaire ................................. 96
Data Process and Analysis....................... 101
Questionnaire ................................ 101
Variables..................................... 104
Interview..................................... 107


X
Summary.................................... 108
IV. RESULTS OF STUDY............................... 109
Introduction................................. 109
Methods and Purpose for Gathering Data. . . . 110
Mailed Survey ................................ 110
Bias Check Telephone Survey .................. Ill
Personal Interview......................... Ill
Demographics of the Sample................... 112
Representativeness of Original Survey
Sample................................... 112
Representativeness of the Respondents . . . 115
Representativeness of Bias Check Sample . . 116
Representativeness of the Personal
Interview Sample......................... 118
Description of Respondent Sample........... 119
Chi-Square Test between Mentored and
Non-Mentored by District Setting......... 121
Description of Bias Check Sample........... 121
Factor Analysis of Variables for Work
Environment and Organizational Culture. . . 124
Introduction to Factor Analysis .............. 124
Factor Analysis of Bias Check Sample......... 129
Reliability Tests for Factors of Variables. 129
Results for Research Questions and Related
Hypotheses................................. 131
Research Question #1....................... 131
Research Question #2....................... 140
Research Question #3....................... 147


xi
Research Question #4.......................... 154
Additional Mentoring Relationship Results . 183
Career Advancement............................ 184
Roles of Mentor............................... 184
Importance of Mentors to Men and Women. . 187
Job Title of Mentor and Protege............... 187
Length and Number of Mentoring
Relationships .............................. 188
Mentor's Assistance to Protege................ 188
Mentor Multiplier Effect...................... 190
Importance of Mentors to Males and Females. 190
Findings from Bias Check Data about
Mentoring Relationships .................... 192
Findings from Personal Interview Data
about Mentoring Relationships .............. 192
Summary of Major Findings ...................... 194
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................. 199
Summary of the Study............................ 199
Summary of Major Findings ...................... 204
Research Question #1......................... 209
Research Question #2......................... 210
Research Question #3......................... 211
Research Question #4......................... 212
Conclusions and Recommendations for
Further Research.............................. 218
Conclusion #1................................. 218
Conclusion #2
221


xii
Conclusion #3........................ 223
Conclusion #4........................ 225
Conclusion #5........................ 227
Recommendations for Further Research.. 228
REFERENCES....................................... 233
APPENDICES....................................... 244
A. LETTER OF REQUEST AND SURVEY INSTRUMENT .... 245
B. BIAS CHECK PHONE SURVEY INSTRUMENT. ...... 254
C. MENTOR SURVEY PERSONAL INTERVIEW FORM
260


TABLES
Table
3-1 Certificated Administrators in Colorado
by Ethnicity by Gender........................ 99
3- 2 Certificated Administrators in Colorado
by District Setting, 1989..................... 100
4- 1 Random Sample of Administrators' Mailed
Survey by District Setting ................... 112
4-2 Certificated Administrators in Colorado
by District Setting 1989 ....................... 113
4-3 Administrators Responding to Random Sample
Mailing by District Setting.................. 114
4-4 Certificated Administrators in Colorado by
Ethnicity by Gender Compared to Respondent
Sample Ethnicity by Gender ..................... 116
4-5 Bias Check Administrator Sample by District
Setting...................................... 117
4-6 Bias Check Administrator Sample by Gender
by Ethnicity................................. 118
4-7 Personal Interview Sample by Gender by
Ethnicity.................................... 119
4-8 Characteristics of Respondent Sample by
Non-Mentored and Mentored Administrators . . . 120
4-9 Mentored and Non-Mentored Respondents by
District Setting ............................... 122
4-10 Characteristics of Bias Check Sample by
Non-Mentored and Mentored Administrators . . . 123
4-11 Work Environment Factors
126


xiv
4-12 Organizational Culture Factors .................. 130
4-13 Comparison between Mentored and Non-Mentored
Respondents by Career Advancement Variables. . 134
4-14 Comparison between Mentored and Non-Mentored
Respondents by Organizational Culture Factors. 143
4-15 Comparison of Likert Scale Values of Bias
Check Mentored and Non-Mentored Respondents
for Organizational Culture Factors .......... 145
4-16 Comparison between Mentored and Non-Mentored
Respondents for Work Environment Factors . . 151
4-17 Comparison of Likert Scale Values for Bias
Check Mentored and Non-Mentored Respondents
for Working Environment Factors.............. 153
4-18 Analysis of Variance for Variables-Constituting
Career Advancement by Mentoring by Gender. . 160
4-19 Analysis of Variance for Organizational
Culture Factors by Mentoring by Gender .... 163
4-20 Analysis of Variance for Work Environment
Factors by Mentoring by Gender ................. 165
4-21 Analysis of Covariance for Number of Times
Promoted, Controlling for Total Number of
Years as Administrator by Mentoring by
Gender.................................................. 168
4-22 Chi-Square Tests by Mentoring...................... 168
4-23 Comparison between Minority Mentored and
Minority Non-Mentored Respondents by
Career Advancement Variables ................... 170
4-24 Comparison between Minority Mentored and
Minority Non-Mentored Respondents by
Organizational Culture Factors ................. 171
4-25 Comparison between Minority Mentored and
Minority Non-Mentored Respondents by Work
Environment Factors............................. 172
4-26 Comparison between Non-Minority Mentored
and Non-Minority Non-Mentored Respondents
by Career Advancement Variables................. 174


XV
4-27 Comparison between Non-Minority Mentored
and Non-Minority Non-Mentored Respondents
by Organizational Culture Factors................ 175
4-28 Comparison between Non-Minority Mentored
and Non-Minority Non-Mentored Respondents
by Work Environment Factors...................... 176
4-29 Protege Responses about Mentoring Relation-
ships Regarding Career Advancement .............. 185
4-30 Roles of Mentors According to Protegees........... 186
4-31 Protege Responses about Their Mentors............. 187
4-32 Additional Data about Mentoring Relationships. . 189
4-33 Comparison between Female and Male Mentored
Respondents by Importance of Mentors to
Each Gender.............................................. 191
4-34 Comparison between Female and Male Mentored
Respondents by Gender of Most Significant
Mentor................................................... 191


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I extend my gratitude and appreciation to my doctoral
committee members: Dr. Bob L. Taylor, Chairperson; Dr. Lance
Wright; Dr. Martin Tessmer; Dr. Mark Emmert; and Dr. Brent
Wilson. Their steady support and encouragement kept the study
moving forward; their insights and suggestions helped to refine
the study; and their interest and guidance stimulated my
professional growth.
Special thanks and appreciation go to Dr. W. Michael Martin
whose encouragement, positive attitude, and support helped me
throughout my research.
My love, appreciation, and thanks go to my wife Judy. She
was a source of inspiration (as always), energy, and counsel
throughout the research.
My love, appreciation, and thanks also go to my children:
Matthew, Ana, Nathan, and Angelina. Without my family's
continued support when I despaired whether I was ever going to
finish, without their patience and understanding when I was in
the throes of writing, and without their unconditional faith in
my efforts and goals, this study would have never been com-
pleted. Now we can all celebrate!
I am indebted to my mentors, who taught me well about my
profession and life: Dr. Y. Arturo Cabrera (my father), Dr.


xvii
Albert Aguayo, and Mr. Lino Gonzales. My mentors saw talent in
me that I didn't know existed; they challenged me to try new
things; and they offered me support when I needed it. To my
mentors: Muchas gracias y abrazos.
My love and appreciation go to Josephine Cabrera, my
mother, and Edwin and Delores Koehler, my parents-in-law. Their
support and encouragement have been unconditional and constant.
I extend a special thanks to Nanci Avitable for her
positive attitude, expertise, and guidance. -
A special thanks also goes to Ann Underwood for her skills,
patience, and guidance.
Lastly, my appreciation and thanks are extended to all my
family, friends, and colleagues who have shared an interest in
this study and supported my efforts.


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Men-tor, n. 1 cap: a friend of Odysseus entrusted with
the education of Odysseus' son Telemachus 2a: a
trusted counselor or guide b: TUTOR, COACH.
Webster New Collegiate Dictionary
The established powerful relationship between mentor and
protege has long been recorded. In Greek mythology, while
Odysseus traveled on his adventures, his son Telemachus was
entrusted to Mentor, a trusted counselor, who became
Telemachus' caretaker, guardian, and teacher. In folk tales
and literature, it is Merlin the Wizard's relationship with
King Arthur that resembles the teaching and guiding role of a
mentor. Current popular movie productions, such as the "Star
Wars" and "The Karate Kid" series, have continued to cultivate
the notion of a meaningful relationship between protege and
mentor. In part, the public's keen interest in the mentoring
relationship results from the potentially successful outcome
such relationships foster. Sometimes the mentoring relation-
ship may be as simple as the Middle Ages guild master and
apprentice structure. At other times in today's fast-moving


2
corporate world, mentoring relationships may become a complex
process in which the novice manager-trainee is teamed up with
an established manager to learn "the ropes" of the trade.
The corporate world has long used the mentoring relation-
ships as a bridge between the young protege's graduate school
academic base and the pragmatic experience of a seasoned execu-
tive. Business research has indicated that over 60 percent of
today's top corporate administrators were sponsored for their
position through mentoring relationships (Roche. 1979).
Several studies of the corporate world havedocumented the
significant and powerful influence mentoring has had in
advancing women into the administrative ranks (Collins, 1983;
Cook, 1979; Missirian, 1982). The success of mentoring rela-
tionships in business suggests that similar relationships may
exist in many other organizational structures and in public
education.
Although the corporate world has recognized the existence
and benefits of mentoring relationships for top management,
little documentation exists on the effects or use of mentoring
relationships among administrators in public schools. Educa-
tional research on types of relationships that mentoring can
achieve is essentially divided into two strands:
(1) the study of differences between "experts" and "novices"


3
and (2) the development of supportive relationships that help
inexperienced educators.
Implicitly, mentoring relationships bring an "expert" and
"novice" together. The protege is inexperienced and dependent
upon the superior experience of the "expert"--the mentor. How-
ever, educational research on "experts" and "novices" concen-
trates more on their different learning capabilities than on
the development of a shared relationship. In this instance,
mentors, labeled "experts" by virtue of their expertise or
extraordinary skills, have a superior ability to make finer
distinctions between problems and to use superior strategic
processes as a result of a vast experiential base (Alexander &
Judy, 1988; Murphy & Wright, 1984). Mentors may have unique
learning capabilities that others do not. In this way, mentors
may share their insights with proteges; however, researchers
also suggest, proteges (novices) may only find the same
success as the mentors (experts) if they have the same
learning capabilities as the mentors. In contrast to studying
the differences in learning capabilities, educators have more
often studied mentoring relationships as a vehicle to guide and
advise first-year teachers.
Recently, local school districts in Colorado have begun to
implement a mentoring process in the development of new
teachers. In the Jefferson County School District, for


4
instance, the PACT (Professional Alternative Consortium for
Teachers) program matches "master teachers" with beginning
teachers (Schiff, Irwin, & McBride, 1987). The new teachers
are helped to improve and to succeed. Indeed, mentoring as a
type of "support system," as it is sometimes loosely defined,
has of late been gaining more recognition as a method for
nurturing first-year teachers (Daresh, 1988). A variety of
supportive relationships have also been developed to help
first-year or new administrators (Anderson, 1988; Daresh,
1987). Most of these types of instituted supportive
relationships assist first-year administrators in the induction
of new responsibili-ties. These relationships, however, are
not what research literature typically identifies as "mentoring
relationships."
Mentoring relationship, however, has been described in
literature and research in various ways; therefore, for the
purpose of this study a definition of "mentor" is necessary.
Definition of Mentor
As noted before, the mentor is conceptualized in mythol-
ogy, fictional literature, and film as an exceptionally wise,
older person. The mentor becomes teacher and advisor to a
naive and innocent youngster who has exhibited flashes of
potential. The protege, the mentor believes, has latent


5
talent. The mentor's charge is to guide the protege carefully
through challenging experiences in order to develop higher-
level skills. Overtaxing the protege is avoided. The mentor
is the guide who prevents the protege from stumbling while
learning. Although these fictional descriptions tend to
romanticize mentoring relationships, they do reflect certain
actual characteristics of mentoring.
Research literature suggests that it is a mentor who often
initiates the relationship (Bearden, 1984; Collins, 1983;
Misserian, 1980). Having an active interest in the protege,
the mentor fills in various roles. In the business world,
Schein (1978) has listed types of mentor roles such as:
1. The mentor as teacher, coach, or trainer--a person
about whom the younger person would say, "That
person taught me a lot of things about how to do
things around here."
2. The mentor as a positive role model--a person about
whom the younger person would say, "I learned a
lot from watching that person in operation; that
person really set a good example of how to get
things done."
3. The mentor as a developer of talent--a person about
whom the younger person would say, "That person
really gave me challenging work from which I
learned a great deal; I was pushed along and forced
to stretch myself."
4. The mentor as a opener of doors--a person who makes
sure that the younger person is given opportunities
for challenging and growth-producing assignments,
who fights "upstairs" for the young person, whether
or not the younger person is aware of it.


6
5. The mentor as protector (mother hen)--a person about
whom the younger person would say, "That person
watched over me and protected me while I learned; I
could make mistakes and learn without risking my job."
6. The mentor as a sponsor--a person who gives visibility
to his or her "proteges," who makes sure that they
have good "press" and are given exposure to higher-
level people so that they will be remembered when
new opportunities come along, with or without the
awareness of the younger person.
7. The mentor as a successful leader--a person whose own
success ensures that her or his supporters will "ride
along on his or her coattails," who brings those
people along, (p. 178)
Reich suggested that a mentor is a person high enough in the
corporate hierarchy to influence the approved development of a
personally selected successor, the protege. By ensuring that
the protege receives assignments to special projects, is
granted autonomy on difficult tasks, or is appointed to
specially created positions, the mentor grooms the protege to
fill the positions the mentor leaves behind (Reich, 1986, p.
50).
Similarly, the five mentor criteria described by Collins
(1983, pp. 6-7) are:
1. The mentor is higher up in the organizational ladder.
2. The mentor is an authority in the field of work.
3. The mentor is influential.
4. The mentor is interested in the protege's growth.
5. The mentor is willing to invest time and emotion in
the protege.


In short, the mentor is the key supporter in the career
development of the protege. In the conceptual model proposed
by Shapiro, Hazeltine, and Rowe, the mentor moves along a
continuum of supportive relationships in which the mentor
asserts varying degrees of power or influence (see Figure 1).
(low) (high)
________I_______________I_____________________I______________I
Peer Coach Sponsor Mentor
Figure 1. Continuum of supportive relationships. From
"Degree of Power-Access to Resources of All Kinds, i.e.,
Expertise, Influence, Status, Time, Money, Information, etc."
(Shapiro, Hazeltine, & Rowe, 1978).
While varying degrees of support may exist, one can see that
the mentor is far more powerful than just the good-will sup-
porter and
while a mentor can assume any one or all of the less
powerful roles--sponsor, coach, even peer--the reverse is
not true. Sponsors, coaches, and peers, though
developmentally significant, do not have the degree of
influence mentors have upon their proteges. (Missirian,
1982, p. 86)
In addition to the supportive relationships, the mentor is
uniquely characterized by ego involvement. Missirian discussed
this intangible quality: "The mentor is the person who shares
'the dream'--not necessarily a consciously formulated career
goal, but rather a cherished perception of self (ego ideal)"
(p. 87). The empathic commitment between mentor and protege is
underscored by Daniel Levinson (1978) in his statement that:


8
[The true mentor must] foster the young adult's develop-
ment by believing in him (her), sharing the youthful
dream, giving it his blessing, helping to define the
newly emerging self in its newly discovered world, and
creating a space in which the young person can work on
a reasonable satisfactory life structure that contains
the Dream, (p. 100)
These shared goals, the personal involvement, and the psycho-
logical sense of oneness defines the unique quality of the
mentor-protege relationship. Clearly,
the emotional involvement in a true mentoring relationship
goes far beyond the utility of the relationship in terms
of sponsorship or career modeling. . The fundamental
distinction [that defines the mentor], then, is
essentially one of emotional involvement (ego) or the lack
of it. (Missirian, 1982, p. 87)
For the purpose of this study, the mentor is defined as
follows:
1. The mentor is higher than the protege in the organi-
zational ladder.
2. The mentor is an authority in the field of work.
3. The mentor is influential.
4. The mentor is interested in the protege's growth.
5. The mentor is willing to invest time and emotion in
the protege.
6. The mentor assists the protege via a "continuum of
supportive relationships," e.g., peer, coach, spon-
sor, patron .... (Collins, 1983; Shapiro et al.,
1978)
This definition of a mentor applies to relationships found in
business or professional organizations; however, it tends to
reduce some of the paternal-like concerns sometimes attributed


9
to mentors. This definition permits the study to investigate
the relationship of mentoring with career advancement, work
environment, and organizational culture of Colorado public
school administrators.
Focus of the Study
Although studies about mentoring would seem to lead to
obvious conclusions about its efficacy, little research exists
on mentoring in education. And yet, most writers seem to agree
about the importance of establishing mentoring relationships.
The importance is suggested by Kanter who stated that "spon-
sored mobility seems to determine who gets the most desirable
job" (1977, p. 181). It has been noted that organizations as
dynamic entities also seem to prosper as a result of mentoring
relationships; the mentor teaches the protege the organiza-
tional norms. The protege, thusf is more likely to perform his
duties in an approved manner (Schein, 1978).
The importance of a mentoring relationship for the protege
lies in knowing that security and protection surround his work:
"Just knowing [the mentor] was in my corner helped. More than
that, sensing such generosity above me, I felt free to offer
similar opportunities to those under my own supervision"
(Lumsden, 1982, p. 54). In settings where ethnic and women
representation have been traditionally poor, mentoring rela-


10
tionships have created inroads for these groups (Missirian,
1982; Primus, 1984; Weigand, 1982). Women, for example, in the
corporate world represent only six percent of top-level admini-
strators; notably, however, the Missirian (1982) and Reich
(1986) studies found that 77 percent and 86 percent, respec-
tively, of the top businesswomen have had mentors who assisted
in their advancement into administration. By these conclu-
sions, the most successful strategy for businesswomen and
businessmen to advance in administration is through a mentoring
relationship. Implicitly, this same strategy seems logical for
the advancement of public education administrators.
Because of the success of mentoring in the business world,
it is premised that mentoring becomes a viable strategy for
school administrators to advance up the ranks.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is fourfold:
1. To document the extent to which mentoring is used as
a specific strategy for advancing candidates in public school
administration.
2. To determine the relationship between mentoring and
the advancement of careers of public school administrators.
3. To determine the extent minorities and women partici-
pate in the mentoring process.


11
4. To compare the characteristics of mentoring relation-
ships in education, as reported by respondents, with those
found in corporate sector literature.
Significance of the Study
Mentoring relationships among Colorado public school
administrators have not been studied. Therefore, this study
would:
1. determine the existence of administrator mentoring
relationships in Colorado public schools;
2. compare the mentoring characteristics in corporate
settings with those in public school settings;
3. determine the demography of public school districts
where mentoring occurs;
4. determine the effects of mentoring on ethnic
minorities and women;
5. retrieve and analyze information on the mentoring
process for application to the public school setting.
Assumptions
In order to conduct this study, the researcher designed
four working assumptions:
1. The mentoring phenomenon, often documented in business
corporate structures, exists in the public school organization.


12
2. Mentoring exists in the administrative hierarchy of
the public school organization.
3. Mentoring occurs across populations of ethnic minori-
ties and women.
4. People can recognize when they have participated in a
mentoring relationship.
Statement of the Problem
What relationships exist between mentoring and organiza-
tional culture, mentoring and work environment, and mentoring
and career advancement of Colorado public school administra-
tors?
Research Questions
The following research questions are raised for investi-
gation:
1. Is there a relationship between mentoring and career
advancement of public school administrators?
2. Is there a relationship between mentoring and
organizational culture?
3. Is there a relationship between mentoring and the
work environment?
4. Are there ethnic and/or gender differences in relation
to mentoring, career advancement, organizational culture, and
work environment?


13
Statements of Hypotheses
Hypotheses statements have been developed to address each
of the research questions.
1. Considering the category of CAREER ADVANCEMENT, the
following hypotheses statements will be studied:
H]_: There is no difference in career advancement between
samples of mentored and non-mentored public school administra-
tors .
H2: There is no difference in the mean salary between
samples of mentored and non-mentored public school administra-
tors .
H3: There is no difference in the mean number of years
employed in education before the first promotion into
administration between samples of mentored and non-mentored
public school administrators.
H4: There is no difference in the mean ages between
samples of mentored and non-mentored public school adminis-
trators .
H5: There is no difference in the mean number of
promotions into administrative positions between samples of
mentored and non-mentored public school administrators.
Considering the category of ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE, the
following hypothesis statement will be studied:


14
Hg: There is no difference in perception about organiza-
tional culture between samples of mentored and non-mentored
public school administrators.
Considering the category of WORK ENVIRONMENT, the follow-
ing hypothesis statement will be studied:
H7: There is no difference in perception about work
environment between samples of mentored and non-mentored
public school administrators.
Considering the category of ETHNIC AND/OR GENDER
DIFFERENCES between mentored and non-mentored populations with
respect to career advancement, organizational culture, and work
environment, the following hypotheses statements will be
studied.
Hg: There is no difference in career advancement between
samples of mentored and non-mentored minority public school
administrators.
H9: There is no difference in career advancement between
samples of mentored and non-mentored female public school
administrators.
Hiq: There is no difference in career advancement between
samples of mentored female and mentored male public school
administrators.
)


15
Hu: There is no difference in career advancement between
samples of mentored female and non-mentored male public school
administrators.
H^2: There is no difference in mean salary between
samples of mentored and non-mentored minority public school
administrators.
H^3: There is no difference in mean salary between
samples of mentored and non-mentored female public school
administrators.
H14: There is no difference in mean salary between
samples of mentored female and mentored male public school
administrators.
H15: There is no difference in mean salary between
samples of mentored female and non-mentored male public school
administrators.
H^5: There is no difference in the mean number of years
employed in education before the first promotion in administra-
tion between samples of mentored and non-mentored minority
public school administrators.
H17: There is no difference in the mean number of years
employed in education before the first promotion in
administration between samples of mentored and non-mentored
female public school administrators.


16
H^g: There is no difference in the mean number of years
employed in education before the first promotion in administra-
tion between samples of mentored female and mentored male
public school administrators.
H19: There is no difference in the mean number of years
employed in education before the first promotion in administra-
tion between samples of mentored female and non-mentored male
public school administrators.
H20: There is no difference in the mean ages between
samples of mentored and non-mentored minority public school
administrators.
H21: There is no difference in the mean ages between
samples of mentored and non-mentored female public school
administrators.
H22: There is no difference in the mean ages between
samples of mentored female and mentored male public school
administrators.
H23: There is no difference in the mean ages between
samples of mentored female and non-mentored male public
school administrators.
H24: There is no difference in the mean number of promo-
tions between samples of mentored and non-mentored minority
public school administrators.


H25: There is no difference in the mean number of promo-
tions between samples of mentored and non-mentored female
public school administrators.
H26: There is no difference in the mean number of promo-
tions between samples of mentored female and mentored male
public school administrators.
H27: There is no difference in the mean number of promo-
tions between samples of mentored female and non-mentored male
public school administrators.
H28: There is no difference in perception about organiza
tional culture between samples of mentored and non-mentored
minority public school administrators.
H29: There is no difference in perception about organiza
tional culture between samples of mentored and non-mentored
female public school administrators.
H30: There is no difference in perception about organiza
tional culture between samples of mentored female and mentored
male public school administrators.
H31: There is no difference in perception about organi-
zational culture between samples of mentored female and non-
mentored male public school administrators.
H32: There is no difference in perception about work
environment between samples of mentored minority and non-
mentored minority public school administrators.


18
H33: There is no difference in perception about work
environment between samples of mentored and non-mentored female
public school administrators.
H34: There is no difference in perception about work
environment between samples of mentored female and mentored
male public school administrators.
H35: There is no difference in perception about work
environment between samples of mentored female and non-mentored
male public school administrators.
Delimitations of the Study
The following delimitations were established:
1. Respondents will be selected from a random sample of
all Colorado public school administrators entered in the
Colorado Educational Directory. 1988.
2. Selected respondents will be from public school
districts.
3. Respondents will be selected from a random sample of
the eight Colorado school district categories as designated by
the Colorado Department of Education and the Colorado State
Legislature in 1988.
4. Respondents to the survey will be currently appointed
certificated administrators as defined by the Colorado Depart-
ment of Education, 1988.


19
v
5. The interviewing process of the interviewer will be
standardized.
6. Minority groups will be any designated as American
Indian or Native Alaskan, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black,
Hispanic, and/or women. (Colorado Department of Education,
Fall 1988).
Limitations of the Study
The following limitations need to be considered:
1. Respondents to the survey and interview may not
respond accurately or completely.
2. Responses to the questions are dependent on post hoc
recall.
3. The generalization of findings may apply only to
Colorado school districts.
4. Data on career advancement, organizational culture,
and work environment and their association with mentoring rela-
tionships will be based on the subjective perceptions of the
respondents.
5. The random sample will be drawn from the Colorado
Education Directory. Assistant principals are not listed.


20
Definition of Terms
The following definitions provide clarification for
specific terms used in this study:
ADMINISTRATIVE POSITION: A position that requires certifi-
cated district administrators, including superintendents,
assistant superintendents, directors, administrative
assistants, business managers, supervisors, attendance
officers, deans, principals, assistant principals
(Colorado Department of Education, 1988).
CAREER ADVANCEMENT: Movement within the organization that can
be classified in one of the following ways: 1) vertical
mobility, i.e., up the hierarchal ladder, and/or
2) parallel mobility to similar status positions but with
different responsibilities and performance tasks.
ETHNIC/RACIAL GROUPS: As designated by the Colorado Department
of Education, a person may be included in a group to which
he or she appears to belong, identifies with, or is
regarded in the community as belonging. However, no
person should be counted in more than one of the following
racial/ethnic groups:
American Indian or Alaskan Native--a person having
origins in any of the original peoples of North
America.


21
Asian or Pacific Islander--a person having origins in
any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast
Asia, or the Pacific Islands. This area includes, for
example, China, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands and
Samoa.
Black, Not of Hispanic Origin--a person having
origins in any of the black racial groups.
White, Not of Hispanic Origin--a person having
origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North
Africa, the Middle East, or Indian subcontinent.
Hispanic--a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban,
Central or South American, or Spanish culture or origin,
regardless of race.
Though the above racial/ethnic designations have been
defined by the Colorado Department of Education (1988),
most often the term used in this study will be "ethnic
groups." The term "ethnic" is more accepting and less
distorting, enabling people to respond more readily.
Montague noted, "races do not exist; classifications of
mankind do" (1965, p. 87); thus, "the non-committal term
'ethnic group' should be used (in place of race)" (1965,
p. 88).
GENDER: A person's self-designation of being either male/man
or female/woman.


22
INFLUENCE: The perceived change of behavior or situation by
the protege as a result of the actions, presence, or
suggestions of the mentor.
MENTEE: The person receiving mentoring. Also protege.
MENTOR: Typically a more experienced, senior, higher ranking
person in the organization than the protege; additionally,
also, a person established as an authority or expert in
the field of work, who wields effective influence in the
affairs of the organization; who, because of personal and
professional reasons, is interested in the protege's
growth and willing to invest time and emotion in the
protege. In the process of being a mentor, the mentor
assists the protege via a continuum of supportive
relationships or roles (Collins, 1983; Schmoll, 1981;
Shapiro et al., 1978).
MENTOR MULTIPLIER EFFECT: The phenomenon of protege-turned
mentor: "There is a multiplier effect in mentoring.
The person who appreciates the advantages of profes-
sional mentoring has a special incentive to be a mentor
in turn" ("The Mentors," 1979, p. 14).
MENTOR REIATIONSHIP: A unique teaching-learning interaction
between mentor and protege so that both parties benefit
(Zey, 1984). Benefits for the protege include increased
visibility, professional growth and development,


23
psychological growth, increased knowledge of organiza-
tional culture, career advancement, increased
responsibility, status, and influence. Benefits for the
mentor are an improved support system, increased loyalty
base, power, greater productivity, increased prestige, and
potential generative fulfillment (Collins, 1983; D.
Levinson, 1978). The relationship undergoes developmental
stages: initiations, cultivation, separation, and
redefinition (Kram, 1985). The mentor usually initiates
the relationship (Bearden, 1984; Collins, 1983; D.
Levinson, 1978; Misserian, 1980). During cultivation,
both individuals benefit and an emotional bond grows.
During this time, the mentor may serve the protege in a
variety of different roles ranging from peer, coach, role
model, protector, leader, developer of talent, or sponsor
(Schein, 1978; Shapiro et al., 1978). This leads to
personal or professional growth for both individuals and
may assist in career advancement. Separation occurs after
significant role change in the role relationship.
Redefinition is marked by greater independence by the
protege. The mentoring relationship no longer exists.
MINORITIES: See also "ethnic/racial groups." People of
American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific


24
Islander, Black--not Hispanic origin, or Hispanic, origin
or culture, and/or female, but not White males.
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE: The "assumptions about how a company
should behave, [the] norms and values about appropriate
actions" (Kanter, 1983, p. 371). As defined by Deal and
Kennedy four general organizational cultures exist: 1)
"the tough-guy macho" culture (i.e., emphasis on the indi-
vidual and encouragement of the star system), 2) "the work
hard/play hard" culture (i.e., emphasis on team work),
3) "the bet-your-company" culture (i.e., emphasis on
top-down decision-making, deliberate or slow-paced
decision-making); decisions may greatly change or alter
the organization, and 4) "the process" culture (i.e.,
emphasis on caution and patterns and procedures) (1982,
pp. 107-108). For this study, Deal and Kennedy's
organizational categories have been relabeled to fit the
school organization. The new categories are School
Culture #1, "Entrepreneurial"; School Culture #2, "Team";
School Culture #3, "Gambler"; School Culture #4,
"Bureaucratic."
PHILOSOPHY: The value system of an organization "[provides]
a sense of common direction for all employees and
guidelines for their day-to-day behavior" (Deal and
Kennedy, 1982, p. 21). In organizations with strong


25
philosophies employees know what their organization stands
for, they know what standards they are to uphold, their
decisions are based on these standards, and they believe
they are an important part of the organization (Deal and
Kennedy, 1982, p. 21).
PROTEGE: The person receiving mentoring. Also mentee.
SCHOOL CULTURE: See "organizational culture."
SCHOOL DISTRICT: One of eight setting categories of districts
as designated by the Colorado Department of Education and
the Colorado State Legislature (House Bill No. 1341) in
1988 to establish financial equity amongst districts.
Colorado categorizes school districts as follows:
Setting category I Core city is composed of large
urbanized districts with district and city boundaries
which are coterminous. Core city districts are charac-
terized by large enrollment declines over the past twenty
years, high concentrations of low-income students
and students with special needs including, but not limited
to, special education students, compensatory education
students, and vocational education students, high dropout
rates, and total pupil enrollments in excess of forty
thousand.
Setting category II Denver metro is composed of
districts located within the Denver-Boulder standard


26
metropolitan statistical area which are primarily suburban
in nature, compete economically for the same staff pool,
and reflect the regional economy of the area. Denver
metro districts are characterized by a homogeneous pupil
population and generally smaller number of special needs
pupils than core city districts.
Setting category III Urban-suburban is composed of
districts which comprise the state's major population
centers outside of the Denver metropolitan area and their
immediately surrounding suburbs. Urban-suburban districts
are within areas characterized by population centers of
thirty thousand persons or more.
Setting category IV Outlying city is composed of
districts in which most of the pupils live in popula-
tion centers of seven thousand persons or more but less
than thirty thousand persons.
Setting category V Outlying town is composed of
districts with no population centers in excess of one
thousand persons and is characterized by sparse wide-
spread populations.
Setting category VI Rural is composed of districts
with no population centers in excess of one thousand
persons and is characterized by sparse widespread
populations. Rural districts are districts which do not


27
meet the enrollment criterion for setting category VIII -
'small attendance.'
Setting category VII Recreational is composed of
districts which contain major recreational developments
that impact the cost of property values, community
income, and other cost-of-living components.
Setting category VIII Small attendance is composed
of districts which are rural in nature and have pupil
enrollments of less than one hundred fifty.
WOMENTORING: Women mentoring women (Hetherington & Barcelo,
1985; Moore & Sagaria, 1981; Moore, 1982).
WORK ENVIRONMENT: An environment made up of 11 subvariables
that include:
1. The administrator's perceived self-worth.
2. Interpersonal relations and social life.
3. Physical and psychological dimensions of
the work place.
4. Organizational clarity.
5. Access to resources.
6. Reasonable autonomy.
7. Reward system.
8. Opportunities to learn.
9. Challenge.
Supportive relationships.
10.


11. Personal opportunities within the
organization (Dodgson, 1986; Egan, 1985;
D. Levinson, 1978; Schein, 1978).
Methodology and Strategies to Investigate
Research Questions
This study will use both interview technique and statist!
cal design approaches. Through the process of reviewing liter
ature, obtaining baseline data through questionnaires, and
conducting personal interviews, the study will attempt to dis-
cover patterns and associations of mentoring relationships in
Colorado public schools. Interview methodology will obtain in
depth descriptive data in order to investigate mentor
characteristics in the public school organization.
The statistical design will seek correlational and
associative coefficients in the comparison of a control
group (nonmentored administrators) to an experimental group
(mentored administrators).
Procedure and Sample Population
A list of all Colorado public school administrators
obtained from the Colorado Education Directory will be used to
select a systematic random sample of public school adminis-
trators. The random sample will be 20% of the total popula-
tion of listed public school administrators. Systematic


29
random sampling technique will permit proportionate and
representative numbers of administrators to be selected from
each of the eight school district categories as well as minor-
ity personnel and women (Hopkins & Glass, 1978, pp. 184-188).
The questionnaire will be developed from a review of
literature on survey design and strategies (Babbi, 1983;
Dillman, 1978). The questionnaire will be reviewed by a panel
of experts and piloted prior to distribution to the sample
population. Questionnaires will be mailed to a random sample
of administrators. This mail survey will retrieve quantitative
baseline information on mentoring experiences.
A sample of 18 administrators (drawn from the original
sample of 500) will be selected for in-depth interviews.
An analysis of variance (ANOVA), Chi-Square tests, t-
tests, and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) will be used to
address quantitative issues.
Organization of Study
Chapter I provides the rationale and social and theoreti-
cal framework for the study. In particular, the chapter
includes definition of mentor, focus of the study, purpose of
the study, significance of the study, assumptions, statement of
the problem, research questions, statements of hypotheses,


30
delimitations, limitations, definition of terms, and an over-
view of the research methodology to be used.
Chapter II provides a review of literature about mentor-
ing. Because mentoring as a strategy to advance careers has
been most often documented in business, research and data from
business will be reviewed to build a foundation of understand-
ing. Additional literature on mentoring administrators in
educational organizations will also be reviewed. Any distinc-
tions in the application of mentoring between business and edu-
cation will be noted. In particular, this review of literature
examines
1. the mentor relationship as a concept,
2. mentor's benefits,
3. protege's benefits,
4. organization's benefits,
5. mentoring relationships and women,
6. mentoring relationships and minorities.
Chapter III examines the methodology of data gathering. A
correlational and associative study is planned. Data will be
gathered on items that specifically address the study's
research questions. Data will be gathered in a two-part pro-
cedure: (1) a survey questionnaire will be mailed to a random
sample population of 500 administrators, and (2) a second
sample (a sub-sample of the original 500) of 18 administrators


31
will be interviewed as part of in-depth study of mentoring
characteristics in the public school organization. These data
gathered from questionnaires and interviews will be correlated
using Chi-square tests, t-tests, ANOVA and ANCOVA.
Chapter IV reports the results of the study, using data
gathered from the mailed surveys, bias check telephone surveys,
and personal interviews. Each research question is analyzed
for major findings. All null hypotheses states are tested and
reported as either being accepted or rejected.
Chapter V summarizes the study, reports major findings and
results of null hypotheses statements, and draws conclusions
based on analysis of major findings. Additionally, the chapter
provides recommendations for further research for other
researchers, school districts, and universities.


CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
I benefit myself in aiding him.
Sophocles
Introduction
The concept of mentoring is not new. The term and use of
the concept have managed to survive from mythology dating
before Christ, through English folklore, the Middle Ages and
into the 20th century and its celluloid screen. The revival of
mentoring relationships over this time can be best explained as
an inherent desire to promote change and growth in people.
Chapter II examines types and efficacy of mentoring
relationships in the corporate organization and contrasts them
with similar relationships found in the public school context.
Though seemingly simplistic in its design, the mentoring
relationship becomes increasingly involved as the concept is
studied in its totality. The dynamic affect on mentor and
protege and its influence on the career advancement of profes-
sionals in business and public education can be profound.


33

Organization of Chapter
This study focuses on the relationship between mentoring
and organizational culture, work environment, and mentoring and
career advancement of Colorado public school administrators.
Although the majority of the literature currently available on
this topic reports experiences in business,
the concepts and experiences regarding mentoring relation-
ships, mentor, protege, and organizational benefits are con-
sidered applicable to the educational setting.
Chapter II reviews related literature and is organized
into the following categories:
1. Mentoring relationship as a concept
a. Rationale for mentoring relationships
b. Role of the mentor
c. Mentor types
d. Mentoring relationship development
e. Mentoring in professional education
2. Mentor's benefits
a. Emotional affection and empathy
b. Adult development/generativity
c. Enhanced personal performance and reputation
d. Mentor multiplier effect
3. Protege's benefits
a. Career Advancement


34
b. Professional growth and development
c. High aspirations and support
d. Career planning
e. Sponsorship
f. New skills and knowledge
g. Exposure and visibility
h. Protection
i. Acceptance within the organizational culture
4. Organization's benefits
a. Organizational culture
b. Work environment
c. Improved communication
d. Accelerated training
e. Improved induction process
f. Organized critical mass for change
g. Established management team
5. Mentoring relationships and women
a. Establishment of the relationship
b. Problems in the mentoring relationship
c. Benefits
d. Mentor's role for women
e. Womentoring
6. Mentoring relationships and minorities
a. Positive potential


35
b. Problems
c. Succession socialization
d. Need for a close relationship
e. Minority women
Information on these categories was gathered by completing
an Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) basic data
search using key descriptors. Approximately 60 items on
mentoring relationships were found using the following
descriptors: mentor, mentee. protege, -sponsor, educational
administration, coaching, and career advancement. A review of
Dissertation Abstracts International, volumes 40-49 (1980-1987)
yielded information on the investigated topics. A review of
Books in Print. Resource Index of Education (RIE) and Current
Index of Journals in Education (CIJE') also uncovered titles
addressing career advancement. mentors. and patterns of career
advancement in both the corporate and educational worlds. Data
on ethnic public school administrators in Colorado were com-
piled by the Colorado Department of Education.
Most literature discussed mentoring relationships in the
corporate context. Included in this context, the woman
administrator and her mentors were studied. Based on the
current literature, neither corporate nor educational organi-
zations have reported significant research on mentor relation-
ships with minorities. These organizations seemed unaware of


36
differences between mentors and proteges of different ethnici-
ties .
It is noteworthy that educational organizations addressed
the mentoring relationship principally in terms of teacher
growth and/or improved student achievement. A limited number
of mentor studies involving administrators, however, included
career advancement. In particular, literature on mentoring
relationships often focused on institutions of higher educa-
tion. Literature about mentoring relationships enhancing
under-represented groups in public school administration gener-
ally centered on women. Again, no educational literature was
uncovered which addressed the topic of mentors and minority
proteges of different ethnic origins.
Mentoring Relationship as a Concent
Rationale for Mentoring Relationships
The goal to find "the winning couplet" (Jennings, 1971),
which is the teaming of a senior and a junior executive as they
advance through the ranks, has been sought as often in the edu-
cational field as in the corporate field. The mentoring rela-
tionship serves to socialize, teach, model, guide, or advise
novices about the organizational folkways, norms, and specific
skills required for advancement. The working definition of
mentor used in this study focused on the mentor's role in the


37
organization and the mentor's professional influence on the
protege, but intentionally left out the personal and sometimes
intimate influence that the mentor may have on the protege's
personal life.
In business, a mentor-protege relationship evolves when
both share the same value systems and goals of the organiza-
tion. But such successful matching is, in fact, a difficult
process. Schein (1978) wrote that
ultimately the dilemma of an effective total human
resource planning and development system is how to main-
tain a reasonable matching process when both individual
and organizational needs change in response to changing
environmental circumstances and to internal developmental
processes, (p. 6)
A quasi-mentor relationship helps to socialize the new
employee to the culture of the organization as illustrated in
the following:
Entry into the organization is, from the individual's
point of view, a process of figuring out how to get along
and how to make it. The same process from the point of
view of the organization is one of induction, basic
training, and socialization of the individual to the major
norms and values of the organization and of testing new
employees to make it possible to place them correctly in a
job and a career path. (Schein, 1978, p. 81)
During this germination period, entrepreneurial types begin to
emerge; in business this talent development seldom is success-
ful unless the protege has a protector (a sponsor or mentor).
A prime example of this process is described by Peters and
Waterman (1982):


38
At 3M, championing, [i.e., a type of sponsorship] refers
to the agonizing process of delegating to the youngsters
the all-important activity of nurturing new products. The
executive champion at 3M is not a "boss." He is a coach,
a mentor. He is paid for his patience and his skill in
developing other champions. (p. 226)
In the best of worlds this notion of creating and develop-
ing "champions" leads to recognition and career advancement.
Selection by a mentor provides a unique and special opportunity
to advance a career at a richer and accelerated rate. It is
easier to match individuals with sponsors or mentors in some
organizations, especially if it is part of an instituted induc-
tion process (Anderson, 1988; Leitschuh, 1987; Ryan, 1984).
Chosen individuals, labeled proteges, are socialized by
sponsors to maintain the cultural norms. In his comparison
between "Sponsored and Contest Mobility and the School System"
Turner (1960) stated that
under sponsored mobility elite recruits are chosen by
established elite or their agents, and elite status is
given on the basis of some criterion of supposed merit and
cannot be taken by any amount of effort or strategy.
Upward mobility is like entry into a private club where
each candidate must be "sponsored" by one or more of the
members. (p. 856)
Selectees are given special attention. They have wide latitude
and can minimize the fear of failure. In an implicit way, the
organizational sponsorship has given the protege carte blanche
to apprentice with the corporate elite. In contrast to "spon-
sored mobility," "contest mobility" is the American tradition
in dealing with the masses and advancement. "Contest mobility"


39
pits everyone as equals. Career advancement is based on the
merit, aggressiveness, initiative, and perseverance of the
individual; really,
contest mobility is like a sporting event in which many
compete for a few recognized prizes. The contest is
judged to be fair only if all the players compete on an
equal footing. Victory must be won solely by one's own
efforts. The most satisfactory outcome is not neces-
sarily a victory of the most able, but of the most
deserving. . Applied to mobility, the contest norm
means that victory by a person of moderate intelligence
accomplished through the use of commonsense craft,
enterprise, daring, and successful risk-taking is more
appreciated than victory by the most intelligent or the
best educated. (Turner, 1960, p. 857)
Some may argue, of course, that "contest mobility" is a fairer
process; however, career advancement then becomes a Malthusian-
Darwinian contest of "survival of the fittest." By exempting a
person from "contest mobility," "sponsored mobility" provides
an alternative, a mentoring relationship.
Through "sponsor mobility," the sponsored person is given
an entree to the elite hierarchy. Further, the controlled
process of "sponsored mobility" chooses promising individuals,
and mentors are then able to guide the proteges in the desired
direction (Turner, 1960).
Although "sponsor" and "mentor" have been discussed as
similar terms, they are not identical. In fact, Peters and
Austin (1985) argued that mentoring negatively creates
adversarial groups within an organization; that is, mentors
build networks of loyal protege's that blindly "follow my flag"


40
of the mentor (p. 414). In contrast, sponsorship, Peters and
Austin (1985) suggested, is non-preferential, broader, less
personal, and works within the context of the organization's
philosophy and needs without creating potentially divisive
political factions. Though this notion of sponsorship helps
with the norming of individuals in the organization, it cer-
tainly fits into Turner's theory of "contest mobility." There
is no advantage between individuals. Mentoring, however, does
provide an advantage because its relationship intentionally is
more intimate and mutualistic.
Role of the Mentor
The role of mentor is more crucial during certain stages
of the educational career. Educational writers describe the
mentoring process similarly to business writers. That is, in
the educational setting the mentor, too, serves as coach, coun-
selor, teacher, trainer, advisor, sponsor, role model, career
mentors, and life mentors (Dodgson, 1986; Klopf & Harrison,
1981; McNeer, 1983; Swoboda & Millar, 1986; Valverde, 1980).
Dodgson asserted that "the mentor in education also appears to
be predominantly a role model" (1986, p. 32); therefore, the
effect of the mentor may be more limited or less influential in
the educational organization. Anderson and Shannon (1988) ,
however, argue that mentoring definitions used in educational
programs are inconsistent and lack "conceptual frameworks for


41
organizing mentoring functions and behaviors found within the
definitions of mentoring" (1988, p. 40). In their study,
Shapiro et al. (1978) described a continuum of supporting rela-
tionships labeled a "patron system." These relationships exist
in most organizational settings and are referred as peer pals.
guides. sponsors, and mentors.
Peer pals indicate a collegial relationship where peers
help each other by providing support, advice, and sharing
information with one another.
Guides generally have little power or influence, but do
have specialized knowledge or experiences to be shared so that
shortcuts may be taken or pitfalls may be avoided.
Sponsors have positions of influence up the hierarchy and
can shape and promote the career of proteges.
Mentors make up "the most intense and paternalistic" of
supporting relationships. True mentors occupy positions of
power and influence in the organization. While the other roles
are limited in capacity in what they can do for the protege,
the mentor has greater flexibility to provide all the personal
attention or organizational influence needed to assist the
protege. Mentors choose to become closely involved with their
proteges. Such descriptors as "paternal," "personal,"
"emotional," "exclusionary," "godfather," or "rabbis" have been
used to characterize the close attachment (Kanter, 1977; D.


42
Levinson, 1978; Sheehy, 1976). Because this type of relation-
ship is exclusionary and intense, the protege receives special
opportunities for recognition and advancement as compared to
peers. Mentoring relationships "are clearly a variable related
to success and mobility, but not everyone (male or female) will
choose to be or will be chosen as a protege. Mentorships are
not democratic" (Shapiro et al., 1978, p. 56). Because of the
dramatic role of the mentor, many researchers have elaborated
on the role of the mentor.
Pragmatically, the mentoring relationship is of greatest
value when the mentor can contribute his power and influence on
behalf of the protege. Collins (1983), for example, defined
mentors by a list of five criteria. The mentor must be:
1. Higher up in the organizational ladder.
2. An authority in the field.
3. Influential.
4. Interested in the protege's growth and
development.
5. Willing to commit time and emotion to the
relationship.
These criteria appear necessary for career advancement since
it's widely accepted management theory today that a person
cannot make it alone inside the corporation, no matter how
good the technical skills, abilities, performance, or
stamina . the willingness of people [i.e., mentors] on
the key executive team to support an aspiring manager,


43
counsel with the person and provide inside information is
the key to an individual's success. (Cook, 1979, p. 83)
Ultimately,
in modern-day terms, mentors are influential people who
significantly help you reach vour life goals. They have
the power--through who or what they know--to promote your
welfare, training, or career. (Phillips-Jones, 1982, p.
21)
In the course of the mentoring relationship, the protege's
development benefits both the mentor and the organization.
Some have described the mentoring relationship as nurturing;
mentors serve as role models for proteges, and mentors exhibit
"certain dispositions that help define the process" (Anderson &
Lucasse, 1988, p. 40). In this process, the mentor has often
been described as teacher, coach, trainer, positive role model,
developer of talent, opener of doors, protector, sponsor,
successful leader, cheerleader, advisor, parental figure, and
counselor (Kram, 1985; D. Levinson, 1978; Missirian, 1982;
Peters & Waterman, 1982; Phillips-Jones, 1982; Schein, 1978).
In addition to the above other categories, others have been
suggested.
Mentor Types
In her study of female managers, Phillips-Jones, (1982, p.
30) distinguishes between primary and secondary mentors.
Primary mentors are characterized as unselfish, altruistic, and
caring. This characterization usually connoted the


44
"traditional mentor." Secondary mentors represent a business-
like rela-
tionship which served both individuals' career advancement.
Primary mentors are considered scarcer and more highly
regarded by proteges. Secondary mentors, in contrast, were
easier to find; a protege may have several secondary mentors at
a time.
Mentoring Relationship Development
Clawson's (1979) study of effective boss-subordinate rela-
tionships, proposed two dimensions in the developmental rela-
tionship. First, the "comprehensiveness of influence"
described the many aspects of an individual's life the rela-
tionship affects; and secondly, the "primary mentor relation-
ship" was marked by high mutual commitment by both individuals.
From a psychological perspective, Daniel Levinson (1978)
saw the mentoring relationship as a basic part of adulthood.
For the "novice adult," the entrance into adulthood requires
breaking of familial bonds and the assertion of independence.
The quest for personal goals is labeled "the Dream"; "many
young men have a Dream of the kind of life they want to lead as
adults. The vicissitudes and fate of the Dream have
fundamental consequences for adult development (D. Levinson,
1978, p. 91). Furthermore, only significant people can assist
the novice adult reach the Dream:


45
As the novice adult tries to separate from his family and
pre-adult world, and to enter an adult world, he must form
significant relationships with other adults who will
facilitate his work on the Dream . [among] the most
important figures in this drama [is] the mentor ..."
(D. Levinson, 1978, p. 93)
Although the mentoring relationship "almost invariably ends in
separation or modest friendship after a few years," the ter-
mination is often described as volatile, bitter, and stormy (D.
Levinson, 1978, p. 238). In spite of the bitterness that might
lurk in a mentoring relationship, the mentor, too, grows. The
mentor keeps in touch by the energy, ideals, and innocence of
youth for
there is a measure of altruism in mentoring--a sense of
meeting an obligation, of doing something for another
human being. But much more than altruism is involved:
the mentor is doing something for himself. . He is
maintaining his connection with the forces of youthful
energy into the world and in himself. (D. Levinson,
1978, p. 253)
Obviously, a synergism thrives; the protege draws from the
mentor's experiences and advice. The mentor, in turn, draws
from the talents, energy, and freshness of the protege.
Kram (1985) divided mentoring functions into two broad
categories: career functions and psychosocial functions.
Career functions are those aspects of the relationship
that enhance learning the ropes and preparing for advance-
ment in an organization. Psychosocial functions are those
aspects of the relationship that enhance a sense of com-
petence, clarity of identity, and effectiveness in a pro-
fessional role. While career functions serve, primarily,
to aid advancement up the hierarchy [sic] of an organiza-
tion, psychosocial functions affect each individual on a


46
personal level by building self-worth both inside and out-
side the organization. Together these functions enable
individuals to address the challenges of each career
stage. (pp. 22-23)
Listed as mentor roles in the career function are sponsorship,
exposure-and-visibility, coaching, protection, and challenging
assignments. Roles in the psychosocial function include role
modeling, acceptance-and-confirmation, counseling, and
friendship.
Harry Levinson (1968, 1981) labels the protege's percep-
tion of the mentor as "the ego ideal." Supported by Freud's
work, Levinson (1981) stated that
the conscience spurs people on to attain an ego ideal,
an internalized image of oneself at one's future best
[my emphasis]. This image is constructed from expec-
tations held by parents and others, from aspirations chil-
dren develop for themselves out of recognition of their
capacities and abilities, and from identification with
important figures in their environment. (p. 19)
On the one hand, the protege sees the mentor (the "ego ideal")
as the epitome of what to be like; the mentor, on the other
hand, empathically wants the protege to reach heights not yet
reached by the mentor.
This mutual admiration and esteem can present certain
peril for the protege, irrespective of the gender. One
uncertain outcome may be a growing and strong dependency on the
mentor. The inability to find a personal professional identity
stems from the protege's professional and emotional needs being


47
satisfied by only the mentor (Daresh, 1988; Fishel, 1985;
H. Levinson, 1981; Phillips-Jones, 1982; Sheehy, 1976).
Any study about mentoring relationships is incomplete
without discussing the stages that constitute a typical mentor
relationship. Many researchers identify similar characteris-
tics, but the labels for the stages may differ.
In an attempt to represent causes for transitions between
phases, Kram (1985) mapped out four phases which describe the
mentoring relationship: (1) initiation; (2) cultivation;
(3) separation; and (4) redefinition.
Initiation is the six-months to a one-year period when the
relationship begins. The mentor usually initiates the rela-
tionship (Collins, 1983; D. Levinson, 1978; Missirian, 1980;
Roche, 1979; Sheehy, 1976; Zey, 1984). Other writers recommend
strategies for potential proteges to be highly visible so as to
"fall into" a mentoring relationship (Collins, 1985; Hennig &
Jardim, 1977; Leizear, 1984; Misserian, 1982; Phillips-Jones,
1982).
The second phase, cultivation, usually lasts two to five
years. Both individuals continue to benefit and the emotional
bond strengthens.
The third phase, separation, occurs after a significant
change in role relationship and/or emotional experience.
Either the job requires less interaction between the two or the


48
relationship becomes redefined by promotions or by a greater
need for autonomy by the protege.
The last phase, redefinition, is marked by an indefinite
period after the separation when the relationship either ends
or takes on significantly different characteristics. A new
relationship is formed; the mentor role is no longer needed. A
peer status may arise.
Phillips-Jones (1982) offers another four-phase explana-
tion of the mentoring relationship: 1) mutual admiration,
2) development, 3) disillusionment, and 4) parting and trans-
formation.
During the mutual admiration phase, both the mentor and
protege have a high regard for each other. There is a sense of
uncertainty, however, about people's expectations.
As the relationship moves into the development phase, the
mentor is involved primarily in teaching. Later, less teaching
occurs and the protege takes increased responsibility for the
relationship.
The disillusionment phase begins when the protege reaches
original goals and growth slows or stops. The mentor may feel
threatened by the protege's progress.
The parting and transformation phase occurs when the
mentor and protege realign their roles. Phillips-Jones (1982)
noted that the "parting" may be a strained or bitter breaking


49
of the relationship, or it may be a natural process of matura-
tion, or physical distancing, as by a promotion to another city
or another department. During "transformation," the mentor
relationship has dissolved into a friendship or an amiable col-
legiality. At times, after the separation the protege and men-
tor never do renew their relationship but, instead, remain
disillusioned.
According to Daniel Levinson (1978) a new mentoring rela-
tionship begins with a sense of excitement and strong mutual
attraction. To summarize here, the novice adult views the
older mentor as the key person to fulfill the "Dream," his
personal goals. The mentor is paternal, nurturing the
impressionable protege. After several years, the relationship
runs its course and dissolves, ending with ambivalence, anger,
gratitude, and/or resentment. This termination is likened to a
stormy love relationship:
During the period of Becoming One's Own Man [D. Levinson's
term for adult maturation], mentor relationships are
likely to be especially stormy and vulnerable. The
termination of a close tie with mentor just now is often a
mutually painful, tortuous process. A man in his late
thirties is not only giving up his current mentor, [but
also] outgrowing the readiness to be the protege of any
older person. He must reject the mentoring relationship
not because it is intrinsically harmful but because it has
served its purpose. It has helped him to make a basic
developmental advance. (p. 147)


50
This termination enables the mentor and protege to separate and
to move to new relationships more appropriate to their current
developmental needs.
Mentoring in Professional
Education
Within education, the mentoring concept has developed as a
strategy to guide students and to nurture first-year teachers.
For students, adult students especially, the teacher serves as
mentor who "guides through transition" as the students face new
life challenges and grope to find achievement (Daloz, 1983, p.
24). In fact, Daloz, in his study of adult learners, noted
that four-fifths of these students returned to school because
of some transition in their lives (1983, p. 24). A
mentoring relationship, thus, serves as the perfect conduit to
channel support, encouragement, and advice. Mentoring rela-
tionships have been recommended for younger students as a means
of role modeling success and aiding at-risk, disadvantaged, and
minority students in finding academic success (Reed, 1986;
So, 1987). Marten's study (1988) of high school students in a
four-week mentoring program with civic leaders also reported
the development of supportive relationships. Proteges (high
school students) indicated increased understanding of others,
improved communication, networking skills, and improved


51
confidence. Adults serving as mentors felt a sense of
accomplishment in helping a young person grow.
For teachers, mentoring relationships are used to create
"differentiated developmental relationships" (Daresh, 1988, p.
5). In some instances, mentoring relationships for teachers
have been instituted as part of legislated career ladder
programs for teachers, such as the California teacher Mentor
Program (Bird, 1985; Lowney, 1986). In these instances, states
have attempted to take advantage of the skills and experience
of master teachers and relieve the horizontal, repetitive
nature of the teaching profession. Again, the need to build
support systems, to provide guidance, and to refine skills for
first-year teachers has served as motivation for instituting
different types of formal mentoring relationships. Godley et
al. (1986) noted that the "teacher consultants," acting as
mentors, formed mentoring relationships characterized by open-
ness, informality, and a high degree of interaction. Proteges
seemed to be highly influenced by their mentors in their deci-
sion making. Drawing from the experience of mentor teachers,
mentoring relationships have helped "classroom teachers to
become more effective (Daresh, 1988, p. 11). The successes of
mentoring relationships for teachers, though built on collegial
relationships, has "led California, Ohio, and other states to


52
mandate mentoring systems, at least for beginning teachers"
(Daresh, 1988, p. 11).
However, recognizing definitions by Shapiro et al. (1978)
and Collins (1983), many of the teacher mentor programs that
have been designed really work at a "peer-pal" (collegial or
guide) level, with the major intent in honing the skills of
inexperienced teachers. At this point in the career, there is
no expectation that the mentoring relationship will lead to
career advancement for either mentor or first-year teacher.
Mentoring for public school administrators certainly has
taken two courses: (1) a relationship evolves between a senior
and junior administrator and becomes the mutually benefiting
"true mentoring relationship" leading to career advancement or
achievement for both individuals; or (2) an institutional
program is formed by assigning an experienced administrator,
labeled either "sponsor" or "mentor," to assist the aspiring
or novice administrator with the induction into new responsi-
bilities .
In the latter situation, current literature is now begin-
ning to investigate the development and results of such
apprentice or coaching types of relationships. LaRose has
written of Alberta, Canada's three-strand program for inducting
new assistant principals that includes a "mentorship component"
so "their competence increases in the profession's technical


53
aspects and political workings" (1987, p. 50). The Far West
Laboratory for Educational Research uses a similar mentoring
concept matching principals as peer partners; again, the rela-
tionship serves as a vehicle for on-site experiential learn-
ing and gaining of skills and insight (Barnett & Long, 1986).
The Louisiana State University in Educational Administrational
Development (L.E.A.D.) is another example of a project designed
to assist principals through clinical diagnosis of performance
and to address principals' individual needs (Licata & Ellett,
1988). Gehrke (1988) reported that a period of time is
required to allow both mentors and protege to become comfort-
able and compatible. The development of such a mutualistic
relationship becomes the earmark of a "classical mentoring re-
lationship." For this reason, Gehrke suggested that mentoring
relationships cannot be forced or contrived as is the case in
some formalized mentoring programs. The Danforth Program at
The University of Ohio State, in contrast, seeks to take the
formalized mentor program a step farther.
In the Danforth program, the mentor not only serves as a
role model, but
also goes beyond this modeling function by serving as a
person who is more inclined to prod the student to learn
how to do something according to one's personal skills and
talents. In short, a mentor is likely to raise more ques-
tions than provide answers to the person with whom he or
she is interacting. (Daresh, 1988, p. 15)


54
Formalized mentoring programs, as described in educational
literature, emphasize the development of skills, staff and cur-
riculum development, classroom assistance, support systems, and
increased self-confidence and the induction into new positions
and responsibilities. To a lesser extent does educational
research investigate the impact of mentoring relationships on
career advancement. But as will be discussed shortly,
mentoring relationships can have tremendous impact on the entry
into administration and the advancement of administrators
within the public school organization.
The concept of the mentoring relationship, as has been
described, is complex because of its potential power to
influence individuals as well as the organizational environ-
ment. A discussion of specific benefits to the mentor,
protege, organization, women, and minorities follows.
Mentor's Benefits
Of the many roles that an administrator plays, "the mentor
is probably the most significant, and certainly the subtlest
. . in management development" (The Woodlands Group, 1980,
p. 920). Inasmuch as "many effective mentors are self-
appointed" and whose intent is "seeing others become fruitful
in their jobs' improving the company's position," the mentor,
too, receives some benefits that go beyond altruistic self-


55
fulfillment (The Woodlands Group, 1980, p. 920). These bene-
fits can be put into four general categories: (1) emotional
affection and empathy, (2) adult development/generative growth,
(3) enhanced personal attributes, and (4) mentor multiplier
effect.
Emotional Affection and
Empathy
A condition of the mentoring relationship is the social
and emotional interaction between mentor and protege. Implicit
in this is a sense of caring for one another. "Mentors do get
emotionally involved; it is a person who adores [the protege]
and had such confidence in [the protege] that [the protege has]
confidence in [him/herself]" (Collins, 1983, p. 96). One prime
example of this kind of emotional involvement is the reported
mentoring relationship at the Jewel Tea Company. Chief
Executive Donald Perkins explained:
If you are asking me if you can work with people with-
out love, the answer is no. On the other hand, if you are
asking if it is possible to help people by expressing love
only in terms of permissiveness, by never hurting them,
and never being candid with them, the answer is also no.
So sponsorship [i.e., mentorship] is somewhat like parent-
hood. ("Everyone Who Makes It Has A Mentor," 1978, p.
100).
The emotional involvement is expressed in the commitment of the
mentor's ego to help the protege succeed. This commitment is
easier when the mentor and protege develop a sense of empathy.
The mentor and protege work as a team for a common goal and


56
mutual advancement or success (Jennings, 1971). When the pro-
tege succeeds, the mentor vicariously succeeds too (Dodgson,
1986; Kram, 1985; D. Levinson, 1978; H. Levinson, 1968, 1981;
Missirian, 1982; Valverde, 1980). The mentor also benefits
from numerous psychic rewards. The mentor feels pride and a
sense of contribution to the organization through the protege.
The mentor receives appreciation, admiration, respect, grati-
tude, and identification from the protege. The protege recip-
rocates the feelings of affection and support and in turn
becomes an ardent apologist for the mentor. The mentor becomes
stronger and better able to shape the protege's career
(Collins, 1982; "Everyone Who Makes It Has a Mentor," 1978;
Roche, 1979). Severance's study (1981) reported positive
therapeutic benefits for the mentor. Daniel Levinson (1978)
asserted that this mutual social interaction is the groundwater
for growth.
Adult Development/
Generative Growth
As the potential mentor enters the midlife stage, aspira-
tions and achievement of personal goals have begun to plateau.
Yet, the potential mentor has a wealth of experience and know-
ledge and when shared, can lead to a new sense of fulfillment
(Kram, 1985; Kreps, 1987). D. Levinson further explains that
The further integration of the Masculine/Feminine polarity
at midlife also makes it easier and more rewarding to


57
become a mentor. A man serves various mentor functions in
early adulthood, but it is hard to become a mentor in a
fuller sense until the forties. A novice or junior adult
has some of the dependency and incompleteness of a child,
but he also had the independence, inner resources and
developmental capabilities of an adult, (p. 237)
At the middle adulthood stage, when the mentor is in the for-
ties, mentoring makes possible great rewards.
Being a mentor with young adults is one of the most
significant relationships available to a man in middle
adulthood. The distinctive satisfaction of the mentor
lies in furthering the development of young men and
women--facilitating their efforts to form and live out
their Dreams, to lead better lives according to their own
values and abilities . .
Mentoring is part of a developmental process that
Erikson has called "generative." Through this process, a
man in middle adulthood forms a growing awareness of the
continuity of human life and the flow of generations.
He feels a concern for the upcoming generation of young
adults, who must in time be ready for the responsibilities
of middle age. It leads him to accept other burdens of
his generation--exercising authority, providing leader-
ship, making decisions that will have significant conse-
quences for a widening circle of others. (D. Levinson,
1978, pp. 253-254)
"Generative" growth, thus, seems to be requisite to complete
fulfillment of one's professional life; mentoring becomes a
stimulus for such growth. The mentor's "generative" growth is
primarily intrinsic; however, the mentor also benefits in ways
pertinent to his successful performance.
Enhanced Personal Attributes
Because the mentoring relationship serves to complement
both mentor and protege, the mentor gets more work done with


58
the protege's help. At times, the protege has a skill, desire,
or enthusiasm to complete projects the mentor cannot; and yet,
the protege acts as an extension of the mentor and creates a
continuity with the mentor's work. The protege becomes the
"right arm," a significant cog in the action and adds new areas
of strength by helping to implement programs, providing fresh
ideas, giving feedback and critiques, and freeing the mentor to
carry on additional business (Phillips-Jones, 1982; Zey, 1984).
In branching out, the mentor grooms the protege as a potential
successor. Often mentors must develop skilled successors for
their position before they too can be considered for advance-
ment (Epstein, 1970; Reich, 1986; Valverde, 1980).
Although the protege brings extra energy, needed skills,
leadership abilities, and a successful track record (these were
things that caught the mentor's eye in the first place), the
mentor refines and enlarges these attributes. As a result the
mentor becomes recognized and rewarded as a developer of
talent. Understandably, the mentor's reputation increases
(Cook, 1979; Henderson, 1985 ; Zey, 1984).
By having several proteges the mentor's sphere of influ-
ence broadens in the organization. As disciples, the proteges
undertake the tasks and share ideas proposed by the mentor; and
in this way, the proteges build support for the mentor's ideas.
The proteges, in addition, can quickly relay information about


59
occurring events (Zey, 1984). Phillips-Jones suggested that
mentors, via influence, "invest" in the proteges' future:
Individuals might serve as . mentor in order to gain a
future return on their investments. Helping [the protege]
is a way of storing a cache of favors from [the protege]
that will pay off once [the protege has] succeeded and is
out on [his/her] own. Many mentors build whole networks
of proteges in various organizations and geographical
locations. By cleverly increasing their contacts, they're
able to reach more of their own goals. (1982, p. 57)
To suggest that "empire building" is the primary benefit to the
mentor is erroneous. Many mentors seek merely to achieve
vicarious benefits or to groom a successor.
Mentor Multiplier Effect
In cultivating and nurturing a protege, the mentor gains
the satisfaction "that his intellectual offspring will build
on [his/her] work" (Epstein, 1970, p. 969).
This "passing of the torch" to the protege serves to
create a new generation of mentors. Roche's survey (1979)
showed that more than eight in 10 of those who had been
mentored chose to become mentors. The protege-turned mentor
phenomenon is called the "multiplier effect": "There is a
multiplier effect in mentoring. The person who appreciates the
advantages of professional mentoring has special incentive to
be a mentor in turn" ("The Mentors," 1979, p. 14). Similarly,
Leizear's study (1984) of mentored female upper-level public
school administrators in Texas also reported that 78 percent of


60
respondents claimed to be mentoring others. Klopf and Harrison
(1981) suggest that educational mentoring relationships have
trickle-down effects. As higher-ups help the teacher advance,
the teacher begins to mentor students. Zey (1984) notes that:
once a person has been involved in a mentor relationship,
his perception of how the corporate world works is trans-
formed, so that he will attempt to replicate such a
relationship whenever possible. (p. 54)
Knowing how the mentor works and benefits from the
relationship leads to a better understanding of how the other
half of the relationship also benefits.
Protege's Benefits
The underlying concept of the mentoring relationship is to
identify an individual, the protege, who is "protected" and
carefully nurtured until he/she is ready to step out with
independence and maturity. Ideally, and usually assumed, is
that the protege's growing independence and maturation will be
manifested by the primary benefit of career advancement.
Career Advancement
It was Samuel Johnson in his Letters who pointed out the
"mere unassisted merit advances slowly if--what is not very
common--it advances at all" (Moore, 1982, p. 23). Implicit in
Johnson's writing is that there is a necessary need for a sup-
portive relationship--a mentoring relationship to be exact--


61
to boost the advancement of an aspiring administrator. Along
this theme many researchers have offered a common observation:
- The most important thing a mentor does for the protege
is assist in career advancement. (Moore, 1982, pp.
24-25)
-- In the corporation, "sponsored mobility" (controlled
selection by elites) [that is, mentoring relation-
ships] seems to determine who gets the most desirable
jobs . (Kanter, 1977, p. 181)
-- "Everyone Who Makes It Has a Mentor" ("Everyone Who
Makes It Has a Mentor." 1978)
-- Women have been advised that mentoring is a key for
obtaining high managerial positions. (Dodgson, 1986,
p. 28)
-- Review of the literature indicates that the mentor/
protege relationship is a key element in the career
patterns of successful male managers. (Missirian, 1982,
p. ix)
Other studies also suggest that a primary benefit for the pro-
tege is career advancement: Roche (1979) found that "execu-
tives who have had a mentor earn more money at a younger age,
are better educated, [and] are more likely to follow a career
plan ..." (1979, p. 15); Phillips-Jones noted that proteges
often gained "outward career success" marked by "a rapid
climb up the organizational ladder" and/or an "inward career
success . [by] becoming proficient in your field . and
finding additional rewards and enrichment in areas outside
your area" (Phillips-Jones, 1982, p. 26); Leizear (1984)
reported that 85% of mentored female upper-level public
school administrators in Texas claimed that career advancement


62
was accelerated by their mentoring relationship. Although
these studies and others (Bolton, 1980; Collins, 1983; Fitt &
Newton, 1981; Kram, 1985; Primus, 1984; Zey, 1984, for
example) strongly asserted that early or increased opportuni-
ties for career advancement result from the mentoring rela-
tionship, no study existed that statistically indicated a
causal relationship, that is, mentor relationships caused
career advancement. Instead, career advancement may result
from a number of other benefits that the protege receives.
In pragmatic terms, the mentoring relationship usually
benefits the protege in eight areas: (1) professional growth
and development, (2) high aspirations and self-confidence
(see also, Mentoring in Education), (3) career planning, (4)
sponsorship, (5) new skills and knowledge, (6) exposure and
visibility, (7) protection, and (8) acceptance within organi-
zational culture.
Professional Growth and
Development
As noted earlier, D. Levinson (1978) mapped out a schema:
The maturation of a young adulthood. Proteges, almost always
young men or women, enter the mentoring relationship with a
"Dream," personal goals or aspirations. The mentor is a key
person who helps establish necessary independence and skills
to succeed. For the protege, the period of growth during the


63
mentoring relationship is like going to school every day. By
learning, by receiving advice and support, and by focusing on
the demands of the organization the protege strives to be the
equal or better than his mentor:
When a young man finds a mentor, he is excited and spurred
on by the shared sense of his promise. Yet, he is also
full of self-doubt: can he ever become all that both of
them want him to be? At different times--or even at the
same moment--he experiences himself as the inept novice,
the fraudulent imposter, the equal colleague, and the
rising star who will someday soar to heights far beyond
those of the mentor. (D. Levinson, 1978, p. 100)
Expressing a similar idea, Fishel (1985) argued that the men-
toring relationship between mentor and female protege resembled
a father-daughter or mother-daughter relationship that serves
as a catalyst to push the pair through a series of growth
stages before the final transformation to equality and recipro-
city. Cook (1979) and Bolton (1980) also allude to the
beneficial and fundamental development that must take place if
the protege is to reach goals similar to the mentor.
High Aspirations and Support
During the mentoring relationship, the protege is encour-
aged to maintain high aspirations. With the mentor's guidance,
self-confidence remains high because the protege tackles
challenging jobs successfully. A key role of a mentor is to
nurture and support the growth of the protege. This role is
fundamental because the protege then knows that at least one


64
person is strongly supportive of his/her actions (Lumsden,
1982). Support and high aspirations create a self-fulfilling
prophecy: the protege feels good and performs better; the
mentor believes that the protege is special and so gives
additional attention (Lynch, 1973; Missirian, 1982; Phillips-
Jones, 1982). As seen in the study of business, educational
administrators who attained positions as presidents or super-
intendents often did so "because someone older, wiser, and
more powerful saw in them a spark of leadership ability and
encouraged them to develop that ability" (Moore, 1982, p. 23).
Mentoring in Education
In education the mentoring relationship seems to play a
more significant role at two distinct points of the career:
first, the protege makes an initial move into administration,
usually from teacher to assistant principal or principal. Thus
the initial mentoring relationship established usually is that
of "teacher-principal." Such a relationship was most commonly
cited as the mentor-protege relationship in a study of upper-
level administrators in Texas (Leizear, 1984, p. 51). In this
study, the mentor was a principal who observed the teacher
and encouraged the teacher to consider administration. Klopf
and Harrison (1981) also stated that mentoring relationships
most often assisted the protege when the protege moved from
teacher to assistant principal. The second instance in which a


65
mentoring relationship seems most important occurs when the
advancement is near the very top of the organizational
hierarchy, such as into a superintendency position. The mentor
on this occasion serves as advocate, confidante, and friend:
the mentor stamps a seal of approval for the protege. The
protege, in turn, gains respect up and down the ladder of
command (Dodgson, 1986; Halcomb, 1980; Klopf & Harrison, 1981).
Because the mentor believes in the protege, the protege has
increased self-esteem. Feelings are reciprocal. The mentor
wants success for the protege; the protege does not want to
fail so doubles efforts to ensure success--both people end up
feeling strong enough to conquer the world.
Career Planning
A less obvious but frequently noted protege benefit is
career planning. Unlike those who have neither a design,
vision, nor direction for career, the protege has a mentor who
can help set goals, critique progress, give advice, and let the
protege know when the time is ripe for advancement (Lumsden,
1982; Phillip-Jones, 1982). The mentor is able to help provide
realistic objectives to reach the desired goal:
[The true mentor fosters] the young adult's development by
believing in him(her), sharing the youthful Dream, giving
it his blessing, helping to define the newly emerging
self in its newly discovered world, and creating a space
in which the young person can work on a reasonable satis-
factory life structure that contains The Dream.
(D. Levinson, 1978, p. 99)


66
Tangible successes are found as a result of this type of
guidance. Roche (1979) indicated that:
executives who have had a mentor earn more money at a
younger age, are better educated, are more likely to
follow a career plan, and, in turn, sponsor more proteges
than executives who have not had a mentor . . those who
have had a mentor are happier with their career progress
and derive somewhat greater pleasure from their work.
(p. 15)
Women educational administrators as well as women executives
also show benefits from mentoring in career planning, better
salary, and career advancement at a younger age in contrast to
their peers (Fitt & Newton, 1981; Leizear, 1984). In addition,
by offering the perspective of greater experience and maturity,
the mentor fosters in the protege a farther-reaching vision,
deeper understanding, and more ambitious goals (Collins, 1983;
Fishel, 1985; Moore, 1982).
Sponsorship
Mentors give active support to their proteges and ensure
that the protege's career gets off to a good start ("Everyone
Who Makes It Has a Mentor," 1978). When desirable lateral
moves or promotions appear, the mentor is among the first to
nominate the protege; thus, the protege's name appears often as
a prospective candidate for new positions. In contrast,
candidates not actively supported may be overlooked regardless
of competence and performance.. Perhaps the actual power of the
sponsorship is not only the name recognition, but also that the


67
protege is linked to the mentor. A certain aura of "reflected
power" makes the protege more valuable (Fitt & Newton, 1981;
Klopf & Harrison, 1981; Kram, 1985; "The Mentors," 1979; Zey,
1984). As a sponsor, Hennig and Jardim (1977) reported that
the [mentor] acted as a sales agent for the [protege]
whenever he sent her[/him], both inside and outside of the
company. He used his reputation to develop hers, and his
respect from others to gain acceptance for her[/him].
(pp. 130-131)
New Skills and Knowledge
As part of the mentoring relationship, the protege
benefits by receiving assignments for special projects, being
granted autonomy, or being assigned to new positions that
require new skills. The protege learns to navigate effectively
in the organization:
Each time an individual moves to a higher level in the
organization, the necessity to learn ropes reappears,
and more experienced colleagues [the mentor and others]
become a critical resource for meeting this challenge.
(Kram, 1985, p. 16)
In particular, during mentor-teacher programs, Leizear cited
Fagan and Walters' 1982 study in which helping qualities
attributed to mentors were listed as gaining self-confidence,
listening to ideas, encouraging creativity, bettering the
understanding of schools' administrations, and teaching
proteges how to work with people (Leizear, 1984, p. 10).
Much like an apprentice of old, the protege moves from a
novice to a skilled state through a series of experiences. The


68
mentor gives the protege personalized attention that enables
the protege to make the fine distinctions about work in assign-
ments which becomes increasingly ambiguous higher in the
organization. New skills and knowledge help establish a
comfort level in the organization in addition to making the
protege more valuable (Bolton, 1980).
Exposure and Visibility
The mentoring relationship is the vehicle for exposure and
higher visibility. This benefit becomes more important as the
protege discovers that career advancement requires more than
just doing a competent job. People in the organization need to
know that the protege does good work. The mentor becomes the
vehicle for greater exposure and visibility. Not only does the
mentor publicly promote the protege, but also provides the
assignments that will broadly display the protege's skills and
talent. The protege is exposed, in this way, to key figures in
the organization, creates future opportunities, and serves as a
socializing force that builds networks up and down the organi-
zation (Collins, 1983; Epstein, 1970; McNeer, 1983; Missirian,
1982; Phillips-Jones, 1982; Valverde, 1980; Zey, 1984).
Protection
The mentoring relationship offers the protege protection.
Because the protege is given more independence to work on


69
challenging assignments than the typical subordinate, there
exists the possibility that the protege will run into problems
or controversy. When this occurs, the mentor usually steps
into the fray, uses his superior authority and influence to
diffuse the problem, and saves the protege from further
problems. Kram (1985) states that
protection involves taking credit and blame in contro-
versial situations, as well as intervening in
situations where the junior colleague is ill-equipped to
achieve satisfactory resolution; (p. 29)
similarly, Hennig and Jardim (1977) note that
in times of direct confrontation with any group or
individual, [the mentor] would act as a buffer and place
himself [herself] between [protege] and . . opponent.
[The mentor] was the protector and [the protege] the
protected. [The mentor's] support helped to provide [the
protege] with the extra confidence . needed to take on
new responsibilities, new tests of . competence and
new positions. (pp. 130-131)
On occasion, protection may be more important for women,
because they run into clients or colleagues who feel
threatened by working for a female. In these instances, the
mentor helps to act as a buffer and to implement the
protege's ideas (Sheehy, 1976). Kram notes that such situa-
tions sometimes can be perceived as too smothering for the
protege.
Protection, however, also promotes creativity. Since the
protege is often the new person in the organization who has
novel and creative ideas, the mentor establishes a safe, secure


70
environment for the protege to experiment, develop, and inte-
grate ideas into the organizational mainstream--the protege is
allowed to make mistakes ("Everyone Who Makes It Has a
Mentor," 1979; "The Mentors," 1979; Peters, 1987; Peters &
Waterman, 1982; Zey, 1984).
Acceptance Within Organizational
Culture
Implicitly, the mentoring relationship benefits the
protege by permitting immediate acceptance and assimilation
into a higher level of the organization. Acceptance into the
inner elite circle allows the protege to learn special and
privileged information found only in networks of the influen-
tial executives.
The guidance about the social or cultural norms and regu-
lations within the organization helps the protege to avoid
mistakes and social faux pas that might be viewed negatively.
The professions depend on intense socialization of their
members, much of it by immersion in the norms of profes-
sional culture even before entry; and later by the
professional's sensitivity to his peers. (Epstein, 1970,
p. 972).
By familiarizing the protege with organizational culture and
norms, the protege is more readily accepted and considered
desirable for advancement.


71
Organization's Benefits
Although one can argue that mentor relationships are
formed solely for the advantage of the mentor and protege, the
organization also can reap benefits. However, because "the
organizational environment is a world of interdependent
systems and human relationships," the amount of benefits that
mentor relationships can produce for an organization are some-
what determined by the organizational culture and work envir-
onment (Cook, 1979, p. 83)
Organizational Culture
Kram (1985) has noted that among other things, organiza-
tions influence mentoring relationships by their cultures.
Culture is the "assumptions about how a company should behave,
[the] norms and values about appropriate actions" (Kanter,
1983, p. 371). As defined by Deal, four general organiza-
tional cultures exist: (1) the "tough-guy, macho" culture
(i.e., emphasis on the individual and encouragement of the
star system); (2) "the work hard/play hard" culture (i.e.,
emphasis on teamwork), (3) "the bet-your-company" culture
(i.e., emphasis on top-down decision making, deliberate or
slow-paced decision making); decisions may greatly change or
alter the organization, and (4) "the process" culture
(i.e., emphasis on caution and patterns and procedures)


72
(Deal, 1982, pp. 107-108). Inasmuch as Deal and Kennedy have
identified these four types of culture, no other literature or
research has been found that also identifies organizational
culture in this manner. Additionally, Deal's research on
school culture tends to identify whether a school culture
exists and whether it is positive or negative. The influence
of organizational culture, however, powerfully affects the
productivity of employees and types of relationships that are
formed.
Recognizing the importance of organizational culture,
Kram reported that,
a culture that encourages frequent and open communication
across hierarchial levels encourages the formation of
enhancing developmental relationships more effectively
than one in which communication across levels is rigid and
discouraged. (1985, p. 16)
Thus, depending on the culture of the organization, varying
amounts of perceived or actual support is given to the initi-
ation and maintenance of mentoring relationships.
Work Environment
Another important variable affecting mentoring relation-
ships is the work environment. Many factors have been found to
relate to work environment. These factors include the
administrator's perceived self-worth, interpersonal relations
and social life, physical and psychological dimensions of the
work place, organizational clarity, access to resources,


73
reasonable autonomy, reward system, and opportunities to learn,
along with the challenge, supportive relationships, personal
opportunities and fulfillment within the organization (Dodgson,
1987; Egan, 1985; D. Levinson, 1978; Schein, 1978). Fitt and
Newton's study notes that:
the larger the organization . the greater benefit to
the woman of an effective mentor affiliation. The evident
reason is the impersonality and remoteness that charac-
terize many such enterprises. (1981, p. 58)
All these factors influence a potential mentor in determining
whether developing a mentoring relationship is worthwhile.
Assuming that the organizational culture and work environ-
ment support mentoring relationships, the organizational bene-
fits commonly cited are (1) improved communication,
(2) accelerated training, (3) improved induction process,
(4) organized critical mass for change, and (5) an established
management team.
Improved Communication
Mentoring relationships form communication lines much in
the manner of Rensis Likert's "Linking Pin" theory. Likert
proposed that high-producing managers employed the principle of
supportive relationship, building on the series of work groups
who are integrated or "linked" together by key personnel who,
in turn, had overlapping memberships in groups. In this way
idea exchange increases, group decision-making and acceptance


74
is supported, and higher productivity occurs (Likert, 1980).
How does this type of communication happen? Because
proteges, themselves, become mentors to others in lower levels
of the organization, linkages form between the different
levels in the hierarchy:
Mentors are often themselves proteges. It is not uncommon
for a middle manager's mentor, a senior vice president for
instance, to be mentored by the president, the CEO [Chief
Executive officer], or a board members. When this is the
case, the open communication provided by proteges who
serve as linking pins may be found up and down the
organizational hierarchy. (Zey, 1984, p. 99)
Peters and Waterman (1982) note that Japanese companies usually
develop communication lines that move "up and down stream" via
group or team concept, utilizing talents from various depart-
ments ; thus, a mentor with several proteges can capably send
and gather ideas and information through this network.
Accelerated Training
Organizations spend great amounts of money training
prospective administrators; however, mentoring relationships
prepare proteges at a personal level for less money and speed
the learning process. As a result less time is wasted by the
organization. Some organizations, believing that mentoring
relationships build unique experiences, encouragement, and
feedback better than the typical classroom or internship
orientations, have introduced formalized mentoring programs.
Cook states, "so many organizations recognize and support the


75
mentor theory that formal mentorship programs are becoming
more common in large organizations" (1979, p. 84).
Klauss (1981) recorded that in three federal programs with
mentor-type programs, participants indicated that they had
received special opportunities to obtain career development
guidance and organization support; moreover, they indicated
that the experience forced them to look more carefully at their
career options and had broadened their perspectives about
executive life.
Mentoring relationships also benefited the organization
because they subtly permitted the development of a pool of
high-potential candidates to replace turnover in high-ranked
executives ("Everyone Who Makes It Has A Mentor," 1978;
Reich, 1986). Additionally, organizations found that they
created new resources and talents not typically cultivated
within the organization (Leitschuh, 1987). In contrast,
Henderson warned that sometimes formalized mentoring programs
are fraught with inconvenience and ingratitude and "efforts by
the mentor were sometimes resented and misinterpreted by the
protege" (1985, p. 858).
Some differences have been reported between corporate and
educational organizations. In business, talent is cultivated
and developed with the intent of moving it up in the organiza-
tion. In education, at least in higher education, the


76
cultivated protege often must look to moving to a different
institution to find career advancement; McNeer observes that,
it appears that a major distinction between career ladders
for higher education managers and those for corporate
executives is that academic administrators move from
institution to institution as they rise through the ranks,
while corporate executives remain within the same company.
This [finding] suggests that there may be major differen-
ces in the mentoring relationships for corporate execu-
tives who remain in close proximity to their former men-
tors, and those who may move frequently. The often bitter
breaks with mentors that business executives report may
not be so prevalent in higher education, since proximity
is not likely to be an issue. (McNeer, 1983, p. 9)
Nonetheless, mentoring relationships remain valuable to educa-
tional organizations because they develop able proteges and use
them as a resource. By using these mentor relationships to
train its people, the organization views the process as
"organizing and controlling old and new talent for the use by
the whole" (Moore, 1982, p. 28).
Improved Induction Process
Organizations work hard to induct their employees into the
organization's culture and philosophy (Peters, 1987; Peters &
Waterman, 1982). Harry Levinson (1981) refers to induction as
learning the personality of the organization. Mentoring
relationships can play a key role in successfully influencing
key personnel to conform to and to share with others the key
points of the organization's culture and philosophy. According
to Schein (1978), this type of socialization process


77
includes learning and internalizing the value system, the
norms and the required patterns of behavior prescribed by
the particular organization. The process of change a man-
ager undergoes to assimilate these norms and values gener-
ally follows the classic change procedure originally
formulated by Kurt Lewin. It involves three phases:
unfreezing--preparation to learn the new values and norms;
freezing--learning the new values and norms; and finally,
refreezing--essentially internalizing the new values and
norms. (p. 59)
Individuals had three basic responses to socialization:
(1) rebellion, (2) creative individualism, or (3) conformity.
Responses one and three, Schein stated, were organizational
failures because individuals were either expelled from the
organization for their differing viewpoints or became so
conforming that their creativity was suppressed.
In response two, individuals accepted only those organiza-
tional norms and values which were pivotal to the specific
requirements of the job, rejecting all those which were
inconsistent with their personal and professional values. This
type of decision-making required guidance and support.
Despite the instability of the socialization process, the
one consistent, stabilizing, and guiding influence is the men-
tor. The mentor signals which values need to be conformed to
and which to ignore; the mentor offers protection for creativ-
ity and the reinforcement that the protege's choices are right
(Schein, 1978).
Similarly, in the academic world, the mentor makes the
protege aware of expected performance criteria, formal


78
behaviors, and informal behaviors; thus, "by observing the
expectations the mentor sets for those reporting to him or her,
proteges learn to establish standards for a group and how to
deal with those who don't" (Moore, 1982, p. 26). The basic
premise for mentoring and induction programs for new principals
is to affect greater comfort and success for the new adminis-
trators (Anderson, 1988; Daresh, 1987; Licata & Ellett, 1988).
Some companies and federal programs see mentoring rela-
tionships as a means to bring more women and minorities into
the organization's professional socialization process (Klaus,
1981; Missirian, 1982). Other less sanguine researchers sug-
gest that the mentoring experience itself is uncommon or that
it seldom totally succeeds, especially for women and minorities
for whom few role models exist (Moore, 1982; Pierce, 1983;
Primus, 1984; Valverde, 1980).
Organized Critical Mass
for Change
Successful organizations find ways to change and to adjust
to the fluctuations of society and the world. How do mentoring
relationships fit in the change process? In the corporate
world, Peters (1987) and Schein (1978) reported that change
does not occur unless significant figures are convinced that
change is necessary and are willing to carry "the gospel"
throughout the organization. Schein stated that,


79
writers on organization development emphasize the impor-
tance of creating "readiness for change," or the need for
a "critical mass" before change will be sustained, or the
need to "unfreeze" the system before new innovation can be
considered and implemented ..." (Schein, 1978, p. 9).
Thus, mentoring relationships benefit the organization in this
respect because they are the "critical mass" of significant
people to create change, and they have already formed the
network to spread the change throughout the organization.
Established Management Team
In all organizations, the concept of teamwork is valued.
Jennings (1971) called the mentoring relationship a "winning
couplet." Moore (1982) stated that the strong rapport between
protege and mentor resulted in several positive characteris-
tics: openness of relationship, sharing, a sense of identity,
loyalty to each other and to organization, gratitude, and a
sense of obligation to perform at high levels. Zey (1984) pro-
posed a model that described the exchange among mentor,
protege, and organization. This model provided a process for
managerial succession since it ensures the passing of organiza-
tional values and culture from one generation of managers to
another. Moreover, Zey's model indicated
that the mentoring relationship transfers benefits to the
organization (a well-oiled management team, a well-
developed manager, a protege able to maintain corporate
traditions and values) and that in exchange for these
benefits the organization advances the position and
increases the power of both the mentor and the protege.
(Zey, 1984, p. 11).


80
None of this will happen, Zey cautioned, unless the organiza-
tion is a willing partner in the mentoring relationship.
Mentoring Relationships and Women
Establishment of the Relationship
Most research about mentoring comes from business-related
experiences. Given the male dominance in the business organi-
zational environment, discussions about mentoring relationships
usually refer to older men mentoring younger men. Illustrative
of male-dominated mentoring relationships, Roche's (1979) major
survey of business executives found that of the 1250 respon-
dents, 63.5% of the male executives claimed to have been
mentored. Although 85% of the women executives claimed to be
mentored, their total sample represented less than one percent
of the respondents. In addition, Roche's study made no
references to the ethnic breakdown of the sample; thus
generalizability was limited to white male executives. Only
recently has the issue of mentoring relationships with women
and ethnic-racial minorities received attention.
The study of women proteges and their mentors has gene-
rated considerable interest. Several studies (Bolton, 1980;
Collins, 1983; Sheehy, 1976) suggested that women did not
advance as often or further in the organizational hierarchy
because they were unaware of the benefits or did not understand


81
mentoring relationships. Men, in contrast, were less passive
and tended to seek mentors. Although the lack of understanding
by women may be the change in social norms that go into a
coaching-type relationship, Sheehy opined rather that it is
ignorance or the fear of improper social relationships that
stymies women-mentor relationships:
Fewer mentors are available for women. Indeed, when I
[Sheehy] brought up the question of mentors with women .
. most of them didn't know what I was talking about.
Females as mentors have been particularly scarce. And
when a man becomes interested in guiding and advising a
younger woman, there is usually an erotic interest that
goes along with it. (Sheehy, 1976, p. 33)
Misserian (1982), Collins (1983) and Kram (1985) also cited a
common theme among many of their female respondents of poten-
tial sexual relationships or sexual tensions that stilted
mentoring relationships. In contrast, Bearden (1984) reported
that any problems relating to mentors and proteges in mixed-sex
dyads were not associated with the proteges' gender.
Bolton (1980) and D. Levinson (1978) stressed that "women
have had limited access to beneficial relationships and conse-
quently suffer a significant disadvantage in competing with
their male counterparts for promotion and advancement" (Bolton,
1980, p. 196). Similarly, Moore (1982) proposed that some
women who entered mentor relationships received less than its
full benefits because they were seen as "tokens"; these women
proteges felt pressures of being "the only one" or being "so


82
exceptional" that they were encouraged to keep other women out
(labeled the "Queen Bee" syndrome) (Halcomb, 1980). In other
situations female proteges found it more difficult to maintain
their self-confidence; Halcomb explained the dilemma:
Often, too, the female protege in any field needs
special encouragement to convince her that it is okay to
be a woman doing what she is doing, especially if she has
had no female role model close enough to learn from. . .
In certain fields, especially creative ones where
such things as quality and merit are particularly hard to
measure, the mentor helps the protege fight inner battles
and conquer inner fears, doubts and obstacles. (Halcomb,
1980, p. 15)
In some cases, not having a female mentor role model caused the
mentoring relationship to be less successful (Bolton, 1980;
Hetherington & Barcelo, 1985): "Men still resist helping
qualified women because of sex-type stereotypes. Further,
women are more likely to be in mentoring positions, vis-a-vis
other women than men are" (Reich, 1986, p. 51). Busch (1983)
and Weigand (1982) also concurred that females were far more
likely to mentor other females than were men.
Problems in the Mentoring
Relationship
Such difficulties lead to the question: Why are women
mentored less often than men? As an explanation, factors most
commonly stated are as follows:
1. Stereotyping. Both men and women suffer from
stereotyping problems. Men presume women are uninterested or


83
unqualified for administrative positions; therefore, they
choose not to mentor women. Women, because of their comfort
level with social norms, cultivate passive and acquiescing
behaviors and fail to demonstrate skills or behaviors that
catch the attention of potential mentors (Cook, 1979;
Epstein, 1970; Fitt & Newton, 1981; Henderson, 1985; Jones &
Montenegro, 1983; Kram, 1985).
2. Lack of Commitment. Women often need to balance com-
mitments between family and organization. If the male mentor
believes that the women has less commitment to the job, he may
give less support. Women, similarly, must contend with the
social dilemma of being in charge of family and childrearing
duties and must make extra arrangements to meet these demands
as well as job duties. These extra duties often prevent the
flexibility or the time to take on assignments often required
of a protege (Epstein, 1970; Kram, 1985; Missirian, 1982;
Symons, 1984).
3. Increased Intimacy and Sexual Tension. Almost all
researchers cited the potential for social improprieties
between male mentors and female proteges. Even if such impro-
priety does not occur, the public scrutiny and conjecture may
lead to a stilted relationship between the mentor and protege.
Furthermore, the female was sometimes subjected to a
heightened suspicion or resentment that she was favored. For