Abstract
For careers in public service, meritocracy is espoused and idealized with formal structures for advancement. However, career development is also relational. Scholars have long discussed the benefits of mentoring both for psychosocial support and career advancement in organizations. While mentoring is recognized as important for career advancement, less is known about the nature of mentoring in male-dominated public sector organizations. In this paper we explore how mentoring functions in the U.S. Army—a male-dominated public service organization. Using data from a mixed method study, including survey data from approximately 1,200 Army personnel and analysis of 27 focus groups with 198 participants, we find that mentoring quality matters for all employees, but it matters more for women. We also find that mentoring is gendered, shaping the career trajectories of women and men in different ways.
For organizations and employees, understanding how careers develop and advance has wide ranging implications including: diversity in the composition of leadership, the extent to which different voices are represented in decision-making, the retention of employees, job satisfaction and commitment, and the overall performance of organizations. For careers in public sector organizations in particular, meritocracy is espoused as the key to career advancement (Weber, 1946). Civil service laws, the general schedule classification, and the senior executive service are formal structures that rely on meritocratic principles to guide career advancement. However, careers are shaped by more than formal structures.
For more than four decades scholars have explored how mentoring shapes the experiences of individuals in the workplace, noting that mentoring has both psychosocial and career advancement benefits (Allen et al., 2004; Bozeman & Feeney, 2009; Eby et al., 2008; Kram, 1985; Noe et al., 2002; Ragins & Cotton, 1999). However, we still know relatively little about how mentoring may have gendered implications, particularly in gender dominated organizations and fields. In this article, we explore mentoring in the U.S. Army. The Army is a male-dominated organization that prides itself on principles of meritocracy and equality of opportunity. It is distinguished by its strict rule-orientation, hierarchical structure, and defined path for advancement—it is one of the largest public sector employers in the U.S. (U.S. Department of Defense, 2018). Yet, this context has received little attention in public management research. Moreover, the Army has recently placed an emphasis on increasing diversity throughout its ranks and has identified mentoring as a strategy for achieving it (Kamarck, 2017; U.S. Army, 2017).
In this article, we use mixed methods to explore how individuals perceive the mentoring they receive as well as how individuals discuss the effects of mentoring. We use quantitative methods to analyze survey data from more than 1,200 Army personnel and test hypotheses about the extent to which mentoring experiences are associated with perceptions of career opportunities. We use qualitative methods to analyze data from focus groups with 198 Army personnel, to reveal in-depth understandings of how mentoring shapes career opportunities. We find that having a mentor and receiving quality advice from your mentor has a significant impact on perceptions of career opportunities. Further, while all employees benefit from quality mentoring, women report a stronger benefit, meaning quality mentoring may be one effective tool to close the gendered leadership gap. However, the ways that men and women describe mentoring are fundamentally different. Women often discuss mentoring as a way to survive in an organization, whereas men often discuss mentoring as a way to advance their career in an organization. This survival versus advancement approach has major implications for how mentoring may be implemented as an equalizing and diversifying strategy. While mentoring may be vital for retaining women in male-dominated organizations, as currently implemented, it is limited in facilitating their career progression.
Our study contributes to existing research in several ways. First, we study the U.S. Army—one of the largest, yet little studied, public sector organizations. Second, we integrate results from our quantitative and qualitative data analysis to explore whether or not mentoring influences perceptions of career opportunities, but also how mentorship shapes these opportunities. In doing so, we add new dimensions to theories of mentoring—revealing the gendered nature of the survival versus advancement functions in mentoring relations. Finally, we directly tie our findings to conversations around equity within organizations. In the remaining sections of this article, we review current literature around mentoring in public organizations to generate testable hypotheses. Then, we describe the context of our study, the data and methods used to address mentoring and career advancement. Next, we present findings from our survey data and focus group data. Finally, we end with a discussion of our findings and concluding remarks. Ultimately, we conclude that mentoring may be an important, if constrained, strategy in efforts to increase women’s leadership roles in public organizations.
Mentoring in Public Organizations
Over the past four decades, mentoring and the workplace has emerged as a significant area of scholarship with studies focused on the potential benefits of mentoring (Allen et al., 2004; Bozeman & Feeney, 2009; Eby et al., 2008; Kram, 1985; Noe et al., 2002; Ragins & Cotton, 1999). Studies extolling the benefits of mentoring tend to focus on two major themes—psycho-social support and career benefits (Eby et al., 2004). Psycho-social support may include support for career transitions, and emotional and psychological support for workers who are traditionally othered in organizations—often based on gender, race, and/or sexual orientation. Career benefits focus on skill development as well as sponsorship where mentors may recommend or sponsor proteges for promotions or new opportunities. Given the military’s focus on mentoring as a potential diversification strategy, it is important to consider this context for mentoring and how these mentoring constructs and outcomes might operate within this organizational environment. Johnson and Andersen (2010) point out that most military branches now have formal mentoring programs and directives for how officers should engage with proteges as mentors. They highlight that while there are abundant formal programs, there are still lingering questions regarding how mentoring functions within military organizations.
Many academic studies on mentoring tend to emphasize the mentoring relationship itself, either examining the structure of mentoring programs (Allen et al., 2004; Underhill, 2006) or the individual characteristics of mentors and mentees within a relationship (Chandler et al., 2011; Eby & Allen, 2008; Jones & Corner, 2012). Mentoring scholarship frequently investigates the process and outcomes of mentoring—for instance, measuring the extent to which a mentoring relationship exists and whether the relationship provides benefits for the individuals involved. Fewer studies explore the context of the mentoring relationship (Janssen et al., 2016). When studies consider context, they tend to look at the impact of organizational structures or culture on shaping mentoring programs, rather than examining how organizational features shape an individual’s participation in mentoring processes (Chandler et al., 2011; Janssen et al., 2016). This scholarship generally views mentoring relationships in the workplace positively, regardless of organizational context. Mentoring is associated with positive outcomes for the protege related to career support and upward mobility. Thus, based on existing research, we hypothesize the following:
H1: Having a formal mentor, informal mentor, or both is positively associated with perceptions of career opportunities.
Generally, the mentoring literature indicates that mentoring benefits individuals within organizations via career skill development and psychosocial support; however, there is growing literature on the potential negative aspects of mentoring (Eby et al., 2010). Ragins et al. (2000) argue that mentoring relationships take place on a continuum from positive to extremely negative, dysfunctional ones. Eby and Allen (2002) argue that mentoring relationships may be negative because of distancing/manipulative behavior by mentors or a poor interpersonal fit in the dyadic mentoring relationship. They find that proteges who have experienced negative mentoring relationships have lower job satisfaction and higher turnover intentions. This insight around negative mentoring experiences necessitates a focus on the quality of mentoring within organizations. Recent scholarship demonstrates that mentorship is not just about having a mentor, but rather having quality interactions and actionable advice from your mentor (Eby et al., 2004). Drawing from this research, our second hypothesis focuses on the quality of mentoring via advice.
H2: Receiving useful professional development advice from a mentor will be positively associated with perceptions of career opportunities.
Scholarship has increasingly acknowledged the potential gendered nature of mentorship (Holmes, 2005). However, much of this discussion is centered on the psychosocial support aspects of mentoring, arguing that matched gender mentoring pairs may benefit participants because of increased understanding of circumstances, lived experiences, and navigating organizational norms (Noe, 1988). Other studies have found that women who have male mentors often receive more sponsorship or career-oriented benefits than if they have same-sex mentors (Ramaswami et al., 2010). Regardless of the gender of the mentor, multiple studies have argued that women receive a disproportionate benefit from mentoring relationships in the workplace (Ragins & Cotton, 1999; Ramaswami et al., 2010; Tharenou, 2005). Thus, our third hypothesis focuses on the gendered nature of mentoring.
H3: If the effect of mentoring on the perceptions of career opportunities is gendered, then women should see a greater benefit than men.
Women in the Military
Although women were formally excluded from enlisting in the military until World War I (Devilbiss, 1990), historical data demonstrate that they have informally participated in the U.S. Military since the Revolutionary War (Skaine, 1999). By the conclusion of World War II, the Women’s Armed Service Integration Act of 1948 became the first policy to permanently recognize women’s service in the military. This Act permitted women to serve, but it expressly barred them from combat and prohibited them from having authority over a man (Morden, 1990). In the ensuing decades, as the number of women serving in the military increased and they gained a stronger foothold in the military, Congress sought clarification on women’s role in combat. In 1988, the Department of Defense (DoD) Task Force on Women in the Military was convened, which resulted in the creation and adoption of the Risk Rule. Under the Risk Rule, the military was permitted to close assignments to women that carried “risks of exposure to direct combat, hostile fire, or capture” (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1998, p. 2). However, as the nature of warfare changed, most obviously evidenced during Operation Desert Storm, where more than 29% of women served in nontraditional positions, Secretary Leslie Aspin rescinded it. Soldiers’ on-the-ground experiences exposed the limitations of attempting to delineate between assignments that were “at-risk” compared to those that were not. Although the Risk Rule was rescinded, in 1994, the DoD enacted the Direct Ground Combat and Assignment Rule (DGCAR), which formally codified women’s exclusion from combat positions (Burrelli, 2013). The implementation of DGCAR closed approximately 15% of all positions across the armed forces to women, translating to about 142,000 (29%) positions in the Army, 43,400 (25%) positions in the Marine Corps, 33,300 (9%) in the Navy, and 2,300 (1%) in the Air Force (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1998).
Compliance with DGCAR became increasingly complex and blurred once the U.S. became engaged in a protracted and unconventional war in Iraq and Afghanistan beginning in 2003. Women were frequently engaged in direct combat when they were deployed, particularly when assigned to a support unit for an all-male combat unit (Doan & Portilla, 2017). Military leaders, politicians, and civilians argued that the DGCAR was at odds with the reality of the contemporary theater of war (Keenan, 2008; Washington Times, 2005). Attempting to address this, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 authorized the creation of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC). The MLDC was created as a nonpartisan body populated with military and civilian leaders. Among its charges, the Commission was tasked with conducting “a comprehensive evaluation and assessment of policies that provide opportunities for the promotion and advancement of minority members of the Armed Forces,” which among its other charges, included “the establishment and maintenance of fair promotion and command opportunities for ethnic- and gender-specific members of the Armed Forces at the 0-5 grade level and above” (Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, 2008, p. 4477). In the MLDC’s 2011 Final Report, it recommended removing institutional barriers, including eliminating combat exclusion policies for women (Military Leadership Diversity Commission, 2011).
Heeding the call for change, on January 24, 2013, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey, announced that the DoD repealed DGCAR. While this policy change applied to all military branches, it had the most significant impact on the Army because the percentage of positions closed to women was much greater compared to the Air Force, Navy, or Marines (Military Leadership Diversity Commission, 2010). By time DGCAR was rescinded, more than 280,000 women had been deployed as support personnel for ground combat units operating in Iraq and Afghanistan; more than 800 women were wounded and over 130 died (Burrelli, 2013). In Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey’s joint memorandum, they required military departments to provide detailed plans for implementing the new policy change by May 15, 2013, and established a January 1, 2016 deadline for “expeditiously” integrating women into previously unavailable positions or requesting an exception to the policy (Dempsey & Panetta, 2013 ). The memorandum left the armed forces with an option to request an exception to the policy change, stating “Any recommendation to keep an occupational specialty or unit closed to women must be personally approved first by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and then by the Secretary of Defense.” It goes on to clarify that “[e]xceptions must be narrowly tailored and based on a rigorous analysis of factual data regarding the knowledge, skills and abilities needed for the position” (Dempsey & Panetta, 2013, pp. 1–2).
Setting and Overview of Methods
This study is part of a larger project examining U.S. Army soldiers’ opinions regarding the potential barriers and benefits of integrating women into Special Forces (SF) (Doan & Portillo, 2019). For this larger research project, we used a sequential exploratory mixed methods design comprising 27 focus groups with a total sample of 198 participants that were in turn used to design two surveys encompassing 1,701 men in SF and 214 women in Special Operations (SO). The surveys asked similar questions, but gendered language was specific to the male and female surveys. The surveys elicited soldiers’ opinions regarding the potential barriers and benefits of integrating women into SF. Given the lack of data available on the topic, we were interested in developing theory from soldiers’ lived experiences working in the military and in exploring how these experiences have shaped their beliefs about gender integration (Charmaz, 2006). This provided us with flexibility to pursue unanticipated topics that surfaced during the focus groups and include them in our survey design (Hesse-Biber, 2016).
Survey Design and Analysis
Initial analysis of focus group data included line-by-line reading to develop emergent themes by coding words or phrases in-vivo (using the words of our participants) whenever possible (Charmaz, 2006). This process allowed us to begin to interact with the data and develop subsequent survey questions using the language of our participants. The first survey was designed for all Active Duty and National Guard SF men; the approximate population of U.S. SF men is 6,109. The second survey was designed for women (approximately 779) who came from Civilian Affairs (CA), Military Information Support Operations (MISO), and Cultural Support Teams (CSTs)—all units within Army Special Operations. CA, MISO, and CST all serve as support units for SF when they are deployed. CA and MISO are long-standing units that are gender integrated. CA focuses on engaging with local populations and building strategic connections with local leaders. MISO focuses on intelligence gathering and analysis. CSTs are exclusively women and deployed with SF units to interact with women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan. Surveys were administered online. Respondents were contacted by email through the U.S. Special Operations Command survey system along with a letter encouraging them to participate in the survey from Command General Cleveland. Each respondent took approximately 15 minutes to complete the survey. Three reminders were sent to potential participants. Both surveys were administered February to March 2014, yielding a sample size of 1,701 men (27.8% response rate) and 214 women (27.6% response rate).
Survey Sample
Table 1 provides an overview of the characteristics of our full survey sample as well as by gender group. Our survey respondents are predominantly men (89%), white (84%), and in enlisted or noncommissioned officer ranks (67%). Almost all of the respondents have an education beyond high school (93%), tend to identify with a conservative (53%) or moderate (41%) political ideology, and have between 9 and 20 years of service in the Army. 1 There are a few notable differences between the men and women in our sample. Women, in comparison to men, have more post-graduate education (38% vs. 14%), served for fewer years (51% vs. 24% serving 0–9 years), are in more commissioned and field officer positions 2 (51% vs. 21%), are associated with a liberal ideology (14% vs. 6%), and include more racial and ethnic diversity (30% vs. 14% persons of color).
Survey Sample Characteristics.
Survey Measures
Our dependent variable, perceptions of career opportunities, is measured using an index created from four survey items. Reflecting the importance of equity in perceptions of career opportunities, participants were asked four questions that each began with, “Compared to <female/male> soldiers, to what extent do you believe you have equivalent. . .. Promotion potential? Advancement opportunities? Training opportunities? Assignment options?” For each question, respondents could choose from the ordinal scale (1) Not at all (2) Somewhat (3) Mostly (4) Completely. The Cronbach’s alpha for these four items is .93. A principal component analysis revealed one factor with an eigenvalue of 3.51 with the four items accounting for 88% of the total variance. The composite measure of perceptions of career opportunities is slightly skewed in the negative direction (mean = 5.81, med = 6.00, stdev = 1.90) with higher values indicating a more positive perception of career climate. 3
Our primary independent variables of interest focus on the quantity and quality of mentoring. Mentoring was measured using three yes/no survey items each beginning with, “Regarding your opportunities to receive professional development advice. . .I have a formal mentor, I have an informal mentor, and my mentor provides useful professional development advice.” Using these survey items, we constructed a categorical variable to measure quantity of mentoring (0 = neither formal nor informal mentor, 1 = formal mentor only, 2 = informal mentor only, 3 = formal and informal mentor). We include a single dichotomous variable to measure quality of mentoring via advice using the yes/no response to the survey question, “My mentor provides useful professional development advice” (1 if the respondent indicated “yes” 0 if the respondent indicated “no”). Almost half of our sample (45%) reported having an informal mentor only, while 37% reported having both informal and formal mentors. Only 4% of our sample reported having only a formal mentor, while 13% of reported having no mentors. In addition, 85% of our sample reported receiving useful professional development advice from their mentor.
Finally, based on responses to demographic survey items we use categorical variables to control for education (0 = GED or high school, 1 = trade school, some college, or associate degree, 2 = college graduate, 3 = post graduate or professional school), gender (0 = man, 1 = woman), 4 race (0 = white, 1 = person of color for those that selected Hispanic, Latino, Spanish [such as Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban], Black or African-American, or Asian or Asian-American as a racial or ethnic identity on the survey), 5 length of service in the Army (0 = 0–9 years, 1 = 9–20 years, 2 = 20+ years), political ideology (0 = conservative, 1 = moderate, 2 = liberal), and rank (0 = enlisted soldier or noncommissioned officer, 1 = warrant officer, 2 = commissioned officer, 3 = field officer).
Bivariate Analysis
We find several statistically significant bivariate associations. Receiving mentoring has a positive association with perceptions of career opportunities. Those who reported having a formal mentor, informal mentor, or both had higher average career opportunity scores than those who reported having no mentors (F = 3.26, p = .02). Similarly, those who reported receiving useful professional development advice also report higher career opportunity scores on average (F = 10.15, p = .002). We also find that mentoring quantity and quality are highly associated (
We also find that several of our demographic control variables have statistically significant associations with career opportunity score. Women tend to report lower career opportunity scores than men (F = 4.06, p = .044). Officers report higher career opportunity scores than enlisted soldiers or noncommissioned officers (F = 7.18, p = .000). Those with higher levels of education also report high career opportunity scores (F = 3.93, p = .008), and individuals with more years of service report higher career opportunity scores (F = 5.90, p = .003). We found no statistically significant difference in average career opportunity scores based on race.
Multivariate Analysis
Since our dependent variable, perception of career opportunity, is an index measured on a continuous scale, we employ ordinary least squares regression (OLS) to test our hypotheses. We generate three models. The first model includes only our demographic control variables, whereas the second model adds a measure of the quantity of mentoring and an interaction term to examine the extent to which the effect of the quantity of mentoring on perceptions of career opportunity differs for women and men. The third model includes a measure of the quality of mentoring and an interaction term to examine the extent to which the effect of the quality of mentoring on perceptions of career opportunity differs by gender. Table 2 presents the OLS regression results for the three models we specify. We find support for hypothesis 1 and 2. Having both formal and informal mentors simultaneously have a positive association with career opportunity (Model 2, β = .427, p < .05). We also find receiving useful professional development advice to be positively associated with career opportunity (Model 3, β = .398, p < .05).
OLS Results-Predictors of Perceptions of Career Opportunity.
Note. N = 1,262, p-values in parentheses, +p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Results of joint F tests are consistent with conclusions of individual t-tests with the exception of the length of service variable (p = .19, .10, .12 for models 1, 2, and 3 respectively).
Hypothesis 3 proposes that the effect of mentoring is gendered with women receiving a greater benefit than men. We find support for this hypothesis. We find that the positive effect of having an informal mentor only and the positive effect of having both formal and informal mentors is increased for women (Model 2, p < .10 and p < .05, respectively). Similarly, we find that the positive effect of receiving useful advice is increased for women in Model 3, p < .05. To best understand the gendered effect of mentoring, we plot these interaction effects in Figures 1 and 2. In general, these figures show that men have higher perceptions of career opportunity than women. However, the difference in career opportunity for those with no mentors and those with both formal and informal mentors is much smaller for men than for women. Similarly, the difference in perceptions of career opportunity for those who do not receive useful advice and those who do is much smaller for men. Thus, mentoring has a positive effect on perceptions of career opportunity. However, this effect is gendered, having a larger effect for women. In addition, we also note statistically significant associations for some of our demographic controls. We find that being a woman is negatively associated with perceptions of career opportunity. Similarly, we find serving for at least 20 years is positively associated with perceptions of career climate. Finally, being a warrant or field officer is also positively associated with perceptions of career opportunity. We find no statistically significant associations between career opportunity and political ideology, education, or race.
Interaction of quantity of mentoring and gender on perceptions of career opportunity.
Interaction of quality of mentoring and gender on perceptions of career opportunity.
While the results of our survey data analysis indicate that the quantity and quality of mentoring matters and that the effect of mentoring is gendered, the results of our focus group data analysis demonstrate how mentoring matters in a male-dominated profession.
Focus Group Analysis and Findings
We chose a focus group design for three main reasons. First, the focus groups were self-contained, meaning they provided a standalone source of data that captured participants’ attitudes, opinions, and the interactions among participants that are not observable without group interactions (Morgan, 1997, p. 20). Second, the efficiency of a focus group design versus conducting individual interviews, solved multiple logistical issues. We opted to use focus groups to maximize the number of soldiers we could interact with during our site visits. Third, rather than relying on our assumptions about what aspects of integration were the most salient to soldiers, the focus group data were used to inform the creation of two surveys (Morgan, 1997).
Surveys were used to provide a more systematic perspective of soldiers’ opinions about gender integration, which complemented the non-random sample of the focus groups. We conducted a total of 27 focus groups, with a nonrandom sample of 198 total participants at multi-day site visits at five military bases throughout the United States. Participation was voluntary and self-selected based on schedule and availability during base visits. Twenty-three focus groups consisted only of men and four focus groups included only women. Our professional position as military outsiders, who lacked a preconceived agenda regarding future military policies, was advantageous for building rapport with our participants. Each focus group lasted approximately 2 hours. The SF community is fairly small, generally older, and less racially diverse than the broader Army. Consequently, we were sensitive about collecting information from participants that could easily identify them. We purposely did not ask participants about demographic information; however, on occasion a participant shared this information while relaying an opinion or longer story. Pseudonyms are used for all participants. We obtained human subjects’ approval for this research and each participant was required to sign a consent form.
In designing the focus groups, we were sensitive to workplace hierarchy and tried to create groups that would foster uncensored opinions and mitigate participant bias. To reduce potential power dynamics within the focus group, in 21 of the focus groups we divided participants by rank with enlisted soldiers, warrant officers, and commissioned officers in separate focus groups. We also conducted three focus groups with full Operational Detachment Alpha (ODAs—small workgroups that deploy together), which gave us an opportunity to observe how participants engaged among members of their small group who had an established dynamic. The four focus groups conducted with women contained a mix of enlisted soldiers and commissioned officers due to the limited numbers of women serving in SO. Given the smaller number of women in the military, they are more likely to engage across rank in same sex groups and may have been more comfortable disclosing information to researchers in a mixed rank setting. Across all focus groups the size ranged from a low of four to a high of eighteen, with an average of seven. All focus groups were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Based on the field notes taken during focus groups, the sample of participants appeared to generally reflect the basic demographics of the SO community. The focus group format was semi-structured, based on 10 questions, which began with two general questions to build rapport with participants and establish a context for their comments. Participants were asked to share their experiences working with the opposite sex. Following these introductory questions, we asked a series of questions prompting participants to share their perspectives pertaining to gender integration in Special Forces. While mentoring was not directly addressed in our questions, discussions around mentoring or examples of mentoring were shared in each group.
Ultimately, more themes emerged from our analysis than we present here, where we focus on discussions of mentoring and career advancement. When participants in our study discussed mentoring directly, they often highlighted career progression and promotion. These conversations tended to reference identity matching or replacing current leaders with individuals like themselves. Other discussions of mentoring typically highlighted the role mentors play in helping individuals feel like they are a part of a workgroup or helping individuals navigate the structure and culture of the organization. These indirect discussions of mentoring were very gendered. Women regularly discussed their mentors’ advice about navigating and surviving in this male-dominated organization. Navigating the gendered culture of the military is less salient for men, so they were largely unaware that this advice was necessary and beneficial for women. Below we discuss the specifics of our focus group findings.
Focus Group Findings—Mentoring to Survive or Thrive
The surveys demonstrated that mentoring, and in particular quality mentoring, is seen as positively related to career advancement possibilities by both men and women. However, women see a disproportionate benefit from quality mentoring, indicating that mentoring may be one potential tool to move toward equalizing leadership roles in male-dominated public organizations. The focus group data help us understand the how behind mentoring. Specifically, how soldiers discussed the process and benefits of mentoring. While men discuss good mentoring as helpful advice about how to move up in their careers, women discuss helpful advice as focused on how to survive the male-dominated organization and masculine culture and remain in the organization. Men related mentoring to advancement—specifically focused on sponsorship and learning career skills. Women related mentoring to survival—specifically focused on how they could maneuver within the male-dominated organization, safely engage with colleagues, and remain in the organization. The survival discussion from women was not just focused on the psychological support that many past scholars have found, but also focused on how to actually move in the organization—who it was safe to work with and how to get needed resources.
Most men linked mentoring to sponsorship and career advancement. Specifically, they recognized how current leaders select the next generation of leaders who will follow them vis-a-vis actions such as encouraging mentees to seek new opportunities, sharing insider information/experiential knowledge, making informal “behind the scenes” inquiries and introductions, showing them the “ropes,” or writing recommendations. As Stephen explains below, his mentor Greg exposed him to a new opportunity and introduced him to recruiters, which led to Stephen’s decision to join Special Forces. Greg was his NCO (non-commissioned officer) at the time, and they shared similar backgrounds—both were white men who grew up in the South. Stephen said: I didn’t know anything about the Army, and one of my NCOs was like, “Hey, walk over to the SF recruiting with me.” I’m like, “All right.” So, I go over there, and I joined on a whim at the time, but I’m glad I did, because it’s the best move I made in my career, but I joined because, well, my NCO brought me over there, and introduced me to SF, and I was like, “Wow, this is pretty cool.”
Stephen credits Greg with steering him toward a long-term career in the Army. His story was not unique among Special Forces Operators. Many pointed to informal and formal mentors who encouraged them to join and reduced the entry barriers to pursuing a career in SF through similar actions. Greg and Stephen also shared similar demographic traits (gender and race) as well as sharing a Southern cultural upbringing, which facilitated an “easy” relationship between them. Likewise, throughout the focus groups, male participants discussed how affinity between mentors and mentees positively impacted their relationships and career progression, particularly promotion decisions once soldiers were in Special Forces. But as Justin intimates below, relying on affinity to guide promotion decisions perpetuates a status quo in leadership that is resistant to change. Justin flags this aspect of informal mentoring relationships as an area that must be changed as women are integrated into the Army because they will be disadvantaged: Because of the way that the military’s set up and the set up for promotions and your next position, it still, a lot of times comes down to, well I have to choose between these three here. But John looks a lot more like me and I’m part of this older guard that grew up this way, and I know Patrick supports this major shift and change [of female integration] and I’m not comfortable with that so why would I bring him along for the ride? I’ll bring someone that’s like me.
Justin points out that even in the rule bound military, promotions might be associated with how closely individuals’ viewpoints and backgrounds lineup, which he acknowledged would be troublesome, and pose a limitation, for women. This informal decision-making and relationship-based advancement highlights the advantages of sponsorship as part of the mentoring process, while simultaneously illuminating how formal mentoring alone can fall short in advancing women’s career progression. Similarly, Jerry discusses the disadvantage that women face under the current configuration of affinity-based male mentoring relationships. He has witnessed how it translates into career progression during “selection,” which is the process through which military members are chosen for advancement into Special Forces.
When I have to make a decision for the next step up, do I want someone who looks like me, someone who thinks like me, that sort of thing? And so this idea of mentorship or looking like me, that’s talked about as mentorship or looking like me for a step up. But the idea in selection you might be—that there might be a fear of bias towards women or minorities. It’s just—where do you see that kind of idea of looking like me for women or minorities coming into these different branches?
In the above quote Jerry intimates that mentoring and looking “like me” are conflated in mentoring relationships, which is problematic because it influences hiring and promotion. Jerry identifies affinity mentoring as a real barrier for women and people of color because they have not traditionally been a part of the leadership ranks in the military. Mentoring relationships based on affinity are unhelpful for people falling outside of the dominant group because they are more likely to be assigned a mentor who does not have access to decision-making. Stephen discusses mentoring as the sole reason he tried out for Special Forces and both Justin and Jerry present mentoring as a direct connector to career advancement. All three of them have experienced—and witnessed—identity congruency between mentor and mentee, and they were not alone in our data. Most direct discussions of mentoring were premised on an assumption that mentors and mentees matched regarding gender and often regarding race.
However, not all mentoring is connected directly with career placement or advancement. Soldiers throughout our study also discussed how their mentors’ advanced experience and experiential knowledge taught them to understand and navigate the organization. For both men and women, this meant advice on navigating the organization, but for women there was an explicit focus on how their gender shaped perceptions of them and their actions within the male-dominated organization. Since the opportunity to receive formal mentoring for women is limited compared to men—particularly when identity-matching mentoring is the norm—they rely on informal mentoring. During focus group discussions, participants used their colleagues’ experiences as examples highlighting the importance of informal mentoring in learning how to survive in the organization. For example, Carmen relayed a story that was shared with her by a female colleague who warned her about what to expect and provided guidance for how to navigate the organization.
[My friend] went to Iraq the first time. And she was in the ODA [small Special Forces unit]. She is a pretty female, blonde hair, and just like bubbly personality but very professional and excellent at what she does. [During] her first meet-and-greet with the sergeant major there, he’s like, “oh no.” And she’s like, “oh God is there a problem?” He goes, “I didn’t think you were going to be that pretty. So I feel like we’re going to have issues with the guys here.” And she’s like, “oh my God. I can assure you I’m married, I have a husband, we’re fine, we’re very happily married together and you will not have issues.” But she did also judge the waters herself when she was there. And so you want to be friendly and everything and have fun, but there is some instances where you’re going to have to avoid looking bad. So I’ll give you an example she gave to me. A lot of the guys invite me to see a movie or something. Even if it was harmless in the cans, she’d always have a male on her team with her.
Carmen uses the example to share how women must prepare for different situations when they deploy such as dealing with a commanding officer’s frustration about a female soldier’s physical appearance and his assumption that it will materialize into a gendered disruption for the team. While the commanding officer pointed to the men already on the team having potential issues with Carmen’s friend’s appearance, it was the friend who was responsible for developing strategies to navigate these issues, such as always ensuring that a team member is present when engaging in social activities to stem rumors and misperceptions. This anecdote underscores the added value women yield from receiving informal mentoring and advice compared to their male colleagues, which bears out in the results of the quantitative analysis.
Women regularly pointed to informal mentoring where similar, specific strategies on how to navigate the male-dominated workplace were conveyed to other women. Sarah, a seasoned military member, talked about how she draws from her gendered experiences to provide informal mentoring and advice to her inexperienced female colleagues: I’ve had a lot of trials and tribulations. At recruiting school, I was pulled into a room and basically I was sexually harassed, like told that I could do this favor and this favor, and I could pass this test and I’ll pass the course. I’m not saying I’ve had some peaches and roses. But as an NCO [noncommissioned officer] when I have soldiers coming in, and these systems that are in place, this IG [inspector general], this EEO [equal employment opportunity], I’ve seen firsthand fail, like just completely crumble and not work for you. So, what I tell them is you need to be a strong, independent woman. And jokes are okay. Like I’m all about gray areas. My dad was a Ranger [branch of Special Operations]. I grew up in that environment. That’s a cussing sailor environment. I tell them you need to be a strong female and you need to know the difference. You need to know what’s sexual harassments and what’s jokes—sometimes you’re going to be in a little gray area and it’s going to be up to you on which one you want to be. You need to know the line and you need to be able to stand your ground, because the systems can fail.
Similar to Carmen, Sarah provides very concrete advice as part of her discussion. She points out that some of the formal structures in the organization, like the IG and EEO, may not work; consequently, women must have a plan. She encourages women to figure out how they can operate in the gray area of organizational culture and where their individual line is when it comes to jokes within the organization. She is direct in noting the gendered nature of the organization and pushes women to consider how they understand the career climate and learn to approach it.
Throughout our focus groups, mentoring was presented advantageously. Almost everyone who spoke about mentoring connected it to more positive career outcomes. However, only women discussed mentoring as a survival strategy. Men seemed unaware of the gendered nature of mentoring for survival, though some did acknowledge that mentoring often resulted in career progression of people who share identities with those already in leadership. For men, mentoring was most related to career advancement through skill building and sponsorship. Their discussions of mentoring fell into the traditional scholarship on mentoring related to career skills and sponsorship. Women, however, rarely discussed advancement, focusing instead on how to maintain their status and navigate the social dynamics of the workplace. Their navigation of social dynamics was more than psychological support, but specific strategies for how to engage in the workplace. While the survey found near universal support for mentoring and showed that women may benefit disproportionately compared to men from quality mentoring, the focus groups demonstrated that the benefits and import of mentoring manifested quite differently for women and men.
Discussion and Conclusion
On a practical level, our findings indicate that increased calls for mentoring in public organizations are strategies that would also support diversity and equity efforts because of the disproportionate benefits women report receiving from quality mentoring advice. This piece contributes to a long line of mentoring scholarship, noting the benefits for organizations and individuals. However, we also add nuance to discussions of mentoring. While mentoring scholarship has pointed to the gendered nature of mentoring, and the specific ways that mentoring benefits an individual via psychosocial support and career advancement, we delve a bit deeper illuminating how and why men and women discuss the goals and process of mentoring in different ways. Men discuss mentoring as associated with traditional aspects of career support, largely sponsorship. For them, mentoring focused on providing a road map for moving up in the organization, aided by their mentors’ encouragement, recommendations, introductions, and insider knowledge. For women, the discussion of mentoring did not fall neatly into psychosocial support or career advancement, but instead focused on survival within the organization. Mentoring provided women with skills they could use to navigate the organization as an othered individual. Psychosocial support was nested within this relationship as women learned that their challenges with sexism were not unique. Both genders studied in this paper reported using mentoring for tactical reasons. For men it is advancement in their career, whereas for women it is survival within the organization. Women rarely discussed planning for long-term advancement in their career, because they focused on the day-to-day survival of their position.
Our project is largely in line with current mentoring literature calling for increased mentoring to promote and achieve equity within organizations. However, given the different foci of mentoring relationships, we argue there is a general need for increased training on how to be a mentor. Since women and men have different lived experiences in organizations, they may be prepared differently for how to mentor and what they understand as quality mentoring. While informal mentoring of women is key to retaining them in the organizations, it does not necessarily facilitate skills for career advancement. These differences should be openly discussed within organizations and used as part of a broader training around equity.
While our work adds to the current state of mentoring literature and scholarship focused on gender equity within organizations, it is not without limitations. Our project took place just as women were allowed to apply for coveted Special Forces positions, it will be interesting to see how mentoring shapes this process over time. The uniqueness of the Army as an organization may make it difficult to generalize our findings beyond other gendered public organizations. Our data comes only from military personnel located in the continental United States. Future research could, for example, examine the extent to which mentoring is gendered and how mentoring impacts careers in settings where laws and cultural norms dictate opportunities across gender. In addition, our data is cross-sectional and focuses on the experience of the mentee. Thus, our data does not allow us to understand what factors shape the extent to which a mentor invests in developing the career of a mentee. 6 A future study, focusing on both the experiences of the mentors and the mentees is an important next step. Finally, data limitations did not allow us to examine variation in career perceptions across racial and ethnic subgroups or account for additional factors that also impact career perceptions. Our quantitative analysis did not reveal an association between race and perceptions of career opportunity, yet race was discussed in our focus groups as an important factor in mentoring. Future quantitative studies could use sampling strategies to ensure a sample where variation across subgroups can be examined. Future qualitative studies could purposively select participants to allow exploration of variation across racial and ethnic subgroups. Additionally, while we were able to detect statistically significant associations between some of the variables in our statistical models and career perceptions, together these variables only account for a small proportion of the variance in career perceptions. Factors such as the gender match between mentee and mentor, representation of a variety of identities in leadership, the nature of work-life policies, and the extent to which employees are engaged in labor that is not formally recognized or rewarded may also contribute to career perceptions of U.S. Army personnel. Future surveys of military personnel would benefit from measuring these factors as well.
Despite these limitations, our work enhances our understanding of mentoring as a potential tool for increasing organizational equity. Future research should investigate mentoring relationships more closely, explore how the quality of mentoring varies based on mixed gendered and shared gendered pairings within gendered organizations. This project also points to the need for increased research on the gendered nature of career advancement.
Footnotes
Authors’ Note
Alesha Doan and Shannon Portillo received approval to conduct the focus groups and surveys presented in this project from the Human Subjects Committee University of Kansas, Lawrence Campus. The approval number is HSCL #00,000,262.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by the Army Research Institute, ARO Contract W911NF-11-1-0035, through the Office of Graduate Military Programs at the University of Kansas, PI Alesha Doan, Co-Investigators Donald Haider-Markel, and Shannon Portillo; and The Women’s Foundation of Greater Kansas City, Co-Investigators Shannon Portillo and Alesha Doan.
