Workplace Mentorship: A Critical Review

Objective and Subjective Outcomes

Regarding objective outcomes, past research suggests that employees who receive mentoring are more prone to rapid advancement or promotions (e.g., Turban et al., 2017), elevated earnings (e.g., Chao et al., 1992; Dreher & Ash, 1990), performance evaluations (e.g., J. W. Carter & Youssef-Morgan, 2019), and greater position power (e.g., Dreher & Ash, 1990; Scandura, 1992). Subjective outcomes linked to mentoring include enhanced organizational commitment (e.g., Aryee et al., 1996; Ragins et al., 2017), job satisfaction (e.g., Harris et al., 2007; Higgins & Thomas, 2001), career satisfaction (e.g., Fagenson, 1989; St-Jean & Mathieu, 2015), and career progress expectations (e.g., Baugh et al., 1996; Scandura, 1997; Underhill, 2006), as well as reduced turnover intentions (e.g., Laband & Lentz, 1995; Park et al., 2016), work–family conflict (e.g., Liu et al., 2012; Nielson et al., 2001; Underhill, 2006), and work alienation (e.g., Koberg et al., 1994). From a health and well-being perspective, mentoring has been attributed to greater well-being (e.g., Chun et al., 2012), including reduced levels of role stress and burnout (e.g., Thomas & Lankau, 2009). Although most mentoring outcomes were revealed through cross-sectional research, they are largely supported by several meta-analyses (Allen et al., 2004; Eby, Allen, et al., 2008; Eby et al., 2013; Kammeyer-Mueller & Judge, 2008; Underhill, 2006). Moreover, the meta-analyses provide further insight into the processes through which mentoring has its effect. For example, Allen et al.’s (2004) study reveals that mentoring is generally more strongly associated with subjective indicators of career success than objective indicators.

Benefits for Mentors

Beyond the benefits protégés may receive from having a mentor, the mentoring experience may benefit mentors too. Research suggests that mentors gain from greater information access and social feedback (Mullen & Noe, 1999), improved job performance (Burke & McKeen, 1997), enhanced transformational leadership (Chun et al., 2012), a sense of personal satisfaction (Ragins & Scandura, 1999) and fulfillment (Busch, 1985), and respect from others as a result of successful mentoring (Allen et al., 1997). In their meta-analysis of the associations between mentoring functions and subjective career outcomes, Ghosh and Reio (2013) found that mentors were generally more satisfied and committed than those who had never mentored.

Organizational Outcomes

The positive emotions, attitudes, development, and performance outcomes experienced by protégés and mentors are of benefit to organizations too. High levels of organizational commitment and low turnover intentions among protégés and mentors reduce costs for organizations associated with recruiting, selection, and training and, at least in the case of experienced mentors and protégés, maintenance of corporate knowledge. From a human resources management perspective, the transfer of tacit knowledge resulting from the mentorship relationship might be the most important benefit to organizations (Laiho & Brandt, 2012). The benefits of mentoring may be even more far-reaching in particular contexts and situations. For example, Harvey et al. (2010) proposed that mentoring for global dual-career couples would increase their effectiveness during overseas assignments, reduce the risk of premature repatriation, and potentially mold them into future mentors for other couples.

Negative Mentoring Relationships

The bulk of the literature on the adverse effects of mentoring has to do with the nature and quality of the relationship between mentors and protégés. Scandura (1998) developed a model of mentoring dysfunction based on Duck’s (1994) work on the dark side of relationships and the available literature on problematic mentoring relationships, resulting from, for example, toxic (Darling, 1985), selfish, and tyrannical (Myers & Humphreys, 1985) mentors and protégé envy of their mentor (Natale et al., 1988). According to Scandura’s model, mentoring dysfunction can be characterized by negative relations (e.g., bullying, incivility, social undermining), sabotage (e.g., revenge, career damage), difficulty (e.g., conflict, ultimatums, or forced choices, such as career over family), spoiling (e.g., betrayal, lack of fair treatment), submissiveness (e.g., submissive behavior by protégé in exchange for organizational rewards), deception (e.g., manipulation by either protégé or mentor), and harassment (e.g., sexual harassment, sexual/racial discrimination). According to Olian et al. (1988), a relationship can be considered dysfunctional if it frustrates the most important needs of either the protégé or the mentor. Perrewé et al. (2010) further distinguish between dysfunctional and abusive mentor behaviors. For them, deception, sabotage, and tyrannical behaviors, such as bullying directed toward the protégé, reflect the hostility inherent in abuse (Tepper, 2007), and they, therefore, view those behaviors as forms of abusive versus dysfunctional mentoring.

According to Scandura (1998), the negativity inherent in these relationships can reduce protégé’s self-esteem, job satisfaction, and their likelihood to act as mentors in the future. Further, it can increase absenteeism, stress, anxiety, and turnover. For mentors, a dysfunctional relationship with a protégé can also increase levels of stress and anxiety and reduce their propensity to mentor. A large body of research by Eby and colleagues suggests that negative mentoring experiences are associated with increased job withdrawal, turnover intentions, psychological distress, and burnout and reductions in learning, job satisfaction, career and psychosocial support, and physical health (Eby & Allen, 2002; Eby et al., 2004, 2010; Eby, Durley, et al., 2008; Hurst & Eby, 2012).

The concern about negative, dysfunctional, toxic, or abusive mentoring relationships becomes even more salient when one considers that they are relatively common; Eby et al. (2000) reported that half of their participants reported having been involved in a negative mentoring relationship during their career. Furthermore, research suggests that their effects may be more impactful than the positive effects of strong relationships. In a university sample, Erdem and Özen Aytemur (2008) found that academic protégés who experienced a positive mentoring relationship did not always have a positive perception of academic life, but protégés who had an adverse mentoring experience uniformly held negative perceptions about academic life. This seems to hold true in the workplace as well. Burk and Eby (2010) posited that negative mentoring relationships might have long-lasting effects than positive experiences, and Chandler et al. (2011) suggested that bad mentoring experiences are more predictive than good experiences in predicting protégé outcomes.

The Ethics of Workplace Mentoring

Various researchers have considered, at least in part, the ethics of mentoring (e.g., Feldman, 1999; J. Green & Jackson, 2014; Kolbert et al., 2002). Hurst and Eby (2012), for example, discuss ethical issues in the context of mentoring relationships, whereby mentors have a responsibility to dedicate sufficient time and attention to meet protégés’ needs and expectations and do no harm to protégés in the process. Mentors must be aware of the responsibilities associated with mentoring and carry them out in a professional manner, act honestly and support their protégé, and respect all individuals, regardless of gender, ethnicity, or disability. Morever, organizations should assure fairness in access to mentors and the associated benefits. This is analogous to the norm of equity (Greenberg, 1990), which states that all employees should be treated equally and afforded the same opportunities for advancement. From a mentorship perspective, for equity to be realized, every employee must have equal access to an effective mentor. The literature, however, suggests several reasons why access to a mentor may vary across employees.

Mentor Accessibility

The effects of workplace mentoring have been studied across various settings in countries around the world, suggesting that mentoring is a global phenomenon (e.g., Kay & Wallace, 2009; Lester et al., 2011; Liang & Gong, 2013). Rates of mentoring are difficult to ascertain, especially in the case of informal relationships, but research suggests that they range widely (e.g., Hurst & Eby, 2012). For example, across 152 Finnish organizations, mentoring rates differed as a function of organization size (Laiho & Brandt, 2012). In those organizations that offered formal mentoring, the program covered fewer than 10% of employees in 56% of medium-sized companies and in 87% of large organizations. In 57% of the organizations combined, the mentoring program covered, at most, 5% of employees. Olivet Nazarene University (2019; see Study Explores Professional Mentor-Mentee Relationships) report their workplace mentorship findings based on a survey of 3,000 Americans. These findings have been widely discussed in popular press materials (e.g., see Comaford, 2019; Woolworth, 2019) pointing out that even though over 75% of professional employees desire a workplace mentor, just 37% of employees have one. Overall, these statistics suggest that although mentoring is widely used in organizations around the world, only a small proportion of employees actually have a mentor. Furthermore, these statistics do not account for relationship quality. Given the aforementioned discussion on dysfunctional mentoring, it is reasonable to assume that rates of effective mentoring may be even lower.

Much of the literature that addresses access to mentoring focuses on the challenges experienced by women and racial minorities. From the 1970s through the 1990s, much attention was given to the difficulties women experienced in integrating into mentoring systems (e.g., Dreher & Ash, 1990; Ragins & Cotton, 1991). Although women perceive more barriers to receiving a mentor, some studies have demonstrated that they do not differ from men in actual access to mentors (Kay & Wallace, 2009; Ragins & Cotton, 1991). Catalyst (2001) reported that a lack of mentors and role models is a primary barrier to the advancement of non-White leaders. In their meta-analysis, Eby et al. (2013) demonstrated that commonalities in values, beliefs, personality and other deep-level characteristics have stronger and more consistent relationships with instrumental and psychosocial support provided, as well as relationship quality, than surface-level similarity (race and gender). Interpersonal compatibility and personality have been used to explain who receives a mentor and who does not. For example, Turban and Dougherty (1994) found that employees with an internal locus of control, higher emotional stability, and high self-monitoring receive more mentoring. Further, Fagenson (1989, 1992) revealed that protégés have a higher need for power and achievement than nonprotégés, and Liang and Gong (2013) showed that individuals with proactive personalities are more likely to receive career-related and psychosocial mentoring.

A contributing factor to the lack of accessibility of mentors is employees’ ability, willingness, and motivation to mentor. High-quality mentoring relationships require time to develop and nurture. Unfortunately, time is not a luxury those most likely or qualified to mentor have (Allen et al., 1997; Eby & Lockwood, 2005). Also, there are risks associated with mentoring, such as being replaced by an opportunistic protégé or having to deal with a toxic relationship as a result of an interpersonal mentorship mismatch (Eby & Lockwood, 2005). Furthermore, mentors may have different motives, which could be other-focused (e.g., to see the protégé succeed) or self-focused (e.g., to look good in the eyes of senior management) and that could differ depending on whether the relationship is formal or informal (Eby et al., 2007). To ensure the needs of protégés are met, Hurst and Eby (2012) recommended that employees should be selected to participate in mentoring relationships based on their commitment to devoting time to the development of protégés. Although this is a logical recommendation, a side effect of filtering the potential mentor pool based on motivation and commitment can be viewed as an even greater restriction of access to mentors.

Are There Indirect Effects on the Unmentored?

Like many other organizational phenomena (e.g., workplace mistreatment; Dupré et al., 2014; Reich & Hershcovis, 2015), workplace mentorship tends to be examined from the perspective of the parties directly involved (i.e., mentor and protégé), as opposed to other members of the organization who may be aware of, or directly observe, positive mentor–protégé relationships and their outcomes. With the exception of women and minority groups, surprisingly, little attention has been paid to the unmentored. ¹ References to nonprotégés and the nonmentored are prominent in the literature but generally as a benchmark against which researchers evaluate the positive effects of mentoring on protégés. For example, Allen et al. (2004) hypothesized that individuals who have been mentored will report more favorable career outcomes than individuals who have not been mentored. In the absence of rigorous experimental designs, organizational researchers and practitioners have accepted that superior scores among the mentored are due to the adaptive effects of workplace mentorship when there might be other explanations.

Another potential source of variance that has, to our knowledge, been virtually ignored in the literature is the indirect effects of mentoring programs on employees without protégés. Given the evidence of positive outcomes for mentors with protégés described previously, a valid question is, what are the outcomes for employees without protégés? In the remaining sections, we focus solely on the outcomes for those without effective mentors, while acknowledging that future research should also consider outcomes for employees who see other employees with protégés but who have no access to them personally.

Future Research

In a large sample, Payne and Huffman (2005) demonstrated that protégés had higher levels of commitment than nonprotégés and that affective commitment mediates the relationship between mentoring and turnover. Their sample, however, was disproportionately mentored (81%), and 68% reported that their supervisor was their mentor, risking conflation with the effects of transformational supervision (M. Z. Carter et al., 2014). This is but one of many examples of research that did not sufficiently isolate the direct effects of mentoring from other spurious effects. Also, the majority of the associations between mentoring and its effects reported in the literature are based on cross-sectional research designs, without baseline measures or suitable control groups to help clarify causality (Allen et al., 2004; Feldman, 1999).

To truly appreciate the potential benefits of workplace mentoring and to understand the processes through which they have their effects, more studies using rigorous experimental methods are required. For example, cluster randomized control trials could test the immediate and longer term attitudes and outcomes among employees assigned to mentored groups or unmentored (control) groups. Alternatively, longitudinal field studies with baseline data can monitor mentored and unmentored employees’ attitudes and performance over time while controlling for type of mentoring (formal or informal), quality of mentoring, and/or dispositional variables associated with career success. Work by Singh et al. (2009) was a promising start. We acknowledge that designs such as these are challenging, but the high degree of corporate interest in talent management may facilitate access to industry, especially if there are concerns with the ratio of cost to benefits.

We believe that research examining the benefits of mentoring should also consider the indirect effects on those employees who are not mentored. The literature on organizational justice and self-determination theory provides substantial evidence and the theoretical grounding to expect the unmentored to feel slighted and frustrated when they observe positive mentoring relationships in their work environment (formal or informal) and when they perceive that those relationships yield benefits to their mentored coworkers. Similarly, as we briefly touched on, researchers should consider the indirect effects of workplace mentorship on those employees who do not have access to protégés.

Moreover, there are other related areas that would also advance research in the mentorship domain. For example, there may be mentorship outcomes that vary by industry, and the implications for both the unmentored and negatively mentored should be considered within the organizational context. Also, the outcomes of mentorship are widespread, and if there are negative implications of mentorship as a result of nonmentorship and negative mentorship, expanding potential outcomes to include counterproductive workplace behaviors, turnover cognitions and intentions, and other negative behavioral and attitudinal outcomes would be logical.

Practical Implications

Notwithstanding the need for a broader and more rigorous research approach to understanding the value of workplace mentorship, this critical review underscores the complexities of the mentoring phenomenon. Although mentoring appears to have beneficial consequences, there are clearly costs and risks. Accordingly, it would be prudent for those individuals with the potential to be involved in mentoring relationships and, for those implementing mentoring programs, to evaluate in the context of their particular organization whether the costs of mentoring outweigh the potential benefits. Individuals who are considering seeking out a mentor or who are given the option of having a workplace mentor would benefit from knowing what to consider before pursuing this course of action. In Table 1, we provide some questions in light of this review to assist both individual employees and organizational leaders or human resources practitioners in their organization’s mentorship program evaluation. The list may not be exhaustive, but it addresses the key factors that can affect the quality and effectiveness of a mentoring relationship. Moreover, the questions apply to both individuals and organizations, though the perspective and outcome may differ for each. For example, an individual employee pondering what qualifies mentors in their organization to be a mentor may be asking themselves what skills, knowledge, connections, opportunities, amount of time, and degree of motivation can a mentor provide to them? Organizational leaders should also be concerned with what their mentors can offer their protégés, but the actions that follow may affect organizational processes or policies.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Workplace Mentoring Program Considerations.

□ Does your organization have a formal or informal mentoring program?

□ If your organization has implemented a formal mentoring program, is this the best practice given the proposed advantages of informal mentoring?

□ How are your mentors selected?

□ Are mentors in your organization committed to devoting time to develop their protégé(s)?

□ What qualifies mentors in your organization to be a mentor?

□ How are protégés in your organization selected?

□ Is mentor allocation conducted fairly and transparently?

□ Is the mentor allocation process perceived to be fair by all employees?

□ Has your organization considered or assessed the effects of your mentoring program on unmentored employees and employees without access to protégés?

□ Does your organization have a mechanism in place to monitor the quality of mentoring relationships, intervene in dysfunctional or abusive mentoring relationships, and support affected employees?

□ Does your organization have a mechanism in place to objectively assess the benefits of your mentoring program beyond other predictors of success (e.g., education, tenure, core self-evaluations, personality)?

□ Are mentors effectively developing high-performing protégés or are they selecting high potential employees as protégés who might otherwise be successful notwithstanding their mentor?

□ Given all of the above, do the benefits of your organization’s mentoring program outweigh the concrete costs (financial, time, and effort) and the risk of adverse effects?

A final thought for practitioners and researchers alike: Effective mentors bolster protégés with knowledge, opportunities, and support to aid in their career progression. There is a convincing amount of scientific evidence to suggest that transformational leadership achieves the same outcomes while enhancing employee motivation and well-being (Barling, 2014). Could an emphasis on transformational leadership (or transformational supervision) for all be a more just and effective alternative to mentorship of a select few? The manifestation and effects of transformational leadership may vary by employee level and industry, but a perception among employees that their organizational leaders and supervisors are concerned equally for the well-being, growth, and development of all employees may have far-reaching consequences.