Workplace Mentorship: A Critical Review

Abstract

Mentoring is a popular workplace practice, bolstered by a substantial body of literature that has underscored its positive outcomes for protégés and organizations. Less pronounced are the potential risks and costs associated with workplace mentorship. In this article, we consolidate what is known about workplace mentorship and draw on organizational justice research, self-determination theory, and findings related to indirect exposure to expand on the potentially darker side of workplace mentorship. Our comprehensive review suggests that workplace mentorship appears to have positive consequences in particular circumstances for particular groups of employees, but the conclusiveness of its positive effects is limited by significant gaps in the research. To assist in determining if the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks and costs, we offer a list of considerations for individual employees who are considering engaging in a mentoring relationship and for those implementing workplace mentoring programs.

Keywords

mentoring mentoring outcomes organizational justice self-determination theory indirect exposure

Mentoring has received a great deal of research attention since Kram’s (1985) seminal work 35 years ago (e.g., Eby et al., 2013; Kammeyer-Mueller & Judge, 2008; Scalise et al., 2019; Turban et al., 2017; Wen et al., 2019). This substantial body of literature has typically focused on the positive outcomes of workplace mentoring for protégés and organizations and the mentor–protégé dyad. Despite the strong interest in workplace mentorship, research gaps remain. In particular, there is less research focusing on the limitations and potential negative effects of workplace mentorship (e.g., Dashper, 2019; Young Illies & Reiter-Palmon, 2020) relative to the positive outcomes. In this article, we provide a comprehensive review of what is known about workplace mentorship, and we highlight potential unintended negative consequences of mentoring and limitations to the existing body of mentorship research. Moreover, we extend the mentoring discussion further by incorporating organizational justice research, self-determination theory, and findings related to indirect exposure to workplace mentorship.

Mentoring

A “mentor” describes a more senior person who takes an interest in the sponsorship of a more junior person (Kram, 1985; Scandura, 1997, 1998), referred to as a mentee or, more commonly, as a protégé. Mentors tend to have advanced experience and knowledge and a commitment to helping their protégés achieve career success (Hunt & Michael, 1983; Kram, 1985). Although mentoring has been most often regarded as a developmentally oriented relationship between a mentor and a protégé (Hunt & Michael, 1983; Kram, 1985; Mullen & Noe, 1999), researchers have more recently demonstrated an interest in broadening the scope of research into the mentoring phenomenon to include multiple mentors (e.g., Lyle & Smith, 2014; San Miguel & Kim, 2015) or multiple protégés (e.g., Harvey et al., 2010). Regardless of the number of people involved, a mentoring relationship is unique and idiosyncratic (Eby et al., 2013) and is strengthened by an emotional bond between parties (Ghosh & Reio, 2013).

Mentor functions have typically been organized into two categories: career-related support and psychosocial support (Ghosh & Reio, 2013; Harvey et al., 2010). Career-related support is that which is instrumental to helping protégés advance within their respective organizations and careers (e.g., provision of exposure and visibility to influential people, coaching, opportunities for challenging assignments, and sponsorship, which involves publicly advocating for protégés’ behaviors and acting as their champion for developmental opportunities and promotions; Kram, 1983; O’Neill, 2005; Shen & Kram, 2011). Psychosocial support is that which strengthens protégés identity, feelings of competence, and success at work (e.g., counseling, friendship, acceptance; Dreher & Ash, 1990; Fowler & O’Gorman, 2005; Kram, 1985; O’Neill, 2005; Shen & Kram, 2011).

Mentoring typically occurs over four phases (Kram, 1983): (a) initiation (mentor and protégé selection), (b) cultivation (mentoring functions peak, and both mentors and protégés realize the benefits of the relationship), (c) separation (the relationship ends due to job change or geographic dispersion), and (d) redefinition (the mentoring relationship evolves into a peer-like friendship). The manifestation and duration of these phases may vary depending on whether the mentoring relationship is informal or formal. Informal mentoring is the classic form of mentoring, whereby relationships between two people develop naturally, without assistance or encouragement from the organization, usually on the basis of perceived competence and interpersonal comfort (Eby et al., 2013). Formal mentoring refers to a more structured relationship between an experienced mentor and a less experienced protégé developed at the behest of the organization to achieve one or more organizational objectives. Formal mentoring relationships tend to differ from informal relationships in terms of their duration. Informal mentoring relationships usually last between 5 and 7 years, though they can endure for much longer (Kram, 1983, 1985), and formal relationships are usually 1 year in duration (Ragins & Cotton, 1999). Mentors and protégés tend to prefer the informal mentoring process, where they have the freedom to select their own mentor/protégé (Chao et al., 1992; Noe, 1988). Furthermore, in comparison to formal mentoring, informal mentoring is more likely to lead to favorable outcomes, such as instrumental and psychosocial support, and less likely to lead to negative mentoring experiences (Eby et al., 2013; Underhill, 2006).

The Benefits of Mentoring

In their meta-analysis, Allen et al. (2004) stated that the literature examining the positive effects of mentoring on protégés can be distilled down to two types of studies: (a) those that compare outcomes across protégés and nonprotégés (e.g., Chao et al., 1992; Fagenson, 1989), sometimes referred to as the nonmentored, and (b) those looking at the association between mentor functions and protégé outcomes (e.g., Noe, 1988; Ragins & Cotton, 1999). They organized the outcomes associated with mentoring for protégés in two categories: objective career outcomes and subjective career outcomes.

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.

Does Mentoring Matter?

Overall, the list of positive outcomes associated with mentoring is impressive. The research suggests that mentoring supports knowledge transfer, it provides protégés with access to information and influential social networks, it gives protégés the opportunity to model the behavior and attitudes of experienced and successful role models, and it arms protégés with a champion who promotes their career interests while providing career and emotional support. In so doing, the conditions are set for protégés to effectively undertake challenging tasks and increased levels of responsibility.

However, while these positive protégé effects might serve to enhance their self-efficacy, satisfaction, commitment, career outlook, and overall well-being, a consistent finding across meta-analyses is that the effect sizes of mentoring on individual and organizational outcomes are weak to modest (Allen et al., 2004; Eby, Allen, et al., 2008, Eby et al., 2013). For example, although Kammeyer-Mueller and Judge (2008) noted the importance of mentoring in predicting valuable outcomes; they also found that, relative to other predictors of outcomes such as tenure, education, core self-evaluations, personality, and networks, the benefits of mentoring are modest. In an academic setting, S. G. Green and Bauer’s (1995) work suggested that mentors do not necessarily develop high performing protégés. Rather, mentors select high performing employees as their protégés. Whether or not rising stars in work settings need or benefit from mentoring has been questioned (Feldman, 1999; Scandura, 1998). Earlier indications suggest that only a minority of protégés felt that their mentors had made a difference in their lives (Kizilios, 1990; Roche, 1979), though this could be a symptom of underestimation of a mentor’s contribution on the part of their protégé.

Singh et al. (2009) used a rigorous longitudinal design to examine whether mentoring added value beyond individual capital (e.g., education, experience) and agentic capital (e.g., engagement in proactive career behaviors). Their results suggest mentoring matters, but not for all outcomes; although mentoring predicted promotion and career expectations, only individual capital predicted salary. They concluded that mentoring is just a small part of what may help individuals achieve career success. These findings indicate that the gains of mentoring may not outweigh the costs. Some literature suggests that there may be additional risks.

The Dark Side of Mentoring

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.

An organizational justice perspective

Equity theory (Adams, 1965) states that individuals have a high need for equity, and when they perceive an imbalance between their efforts and rewards, they are motivated to achieve a psychological state of balance, either through their behavior or their perceptions. Similarly, the literature on organizational justice underscores the negative effects of a lack of fairness in the distribution of resources (distributive justice), in processes (procedural justice), and in interactions with others (interactional justice; Colquitt et al., 2001). Specifically, particular dimensions of organizational justice are highly correlated with job satisfaction, evaluation of authority, withdrawal, organizational commitment, and trust, and they are moderately associated with organizational citizenship behaviors and negative reactions. Organizational justice is also linked to a lack of health including unhealthy behaviors, absenteeism, and burnout (Robbins et al., 2012), along with sickness-related absence and psychiatric morbidity (Elovainio et al., 2009; Kivimäki et al., 2003; Ndjaboué et al., 2012). Eib et al. (2015) demonstrated that injustice at work can lead to mental preoccupation with work, which prolongs the perception of injustice, leading to impaired health and work–family conflict.

Accordingly, another explanation for the outcome discrepancy between unmentored and mentored groups is the negative effects of the perceived injustice associated with not having a mentor where others do. In other words, the unmentored could be worse off relative to the effectively mentored because of the negative effects of the lack of fairness perceived as a result of not having the same advantages as those with a mentor. Some researchers have considered justice in mentoring either as an aspect of a mutually beneficial mentoring relationship (Ragins & Cotton, 1991) or as an outcome of mentoring (as opposed to a reaction to not having a mentor). For example, in noting elevated levels of procedural justice among protégés relative to nonprotégés, Scandura (1997) reasoned that protégés, through their mentors, have greater insight into how organizational decisions are made. Scandura did not account for whether or not individuals’ coworkers had mentors. We propose that unmentored individuals are more likely to perceive injustice when they observe coworkers enjoying the benefits of positive mentoring relationships at work.

A self-determination theory perspective

Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) explains human motivation and provides another explanation for why the unmentored might be negatively affected by the occurrence of positive mentoring around them. People need to feel competent by engaging in challenging tasks, they need social attachments, and they need to engage in activities that are meaningful (Deci & Ryan, 2000). When one or more of these needs are deprived, motivation and well-being decline (Deci et al., 1989; Williams et al., 1996).

In a positive mentoring context, the conditions are set for protégés to obtain a sense of self-efficacy, attachment, and fulfillment. In addition to instigating feelings of injustice, we posit that being overlooked for mentoring may frustrate the attainment of self-determined needs at work, which has a negative influence on levels of work engagement, motivation, well-being, and commitment relative to mentored employees. In line with this notion, the influence of self-determined needs at work on well-being and commitment was recently reinforced by Ivey et al. (2015) who demonstrated that proxy measures of autonomy, competence, and relatedness were strong predictors of nondeployed military members’ work engagement and their motivation and morale. Their level of work engagement and morale, in turn, impacted their psychological well-being, turnover intentions, and willingness to deploy on military operations.

Moving Forward

We have provided an overview of decades of research that highlights the benefits of mentoring for protégés, mentors, and organizations. In so doing, we pointed out that the relationship between mentoring and various individual and organizational outcomes is not always overly robust. Moreover, we described the dark side of mentoring. In particular, we discussed the literature on negative mentoring relationships, the ethics of mentoring, and on access to mentors in general and access to high-quality mentors in particular. Finally, we offered hypotheses regarding the potential negative indirect effects of mentoring on the unmentored. In light of all of the above, our assessment is that workplace mentorship appears to have positive consequences in particular circumstances for particular groups of employees, but the conclusiveness of the positive effects of mentoring is limited by significant gaps in the research.

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.

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.

Conclusion

This review extends our understanding of workplace mentorship by consolidating what is known, identifying knowledge gaps, proposing new directions for research, and offering guidance to individual employees and practitioners on how to evaluate the potential effectiveness of workplace mentorship programs. We are not advocating for the elimination of workplace mentorship. We acknowledge that it can be useful mechanism to transfer knowledge and gain access, particularly for minority groups. However, it is our position that we ought to be concerned with fairness and motivation in the context of mentoring and that it is important for research to more fully addresses these issues. The ultimate goal is to consider not only what mentoring can do for protégés but also what mentoring can do for, or does to, all of those exposed to the process, both directly and indirectly.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Canadian Armed Forces nor the Department of National Defence.

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Gary W. Ivey

Kathryne E. Dupré

Note

References

Adams

J. S.

(1965). Inequity in social exchange. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). Academic Press.

Allen

T. D.

Eby

L. T.

Poteet

M. L.

Lentz

Lima

(2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.127

Allen

T. D.

Poteet

M. L.

Russell

J. E. A.

Dobbins

G. H.

(1997). A field study of factors related to supervisors’ willingness to mentor others. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1995.1525

Aryee

Wyatt

Stone

(1996). Early career outcomes of graduate employees: The effect of mentoring and ingratiation. Journal of Management Studies, 33, 95–118. https://doi.org/10.111/j.1467-6486.1996.tb00800.x

Barling

(2014). The science of leadership: Lessons from research for organizational leaders. Oxford University Press.

Baugh

S. G.

Lankau

M. J.

Scandura

T. A.

(1996). An investigation of the effects of protégé gender on responses to mentoring. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 309–323. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1996.0046

Burk

H. G.

Eby

L. T.

(2010). What keeps people in mentoring relationships when bad things happen? A field study from the protégé’s perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 437–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.05.011

Burke

R. J.

McKeen

C. A.

(1997). Benefits of mentoring relationships among managerial and professional women: A cautionary tale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1997.1595

Busch

J. W.

(1985). Mentoring in graduate schools of education: Mentor’s perceptions. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 257–265. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312022002257

10.

Carter

J. W.

Youssef-Morgan

C. M.

(2019). The positive psychology of mentoring: A longitudinal analysis of psychological capital development and performance in a formal mentoring program. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 30(3), 383–405. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21348

11.

Carter

M. Z.

Mossholder

K. W.

Feild

H. S.

Armenakis

A. A.

(2014). Transformational leadership, interactional justice, and organizational citizenship behavior: The effects of racial and gender dissimilarity between supervisors and subordinates. Group & Organization Management, 39, 691–719. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601114551605

12.

Catalyst. (2001). Women of color executives: Their voices, their journeys. Catalyst.

13.

Chandler

D. E.

Kram

K. E.

Yip

(2011). An ecological systems perspective on mentoring at work: A review and future prospects. The Academy of Management Annals, 5, 519–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2011.576087

14.

Chao

G. T.

Walz

P. M.

Gardner

P. D.

(1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison of mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentored counterparts. Personnel Psychology, 45, 619–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1992.tb00863.x

15.

Chun

J. U.

Sosik

J. J.

Yun

N. Y.

(2012). A longitudinal study of mentor and protégé outcomes in formal mentoring relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 1071–1094. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1781

16.

Colquitt

J. A.

Conlon

D. E.

Wesson

M. J.

Porter

O. L. H.

K. Y.

(2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.425

17.

Comaford

(2019, July 5). 76% Of people think mentors are important, but only 37% have one. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinecomaford/2019/07/03/new-study-76-of-people-think-mentors-are-important-but-only-37-have-one/#170f7e0d4329

18.

Darling

L. W.

(1985). What to do about toxic mentors. Journal of Nursing Administration, 15, 43–44.

19.

Dashper

(2019). Challenging the gendered rhetoric of success? The limitations of women-only mentoring for tackling gender inequality in the workplace. Gender, Work and Organization, 26(4), 541–557. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12262

20.

Deci

E. L.

Connell

J. P.

Ryan

R. M.

(1989). Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 580–590. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.4.580

21.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

22.

Dreher

G. F.

Ash

R. A.

(1990). A comparative study of mentoring among men and women in managerial, professional, and technical positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 539–546. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.539

23.

Duck

(1994). Stratagems, spoils, and a serpent’s tooth: On the delights and dilemmas of personal relationships. In Cupach

W. R.

Spitzberg

B. H.

(Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal relationships (pp. 3–24). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

24.

Dupré

K. E.

Barling

Dawe

(2014). Harm to those who serve: Effects of direct and vicarious customer-initiated workplace aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 2355–2377.

25.

Eby

L. T.

Allen

T. D.

(2002). Further investigation of protégés negative mentoring experiences. Group & Organization Management, 27, 459–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601102238357

26.

Eby

L. T.

Allen

T. D.

Evans

S. C.

DuBois

D. L.

(2008). Does mentoring matter? A multidisciplinary meta-analysis comparing mentored and non-mentored individuals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 254–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.04.005

27.

Eby

L. T.

Allen

T. D.

Hoffman

B. J.

Baranik

L. E.

Sauer

J. B.

Baldwin

Morrison

M. A.

Kinkade

K. M.

Maher

C. P.

Curtis

Evans

S. C.

(2013). An interdisciplinary meta-analysis of the potential antecedents, correlates, and consequences of protégé perceptions of mentoring. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 441–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029279

28.

Eby

L. T.

Butts

Durley

Ragins

B. R.

(2010). Are bad experiences stronger than good ones in mentoring relationships? Evidence from the mentor and protégé perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.02.010

29.

Eby

L. T.

Butts

Lockwood

Simon

S. A.

(2004). Protégés’ negative mentoring experiences: Construct development and nomological validation. Personnel Psychology, 57, 411–447. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02496.x

30.

Eby

L. T.

Durley

J. R.

Evans

S. C.

Ragins

B. R.

(2008). Mentors’ perceptions of negative mentoring experiences: Scale development and nomological validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 358–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.358

31.

Eby

L. T.

Lockwood

(2005). Protégés’ and mentors’ reactions to participating in formal mentoring programs: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 441–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2004.08.002

32.

Eby

L. T.

McManus

S. E.

Simon

S. A.

Russell

J. E. A.

(2000). The protégé’s perspective regarding negative mentoring experiences: The development of a taxonomy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1999.1726

33.

Eby

L. T.

Rhodes

J. E.

Allen

T. D.

(2007). Definition and evolution of mentoring. In Allen

T. D.

Eby

L. T.

(Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiples perspectives approach (pp. 7–20). Blackwell.

34.

Eib

von Thiele Schwarz

Blom

(2015, March 23). Don’t let it get to you! A moderated mediated approach to the (in)justice-health relationship. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039005

35.

Elovainio

Ferrie

J. E.

Gimeno

De Vogli

Shipley

Brunner

E. J.

Kumari

Vahtera

Marmot

M. G.

Kivimäki

(2009). Organizational justice and sleeping problems: The Whitehall II study. Psychosomatic Medicine, 71, 334–340. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0b013181960665

36.

Erdem

Özen Aytemur

(2008). Mentoring—A relationship based on trust: Qualitative research. Public Personnel Management, 37, 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/009102600803700104

37.

Fagenson

E. A.

(1989). The mentor advantage: Perceived career/job experiences of protégés versus nonprotégés. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030100403

38.

Fagenson

E. A.

(1992). Mentoring: Who needs it? A comparison of protégés and nonprotégés needs for power, achievement, affiliation, and autonomy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 41, 48–60.

39.

Feldman

D. C.

(1999). Toxic mentors or toxic protégés? A critical re-examination of dysfunctional mentoring. Human Resources Management Review, 9, 247–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(99)00021-2

40.

Fowler

J. L.

O’Gorman

J. G.

(2005). Mentoring functions: A contemporary view of the perceptions of mentees and mentors. British Journal of Management, 16, 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00439.x

41.

Ghosh

Reio

T. G.

Jr . (2013). Career benefits associated with mentoring for mentors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.03.011

42.

Green

Jackson

(2014). Mentoring: Some cautionary notes for the nursing profession. Contemporary Nurse, 47, 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/10376178.2014.11081909

43.

Green

S. G.

Bauer

T. A.

(1995). Supervisory mentoring by advisors: Relationships with doctoral student potential, productivity, and commitment. Personnel Psychology, 48, 537–561. https://doi.org/10.111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01769.x

44.

Greenberg

(1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399–432.

45.

Harris

J. I.

Winskowski

A. M.

Engdahl

B. E.

(2007). The types of workplace social support in the prediction of job satisfaction. The Career Development Quarterly, 56, 150–156. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2007.tb00027.x

46.

Harvey

Napier

N. K.

Moeller

Williams

L. A.

(2010). Mentoring global dual-career couples: A social learning perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 212–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00571.x

47.

Higgins

M. C.

Thomas

D. A.

(2001). Constellations and careers: Toward understanding the effects of multiple developmental relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 223–247. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.66

48.

Hunt

D. M.

Michael

(1983). Mentorship: A career development training tool. Academy of Management Review, 8, 475–485. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1983.4284603

49.

Hurst

C. S.

Eby

L. T.

(2012). Mentoring in organizations: Mentor or tormentor? In Reilly

N. P.

Sirgy

M. J.

Gorman

C. A.

(Eds.), Work and quality of life: Ethical practices in organizations (pp. 81–94). Springer.

50.

Ivey

G. W.

Blanc

J.-R. S.

Mantler

(2015). An assessment of the overlap between morale and work engagement in a nonoperational military sample. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20, 338–347. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038559

51.

Kammeyer-Mueller

J. D.

Judge

T. A.

(2008). A quantitative review of mentoring research: Test of a model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.09.006

52.

Kay

F. M.

Wallace

J. E.

(2009). Mentors as social capital: Gender, mentors, and career rewards in law practice. Sociological Inquiry, 79, 418–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2009.00301.x

53.

Kivimäki

Elovainio

Vahtera

Ferrie

J. E.

(2003). Organisational justice and health of employees: Prospective cohort study. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 60, 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.60.1.27

54.

Kizilios

(1990). Take my mentor, please! Training, 27, 49–55.

55.

Koberg

C. S.

Boss

R. W.

Chappell

Ringer

R. C.

(1994). Correlates and consequences of protégé mentoring in a large hospital. Group & Organization Management, 19, 219–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601194192007

56.

Kolbert

J. B.

Morgan

Brendel

J. M.

(2002). Faculty and student perceptions of dual relationships within counselor education: A qualitative analysis. Counselor Education and Supervision, 41, 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2002.tb012833.x

57.

Kram

K. E.

(1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 608–625.

58.

Kram

K. E.

(1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationship in organizational life. Scott Foresman.

59.

Laband

D. N.

Lentz

B. F.

(1995). Workplace mentoring in the legal profession. Southern Economic Journal, 56, 783–802.

60.

Laiho

Brandt

(2012). Views of HR specialists on formal mentoring: Current situation and prospects for the future. Career Development International, 17, 435–457. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431211269694

61.

Lester

P. B.

Hannah

S. T.

Harms

P. D.

Vogelgesang

G. R.

Avolio

B. J.

(2011). Mentoring impact on leader efficacy development: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 10, 409–429. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0047

62.

Liang

Gong

(2013). Capitalizing on proactivity for informal mentoring received during early careers: The moderating role of core self-evaluations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 1182–1201. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1849

63.

Liu

Kwan

H. K.

Mao

(2012). Mentorship quality and protégés’ work-to-family positive spillover, career satisfaction and voice behavior in China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(19), 4110–4128. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.665072

64.

Lyle

D. S.

Smith

J. Z.

(2014). The effect of high-performing mentors on junior officer promotion in the US Army. Journal of Labor Economics, 32(2), 229–258. https://doi.org/10.1086/673372

65.

Mullen

E. J.

Noe

R. A.

(1999). The mentoring information exchange: When do mentors seek information from their protégés? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199903)20:2<233::AID-JOB925>3.0.CO;2-F

66.

Myers

D. W.

Humphreys

N. J.

(1985). The caveats in mentorship. Business Horizons, 28, 9–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(85)90016-3

67.

Natale

S. M.

Campana

Sora

S. A.

(1988). How envy affects management. International Journal of Technology Management, 3, 543–556. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.1988.025987

68.

Ndjaboué

Brisson

Vézina

(2012). Organisational justice and mental health: A systematic review of prospective studies. Organizational and Environmental Medicine, 69, 694–700. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2011-100595

69.

Nielson

T. R.

Carlson

Lankau

M. J.

(2001). The supportive mentor as a means of reducing work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 364–381. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1806

70.

Noe

R. A.

(1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. Personnel Psychology, 41, 457–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00638.x

71.

Olian

J. D.

Carroll

S. J.

Giannantonio

C. M.

Feren

D. B.

(1988). What do protégés look for in a mentor? Results of three experimental studies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 33, 15–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(88)90031-0

72.

Olivet Nazarene University. (2019). Study explores professional mentor-mentee relationships in 2019. https://online.olivet.edu/research-statistics-on-professional-mentors

73.

O’Neill

R. M.

(2005). An examination of organizational predictors of mentoring functions. Journal of Managerial Issues, 27, 439–460.

74.

Park

J. H.

Newman

Zhang

Hooke

(2016). Mentoring functions and turnover intention: The mediating role of perceived organizational support. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(11), 1173–1191. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1062038

75.

Payne

S. C.

Huffman

A. H.

(2005). A longitudinal examination of the influence of mentoring on organizational commitment and turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 158–168. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.15993166

76.

Perrewé

P. L.

Zellars

K. L.

Rogers

L. M.

Breaux

D. M.

Young

A. M.

(2010). Mentors gone wild!—When mentoring relationships become dysfunctional or abusive. In Neider

L. L.

Schriesheim

C. A.

(Eds.), The ‘dark’ side of management (pp. 1–25). Information Age Publishing.

77.

Ragins

B. R.

Cotton

J. L.

(1991). Easier said than done: Gender differences in perceived barriers to gaining a mentor. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 939–951. https://doi.org/10.2307/256398

78.

Ragins

B. R.

Cotton

J. L.

(1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 529–550. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.529

79.

Ragins

B. R.

Ehrhardt

Lyness

K. S.

Murphy

D. D.

Capman

J. F.

(2017). Anchoring relationships at work: High-quality mentors and other supportive work relationships as buffers to ambient racial discrimination. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 211–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12144

80.

Ragins

B. R.

Scandura

T. A.

(1999). Burden or blessing? Expected costs and benefits of being a mentor. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 493–509. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(1999907)20:43.0.CO;2-T

81.

Reich

T. C.

Hershcovis

M. S.

(2015). Observing workplace incivility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 203. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036464

82.

Robbins

J. M.

Ford

M. T.

Tetrick

L. E.

(2012). Perceived unfairness and employee health: A meta-analytic integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 235–272. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025408

83.

Roche

(1979). Much ado about mentors. Harvard Business Review, 57, 14–28.

84.

San Miguel

A. M.

Kim

M. M.

(2015). Successful Latina scientists and engineers: Their lived mentoring experiences and career development. Journal of Career Development, 42(2), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845314542248

85.

Scalise

Sukumaran

Merson

E. S.

Pursell

Grossman

Johnson

Elliot

J. F.

(2019). A qualitative analysis of early career women’s adjustment to work in professional psychology: Practitioners’ reflections. Journal of Career Development46(5)531–549. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845318786460

86.

Scandura

T. A.

(1992). Mentoring and career mobility: An empirical investigation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 169–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130206

87.

Scandura

T. A.

(1997). Mentoring and organizational justice: An empirical investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1997.1588

88.

Scandura

T. A.

(1998). Dysfunctional mentoring relationships and outcomes. Journal of Management, 24, 449–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049206639802400307

89.

Shen

Kram

K. E.

(2011). Expatriates’ developmental networks: Network diversity, base, and support functions. Career Development International, 16, 528–552. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431111178317

90.

Singh

Ragins

B. R.

Tharenou

(2009). What matters most? The relative role of mentoring and career capital in career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.03.003

91.

St-Jean

É.

Mathieu

(2015). Developing attitudes toward an entrepreneurial career through mentoring: The mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Journal of Career Development, 42(4), 325–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845314568190

92.

Tepper

B. J.

(2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Reviews, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/104920637300812

93.

Thomas

C. H.

Lankau

M. J.

(2009). Preventing burnout: The effects of LMX and mentoring on socialization, role stress, and burnout. Human Resource Management: Published in Cooperation with the School of Business Administration, The University of Michigan and in Alliance with the Society of Human Resources Management, 48(3), 417–432. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20288

94.

Turban

D. B.

Dougherty

T. W.

(1994). Role of protégé personality in receipt of mentoring and career success. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 688–702. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1855

95.

Turban

D. B.

Moake

T. R.

S. Y. H.

Cheung

Y. H.

(2017). Linking extroversion and proactive personality to career success: The role of mentoring received and knowledge. Journal of Career Development, 44(1), 20–33. https://doi.org/10.5465/256706

96.

Underhill

C. M.

(2006). The effectiveness of mentoring programs in corporate settings: A meta-analytical review of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 292–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.05.003

97.

Wen

Chen

Dong

Shu

(2019). The role of mentoring in protégés’ subjective well-being. Journal of Career Development, 46(2), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845317731864

98.

Williams

G. C.

Grow

V. M.

Freedman

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(1996). Motivational predictors of weight loss and weight-loss maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.115

99.

Woolworth

(2019, August 9). Great mentors focus on the whole person, not just their career. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/08/great-mentors-focus-on-the-whole-person-not-just-their-career

100.

Young Illies

Reiter-Palmon

(2020). The effect of perceived values on negative mentoring, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and perceived career success. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching & Mentoring, 18(1), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.24384/q242-8973