1

Mentoring of Scientists and Engineers: A Study of

Organization Interventionand

Mentor/Protégé Homogeneity

Mike LyonMike.lyon@us.army.mil

256-876-3732

2

Manpower crisis looming?

Average age of US aerospace and defense worker: 51

50% of DoD civilians will be eligible to retire in the next 5 years

Percentage of students entering college in the US who plan to major in engineering: 5.5% in 2002 (8.6% on 1992)

Defense News 28 June 2004, p. 24Gov Exec magazine 1 Aug 2004,

p.10

5

Why Mentor?

Mentoring has long been recognized as a means to pass along business “rules of thumb”, provide introductions to “the right people”, and provide a buffer layer to the new employee as he or she learns the basics of the business.

The goal of mentoring is to facilitate job success for the protégé and for the protégé to become a satisfied, productive employee.

Comparisons of mentored versus unmentored individuals indicate that mentoring can benefit three distinct entities: the protégé, the mentor, and the organization.

6

Program Structure

Informal mentorships not constructed by

the organization arise spontaneously not managed,

structured, or formally recognized by the organization.

Formal mentorships organizationally

managed generally created by

assignment or mentor selection

designed to pair up employees with peers, seniors, or outside consultants

7

Mentoring Program Structure

Elements of structure Is the mentoring program developed or implemented

by the organization? (Initiation) Is the mentoring program coordinated or directed by

the organization? (Direction) Are mentoring relationships encouraged by the

organization? (Sustainment) Is the mentoring program reviewed by the

organization? (Monitoring)

Is progress of the mentoring relationship evaluated by the organization? (Improvement)

How do the mentor and protégé meet? (Facilitization)

8

Career Development Mentoring

Mentoring FunctionsCareer Development

CoachingSponsoring

advancement

Providingchallengingassignments

Protection fromadverse forces

Fosteringpositive visibility

Providing accessto resources

Money, supplylines,communicationlines

Publicizesprotege'sachievements

Free to makemistakes

High standardsof perf ormance

Providesopportunities to learn

Demands seen asopportunities

Thinking more clearly/ creatively

Speaks well ofprotege withsuperiors

Manipulatespolitical f orces

Gains admissionto programs

Gives vision

Teaches the job

Provides insideinf ormation

Provides advice &support

I ntroducescorporatestructure, politics

9

Psychosocial Mentoring

Mentoring FunctionsPsychosocial

Personal support Friendship Acceptance Counseling Role modeling

Teaching byexample

Sharing dreams

Providing f eedback

Sense ofperspectiveAwareness of contribution torelationship

Opinions heard &valued

Assistance withpersonal lif e

Belief in protege

Building confidence

Encouragement

Overcoming pressures &strains

10

Dyads

“Dyad” refers to the mentor-protégé pair

Dyads are described as either Homogeneous -- mentor and protégé

share similar characteristics Diverse – mentor and protégé differ Are typically categorized based on

Gender Race

11

Gender as a Dyad Variable

Women make up 46% of US labor force

Women hold 10.6% of the engineering jobs. In 1999, women held 5.1% of “clout” titles Mentoring barriers for women

Fewer females to serve as mentors for young females

Women less plugged into informal networks (fewer interactions with persons in power)

Visibility resulting from affirmative action scares mentors

Misinterpretation of relationships (cross-gender)

12

Literature Indicates…..

Men see mentors as: Developing leadership Developing ability to take risks Giving direction Communication

Women see mentors as: Giving encouragement and support Instilling confidence Providing growth opportunities Giving visibility within organization

13

Objective of Study

To study: How are

mentoring activities related to structural factors ?

How do these vary with dyad homogeneity?

MentoringActivity

MentoringProgram

Structure

DyadHomogeneity

CareerDevelopmentOutcomes

PsychosocialOutcomes

14

Survey Instrument (Structure portion)

1. The mentoring program was developed or implemented by my organization.

Not at all To a small degree To a large degree Fully

2. Our mentoring program is coordinated or directed by my organization.

Not at all Only occasionally Frequently Constantly

3. Mentoring programs are encouraged by my organization.

Not at all Only occasionally Frequently Constantly

4. Our mentoring program is reviewed by my organization

Not at all Only occasionally Frequently Constantly

5. My mentoring progress is evaluated by my organization. (e.g. it is part of my performance appraisal process)

Not at all Only occasionally Frequently Constantly

6. How I met my mentor

Spontaneous. We just

seemed to “hit it off”

when we met

One of us sought out the other based on comments of other employees

We met in a meeting set up by our organization to bring together perspective mentors and proteges

Our organization paired us without our input.

15

Survey Items - roles

1. Mentor has shared history of his / her career with you.2. Mentor has encouraged you to prepare for advancement.3. Mentor has encouraged me to try new ways of behaving in my job.4. I try to imitate the work behavior of my mentor.5. I agree with my mentor’s attitudes and values regarding education.6. I respect and admire my mentor.7. I will try to be like my mentor when I reach a similar position in my career.8. My mentor has demonstrated good listening skills in our conversations.9. My mentor has discussed my questions or concerns regarding feelings of

competence, commitment to advancement, relationships with peers and supervisors or work / family conflicts.

10. My mentor has shared personal experiences as an alternative perspective to my problems.

11. My mentor has encouraged me to talk openly about anxiety and fears that detract from my work.

12. My mentor has conveyed empathy for the concerns and feelings I have discussed with him / her.

13. My mentor has kept feelings and doubts I have shared with him / her in strict confidence.

14. My mentor has conveyed feelings of respect for me as an individual.

16

15. Mentor reduced unnecessary risks that could threaten the possibility of advancement.

16. Mentor helped you finish assignments / tasks that otherwise would have been difficult to complete.

17. Mentor helped you meet new colleagues.18. Mentor gave you assignments that increased written and personal contact with

higher levels in the organization.19. Mentor assigned responsibilities to you that have increased your contact with

people in the organization who may judge your potential for future advancement.20. Mentor gave you assignments or tasks in your work that prepare you for a

leadership position.21. Mentor gave you assignments that present opportunities to learn new skills.22. Mentor provided you with support and feedback regarding your performance.23. Mentor suggested specific strategies for achieving your career goals.24. Mentor shared ideas with you.25. Mentor suggested specific strategies for accomplishing work objectives.26. Mentor gave you feedback on your performance in your present job.27. Mentor has invited me to join him / her for lunch.28. My mentor has asked me for suggestions concerning problems he / she has

encountered at work.29. My mentor has interacted with me socially outside of work.

Survey Items - roles

17

Analysis TaxonomyI f eel that the overallmentoring program at

my organization iseff ective

I f eel that my mentorhas been eff ective in

helping me in my careerdevelopment

I f eel that my mentorhas been eff ective in

helping me in non-career ways

CoachingSponsoring

advancement

Providingchallengingassignments

Protecting f romadverse f orces

Fosteringpositive visibility

Providingacesses toresources

Personal support Friendship

Acceptance Counseling

Role modeling

1, 2, 23, 24, 25,26

3, 14, 28

4, 5, 6, 7

8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13

15, 16

17, 18, 19

20

21, 22

27, 29

Overall CareerDevelopment Overall Psychosocial

18

Survey Instrument (Other metrics)

Dyad genders, races, ages Miscellaneous demographics

Org. size, years in present job, term of mentoring relationship, proximity of offices

“Success” factors (subjective statement from protégé) Most important mentoring role Least important mentoring role

19

Dyad Pair ing Process

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Spontaneous Word of Mouth Via a "Mentorship

Fair"

Organizat ion did

pair ing

Percent of respondents

Appr

oach

Demographics of Surveyed Organizations

Organizational I nvolvement

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Not at all To a small

degree

To a large

degree

Fully

Level

Perc

ent

of r

espo

nden

ts Developed byorganization

Coordinated byorganization

Encouraged byorganization

Reviewed byorganization

Evaluated byorganization

American (88%)International (12%)

Ment.Prot.

Male Female

Male 74.3% 2.0%

Female 19.3% 4.4%

< 1 yr

1-5 yrs

6-12 yrs

>12 yrs

11% 31% 18% 40%

Protégé’s Years with Organization

202 Engineers and Scientists working in 4 countries

20

• Mentor has shared personal experiences as an alternative perspective to my problems.

• Mentor has encouraged discussions about anxiety and fears that detract from work.

• Mentor has conveyed empathy for the concerns and feelings discussed with him / her.

• Mentor has kept feelings and doubts shared with him / her in strict confidence.

Encouraged by organization

ConstantlyFrequentlyOnly occasionallyNot at all

Me

an

of

Me

nto

r is

eff

ect

ive

in c

are

er

de

velo

pm

en

t

4.2

4.0

3.8

3.6

3.4

3.2

3.0

Typical trend

Significant Findings:“Encouraged by Organization”

• I try to imitate the work behavior of my mentor.

• I agree with my mentor’s attitudes and values regarding education.

• I respect and admire my mentor. • I will try to be like my mentor when I

reach a similar position in my career.

• Mentor has encouraged trying new ways of behaving in the job. • Mentor has conveyed feelings of respect for the protégé as an

individual.

• Mentor provided support and feedback regarding performance.

• Mentor reduced unnecessary risks that could threaten the possibility of advancement.

• Mentor helped finish assignments / tasks that otherwise would have been difficult to complete.

• Mentor has shared history of his / her career.• Mentor has encouraged preparation for advancement. • Mentor suggested specific strategies for achieving career

goals. • Mentor shared ideas. • Mentor suggested specific strategies for accomplishing work

objectives. • Mentor gave feedback on performance in present job.

Coaching

Providing Challenging Assignments

Protecting from Adverse Forces

Acceptance

Role Modeling

Counseling

“Sustainment”

21

Evaluated by organization

ConstantlyFrequentlyOnly occasionallyNot at all

Me

an

of

Me

nto

r is

eff

ect

ive

in c

are

er

de

velo

pm

en

t

4.6

4.4

4.2

4.0

3.8

3.6

3.4

3.2

Typical trend

• Mentor has asked for suggestions concerning problems he / she has encountered at work.

• Mentor reduced unnecessary risks that could threaten the possibility of advancement.

• Mentor helped finish assignments / tasks that otherwise would have been difficult to complete.

• Mentor has shared history of his / her career.• Mentor suggested specific strategies for achieving career goals. • Mentor suggested specific strategies for accomplishing work objectives. • Mentor gave feedback on performance in present job.

Coaching

Protection from Adverse Forces

Acceptance

Significant Findings:“Evaluated by Organization”

“Improvement”

22

How met mentor

PairedIntroducedrecommendedSpontaneous

Me

an

of A

cce

pta

nce

& c

on

firm

atio

n (

avg

)

3.5

3.4

3.3

3.2

3.1

3.0

2.9

2.8

Typical trend

• Mentor has conveyed feelings of respect for protégé an individual.

• Mentor has asked protégé for suggestions concerning problems he / she has encountered at work.

• Mentor has interacted with protégé socially outside of work.

Friendship

Acceptance

“Facilitization”

Significant Findings:“How I Met My Mentor”

23

Homogeneous Faired Better, but not Broadly

•Mentor has interacted with protégé socially outside of work.

•Mentor provided support and feedback regarding performance.

Friendship

Providing Challenging Assignments

24

Structure Interactions

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

pairingForced

meetingOrg.

mouthWord ofSpontaneous

Const.

Freq.

Occas.

allatNot

How met Mentor

Evalu

ate

d b

y O

rganiz

ati

on

Overall Program Effectiveness

H

25

Structure Interactions

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

pairingForced

meetingOrg.

mouthWord ofSpontaneous

Fully

Lot

Little

allatNot

How met Mentor

Develo

ped b

y O

rganiz

ati

on

Overall Program Effectiveness

H

26

Other Demographics

Formality varies with Organization Size

Number of employees

>500300-500100-300<100

Me

an

of

En

cou

rag

ed

by

org

an

iza

tion

3.0

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2

2.0

1.8

Typical resultP=.000

P=.000

P=.000

P=.000

P=.005

1. The mentoring program was developed or implemented by my organization.

2. Our mentoring program is coordinated or directed by my organization.

3. Mentoring programs are encouraged by my organization.

4. Our mentoring program is reviewed by my organization

5. My mentoring progress is evaluated by my organization. (e.g. it is part of my performance appraisal process)

27

Typical trend

Duration of mentorship

>8 years6-8 years4-5 years1-3 years<1 year

Me

an

of

Sp

on

sors

hip

(a

vg)

4.0

3.8

3.6

3.4

3.2

3.0

2.8

2.6

I f eel that theoverall mentoring

program at myorganization is

eff ective

I f eel that mymentor has been

eff ective in helpingme in my career

development

I f eel that mymentor has been

eff ective in helpingme in non-career

ways

CoachingSponsoring

advancement

Providingchallengingassignments

Protecting f romadverse f orces

Fosteringpositive visibility

Providingacesses toresources

Personal support Friendship

Acceptance Counseling

Role modeling

1, 2, 23, 24, 25,26

3, 14, 28

4, 5, 6, 7

8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13

15, 16

17, 18, 19

20

21, 22

27, 29

Overall CareerDevelopment Overall Psychosocial

p=.018

p=.002 p=.000

p=.000 p=.001

p=.004 p=.089

p=.026 p=.001

p=.000 p=.008

p=.007

Duration of Mentorship

28

Most Important Role of Mentor

Most important factor29

28

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

11

10987654321

Pe

rce

nt

20

10

0

Protege gender

Female

Male

• Assigning responsibilities that increase the protégé’s contact with people in the organization who may judge the protégé’s potential for future advancement

• Providing support and feedback regarding the protégé’s technical performance • Providing assignments that increase written and personal contact with higher levels of

the organization

29

Least Important Role of Mentor

Least important factor

29

28

27

26

23

17

16

15

13

12

11

10975431

Pe

rce

nt

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Protege gender

Female

Male

• Interacting with the mentor socially outside work • Having the mentor invite the protégé to join him/her for lunch

30

Protégés Want More

Wish there was more of this factor

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

11

1098654321

Pe

rce

nt

20

10

0

Protege gender

Female

Male

• Mentor suggesting specific strategies for achieving protégé’s career goals

31

Findings

Two activities most strongly relate to overall protégé career development:

Getting assignments with high levels of visibility in the organization

Getting assignments that are recognized as preparatory for leadership position

Organizations over 300 employees have lower mentoring program structure

Male and female protégés seem to want the same things out of a mentoring relationship

US mentorships = non-US mentorships

32

Findings (con’t)

Program structure does influence mentoring roles. The influence is generally positive.

Organizations should have a reasonably structured and monitored mentoring program.

Sufficient to let the protégés know that the organization is concerned about them as employees and as individuals

Should not dominate or dictate the relationship.

Dyad homogeneity has a relatively minor influence on mentoring roles – homogeneous dyads fair better

Protégés should seek out mentors who can and will identify and provide the protégé with challenging assignments that have high visibility within the organization.

33

Additional Studies are Needed

Compare mentoring by teams rather than individuals. Investigate reasons for drop in involvement when orgs

reach 300 employees. How do the organizational structure and processes (e.g.,

rotational assignments) affect mentoring relationships? Does the structure of an organization's reward system

affect the amount and type of mentoring present? Explore how relationships that provide only SOME of the

mentoring functions differ in their impacts. What are the dynamics of mentorships in which the

mentor is close and age or younger than the protégé?

34