journal of career development-2005-anderson-60-73.pdf

http://jcd.sagepub.com/Journal of Career Development

http://jcd.sagepub.com/content/32/1/60The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0894845305277039

2005 32: 60Journal of Career DevelopmentDaun Robin Anderson

The Importance of Mentoring Programs to Women's Career Advancement in Biotechnology

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

University of Missouri-Columbia

can be found at:Journal of Career DevelopmentAdditional services and information for

http://jcd.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jcd.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jcd.sagepub.com/content/32/1/60.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Aug 29, 2005Version of Record >>

at University of Bucharest on March 23, 2013jcd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jcd.sagepub.com/

http://jcd.sagepub.com/content/32/1/60

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.missouri.edu

http://jcd.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jcd.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jcd.sagepub.com/content/32/1/60.refs.html

http://jcd.sagepub.com/content/32/1/60.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


10.1177/0894845305277039Journal of Career Development / September 2005Anderson / Mentors in Biotechnology

The Importance ofMentoring Programs toWomen’s CareerAdvancement in BiotechnologyDaun Robin AndersonBentley CollegeBabson College

Mentoring programs provide benefits to mentors, protégés, and organizations,but not all organizations have such programs in place. In those that do, women’sexclusion from informal networks limits their visibility and, in turn, theirchances of acquiring a mentor. This poses a barrier to women’s career advance-ment, as does the absence of female role models at senior executive levels. Thebiotechnology industry provides a context in which many women have pene-trated the glass ceiling and reached the upper echelons of their organizations.The unstructured and dynamic nature of most biotechnology companies, alongwith the presence of women at the top levels of the organization, make an appro-priate context for the implementation of formal mentoring programs to facilitatewomen’s upward mobility.

Keywords: mentor; biotechnology; career; women; glass ceiling; network;political behavior

Coach, sponsor, teacher, godfather, patron, counselor, adviser, role model,promoter, guide, protector, and confidante: These are some of the terms

that describe a mentor. Mentors have appeared in the business literature for thepast 30 years, but the concept traces its roots back 3,000 years to Greekmythology. In Homer’s The Odyssey, Odysseus gave his trusted friend Mentorthe responsibility to look after his son Telemachus. What greater expression offaith can we show than to ask someone to care for our child in our absence? It is

60

Journal of Career DevelopmentVolume 32 Number 1

September 2005 60-73© 2005 Curators of theUniversity of Missouri

10.1177/0894845305277039http://jcd.sagepub.com

hosted athttp://online.sagepub.com

Author’s Note: Daun Robin Anderson, Bentley College, Waltham, MA, and Babson College,Wellesley, MA; (617) 527-1115; e-mail: [email protected].



safe to assume that Odysseus did not realize that Mentor was actually the god-dess Pallas Athena. Unbeknown to himself and to those around him, Odys-seus’s appointment of Mentor represented a truly groundbreaking event, farahead of its time: the establishment of the first recorded female mentor–maleprotégé dyad. What Odysseus undoubtedly did not realize, however, was theimportance of Mentor’s role during his son’s formative years as he journeyedtoward manhood. Today, mentors continue to play a key role in many people’slives, particularly in professional journeys.

Definitions of mentors abound and the common thread between them is thata mentoring relationship involves an exchange of benefits between the mentor,the protégé, and the organization (Kram, 1985; Young & Perrewe, 2000; Zey,1984). This article adopts Mullen’s (1994) definition of mentoring as a rela-tionship between a more (mentor) and less (protégé) experienced person in anorganization to promote the latter’s personal and professional developmentand growth. My purpose is to establish the importance of mentoring programsto women’s career advancement in biotechnology. Although women needmentors as much as men do, women do not always have access to the benefitsof the mentor-protégé relationship (Catalyst, 2003; Wellington, Spence, &Catalyst, 2001). Mentoring programs will contribute to women’s continuedcareer advancement in biotechnology by uncovering, nurturing, and develop-ing employees with potential so that they can steer their companies in the rightdirection. In the competitive and “highly energized environment” (Dubinskas,1988, p. 171) of the biotechnology industry, that direction is not always easy todiscern.

Women in Industry and Science

Although women make up 47% of the workforce in the United States(Henslin, 2003), they accounted for only 12.5% of top executives in the For-tune 500 in 2000. There are only eight female CEOs in the Fortune 500, and“only 3 to 5% of senior managers, defined as vice president and above, arewomen” (Lyness & Thompson, 1997, p. 359). Women’s relatively rapidmovement into middle management positions is encouraging, but organiza-tions need to hire the most qualified people at whatever level is appropriate andregardless of sex to remain competitive (Morrison, White, Van Velsor, & TheCenter for Creative Leadership, 1987). As Dominguez (1992) noted, “shatter-ing the glass ceiling is no longer a matter of persuasion or legal compulsion,but a matter of competitive economic necessity” (p. 391). Morrison et al.(1987) described the glass ceiling as a barrier “to women as a group who arekept from advancing higher because they are women” (p. 13). Mentors play a

Anderson / Mentors in Biotechnology 61



key role in getting women and other minorities the sponsorship and visibilitythat they need for career advancement.

It is encouraging to note that women make up almost 50% of the profes-sional scientists in biotechnology firms, which is rather surprising in light ofthe fact that estimates put women at only 12% to 22% of all scientists and engi-neers combined in the labor force (Mattis & Allyn, 1999). Education figurespredict the future importance of women scientists in industry: From 1980 to1995, women increased from 30.3% to 39.3% of all students earning doctor-ates in science and engineering, whereas the percentage of men dropped from69.7% to 60.7% (Mattis & Allyn, 1999). Data from Ambrose, Dunkle, Laza-rus, Nair, and Harkus (1997) and the National Research Council (1996) helpexplain the relatively high number of women who subsequently enter the bio-technology industry. In 1993, at the bachelor’s level, women represented 47%of biological scientists but only 32% of computer scientists and 30% of physi-cal scientists. At the doctoral level, women accounted for 28% of biologicalscientists, compared to 15% of computer scientists, 13% of chemists, 11% ofgeologists, and 6% of physicists in the labor force. By 2000, women repre-sented 45% of Ph.D. recipients in the biological sciences (Juda, 2002).

Factors That Attract Womento the Biotechnology Industry

Biotechnology “could be the biggest growth industry of the new century”(Krasner, 2003, p. C1). It is a relatively young industry that “includes thosecompanies that engage in the research, development, production, and com-mercialization of products using rDNA, cell fusion, and novel bioprocessingtechniques” (Eaton, 1999, p. 176). Most analysts trace the emergence of theindustry to the 1970s, which saw the development of a number of tools thatcould produce unlimited supplies of disease-fighting proteins. Despite the factthat Food and Drug Administration approval of a product offers no guaranteeof financial success to a company, the biotechnology industry has grown dra-matically during the past 30 years, with approximately 1,500 companies in theUnited States today. The recent terrorist attacks on the United States havehighlighted the life-saving role that biotechnology can play in biological war-fare. This is clearly an industry whose success is crucial to mankind’s veryexistence.

In addition to the potential for growth and medical breakthroughs, Eaton’s(1999) study of 30 men and women in four publicly traded biopharmaceuticalcompanies in the Northeast uncovered six factors that might explain women’sattraction to the biotechnology industry. The first factor is the myriad of diffi-

62 Journal of Career Development / September 2005



culties that make academic settings unfavorable to female scientists, such aslow pay, feelings of isolation, and the low likelihood of getting tenure. Thesecond factor relates to the above-mentioned unstable nature of the biotech-nology industry, which affects males and females alike and thus levels theplaying field for women when it comes to opportunities to succeed. The thirdfactor is the flexibility in scheduling one’s working hours and the ability of sci-entists to cover for one another without worrying about coordinating sched-ules. The fourth factor is the feeling of achievement and control that comeswith scientific discovery because of the autonomous nature of some experi-ments. The fifth factor is the scale effect that translates into women havinggreater opportunities for success in an industry in which other women havealready reached a critical mass. Finally, the sixth factor is the possibility ofgaining management skills and earning promotions because of the projectmanagement nature of the work, as Ph.D. scientists in industry often begintheir careers by managing one or two B.S.- or M.S.-level scientists.

Barriers to Women’s Career Advancement

Given their growing numbers in the workforce and the fact that there were43% more female top executives in the Fortune 500 in 2000 than there werejust 5 years earlier, it is important to understand the barriers that women face intheir attempts to penetrate the highest levels of organizations. As Myerson andFletcher (2000) stated,

it’s not the glass ceiling that’s holding women back; it’s the whole structure ofthe organizations in which we work; the foundations, the beams, the walls, thevery air. The barriers to advancement are not just above women, they are allaround them. (p. 136)

Structural theory builds on Kanter’s (1977) seminal research on women in cor-porations. From this perspective, “the occupational behavior and status ofwomen and men is determined not so much by the characteristics they bringwith them into the workplace, but by the structures they encounter there[which limit women] to low-status jobs” (McIlwee & Robinson, 1992, p. 14).Thus, women often have less opportunity to advance and less access to powerthan men do. Kanter used the term tokens to describe the relatively small num-ber of women who do reach the upper echelons of their organizations, giventheir high visibility and minority status. Numerous other researchers agree thatstructural barriers are pervasive and pose challenges to women and minoritiesthat men do not face. For example, women’s exclusion from the informal net-




work of power relations within organizations is a formidable barrier to careeradvancement (Hennig & Jardim, 1977; Mattis, 2002). Women are not wellintegrated into the organization’s dominant coalition, often referred to as the“old boy network” (Burke, 2002). Women’s reluctance to engage in politicalbehavior is another barrier, and senior female executives are 5 times morelikely than male senior executives to cite a lack of understanding of organiza-tional politics. Having less experience in corporate politics puts women at adistinct disadvantage in terms of gaining access to powerful positions(Perrewe & Anthony, 2000). Oakley (2000) referred to all of these barriers ascorporate practices that result in men being the beneficiaries of recruitment,retention, and promotion policies.

Mentoring Programs

Almost 3 decades ago, researchers established the importance of mentoringto career advancement. Hennig and Jardim (1977) conducted 25 in-depthinterviews with top female executives, each one of whom referred to her[male] boss as “her supporter, her encourager, her teacher and her strength inthe company” (p. 129). The bosses used their respect within the company tohelp the women gain respect, acceptance, and self-confidence. Similarly,Kanter (1977) noted that “if sponsors are important for the success of men inthe organization . . . women need even more the signs of such influence and theaccess to real power provided by sponsors” (p. 183). Levinson, Darrow, Klein,Levinson, and McKee (1978) described a mentor as “one of the most signifi-cant relationships available to a man” (p. 253). In the 1980s, Bennis and Nanus(1985) found that most of the 90 top leaders that they interviewed could iden-tify mentors who had helped shape their philosophies and career goals. Anunderstanding of the functions of mentors will shed light on the benefits of andthe importance of establishing mentoring programs in biotechnologycompanies.

Functions of Mentors

In her seminal book on mentors, Kram (1985) described two categories ofmentor functions: career development and psychosocial. The primary goal ofthe former is career advancement within the organizational hierarchy.Psychosocial functions, on the other hand, operate on a more personal level bybuilding confidence, a benefit that can extend beyond the organization. Look-ing first at career development, examples include sponsorship, exposure andvisibility, coaching, protection, and challenging assignments. Sponsorship




involves a senior person actively promoting a junior person for both lateral andupward moves. Exposure and visibility refer to a senior person giving a juniorperson responsibilities that bring the latter into contact with people at high lev-els of the organization. Coaching “enhances the junior person’s knowledgeand understanding of how to navigate effectively in the corporate world”(Kram, 1985, p. 28) through the provision of suggestions for ways to realizethe junior person’s career goals. Protection, as the name suggests, involves thementor sheltering the protégé from risky or difficult situations that could dam-age the latter’s reputation. Finally, challenging assignments increase theprotégé’s knowledge and skills.

Psychosocial functions enhance a protégé’s self-confidence but not strictlyfor the purpose of moving up in the organizational hierarchy. Kram’s (1985)psychosocial functions are role modeling, acceptance and confirmation, coun-seling, and friendship. Of the four, she reported that role modeling is the mostcommon. In role modeling, the mentor sets an example by behaving in a man-ner that gains the protégé’s respect and makes the protégé want to emulatesuch behavior. Acceptance and confirmation refer to the mutual support,encouragement, liking, and respect between the mentor and protégé. Thecounseling that the mentor provides allows the protégé to express personalconcerns about developing competence, relating to others while maintainingindividuality, and work-life balance. Similar to acceptance and confirmation,friendship grows from mutual liking, and it manifests itself in informal socialinteractions between mentor and protégé. As a bridge between career andpsychosocial, Zey (1984) offered teaching, psychological counseling and per-sonal support, organizational intervention, and sponsoring as four generalmentoring functions. The mentor teaches the protégé skills while providinginformation, offers support that increases the protégé’s self-confidence, inter-venes when necessary on behalf of the protégé, and recommends the protégéfor promotion and for more responsibility.

Benefits of Mentoring Programs

The emphasis has traditionally been on the benefits that protégés derivefrom mentoring programs. However, it is clear that a number of benefitsextend to mentors and organizations as well. Protégés acquire career guid-ance, personal support, access to resources and information, and exposure tosenior management, as well as an awareness and understanding of organiza-tional politics (Kram, 1985; Zey, 1984). They report greater job satisfaction(Godshalk & Sosik, 2003; Scandura, 1997), and many researchers linkmentoring relationships to higher salaries (Chao, 1997; Dreher & Ash, 1990)as well as career mobility and managerial advancement (Catalyst, 1996; Eby,




Butts, & Lockwood, 2003; Tharenou, 2001). For women in particular,increased self-confidence can be a primary benefit of mentoring. Ninety-onepercent of the female executives in Catalyst’s (1996) study, and 100% of thefemale executives in studies by Morrison et al. (1987) cited an influentialmentor as having helped them advance in their careers.

As protégés develop self-confidence, mentors gain a sense of greater self-worth as they provide knowledge and guidance to individuals who will benefitfrom their experience (Kram, 1985). The protégé’s success can enhance thementor’s reputation, give the mentor information and new perspectives, andreduce the mentor’s workload. Perhaps Levinson et al. (1978) put it best intheir statement that a mentor “is making productive use of his own knowledgeand skills . . . learning in ways not otherwise possible . . . maintaining his con-nection with the forces of youthful energy. . . . He needs the recipient ofmentoring as much as the recipient needs him” (p. 253). Finally, the organiza-tion benefits because mentors transfer organizational leadership and culture,and mentoring develops managerial talent by educating and socializingemployees (Russell & Adams, 1997). The increased job satisfaction thatprotégés experience results in greater organizational commitment (Aryee,Chay, & Chew, 1996; Ragins, Cotton, & Miller, 2000), less turnover (Kram,1985), and higher perceptions of organizational justice (Scandura, 1997),while the personal and professional growth that protégés experience increasesorganizational effectiveness (Kram). Mentoring results in more communica-tion between different organizational members at different organizational lev-els, and it facilitates managerial succession planning as protégés gainmanagement skills and an understanding of organizational goals (Zey, 1984).

Importance of Establishing MentoringPrograms in Biotechnology Companies

Despite the many benefits that mentoring programs offer to protégés, men-tors, and organizations, executives often give mentoring a low priority (Kotter,1985), and not everyone who needs a mentor gets one, thus creating the needfor formal mentoring programs. The knowledge transmission function ofmentoring is crucial in changing, unstable, uncertain, and risky environments(Mullen, 1994), such as the biotechnology industry, where the constantexchange of information can give a company a competitive edge. In this turbu-lent context, mentoring relationships reduce the inevitable feelings of roleambiguity (McManus & Russell, 1997) while enhancing career advancementand learning (Godshalk & Sosik, 2003), and it would be safe to say that scien-tists have high learning goals. Unstructured environments make formal




mentoring programs all the more important, and the youth of most biotechnol-ogy companies usually results in a fairly organic structure. If left to chance, theformation of mentoring relationships would likely never occur. The preva-lence of scientists in biotechnology makes mentoring programs importantbecause managers often receive more mentoring than professionals (Whitely,Dougherty, & Dreher, 1992). As the biotechnology industry matures, compa-nies will move from research laboratory environments to commercial busi-nesses, and the development of managerial talent will become crucial for suc-cess. The challenges that women face in acquiring mentors, as well as theavailability of women to serve as role models, support the need to establishmentoring programs in biotechnology companies.

The Challenges That Women Face in Acquiring Mentors

The way that mentoring relationships often develop contributes to their elu-siveness for women. Because women occupy more low-level positions in thehierarchy than men do, the former do not have access to people in the domi-nant coalition, which in turn limits their visibility and likelihood of beingnoticed by potential mentors. The informal manner in which many mentoringrelationships develop makes them less available to women, whose above-mentioned exclusion from key networks reduces their chances of interactingwith senior executives and being identified as rising stars (Ragins & Cotton,1999; Russell & Adams, 1997; Zey, 1984). The fact that mentoring relation-ships often result from a sense of personal identification between mentor andprotégé (Armstrong, Allinson, & Hayes, 2002; Catalyst, 1996; Eby,McManus, Simon, & Russell, 2000) is another barrier for women, for there ismore similarity, at least superficially, between two men than between a manand a woman. People who get sponsored “are recognized by a powerful personbecause they’re very much like him. He sees himself, a younger version, inthat person. . . . Who can look at a woman and see themselves?” (Kanter, 1977,p. 184).

Female Senior Executives as Role Models

Kanter’s question underscores the fact that in most organizations, womenlack female role models (Mullen, 1994), and this extends to women in science.To provide the mentoring functions that enhance protégés’ careers, mentorsmust have power and influence within the organization, and the primarymeans of acquiring power and influence is gaining membership in the domi-nant coalition. For this reason, the vast majority of mentors are men, and mencan certainly be effective mentors to women. However, it is more difficult for a




man than it is for a woman to be a role model for a woman. Burke andMcKeen’s (1995) study of female business graduates revealed thatwomen who had female mentors preferred them more strongly than womenwho had male mentors, and that same-sex mentoring relationships removedconcerns about sexual innuendo that often accompany cross-sex mentoringrelationships.

Guidelines for Establishing MentoringPrograms in Biotechnology Companies

As noted above, the benefits of mentoring do not guarantee that it will takeplace, and when it does, it is often of an informal nature that excludes women(Godshalk & Sosik, 2000). Furthermore, many biotechnology companies fail,and employees move from one company to another, which makes lengthyinformal mentoring relationships unrealistic. Formal mentoring programs areof much shorter duration, and “mentors will be needed to fill the gaps in conti-nuity that will be created by greater movement between organizations”(Scandura, 1998, p. 462). These programs also result in protégés getting morechallenging assignments, especially in female-female dyads (Ragins, 1999),and if managers perceive mentoring functions to be part of their job, they aremore likely to provide those functions (Kram, 1985). Ragins and Cotton(1999) recommended that same-sex mentoring be used in formal mentoringprograms when the goal is to give the protégé challenging assignments for pro-fessional growth. The uncertain and changing nature of the biotechnologyindustry makes it an ideal venue for challenging assignments that will promotewomen’s career advancement. Mentoring programs should incorporate fivekey elements: (a) clear goals that have top management’s support, (b) carefulselection of mentors and protégés, (c) training for mentors and protégés, (d)incentives for mentors, and (e) opportunities to exit the program.

Clear Goals and Top Management Support

The goals of the mentoring program must be clear to all organizationalmembers, specifically regarding the intended outcomes (Tyler, 1998). Topmanagement support is crucial to the success of these programs (Tyler, 1998)because mentoring requires a commitment of time and energy, scarce com-modities in the fast-paced biotechnology environment. Decisions must bemade in advance regarding the expected outcomes of the program, such as fre-quency of contact between the mentor and protégé, specific skills that the




protégé will acquire, career advancement possibilities for the protégé, and themanner in which the relationship will terminate.

Selection of Mentors and Protégés

Careful selection of mentors and protégés will increase the likelihood ofsuccess by pairing individuals who share common learning goals and a com-mitment to devote their time to the relationship (Young & Perrewe, 2000). Thestructured pairing of individuals must not result in formal mentors feeling lessintrinsically motivated and, therefore, less interested in their protégés’ devel-opment (Ragins et al., 2000), making it wise to allow mentors and protégéssome input into the pairing process (Scandura, 1998). Godshalk and Sosik’s(2003) research with mentor-protégé dyads revealed that a common learninggoal orientation results in the protégés reporting more career satisfaction andadvancement to managerial positions than protégés who share lower levels oflearning goal orientation. Given the discovery nature of the industry, biotech-nology companies certainly foster learning environments.

Training

Organizations must provide training for both mentors and protégés (Forret,Turban, & Dougherty, 1997; Tyler, 1998). Individuals who are willing to men-tor will not be as effective if they do not possess the skills to provide the myriadcareer and psychosocial functions described herein. Among other things,mentors must learn how to communicate organizational values, how to pro-vide constructive feedback, how to assist protégés in developing career goals,and how to help protégés gain access to the resources that they will need torealize their career goals. Protégés must learn to ask for help, to examine theirown strengths and weaknesses, to identify their career goals, and to acceptconstructive criticism.

Incentives

As mentioned above, formal mentors may not experience the intrinsicrewards that informal mentors enjoy because of the structured nature of formalmentoring programs, and mentoring requires a great deal of time and effort.“The reward structure must make it clear that mentoring relationships are val-ued and will be beneficial to each partner” (Young & Perrewe, 2000, p. 183).Numerous researchers agree that the organization must promote a culture thatvalues mentoring (Aryee et al., 1996; Kram, 1985). “Rewards for subordinatedevelopment result in more attention to coaching and mentoring activities and,finally, in an increase in talented managers for the organization” (Kram, 1985,




p. 161). Managers need tangible reinforcement to take on the role of mentor(Aryee et al., 1996), and there is a positive correlation between organizationalrewards for mentoring and the development of mentoring relationships(Kram, 1985).

Opportunities to Exit the Mentoring Program

Finally, there will be mentoring relationships that do not work out, andorganizations must allow for participants to exit the relationship and/or theprogram (Scandura, 1997). Having a procedure in place at the beginning toterminate the relationship will depersonalize such a difficult decision andmake it less awkward. Letting mentors and protégés participate in decisions upfront about how to exit will reduce frustration and give both parties a feeling ofcontrol over the relationship (Forret et al., 1997). The existence of a mentoringsteering team can also be a valuable resource for dealing with problems, andspecifying the duration of the program in advance can facilitate the termina-tion of an ineffective mentoring relationship.

Conclusion

Organizations must work proactively to eliminate barriers to women’scareer advancement, and the role of mentoring in career advancement is clear.The aim of mentoring is “mastering, a never-ending, ever expansive journey ofperpetual growth” (Bell, 2002, p. 11), but not everyone enjoys its benefits.Because women’s exclusion from informal networks may limit their visibilityand, in turn, their chances of finding a mentor, “one important benefit of for-mal mentoring programs may be to affect how actively individuals seek outand cultivate multiple developmental relationships” (Higgins & Kram, 2001,p. 281). Having a mentor should be an explicit developmental task in one’searly career (Russell & Adams, 1997), and human resource professionals mustinitiate formal mentoring programs to help employees deal with organiza-tional change (Eby, 1997), which is the norm in biotechnology companies.Female executives in biotechnology companies could become role modelswho have the power and influence to mentor women. “Formal mentoring pro-grams give women a chance to participate in the informal corporate networkand to interact with high-level male employees. . . . If mentoring is left on aninformal . . . basis, only a small number of employees end up taking part” (Cat-alyst, 1992, p. 47). Through mentoring programs, protégés will experience jobsatisfaction and career advancement, mentors will enjoy the feeling of satis-faction that comes from watching their protégés grow personally and




professionally, and organizations will benefit from increased productivity andorganizational commitment.

References

Ambrose, S. A., Dunkle, K. L., Lazarus, B. B., Nair, I., & Harkus, D. A. (1997). Journeys ofwomen in science and engineering: No universal constants. Philadelphia: Temple Univer-sity Press.

Armstrong, S. J., Allinson, C. W., & Hayes, J. (2002). Formal mentoring systems: An examina-tion of the effects of mentor/protégé cognitive styles on the mentoring process. Journal ofManagement Studies, 39(8), 1111-1137.

Aryee, S., Chay, Y. W., & Chew, J. (1996). The motivation to mentor among managerialemployees. Group & Organization Management, 21(3), 261-277.

Bell, C. R. (2002). Managers as mentors: Building partnerships for learning (2nd ed.). SanFrancisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York:Harper & Row.

Burke, R. J. (2002). Career development of managerial women. In R. J. Burke & D. L. Nelson(Eds.), Advancing women in management: Progress and prospects (pp. 139-160). Oxford,UK: Blackwell.

Burke, R. J., & McKeen, C. A. (1995). Do managerial women prefer women mentors? Psycho-logical Reports, 76(2), 688-690.

Catalyst. (1992). On the line: Women’s career advancement. New York: Author.Catalyst. (1996). Women in corporate leadership: Progress and prospects. New York: Author.Catalyst. (2003). The Catalyst connection: Tips for finding a mentor. Retrieved December 2,

2003, from http://www.cpa2biz.com/Career/Tips+for+Finding+a+Mentor.htmChao, G. T. (1997). Mentoring phases and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51(1), 15-28.Dominguez, C. M. (1992). Executive forum—The glass ceiling: Paradox and promises. Human

Resource Management, 31(4), 385-392.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(5),539-546.

Dubinskas, F. A. (1988). Janus organizations: Scientists and managers in genetic engineeringfirms. In F. A. Dubinskas (Ed.), Making time: Ethnographies of high-technology organiza-tions (pp. 171-232). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Eaton, S. C. (1999). Surprising opportunities: Gender and the structure of work in biotechnol-ogy firms. The Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 869(1), 175-188.

Eby, L. T. (1997). Alternative forms of mentoring in changing organizational environments: Aconceptual extension of the mentoring literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51(1),125-144.

Eby, L. T., Butts, M., & Lockwood, A. (2003). Predictors of success in the era of theboundaryless career. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(6), 689-708.

Eby, L. T., McManus, S. E., Simon, S. A., & Russell, J. E. (2000). The protégé’s perspectiveregarding negative mentoring experiences: The development of a taxonomy. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 57(1), 1-21.




Forret, M. L., Turban, D. B., & Dougherty, T. W. (1997). Making the most of mentoring: Howfive firms managed the issues which arise. Training & Management Development Methods,11(2), 917-921.

Godshalk, V. M., & Sosik, J. J. (2000). Does mentor-protégé agreement on mentor leadershipbehavior influence the quality of a mentoring relationship? Group & Organization Manage-ment, 25(3), 291-317.

Godshalk, V. M., & Sosik, J. J. (2003). Aiming for career success: The role of learning goal ori-entation in mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 417-437.

Hennig, M., & Jardim, A. (1977). The managerial woman. Garden City, NY: Anchor/Doubleday.

Henslin, J. M. (2003). Sociology: A down-to-earth approach (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. E. (2001). Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A developmental

network perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 264-288.Juda, J. (2002). WEST breaks through barriers to success for women scientists. Retrieved July

29, 2004, from http://www.indianewenglandnews.com/news/2002/10/01/Columns/West-Breaks.Through.Barriers.To.Success.For.Women.Scientists-298551.shtml

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.Kotter, J. P. (1985). Power and influence. New York: Free Press.Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life.

Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.Krasner, J. (2003, February 12). In biotech race, Mass. lacks big-money support. The Boston

Globe, pp. C1, C4.Levinson, D. J., Darrow, C. N., Klein, E. B., Levinson, M. H., & McKee, B. (1978). The seasons

of a man’s life. New York: Knopf.Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. (1997). Above the glass ceiling? A comparison of matched

samples of female and male executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 359-375.Mattis, M. C. (2002). Best practices for retaining and advancing women professionals and man-

agers. In R. J. Burke & D. L. Nelson (Eds.), Advancing women in management: Progress andprospects (pp. 309-332). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Mattis, M., & Allyn, J. (1999). Women scientists in industry. The Annals of the New York Acad-emy of Sciences, 869(1), 143-175.

McIlwee, J. S., & Robinson, J. G. (1992). Women in engineering: Gender, power, and workplaceculture. Albany: State University of New York Press.

McManus, S. E., & Russell, J. E. (1997). New directions for mentoring research: An examina-tion of related constructs. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51(1), 145-161.

Morrison, A. M., White, R. P., Van Velsor, E., & The Center for Creative Leadership. (1987).Breaking the glass ceiling: Can women reach the top of America’s largest corporations?Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Mullen, E. J. (1994). Framing the mentoring relationship as an information exchange. HumanResource Management Review, 4(3), 257-281.

Myerson, D. E., & Fletcher, J. K. (2000). A modest manifesto for shattering the glass ceiling.Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 127-136.

National Research Council. (1996). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in scienceand engineering. Retrieved January 31, 2003, from http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf96311/5women.htm

Oakley, J. G. (2000). Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: Understanding thescarcity of female CEOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(4), 321-334.




Perrewe, P. L., & Anthony, W. P. (2000). Political skill at work. Organizational Dynamics,28(4), 25-37.

Ragins, B. R. (1999). Gender and mentoring relationships: A review and research agenda for thenext decade. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 347-370). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of menand women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology,84(4), 529-550.

Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: The effects of type ofmentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes. Academyof Management Journal, 43(6), 1177-1194.

Russell, J. E., & Adams, D. M. (1997). The changing nature of mentoring in organizations: Anintroduction to the special issue on mentoring in organizations. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 51(1), 1-14.

Scandura, T. A. (1997). Mentoring and organizational justice: An empirical investigation. Jour-nal of Vocational Behavior, 51(1), 58-69.

Scandura, T. A. (1998). Dysfunctional mentoring relationships and outcomes. Journal of Man-agement, 24(3), 449-467.

Tharenou, P. (2001). Going up? Do traits and informal social processes predict advancing inmanagement? Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1005-1017.

Tyler, K. (1998). Mentoring programs link employees and experienced execs. HR Magazine,43(5), 98-103.

Wellington, S., Spence, B., & Catalyst. (2001). Be your own mentor: Strategies from top womenin business on the secrets of success. New York: Random House.

Whitely, W. T., Dougherty, T. W., & Dreher, G. F. (1992). Correlates of career-orientedmentoring for early career managers and professionals. Journal of Organizational Behavior,13(2), 141-154.

Young, A. M., & Perrewe, P. L. (2000). The exchange relationship between mentors andprotégés: The development of a framework. Human Resource Management Review, 10(2),177-209.

Zey, M. G. (1984). The mentor connection. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.

Daun Robin Anderson is an adjunct professor of management at Bentley College in Waltham,Massachusetts, and at Babson College in Wellesley, Massachusetts. Her research interestsinclude organizational context and corporate culture, the manner in which top executives makestrategic decisions, and the role that mentoring programs can play in facilitating career advance-ment for women and other minorities.




journal of career development-2005-anderson-60-73.pdf

Documents