An Understusied Antecedant

...

Researchers also suggest that apart from instrumental (distal) outcomes, there are relational (promixal) outcomes too (Wanberg et al., 2003). In fact, it is in this context that researchers have turned their attention more towards alternative dyadic relational models, including peer coaching (Parker, Hall, & Kram, 2008), peer mentoring (Allen & Finkelstein, 2003), reverse mentoring (Meister & Willyerd, 2010) and e-mentoring.

A review of the literature on mentoring outcomes elicits a tendency for the research to be skewed towards positive outcome variables.

More recently, some scholars have begun cautioning about the discernible positive bias in the literature:

- “One fundamental criticism concerning positive bias in mentoring research concerns researchers’ propensity to focus on positive aspects of mentorship …” (McDowall-Long, 2004, p. 529).

- “We caution scholars, practitioners, and policy makers not to overestimate the potential effect of mentoring. Consistent with more focused reviews of the literature we found that the overall magnitude of association between mentoring and outcomes was small in magnitude” (Eby, Allen et al., 2008).

- “Mentoring research has grown and become a major topic of interest primarily based on the belief that it leads to beneficial outcomes such as career growth and favourable job attitudes. Yet for the most part, researchers have not made a convincing case that this reflects a causal relationship” (Allen, Eby, O’Brien, & Lentz, 2008, p. 349).

- It is likely that mentoring became such an important HRM tool in the workplace as a result of the accumulation of more than three decades of research on the favourable outcomes of mentoring relationships (Wanberg et al., 2003).

2.4.3 Outcomes of negative mentoring experiences. Heeding this caution about a positive bias in the literature, studying the “darker side” of mentoring outcomes becomes increasingly important. “Hundreds of books and articles have been written on mentoring, most of them describing the benefits of mentoring to protégés, mentors, and organizations. Yet, mentoring relationships may become dysfunctional, and it is important to recognize the implications of negative aspects of these relationships for the development of human resources in organizations (Scandura, 1998, p. 449).”

While there were indications in the early seminal literature that a mentoring relationship had the potential to become destructive for one or both individuals (Kram, 1985; Feldman, 1999), and subsequently some studies have emerged from both the mentor perspective (Eby, Durley et al., 2008) and the protégé perspective (Eby et al., 2004), by and large this still remains an underdeveloped area of research that leaves many questions unanswered (Burk & Eby, 2010). Just how underdeveloped this research domain is, is indicated by a review of 27 articles on mentoring in peer-reviewed journals between 1999 and 2002, of which only one article mentioned negative outcomes. “This finding supports the argument that there is a positive bias towards mentoring and role modelling in the research. Practitioners and scholars alike should be aware of this apparent bias (McDowall-Long, 2004, p. 529).”

In terms of outcome variables, negative mentoring relationships are said to lead to personal damage of the protégé (O'Neill & Sankowsky, 2001; Scandura, 1998); damage to both the protégé and the mentor (Eby & Lockwood, 2005); and also to negative outcomes for the organization such as less teamwork and collaborative work (Feldman, 1999). One of the few papers that focuses on the outcomes of negative mentoring at three levels of analysis, is Feldman’s 1999 study in which he describes there to be more stress, anger, and also lower self-esteem for the protégé; feelings of betrayal and anger for the mentor; and low level of trust and less teamwork for the organization.

One can surmise, with examples, that the literature depicts the outcomes of positive and negative mentoring experiences at various levels of analysis, including the individual and firm level (see Table 2.5).

Table 2.5

Table on Positive and Negative Outcomes of Mentoring Experiences

Positive outcomes

Negative outcomes

Protégé

- Mentoring is said to induce in the protégé the feeling of having more power and influence in the organization (Fagenson, 1988; Scandura, Tejeda, Werther, & Lankau, 1996)

- An accelerated learning curve (Chao, Walz, & Gardner, 1992)

- Greater job satisfaction (Fagenson, 1992)

- Better promotion prospects and salary for protégés who are managers (Scandura, 1992)

- Better acceptance of non-traditional careers (Gould, 2001)

- Perception by protégés of an internal locus of control (Flouri & Buchanan, 2002)

- Higher academic achievement (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002)

- Improved self concept, more pro-social behavior and better interpersonal relationships (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002)

- Receive more challenging assignments, information, advice, and skill building (Liang, Tracy, Taylor, & Williams, 2002)

- Better psychosocial adjustment to career and life transitions and higher self esteem (Liang et al., 2002)

- Feelings of support and concern from the mentor (Noe et al., 2002)

- Less chances of absenteeism (Allen, 2003)

-

- A reduction in stress (Blake-Beard, 2003)

- Improved career self efficacy (Day & Allen, 2004)

- An affirmation of self-worth (Gibson, 2004).

- A more broadened career potential for protégés isolated due to minority status or disability (McDowall-Long, 2004)

- Better socialization and psychological adjustment (Johnson, 2007).

- An increase in the protégé’s leadership efficacy (Lester, Hannah, Harms, Vogelgesang, & Avolio, 2011)

- An increase in the likelihood of protégés taking part in OCB (Ghosh, Reio,