gender difference in professional developmental
TRANSCRIPT
GENDER DIFFERENCE IN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENTAL
RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN MALE AND FEMALE DOMINATED PROFESSIONS
A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE
TEXAS WOMAN'S UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF NURSING
BY
ELIZABETH LEE SOUTHER, B.S.N., M.S.
DENTON, TEXAS
DECEMBER, 1992
TEXAS WOMAN'S UNIVERSITY DENTON, TEXAS
November 12, 1992
Date
To the Dean for Graduate Studies and Research:
I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Elizabeth L. Souther entitled "Gender Difference In Professional Developmental Relationships Within Male And Female no·minated Professions." I have examined the final copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy with a
rnaj or in Nursing. 0 / I 1 ," ~ 'i / l _ r1
I ·.. : ~ -,; c c 2 :J r'-. , __.,· • _ ) ;,.:,. ,.,, , >- ' ' C: Rebecca Krepper, Ph. ti), JMaj or Professor
We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance:
..._ ' -.--~.rt:.~
!
Dean for Graduate Studies and Research
Copyright c Elizabeth L. Souther, 1993
All Rights Reserved
iii
DEDICATION
To My Mother
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The completion of the research investigation was made possible through the guidance and support of past and present dissertation committee members, Terry Throckmorton , Ph.D., Rebecca Krepper, Ph.D., Jeanette Kernicki, Ph.D., Mary Newman, Ph.D., and Fay Mc Clay, Ph.D.
V
GENDER DIFFERENCE IN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENTAL RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN MALE AND FEMALE DOMINATE PROFESSIONS
Elizabeth L. Souther
December, 1992
The purpose of this study was to identify differences
in professional developmental relationship functions
between males and females and between nurses and non
nurses. Quantification of the professional development
relationship functions was accomplished using a demographic
scale and the Professional Developmental Relationship
Questionnaire (PDRQ), a 45-itern, 5-point, Likert-scale
tool. The questionnaire was administered to a probability
sample of 80 nursing and engineering middle managers.
Membership rosters of the American Organization of Nurse
Executives Council of Middle Managers, the Society of Women
Engineers, and the American Society for Engineering
Management were used to obtain the sample.
The PDRQ, composed of two subscales, the Psycho-Social
and the Career-Enhancing subscales, received an Alpha of
.90. The Psycho-Social subscale yielded and Alpha of .83
and the Career-Enhancing subscale yielded a .87. The PDRQ
received an Alpha of .92 and both the Psycho-Social and the
Career-Enhancing subscales yielded an Alpha of .87. The
PDRQ was used to assess if there were significant
differences in the PDRQ scores by either gender or
vi
profession. The results indicated that there were no
significant findings.
Subjects were asked to rank order 9 personal
characteristic variables and 8 significant other variables
that positively influenced their career. The findings
found on the ranking of the personal characteristic
variables were that female engineers ranked creativity as
having greater influence on their career than did both the
male and female nurses. Females ranked risk taking higher
than male nurses. Male nurses and female engineers ranked
experience higher than did the female nurses.
Female engineers were found to have ranked their
significant other or spouse as having greater influence on
their career than female nurses. No significant
correlation coefficients were found between the variables
of level of education, size of the employer organization,
and the number of years of experience to the PDRQ scores.
vii
Table of Contents
COPYRIGHT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
DEDICATION........................................ iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
ABSTRACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ·X
LIST OF FIGURES .................................. . xi
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Problem of Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Rationale for Study..................... 4
Conceptual Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Assumptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Limitation of the Study................. 24
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE......................... 26
Mentoring as a Developmental Task....... 27
Mentoring and Developmental Task Research...................... 30
Traits, Roles, and Functional Patterns.. 33
Mentoring and Women..................... 50
Mentoring and Nursing................... 67 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
III. PROCEDURE FOR THE COLLECTION ANDTREATMENT OF DATA... . . ......... ....... . . . .... 78
Setting................................. 79 Population and Sample .................. 79 Protection of Human Subjects............ 82 Instruments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Biographical Tool....................... 84 Professional Developmental Relationship
Questionnaire...................... 85 Pilot Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Data Collection......................... 90
vii
Treatment of Data....................... 91 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4
IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA............................. 96
Description of Sample................... 96 Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Summary of the Findings................. 109
V. SUMMARY OF THE STUDY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Discussion of the Findings.............. 114 Conclusions and Implications............ 120 Recommendations for Further Study....... 122
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2
APPENDIX
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Agency Approvals ....................... .
Human Subjects Review Committee Approval ..................... .
Letters to Participants ................ .
Demographic Tool ....................... .
Professional Developmental Relationship Questionnaire ..................... .
ix
131
135
137
141
147
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1. Phases of the Mentor Relationship ............. 28
2. Role of the Mentor ............................ 37
3. Summary Table of Sample Age and Years ofExperience by Group and Overall ............... 99
4. Summary Table of Education Level by Group andOverall ....................................... 100
5. Summary Table of Mentors' Age and Years ofExperience by Group and Overall ............... 101
6. Descriptive Characteristics of Mentors bySubject Group and Overall ..................... 102
7. Mean and Standard Deviation of the PDRQ byGender and Profession ............••.....•..... 104
8. Analysis of Variance: PDRQ ................... 105
9. Personal Characteristics Mean Ranks by Group .. 107
10. Significant Other Variable Mean Ranksby Group ...................................... 109
X
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1. The Potentiation Model .......................... 9
2. The Potentiation Process ....................... 17
xi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Recent changes in the health care industry are the
result of the effects brought about by the shrinking health
care dollar, changes in reimbursement policies, the aging
population, competition in health care, and consumerism
(Christman & Counte, 1989). Concomitant changes have been
reflected in nursing which have forced nurse administrators
to broaden their activities beyond the traditional nursing
role. In the past, the focus of nursing administration was
to safeguard the delivery of patient care. Currently
nursing administrators find themselves in the corporate
boardroom where the focus of nursing must now include the
acquisition of "corporate prowess" and ''political savvy"
(Fralic, 1987; Johnson & Bergmann, 1988).
Nursing management is now integrating the delivery of
patient care into the corporate milieu of hospital
administration (Johnson, 1990). Nursing administrators are
given the responsibility for the largest single cost
department and the greatest number of employees within the
hospital organization (Fralic, 1987). Although this
movement is a positive event for nursing, nursing
administrators are finding themselves at a disadvantage
1
2
because of the lack of educational preparation to assume
responsibilities outside the scope of nursing (Fralic,
1987; Johnson & Bergmann, 1988).
As nurses are broadening their administrative roles
into the higher administrative levels of the organizational
structure, they must function in a traditionally male
dominated echelon (Schofield, 1986). As female nurses step
into this arena, gender and role expectations may conflict
(Moore, Biordi, Holm, & McElmurry, 1988). Nurse executives
are finding that there is a lack of experienced nurse
administrators who can guide and teach younger nurses in
the art and science of the corporate culture. Nursing is a
female-dominated profession in which traditional male
methodologies of professional development have not existed
(Atwood, 1979).
Male-dominated professions have traditionally used
mentoring as a means of professional development (Kram,
1988). Women in female-dominated professions, such as
nursing, have underutilized the mentoring dyad for
professional growth (Campbell-Heider, 1986).
Traditionally, the most frequently used professional
development relationships used by nurses have been role
modeling and preceptoring (Atwood, 1979). These types of
relationships contain fewer of the mentoring functions than
do the professional development relationships found in
3
traditional, male-dominated professions (Kram, 1988).
Kram (1988) defined mentoring as a professional
development relationship. A professional development
relationship has two sets of functions: career enhancing
functions and psycho-social functions. In the past,
professional development relationships in nursing have not
demonstrated career enhancing and psycho-social functions
as do professional development relationships in male
dominated professions (Atwood, 1979; Kram, 1988).
Since 1988, the nursing literature on mentoring has
focused on the general benefits of mentoring for nursing.
No research was found where specific career enhancing
functions and psycho-social functions of the professional
development relationships are compared. In terms of
mentoring, nursing has not been compared to other fields.
Problem of Study
The objective of this study was to identify the
differences in career enhancing functions and psycho-social
functions in professional development relationships in
male-dominated and female-dominated professions.
Consequently, this study was designed to address the
following problems:
1. Do the functions and characteristics of
professional development relationships among women
4
differ from the functions and characteristics of
professional development relationships among men?
2. Do the functions and characteristics of
professional development relationships among nurses
differ from the functions and characteristics of
professional development relationships among non
nurses?
Rationale for Study
Historically, nurses were selected for managerial
positions because they were the most skilled at the bedside
and had seniority (Fralic, 1987). The locus of decision
making was with the Hospital Administrator, the Director of
Nurses simply carried out the administrator's directives
(Fralic, 1987). There was no need for the Director of
Nurses or Head Nurse to be experienced in the areas of
financial planning, business management, or public
relations (Fralic, 1988).
Essentially, there are only a small number of well
prepared, politically astute nurses who are competent to
function in a corporate-like business setting (Singleton &
Nail, 1986). Most of today's nurse executives have made
their way to administrative positions through trial and
error without the shared knowledge of other nurses before
them (Schofield, 1986). Nurse executives must now
5
demonstrate their value to the hospital organization by
affecting shorter hospital stays, improved patient
outcomes, and the judicious use of monies, people, and
physical resources (Singleton & Nail, 1986). The required
management skills involve understanding of the corporate
and political power structure as well as the need for a
solid preparation in business administration (West, 1987).
In order to achieve the goals of quality patient care
and professional standards, successful playing of the
"corporate game" by nurses is essential in today's hospital
environment (Johnson & Bergmann, 1988). Decisions in
budgeting, staffing, and policy making can be learned in
the academic setting (Hodges, Knapp, & Cooper, 1987).
However, the "corporate game" in which interpersonal
skills, political design, and the corporate culture are
learned, can only be experienced in an organizational
structure (Kram, 1988). The most effective mechanism for
learning the "game" is through a professional development
relationship (Kram, 1988).
Johnson and Bergmann (1988) addressed the need for
nurses to acquire power equity, political savvy, and
understanding of the organizational political structure.
Professional development relationships provide the
structure by which the corporate values, norms, and beliefs
are learned in order to shape behavior that will be
6
effective in the acquisition and use of political power.
Johnson and Bergmann (1988) stated that the use of a
professional development relationship, such as mentoring,
is a crucial tactic for developing politically successful
nurse executives.
Kram (1988) identified that research in the area of
professional development relationships has been focused
primarily on the study of specific types of relationships
such as mentoring, precepting, and role modeling.
Classical mentoring is considered to be the most effective
and powerful professional development relationship used to
facilitate the attainment of professional career goals.
Currently, the study of mentoring has been limited to
defining mentoring, the phases of mentoring, the mentoring
process, and the role of the mentor.
There is little need for additional research on
mentoring roles, phases, and process. It is time to
further the body of knowledge by examining the next level
of questions pertaining to professional development
relationships. The next question to be addressed is: What
are the functions of a professional development relation
ship? Kram (1988) provided an answer to this question in
two grounded theory research studies of the professional
development relationship functions. The knowledge obtained
from Kram's (1983) qualitative methodology must be
,ll
7
validated through quantitative research methodologies.
To date, only one quantitative study exists in which
the investigators attempted to validate Kram's (1983)
findings on the functions of the professional development
relationships. Schockett and Haring-Hidore (1985) provided
factor analytic support for the psycho-social and career
enhancing functions of professional development
relationships. The researchers conducted a study using 72
male and 72 female college students enrolled in a career
assessment course for education majors. The students were
asked to rate eight, 50-word vignettes that depicted either
psycho-social or vocational (career enhancing) functions on
a scale of 1 to 7. Factor analysis yielded fifteen
iterations of which two were accepted. The results
indicated that the psycho-social functions loaded more
heavily on the first factor accounting for 33.4% of the
variance.
The vocational functions loaded more heavily on the
second factor accounting for an additional 5.9% of the
variance. Schockett and Haring-Hidore concluded that there
are two types of mentoring functions, psycho-social and
vocational (career enhancing). The researchers encouraged
further refinement of the conceptualization of mentoring
functions in order to assist individuals in business,
education, and the helping professions as well as the
8
development of mentoring programs.
The study was designed to identify the extent to which
nursing differs from male dominated professions in terms of
professional development. Further, the study was designed
to assess differences in the professional development
relationship functions in male and female dominated
professions. The quantification of theoretical concepts
obtained through qualitative research is a necessary step
achieved through theory development (Meleis, 1985).
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework used for this study was the
Potentiation Model (Souther, 1989). The following
explanation of the model addresses the four paradigms of
person, environment, health, and nursing. Each paradigm is
defined and then the relationships among the paradigms are
discussed. The application of the Potentiation Model to
the proposed study is then examined.
The Potentiation Model (Figure 1) is a mechanistic
model demonstrating the person as a gear in a system.
Traits and patterns form the outermost layer, depicted as
cogs, being visible to the self and to others.
0) C ·~ ::::, z
Spirttuol
! ID~
'o
I
Figure 1. The Potentiation Model
9
~ Q)
~ a. C 0
~ :;= C Q)
0 a.
10
Consequently, individuals bring aspects of themselves into
each human interaction. Interactions are illustrated in
the modei by the interlocking of cogs. For one individual
to interact with another in the model, two "person" gears
must interlock. This interlocking would produce two gears
working in opposite patterns of motion. For two
individuals to be working in the same direction, a middle
interconnecting gear must be used. This gear is the
potentiation gear.
The potentiation wheel is the interaction gear. The
calibration of the human interaction determines whether the
interaction process can be potentiating. Potentiation can
not exist without purposeful patterns of interaction.
Interaction patterns consist of verbal and nonverbal
communication with symbolic, cognitive interpretation of
the communication. Interaction patterns are the product of
each individual's life stage tasks and the deficits and
oneness each individual brings to the relationship
(Erikson, 1963; Maslow,- 1970).
When a dysfunction occurs within the person, personal
traits and functional patterns of living are affected.
This change can then affect the person's interaction
ability or the communication of information through the
gears thus recalibrating the interaction. In order for
potentiation to occur, the interaction process must be
11
purposeful in a mutually agreed direction. All individuals
must be receptive to the information they receive and able
to process the information.
In the Potentiation Model, the paradigm of the person
is depicted as an interactional being who is unique to the
world. A human's interaction with the environment is more
complex than any other living creatures interaction with
the internal and external environment.
The person's internal environment is complex and not
easily understood by other individuals. The internal
environment is called the source (Cattell, 1950) (Figure
1). The source is composed of biological, psychological,
social, and spiritual processes. The biological process
includes the physiological and genetic composition of the
person. The psychological process is composed of the
perceptual, motivational, developmental, coping, and
cognitive components. The social process is composed of
the social needs and cultural drives of the person (Maslow,
1970). The spiritual process components are philosophy,
knowing, and ethics.
The internal environment or the source of the person
is dependent on multiple interactive processes. Each
process can facilitate another process. This process is
known as an adaptive response. Adaptive responses are the
interactions of internal processes which are unique to each
12
individual. The source uses adaptive responses to maintain
the functional ability of the processes within the internal
environment. Injury to one process effects other
processes. Maintenance of the physiological process is
necessary to sustain life. Adaptive responses cannot
prevent death if the insult to the physiological process is
overwhelming or if the restraining external environmental
forces are too severe.
The interaction of all the source processes is
manifested in source traits and mechanisms (Cattell, 1950).
Source traits and mechanisms are the unique culmination of
the internal environment. The uniqueness of the source
traits and mechanisms is not readily identifiable by
others. Combinations of source traits and mechanisms are
the basis of what is outwardly seen by others as the
surface traits and functional patterns of living that a
person uses to interact with others and the external
environment. Basic source traits are formed in genetic
coding and early in childhood (Erikson, 1963).
How a person functions outwardly is expressed in
surface patterns and traits which are the expression of
deeper inner patterns and combinations of traits. Surface
traits and functional patterns of living represent aspects
of personality and behavior. Self concept is based on
these traits, patterns, and interactions with the external
13
environment. Surface traits and functional patterns of
living are manifested from combinations of the person's
source traits and mechanisms. Each person's source traits
and patterns of living are unique. Since the surface
traits and patterns are representative of the source, they
reflect the individual ·s uniqueness (Cattell, 1950). The
person is analogous to the Johari Window as traits and
patterns can be classified into four categories of the
window model (Luft, 1970). These categories of self
knowing are as follows:
1. known to self and known to others
2. known to self and not known to others
3. not known to self and known to others
4. not known to self and not known to others
( Luft, 1970)
Functional patterns of living are developed from the
mechanisms in the source. Patterns of living are flexible,
assessable, and changeable. The following functional
patterns of living were developed by Gordon (1985, p.4).
1. Health perception-health management pattern
2. Nutritional-metabolic pattern
3. Elimination pattern
4. Activity-exercise pattern
5. Sleep-rest pattern
6. Cognitive-perceptual pattern
14
7. Self-perception pattern
8. Role-relationship pattern
9. Sexuality-reproductive pattern
10. Coping-stress tolerance pattern
11. Value-belief pattern
The paradigm of nursing is defined as the culmination
of multiple interactive components guided by the nursing
process. Nursing is an organization of professional
members dedicated to the goals of the nursing profession.
One of these goals is to potentiate health in people
through purposeful interaction.
There are four specific components of nursing. These
components are clinical practice, research, education, and
legal-ethical values. There is constant interaction within
and between the four components that guide the practice of
nursing. These interactions are manifested as nursing
traits, roles, and functional patterns. As each component
changes and develops, there is a resulting change in the
nursing traits, roles and functional patterns.
Nursing traits, roles and functional patterns are the
outer most layer of the nursing cogwheel and are the
manifestation of the nursing components and nursing
process. Nurses interact through traits, roles, and
functional patterns. Nurses interact in a purposeful,
interactive complex process.
15 The paradigm of the environment is defined as the
external environment that a person interacts within a
consistent and continuous manner. A person responds to,
uses, manipulates, and develops the external environment in
order to maintain life functions. The external environment
has life potentiating forces which provide support,
comfort, gratification, reward, facilitation, motivation,
and resources which are positive. The external environment
also has life restraining forces. These forces have a
negative effect on the potentiation of health. Restraining
forces can have a major or minor contribution to the death
of the person. The restraining forces are the effects of
time and the multiple threats to physical, psychological,
sociological, and spiritual safety.
The paradigm of health is a concept which is defined
by each individual's perception of its meaning. Health is
a function of the outcome of the interaction of personal
components. Nurses intervene to potentiate a person's
health. It is possible for nurses and their clients to
perceive health differently. Health perception motivates a
desire for intervention and controls the extent to which
nurses can interact to potentiate health.
Perception of health is the function of physiological,
psychological, sociological, and spiritual mediation. Each
component contains standards by which health can be defined
16
or influenced. The psychological component translates the
concept of health. The concept of health is then expressed
in the so~rce traits and mechanisms. Since the source
traits and mechanisms are not easily understood by the
person, the surface traits and functional patterns of
living translate the concept of health in the source traits
mechanisms. The surface traits and functional patterns of
living express a translation of the person's concept of
health as a unique and individual perception of health.
Mentoring exists between two individuals within an
organizational system (Kram, 1983). Usually the mentor is
older and more senior in the corporate structure than the
protege. The mentoring relationship that forms between the
individuals is considered to be mutually beneficial and
potentiating for the junior member. An essential element
of a mentoring relationship is that the individuals work
harmoniously together toward common goals.
The metaphor of a three gear mechanical system can be
drawn to depict a mentoring relationship between two
individuals within an organizational system. The
Potentiation Model illustrates such a relationship using
three gears calibrated and functioning as a unit. There
are two gears which represent t~o individuals with a third
gear between them. The central focus of the Potentiation
Model (Figure 2) is the third or middle, interconnecting
Potentiation Process
Life stage
Calit:r'ration ... ~
Life Stage
Figure 2. The Potentiation Process
17
18
gear placed between two person gears. This gear is called
the potentiation process. The model depicts the role of
the potentiation process in establishing the transfer of
energy, information, and direction from one individual
(gear) to another.
In a mentoring or potentiating relationship between
two individuals the flow of energy, information, and
direction must be in a mutual direction. In a gear system
two gears interconnecting with one another would be turning
in opposite directions. As the Potentiation Model
indicates, a third, interconnecting gear is necessary for
both individuals (gears) to be turning in the same
direction.
In the Potentiation Model the mentor is the
potentiator or source of energy, information, and direction
for the protege. The energy and information is transferred
from the mentor (first gear) through the potentiation
process (middle gear ) to effect movement, direction , and
guidance in the protege (last gear).
Examination of the potentiation process (middle gear)
must begin with an understanding of the person gears. Each
person gear is encircled by a pattern of equally sized and
spaced cogs. These outer cogs represent the individual's
surface traits and functional patterns of living (Gordon,
1985). The surface traits and functional patterns of
19
living are the expression of the individual's internal
biological, psychological, sociological, and spiritual self
(Cattel, 1950). A person interacts with other individuals
and the environment through their surface traits and
functional patterns of living. All communication is
accomplished through the outer cogs.
According to the mechanistic world view, behavior is
seen as cause and effect through a chain of events,
stimuli, or responses (Fawcett, 1984). Thus an event or
response in one gear of the model would effect a response
in the other person gear through the potentiation process.
The potentiation process is affected by each person's
life stage. Each person is the product of their individual
life experiences which are brought into each relationship
thus affecting the purpose of their relationships. As the
potentiation process depicts, the mentor and protege are at
different life stages.
Within the metaphor of the mechanical gears, the term
calibration means the process of standardization. The
model depicts the mentor and protege's relationship being
calibrated. The relationship is "calibrated" or set to
professional standards of conduct, values, and ethics. The
calibration of the relationship serves to synchronize the
mentor and protege's interpersonal interactions.
Synchronization of interactions denotes a patterning
of interactions. Thus the mentor and protege interact
through patterns of interactions which are purposeful.
Purposeful means that the interactions exist for a common
goal which would allow for the turning of the three gears
in the same direction within the model.
20
Purposeful patterns of interaction are goal directed
interactions such as ment~ring, teaching, guiding,
protecting, and counseling (Hagerty, 1986; Kram, 1988).
These patterns of purposeful interactions share common
career enhancing and psycho-social functions (Kram, 1988).
It is the purpose of this study to examine the pattern of
purposeful interaction called mentoring by identifying the
career enhancing and psycho-social functions that exist in
mentoring relationships.
Assumptions
The following assumptions for the study were derived
from Erikson (1963) and applied by the investigator to the
Potentiation Model.
1. Human to human interaction (developmental
relationships) can influence behavior
(professional growth).
2. Patterns of purposeful interaction (career
enhancing and psycho-social functions) are
unique to each human to human interaction
(professional developmental relationship).
Hypotheses
21
The following hypotheses were developed for the study.
H1: Professional males will have higher scores on
the Professional Developmental Relationship
Questionnaire (PDRQ) than professional females
in the fields of nursing and engineering.
H2: Professionals in engineering will have higher
scores on the Professional Developmental
Relationship Questionnaire (PDRQ) than
professionals in nursing.
H3: There will be a significant interaction between
the variables of gender and profession as re
lated to the Professional Developmental
Relationship Questionnaire (PDRQ).
H4: There will be no difference in the ranking of
personal factors related to career advancement
between gender, and between engineers and nurses.
H5: There wil l be no difference in the ranking of
the effect of significant others on career
advancement by gender or by professional group.
H6: The level of education, the size of the organiza
tion, and the number of years of experience will
22
not be related to the scores of the Professional
Developmental Relationship Questionnaire (PDRQ).
Definitions of Terms
The definitions of the terms used in the study are
taken from the literature on professional developmental
relationships.
Professional Developmental Relationship Questionnaire
(PDRO) - A 45-item Likert-type questionnaire developed by
the investigator (Souther, 1989) designed to collect data
regarding the most significant developmental relationship
of management and administrative level professionals. The
two subscales of the PDRQ are the career enhancing subscale
and the Psycho-social subscale.
Professional male - for the purposes of this study is
a male who:
a. has worked in his discipline or field for a
minimum of three years, (Kram, 1983),
b. occupies a middle management position,
c. is a current member of a professional
organization.
Professional female - for the purposes of this study
is a female who:
a: has worked in her discipline or field for a
minimum of three years, (Kram, 1983).
b: occupies a middle management position,
c: is a current member of a professional
organization.
Professional engineer - is an individual who has
received a degree in the field of Engineering and is a
member of a national professional organization.
23
Professional nurse - is an individual who has received
a diploma or degree in the field of Nursing, is a
registered nurse, and is a member of a national
professional organization.
Personal factors related to career advancement -
measures of the subject's perception of their personal
traits that have had a positive influence on their career
(Rawl, 1989). These are interpersonal skills, creativity,
education, risk taking, experience, hard work, intellectual
ability, networking, and personal attractiveness. The
subjects are asked to rank order the personal factors where
the most influential personal factor is ranked as one and
the least influential is ranked as nine.
Significant others related to career advancement -
measure of the subject's perception of individuals in their
life who have had a positive influence on their career
(Rawl, 1989). These are spouse/significant other,
parents, family member (brother, sister), friend, teacher,
professional peer, superior, and public/historical
24
personality. The subjects are asked to rank order the
significant others with the most influential ranked as one
and the least influential ranked as eight.
Level of education - for the purpose of this study
level of education is defined as the subject's highest
level of formal education achieved.
Size of organization - is defined as the number of
individuals working in same organization as the subject.
Number of years of experience - is defined as the
total number of years that the subject has accrued in the
discipline of nursing or engineering.
Limitation of the Study
The limitation of the study was identified from the
design and sample of the study. A small, random sample of
male and female nurses and non-nurse junior executives in
engineering who held a middle management position were
surveyed. Therefore , generalization beyond the sample
should not be made.
Summary
The positive movement of nurses beyond their
tradi tional bedside role into the corporate arena creates
new issues for the profession (Johnson, 1990). Among
issues facing the nursing profession is the acquisition of
25
corporate skills which are not taught in traditional
schools of nursing. Traditionally, corporate skills have
been learned through mentoring, a professional development
relationship, commonly found in male-dominated professions
(Kram, 1988). As a female-dominated profession that is in
its infancy in the corporate arena, it is important that
nurses learn how to foster professional development
relationships among its members (Atwood, 1979).
Professional development relationships are composed of
two types of functions, career enhancing functions and
psycho-social functions (Kram, 1988). To strengthen the
acquisition and use of professional development
relationships in nursing it is important to identify the
extent to which mentoring functions exist among nurses.
The objective of this study was to identify the differences
in career enhancing functions and psycho-social functions
in professional developmental relationships in male
dominated and female-dominated professions.
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The origin of the concept of mentoring was in Greek
mythology (Homer, 1909). In the Odyssey, Ulysses,
appointed Mentor to care for his son while he was away for
many years in the Trojan war. The relationship between
Ulysses' son, Telemachus, and Mentor became the prototype
of the modern mentoring relationship. Mentor embodied the
attributes of teacher, counselor, guide, protector, and
tutor. These same attributes exist in the mentoring
relationships of today.
Mentoring has been considered a prestigious method of
career development for men in the business world for many
years (Pilette, 1980). The term suggests that an older,
more accomplished, and experienced professional assists in
the career development of a younger individual through a
one- to-one relationship (Hamilton, 1981).
The Potentiation Model (Souther, 1989) is the
conceptual framework for this review of the literature.
The model depicts the potentiation, or development, of
individuals through the potentiationprocess that is based
on Erikson's (1963) developmental life stages.
26
27
Additionally, the model emphasizes the concepts of
traits, roles, and functional patterns as key concepts in
understanding the dynamics of mentoring in the literature.
This review of literature examines the concept of
mentoring in the following contexts: (a) mentoring as a
developmental task; (b) mentoring traits, roles, and
functional patterns; (c) mentoring and women; and (d)
mentoring and nursing. The research that has been
conducted in each of these areas is presented in this
review of the mentoring literature.
Mentoring as a Developmental Task
Within the mentoring literature there are linkages of
the mentoring relationship to developmental stages (Kram,
1983; Hunt & Michael, 1983; Urbano, 1986; Gunderson &
Kenne, 1987). Four distinct phases of the mentoring
relationship are identified. Despite different
nomenclature assigned to the phases each author's four
phases are similar (Table 1). The first phase of the
mentorship is the initiation phase. This is followed by a
phase of relationship cultivation where the relationship is
mutually beneficial, then a separation phase, and finally a
termination or redefinition phase.
Table 1
Phases of the Mentor Relationship
Author, Year
Phases of the Mentor Relationship
Kram. 1983 Initiation
Cultivation
Separation
Redefinition
Hunt and Michael 1983 Initiation
Protege
Breakup
Lasting Friendship
Urbano. 1983 Initial Adjustment Period
Adaptation Stage I
Adaptation Stage II
Termination
Gunderson and Kenner. 1987 Creeping, Crawling Stage
Sitting, Standing Stage
Standing, Walking Stage
Walking, Running Stage
Description
Relationship begins
Mutual benefit
Independent protege
Peer relationship
Relationship begins
Mutual benefit
Independent protege
Peer relationship
Relationship begins
Mutual benefit
Independent protege
Peer relationship
Relationship begins
Mutual benefit
Independent protege
Peer relationship
28
29 Mentoring has frequently been linked with attributes
and phases of adult development. The most noteworthy is
the linkage to Erikson's (1963) developmental stages of man
(Levinson, Darrow, Klein, Levinson, & McKee, 1978; Dalton,
Thompson, & Price, 1977; Hanson, 1977). A high degree of
correlation exists between the stages of adult career
development and the stages of adult development identified
by Erikson (1963). Dalton, Thompson, and Price identified
the four career stages that an individual sequentially
follows as apprentice, colleague, mentor, and sponsor. The
major psychological issues in each of these roles
correlates to themes found within Erikson's stages of
intimacy versus isolation and generativity versus
stagnation. These issues are those of dependence,
independence, assuming responsibility for others, and
exercising power.
Hanson (1977) developed four progressive stages of
career development similar to those of Dalton, Thompson,
and Price (1977). They are apprentice, journeyman, mentor,
and senior scientist/engineer. Hanson noted that a
correlation can be made with Erikson's life stages. The
apprentice stage resembles the intimacy stage where
supervision and close contact are featured. The journeyman
and mentor stages resemble Erikson's generativity versus
stagnation stage where the individual develops an interest
30 in the development of others. The stage of senior
scientist corresponds to Erikson's last stage of ego
integrity. The issues of final challenges and creativity
are addressed in this stage.
Mentoring and Developmental Task Research
The most noteworthy research based on mentoring as a
developmental task was conducted by Levinson, Darrow,
Klein, Levinson, and McKee (1978). Levinson et al.
conducted a retrospective study of 40 men between the ages
of 35 and 45 years. From this study the researchers
documented that the first stage of adult development, from
20 to 30 years of age, was the novice phase. During this
phase Levinson et al. described man as searching for life's
occupation by exploring and testing choices which are
directed toward his future life's work. The four major
tasks of the novice phase are, " ... forming a dream and
giving it a place in the life structure; forming mentor
relationships; forming an occupation; and forming a love
relationship, marriage, and family" (p. 90).
Levinson et al. (1978) concluded that the mentoring
relationship is developmentally one of the most important
relationships that a man can experience. It is highly
complex and distinct in the characteristics of the
relationship and the types of functions performed within
31
the relationship. The relationship begins with the protege
in the role of the novice learning from his teacher then
progresses to a relationship characterized as being more
collegial and mutual. As the protege develops his own
sense of autonomy and authority the relationship changes.
Levinson -et al. described the last stage of the
relationship as difficult and strained, frequently ending
with both the mentor and the protege in conflict.
Levinson et al. concluded from the study that after
the age of 40 most men do not continue in the role of
protege but rather in the role of mentor. The
investigators stated, "There is a measure of altruism in
mentoring - a sense of meeting an obligation, of doing
something for another being. But much more than altruism
is involved: the mentor is doing something for himself"
(1978, p. 253). Despite the virtues and rewards of being
both a protege and a mentor, the authors pointed out that
the mentoring relationship is the exception rather than the
rule.
Sheehy (1974) conducted 115 interviews with
individuals and couples over a three year period. One of
the purposes of the research was to identify the
personality changes that are characteristic of each stage
of adult development.
As the study pertains to mentoring, Sheehy (1974)
found that mentors were a significant factor in male
development and achievement. This finding was later
supported by Levinson's et al. study (1978). For women,
Sheehy also found that there were fewer instances of
mentoring among women except for among women were highly
successful. In these instances a mentoring relationship
was always present.
32
Recognizing the importance of moving the mentoring
research forward, Kram (1983) conducted an exploratory
qualitative study involving 18 pairs of professional
developmental relationships. The purpose of this study was
to clarify the phases of the mentoring relationship and to
delineate the causes of movement from one phase to the
next. Kram identified four distinct phases of the
mentoring relationship. These four phases are initiation,
cultivation, separation, and redefinition. The phases flow
in sequence with specific tasks, functions, and patterns of
interaction identified with each phase. The breadth and
depth of each phase is dependent upon an individual's
personal and professional needs as well as the
organizational environment. Table 1, mentioned previously,
identifies Krarn's four phases and the description of each
phase.
The Sheehy (1974) and Levinson (1978) studies are
repeatedly cited throughout the mentoring literature.
These studies marked the beginning of the attention that
mentoring has received in the past two decades. Kram
(1983) provided further confirmation of the existence of
developmental phases of the mentoring relationship. In
conclusion, the literature underscores the importance of
mentoring as a developmental task in professional career
development.
Traits, Roles, and Functional Patterns
33
The Potentiation Model (Souther, 1989) depicts the
person as a mechanical gear which interacts with other
individuals through the outer cogs of the gear. In the
model the outer cogs represent the traits, roles, and
functional patterns of the individual. This section of the
review has been subdivided to address the relationship of
each of these variables to the mentoring process.
Traits of the Mentor and Protege
The early literature on mentoring focused on the
traits or characteristics of the mentor and protege (Roche,
1980; Rivchun, 1980; Grote & Stine, 1980; Collin, 1983;
Frey & Noller, 1983). The traits discussed in the
literature were reported as the age differential between
34 the mentor and the protege, the ages of the mentor and the
protege, and the power, organizational position, and self
confidence of the mentor.
Age Differential. Clearly, the early study conducted
by Levinson et al. (1978) established the accepted age
differential between the mentor and the protege as 8 to 15
years. The 8 to 15 year age differential is accepted in
the literature as the standard (Roche, 1980; Rivchun, 1980;
Grote & Stine, 1980; Collins, 1983; Kram, 1983). Phillips
Jones (1977) added that an age difference of more than 20
years between the mentor and protege establishes a
relationship that is more similar to a parent-child
relationship than to a true mentorship. Additionally,
Phillips-Jones stated that an age differential of less than
6 to 8 years is more akin to a peer relationship. Kram
(1980) reported that an age differential of 20 to 30 years
creates communication and value problems.
Ag.e. Based on the linkage of mentoring to adult
development, the mentor is considered to be in Erikson's
(1963) stage of generativity versus stagnation. This would
place the mentor between the ages of 35 to 60 (Levinson,
1978; Phillips-Jones, 1977; Kram, 1980). The protege's age
is considered to be younger than that of the mentor
(Kanter, 1977; Levinson, 1978; Kram, 1980).
35 Gender. The literature established that the majority
of the mentoring relationships occur between individuals of
the same gender (Hennig & Jardim, 1977; Kanter, 1977;
Levinson, 1978; Misserian, 1982; Collins, 1983; Downey &
Lahey, 1988). The relationship is believed to be maximized
when the individuals share a greater degree of values,
beliefs, and social factors without the added strain of a
difference in gender (Auster, 1984). In business the
occurrence of a female mentor and a female protege is
considered rare because of the scarcity of top level
females available to mentor younger women in the
organization (Burke & McKeen, 1990; Goh, 1991). The
literature cited evidence that female proteges tended to
develop more emotional ties to their mentor and may
experience more overprotection from the mentor and greater
social discomfort (Hennig & Jardim, 1977).
Power position and self-confidence. The literature
established that the mentors have the traits of greater
power, greater position, and greater self-confidence
(Roche, 1979; Kram, 1980; Michael & Hunt, 1983). The
traits of being powerful, valued, and highly placed in the
organization are the traits which the proteges are hoping
to gain from their alliances with the mentors (Kanter,
1977).
36 Kanter (1977) cited protege traits which aided in the
selection of an individual to become a protege. These
traits are good performance, social similarity to the
mentor, high visibility to the mentor, and that the protege
has opportunities to demonstrate his/her talent.
Roles of the Mentor
The mentoring literature is replete with the roles of
the mentor. Of the many authors who addressed the role of
the mentor, Levinson et al. (1978) is the most frequently
cited. Levinson et al. discussed five major roles that the
mentor fulfills. These roles are teacher, sponsor, host
and guide, exemplar, and counselor. The teacher role is
responsible for development of the protege's skills and
intellect. The sponsor role encompasses the entry of the
protege into the workplace; whereas, the host and guide
role welcomes the protege into the new occupational role
and social world of the organization. The exemplar serves
as a role model of values, goals, and performance
standards. The counselor functions as the advisor and
exists to provide moral support. Table 2 lists various
mentor roles found in the literature.
37
Functional Patterns of the Mentoring Relationship
In the Potentiation Model (Souther, 1989) the
potentiation process is illustrated by the metaphor of a
middle gear between two other individuals or gears. The
model demonstrates the idea that the mentor and protege
Table 2
Roles of the Mentor
Mentor Role
Expert
Counselor
Sponsor
Teacher
Guru
Patron
Devil's Advocate
Journeyman
Godparent
Door Opener
Source
Levinson, 1978; Auster, 1984
Hennig-Jardim, 1977; 1971; Sheehy, 1976; Kanter,1977; Levinson, 1978; Rivchun, 1980; Misserian, 1982; Auster, 1984; Zey, 1984 Kram, 1988
Phillip-Jones, 1982; Auster, 1984; Farren, Gray, & Kaye, 1984; Zey, 1984; Willbur, 1987; Kram, 1988
Farren, Gray, & Kaye, 1984; Zey, 1984; Cameron, 1982; Darling, 1985
Rivchun, 1980
Phillips-Jones, 1982
Farren, Gray, & Kaye, 1984
Auster, 1984
Phillips-Jones, 1982
Cameron, 1982; Darling, 1985
38 interact through patterns of interaction which are
purposeful and have common functions. In the mentoring
literature, Zey (1984) and Kram (1988) delineate the
functional patterns of interaction that exist in the
mentoring relationship.
Zey (1984) identified four functions of the mentoring
relationship that aided the protege to achieve his goals
within the organization. These functions are: sponsoring,
organizational intervention, psychological counseling or
personal support, and teaching. Zey recognized that these
functions do not have equal values of importance.
Therefore, the functions were leveled in a hierarchy. Zey
noted that the functions are not mutually exclusive stages
but actual functions that the mentor can perform when
needed.
Sponsoring, the highest level of function, is when the
mentor recommends the protege for promotion and, thereby,
invests his/her reputation in the protege. In the next
level, organizational intervention, the mentor intervenes
for the protege's benefit and again invests his/her
reputation. Psychological counseling/personal support is
the next third of Zey's (1984 ) hierarchy of mentoring. At
this lev~l the mentor develops the protege's self
confidence and the mentor invests emotionally in the
protege. The lowest level of the hierarchy is teaching.
39
At this level the mentor instructs the protege in
management skills and inside information and invests mainl y
time.
Kram (1988) identified two sets of mentoring
functions; career enhancing functions and psycho-social
functions. The career enhancing functions are sponsorship,
coaching, exposure-and-visibility, protection , and
challenging work assignments. The psycho-social functions
which enhance self-concept, competence, and professional
effectiveness, are: acceptance-and-confirmation,
counseling, role modeling, and friendship.
Research on Mentor Traits. Roles and Functional Patterns
Roche (1980) surveyed 3,976 men and 28 women top
executives (N = 4,004). Results indicated that 66% of the
executives reported having had only one mentor while 33%
reported having had two or more. The mentors were usually
male and the relationship occurred during the executive's
second and third decade of life. This study supported
Levinson's et al. (1978) finding that most individuals are
mentored before the age of forty and that most mentors are
male.
Roche found that 80% of the executives who had been
proteges went on to become mentors but only 40% of the
unmentored executives did so. Additional differences were
40 found in the profiles of the executives who had been
mentored and those who had not. Among those who had been
mentore4, 50% had advanced degrees but only 40% of the
executives who had not been mentored held advanced degrees.
Both mentored and unmentored executives reported an average
work week of 56 hours. Despite equal work weeks, 50% of
the mentored executives reported high rate of satisfaction
from their jobs but only 40% of the nonmentored executives
were highly satisfied.
Burke (1984a) conducted a study on mentoring traits
from the protege's perspective (N = 80). Burke found that
76% of the subjects had a mentor and that 36% of the
subjects had more than one mentor. There was no difference
between the men and women in terms of having had a mentor.
Of the four possible gender combinations of mentor and
proteges the male mentor and male protege (N = 42, 72%) was
the most common. The combinations of female-female (N = 5,
9%) and male-female (N = 3, 5%) were also found; however,
the combination of female mentor and male protege was not
reported.
All the mentoring relationships (100%) developed in
the early stages of the proteges' careers. The subjects
reported that 75% of the mentors were in a direct
supervisory position over the protege with 59% reporting
direct daily contact. The duration of the relationships
41 varied with 48% lasting less than 2 years and 37% lasting
between 2 and 5 years. The most common reason (61%) for
the mentor-protege relationship to end was one or both of
the individuals leaving the organization. Nearly all the
subjects (94%) responded that the relationship ended
positively with 74% stating that their mentors had a
profound influence on their career.
0lian, Carroll, Giannantonio, and Feren (1988)
conducted three studies on what traits proteges look for in
a mentor (N = 271) . The results of the first study
supported the hypothesis that the protege's attraction to a
potential mentor was positively related to the potential
mentor's level of interpersonal competence (E(l, 154) =
49.84, p < .001). The results did not support the
hypothesis that a protege's attraction to a potential
mentor of the same gender will be greater than the
attraction to a mentor of the opposite gender.
In 0lian et al. 's second study the subjects
(N = 271) formed 12 research cells based on mentor age
(33,43,53, and 63 years old) and mentor interpersonal
competence levels (low, medium, and high). The study
confirmed that the effectiveness of the interpersonal
competence manipulation yielding a significant result (E(2,
268) = 189.11, ~ < .001). The effect of age on protege
attraction to the mentor was not significant (E(3, 224) =
42
1.24, p < .001). The hypothesis that younger subjects
would be more attracted to the mentor than the older
subjects was significant (F(3,224) = 4.44; p < .05). The
researchers conducted an ordinary least squares regression
analysis which confirmed that the younger subjects were
more attracted to the potential mentor than the older
subjects (B = -.10, ~ = -2.18, p < .05). The hypothesis
was that proteges with shorter periods of prior work
experience will be more attracted to a potential mentor
than will those with more work experience was not
significant (E(2, 224) = .82, p > .05). Again, the second
study confirmed, as in the first study, that the attraction
of the subject to the potential mentor was affected by the
level of the manager's interpersonal competence (E(2, 224)
= 122.88, p < .001).
In the third study by Olian, Carroll, Giannantonio,
and Feren (1988) the subjects (N = 238) participated in a
2(gender) x 2(high, medium interpersonal competence of the
manager) x 2(low, high degree of organizational networking)
research design. The potential mentor's degree of
involvement in the organization's networking/decision
making to the protege's degree of attraction to the
potential mentor demonstrated a significant interaction
with networking and manager interpersonal competence
(E(l, 227) = 6.54, p < .01). Simple main effects analyses
43 identified the moderately competent manager as attracting
proteges based on networking (£(1, 222) = 8.65, ~ < .01).
Protege attraction to mentors of the same gender being
greater than protege attraction to mentors of the opposite
gender was not significant (£(1, 227) = 0.20, p > .05).
The hypothesis that dealt with the effects of a manager's
interpersonal skills on the protege's attraction to that
manager as a mentor was significant (£(1, 227) = 46.92,
p <001).
The findings of Olian's et al. (1988) third study
strongly support the concept that the trait of
interpersonal competence is a clear attractant of a
potential protege to that manager as a potential mentor.
Strong interpersonal competence was more attractive than
the mentor's perceived networking strength in the
organization. The ability of the mentor to address psycho
social needs was identified as a strong functional ability
for a potential mentor.
Ochberg, Tischler, and Schulberg (1986) recognized the
importance of the functions of mentoring in the transition
of the mental health clinician to the role of mental health
administrator. A questionnaire (7-point Likert scale) on
mentoring functions was mailed to members of the American
College of Mental Health Administration. Half of the
members were asked to complete the questionnaire from the
44
perspective of the mentor and the other half were asked to
complete the questionnaire from the perspective of the
protege. The completed questionnaires (N = 127) were
composed of 64 proteges (46 male and 18 female) and 63
mentors (47 male and 16 female).
Factor analysis of the questionnaires yielded three
factors of mentoring functions: (a) sponsorship (alpha =
.86); (b) personal interest (alpha= .76), and (c) ideals
(alpha= .72). A two-way ANOVA (E(2) = 53.2, p < .001)
demonstrated that both mentors and proteges perceived
personal interest as the lowest dimension of mentoring
functions.
There was a consensus among the mentors and proteges
that sponsorship and ideals were central themes; however,
the two groups disagreed as to their relative importance.
Forty-one (65%) of the mentors rated sponsorship higher
than ideals and 34 (53% ) proteges rated ideals higher than
sponsorship (X2(1 ) = 4.27, p < .05). Therefore, the
researchers concluded that mentors and proteges emphasize
different functions of mentoring.
Burke (1984a) conducted a descriptive study examining
the mentoring relationship functions from the perspective
of the protege. Burke (1984a) asked the subjects (N = 80) -
to rate 15 functions of the mentor. The five mentor
functions that were rated most highly were:
45 1. provided a positive role model,
2. built self-confidence,
3. went to bat for them,
4. were teachers, coaches, and/or trainers, and
5. used job assignments to develop proteges
(Burke, 1984a).
Three factors which accounted for 63% of the variance
were career-development functions, psycho-social functions,
and role modeling functions.
Schockett and Haring-Hidore (1985) conducted a
research study where the subjects (N = 144) were asked to
view eight vignettes , of which four portrayed the
vocational (career-enhancing) functions and four the
psycho-social functions. Using factor analysis two factors
were isolated which corresponded to the vocational and
psycho-social functions.
Fagenson (1988 ) conducted a survey examining the
perceived differences in the career enhancement functions
and the advancement of proteges versus nonproteges and
males versus females in high and low job-level positions.
The subjects (N = 246) were stratified by gender and high
and low job level. Of the 246 respondents 37% had mentors
and of this group there were 32 males and 33 females in
high job-level positions and 14 males and 7 females in the
low job-level positions. Mentor characteristics did not
46
vary significantly between either males and females or high
and low job levels (E(3, 81) = 55, ~ > .1). Overall, both
males and females, regardless of job level, rated their
mentors very high in terms of helpfulness and of being
influential within the organization.
The result of the multiple analysis of variance
(MANOVA) revealed a significant effect for the mentorship
variable, (multivariate E(5, 205) = 6.71, p < .001).
Univariate tests (df = 1, 209, ~ < .001) indicated a
significant effect for the mentor variable on the career
mobility/opportunity (E = 26.65), recognition
(E = 7.23), satisfaction (E = 10.83), and promotion scales
(E = 16.32). These results indicated that subjects who had
mentors perceived themselves as having significantly more
career mobility/opportunity, recognition, satisfaction, and
promotions than subjects who did not have a mentor.
Additionally, the results revealed that a subject's
level within the organization influenced his perceptions of
his career/job success (multivariate E(2, 205) = 4.97,
~ < .001 ] . The univariate tests indicated that job-level
has a significant effect on the satisfaction and career
mobility/opportunity scales. This result indicated that
subjects having high level jobs had perceived significantly
more career mobility/opportunity and satisfaction than
subjects in low level jobs.
47
Fagenson (1988) concluded that the study supported the
view that individuals who have a mentor have greater career
enhancement and opportunity than individuals who do not
have mentors. However, the study found that the subjects'
perception of security within the organization was not
related to whether they had a mentor or not.
Research on Professional Peer Functions
Mentoring is considered to occur between individuals
of different rank within an organization (Kanter, 1977;
Levinson, 1978). The study of mentoring functions must
include an examination of professional peer functions to
delineate further the traits, roles, and functional
patterns of the mentorship. Burke (1984b) and Kram and
Isabella (1985) explored the professional peer function in
an attempt to define mentoring functions further.
Functions that a peer in the participant's
organizational network might provide were extrapolated from
the literature by Burke ( 1986b). Participants (N = 122)
were asked to rank order a list of peer functions. The top
five peer functions that were reported by the participants
were as follows:
1. potential contacts for the future (89%),
2. advice and ideas (88%),
3. the opportunity to exchange ideas (81%),
48 4. information to enhance their understanding of
their own organizational circumstances (70%), and
5. the potential of individuals in one's network
passing on their names to still other individuals
(68%) (Burke, 1984b).
The five peer functions that were least often reported
by individuals in the participants were:
1. opportunities to deal with loneliness (25%),
2. contacts that were useful in obtaining their
first job (32%),
3. individuals who could serve as mentors or
sponsors (39%),
4. individuals who could provide visibility
(a mentoring or sponsoring function) (42%), and
5. individuals who actually passed on participants'
names to still other individuals (42%)
(Burke, 1984b).
Burke employed factor analysis using the varimax
technique to determine whether the peer network functions
arranged in clusters. Four factors were identified:
1. Career Development (25% of the variance, 11 items
with loading factors> .35);
2. Psycho-social (10% of the variance, 5 items with
loading factors> .50);
3. Ethnic and Social Class Ties (7% of the variance,
3 items with loading factors> .50); and
4. Job Leads (6% of the variance, 2 items loading
> .60.
The Alpha Coefficient of Internal Consistency each of the
four scales is .82, .78, .75, and .60, respectively.
49
In an effort to further understand mentoring functions
Kram and Isabella (1985) examined professional peer
relationships within an organization other than the
mentoring relationship. Qualitative data analysis involved
review of transcripts for themes and concepts regarding
professional peer relationships that exist within an
organization. The researchers identified that professional
peer relationships have both career-enhancing and psycho
social functions as does the mentoring relationship;
however, they differ in the scope of the functions.
Professional peer career-enhancing functions include
information sharing, career strategizing, and job-related
feedback. Peer psycho-social functions include
confirmation, emotional support, personal feedback, and
friendship.
Additionally, Kram and Isabella (1985) were able to
distinguish three types of professional peers: (a)
information peer; (b) collegial peer; and (c) special peer.
These types of professional peers can be placed on a
continuum based on the amount of primary mentoring
50
functions they perform and the degree of trust and self-
disclosure involved in the relationships. According to the
investigators the perception of peer relationships varies
with career stage and that this variation is related to the
developmental tasks of each person involved in the
relationship. Kram and Isabella (1985) identified that
the primary functions of each peer relationship remain
constant, · but that the content and process of shared
information changes at each successive career stage. The
differences correspond to age with appropriate
developmental tasks focusing on self, career, and family.
Mentoring and Women
Many of the beliefs regarding women in management have
their beginnings in the classic work by Hennig and Jardim
(1977) who studied corporate women executives of the
sixties. These authors hold that the reasons why women
have difficulty in the corporate world stern from not only
their own feminine nature in a masculine environment but
also the competitive nature of human relationships within a
corporation. Despite the age of Hennig and Jardim's work
the literature on mentoring and women frequently refer to
the ideas discussed by these authors. These ideas have
become the assumptions on which much of the literature is
based.
51 The first assumption established by Hennig and Jardim
(1977) is that women, unlike men, lack clearly defined
career goals and after they realize that they are going to
have to work they pursue success. Hennig and Jardim refer
to this as "passivity" (p. 11) because the women just allow
the career to happen.
The second assumption is that women are not risk
takers. According to Hennig and Jardim women view risk
taking as something negative which could result in ruin and
loss. But, men see it as a positive gamble for their
future.
The third assumption is that women are not socialized
for competition as are men. Hennig and Jardim (1977)
examined the childhood and adolescent roles of men and
women in society. The authors cite that boys are oriented
toward team sports and competition where they learn to work
on a team. This early orientation carries on throughout
life and into the corporate setting. Lack of this
particular socialization experience may explain what is
often perceived as a lack of motivation on the part of
women.
Hennig and Jardim (1977) concluded that some women are
successful because of the presence of a mentor. Through a
mentor, usually a male, a woman is able to learn the
competitive nature of the organization. The authors also
noted that it may be that the socialization of men as
female protectors contributes to the willingness of some
men to m.entor women.
52
Riger and Galligan (1980) contended that when studying
the casual explanation for differences in the corporate
behavior between men and women there are two approaches.
The first approach is person-centered. In this approach
the reasoning that women have not achieved corporate
success is that female socialization encourages the
development of personality traits and behavior patterns
that are not compatible with the managerial role.
The second approach is situation-centered. In this
approach Riger and Galligan (1980) stated that the focus is
on the characteristics of the organizational situation
rather than on the personality attributes of women because
the social composition and structural factors within the
organization determine who has the power and opportunity
(Kanter, 1977).
Riger and Galligan examined an organizational
condition from both the person-centered and the situation
centered approach. The authors used the example that women
tend to, " ... overemphasize the task at hand, as opposed to
seeing it as a stepping-stone to further achievement"
(1980, p. 905). According to Riger and Galligan analysis
of this statement from the person-centered approach has
53
women behaving this way because they were not taught to set
personal goals. This supports prior research by Sheehy
(1974). From the situation-centered perspective a woman
overemphasizes the task at hand because she needs to
perform her task well for self-esteem and self-satisfaction
since the corporate climate does not recognize her in the
same manner as it recognizes and rewards men.
George and Kummerow ( 1981) examined the concept of
mentoring for the career woman. The authors identified the
advantages to a career woman of having a mentor: (a) to
clarify the formal and informal networks within the
organization, (b) to clarify subtleties and ambiguous
expectations of the organization, (c) to assess the woman's
strengths and weaknesses , (d) to act as a sounding board,
and (e) a chance to discuss the woman's perceptions and
insights concerning the organization.
In addition to discussing the advantages of a woman
having a mentor, George and Kummerow (1981) addressed the
hazards of a woman having a mentor. In particular these
hazards occur when a mentorship develops between members of
the opposite sex. The hazards are: (a) tension with the
spouse for both the mentor and protege, (b) suspicions of
impropriety by other organization members, and (c) failure
to develop independence from the mentor.
54
Despite the difficulties in cross-gender mentoring the
authors contend that a male mentor for a woman provides a
better reality base in a male-dominated organization.
George and Kummerow (1981) acknowledged that there is a
belief that a female mentor is better for a woman because
only another female can be a true role model and the female
mentor has already developed effective techniques for
maneuvering in the organization.
Regardless of the gender of the mentor, George and
Kummerow indicated that the focus of the mentorship for a
woman should be on moving the female protege toward a more,
"androgynous behavior" (1981, p. 47). The view of many
individuals within an organization is that a feminine style
is believed to be weak and ineffective. Thus, the adoption
of an androgynous style would strengthen the protege's
position.
Berry (1983) added to the work by George and Kummerow
(1981) by stating that a mentor, male or female, would
benefit from mentoring a female protege because having a
loyal protege adds to the mentor's power base and support
system. Berry distinguished several different problems for
the female protege other than those identified by George
and Kummerow (1981). They were (a) the female protege may
position herself with the wrong mentor, (b) because of her
gender she may not get the help she needs from her mentor,
and (c) the mentor may perceive the female protege as a
threat.
55
Ragins (1989) elaborated further on barriers to
mentoring for women. Gender differences were cited as the
main reason for the difficulties that women encounter in
developing a mentorship. Ragins determined that while
mentoring was necessary for a man to be able to climb the
corporate ladder it was crucial for a women to have a
mentor. Mentors serve as buffers for both overt and covert
forms of discrimination with an organization. The author
stated that within an organization there may be structural,
social, and cultural barriers to a female manager's
success. The female manager is frequently the only female
in a male department or organization; consequently, she may
face stereotyping, performance pressures, and isolation
based on the organization's social climate.
Additionally, Ragins (1989) stated that women may face
"status leveling" whereby the female manager is
unconsciously identified or grouped with the female
clerical staff by the males within an organization. This
lowers the female manager's power and authority. A
mentorship provides "reflected power" because the status of
being a protege confers legitimacy within the power
structure.
56
Self-confidence building was also an important aspect
of the mentorship for a female. According to Ragins (1989)
"stereotypic sex-role socialization" leads female managers
to question their worth and abilities within the
organizational structure. Additionally, women are believed
to have less political power and knowledge than men;
therefore, in the organization's political arena they are
at a disadvantage to their male counterparts. Ragins
stated that the solution to building self-confidence and
learning organizational politics lies in the mentoring
relationship because it provides both support and a
learning atmosphere.
Nadelson (1989) noted that in a mentoring relationship
with a female protege the mentor must play the masculine
role whether the mentor is male or female. Potential
female mentors may perceive themselves as inappropriate or
inadequate because they are uncomfortable with the male
mentor role. Moreover, the protege may avoid a female
mentor because they do not perceive the female mentor as
capable of fulfilling the masculine mentor role.
Research Related to Gender and Mentoring Traits
The literature that deals with mentoring traits and
women is limited. However, there were two major studies by
Hennig and Jardim (1977) and Collins (1983) which addressed
57 mentoring traits and women in management. The studies were
conducted as research for the development of books,
consequently many of the statistics are lacking. These
studies are included herein because they are frequently
referred to in, and have made a significant contribution to
the direction and study of, the literature on mentoring
traits and women in management.
Hennig and Jardi m (1977) conducted in-depth interviews
of 25 women at the president and vice-president level who
had entered the job market in the 1930's. Each woman
reported that they had a long standing male patron (friend)
for whom they had worked with during the depression. All
25 women had begun their career as a clerk or secretary for
this man. As the man was promoted they moved along with
him. Hennig and Jarmin (1977) described the relationships
as being supportive, providing new skills, and increasing
responsibilities.
The authors reported that the time period in which
these women were successful was one in which success was
very difficult for women to achieve. Each woman
acknowledged the patron as the key to her success.
Interestingly, the women reported that during their period
of career maturity they believed that they could not hire
female managers as subordinates. The women's reasons for
this behavior were their fear of jealousy among the female
58 clerical staff and their unwillingness to help other women
become successful because of their desire to remain special
and unique in the male-dominated business world.
Keown and Keown (1985) replicated Hennig and Jardim's
(1977) study but with women in management who entered the
work force in the 1960's. The researchers conducted in
depth interviews with 21 women executives in 1979. The
mean age was 39.5 years with 19(90%) being Caucasian,
13(62%) being protestant, and 13(62%) being either the
oldest child or the only child. Fourteen (67%) had no
children and 19(90%) had been married at least once but
only 9(43%) were married at the time of the study.
Seventeen (67%) had a college education, 16(75%) had the
responsibility of a budget of $1 million or more, and
11(52%) had a work title of at least vice-president or the
equivalent.
Six (29%) of the women always knew they would have a
professional career; whereas, six (29%) others never did
define their career goals. Nine (43%)of the women were
mothers and wives before establishing career goals. Of
this group 4(19%) women first married, then divorced, and
then chose a career rather than another marriage; all
4(19%) went back to school for additional education. The
other 5(24%) women made traditional choices of being a
wife/mother first then changed their priorities later and
59
chose a career. In the Hennig and Jardim (1977) study most
of the women went to work after college and then made
career choices. All the women reported that their personal
lives and families were deprived at times because of the
demands of the career. The women who had children thought
that balancing career and family was difficult and that
they faced complex problems as a result.
One issue addressed in the study was what motivated
the women in their work. Eighteen (86%) women stated that
their sense of accomplishment was very rewarding. Other
motivations were money, recognition, power, interactions
with others, personal growth, and self-worth.
The majority of the women were able to identify that
their organizations had a functional structure as well as a
political structure. The women considered themselves a
part of the functional structure but were not interested in
the political structure of golf clubs and after-hours
drinks. There were some women who reported feeling
threatened by the social contacts involved in the political
structure.
In the Hennig and Jardim (1977) study all the women
had long term male mentors who were their direct
boss/supervisor and when the mentor moved up they moved up
as well. In the Keown and Keown (1985) study 14 (66.6%)
women had a significant mentor. The remaining 7 (33.3%)
60
women could not attribute their career success to any one
mentor, but thought their success was due to their own hard
work. Four (19%) women had a special relationship with
their fathers, some mentioned other members of their family
such as a brother or mother. All the women in the Henning
and Jardim study had a close relationship with their
fathers and a similar father-daughter type of relationship
with their mentors. In contrast to the Hennig and Jardim
(1977) study, the 21 women of the Keown and Keown study
expressed differences in the intiation, form, intensity,
and the progression of the mentoring relationship.
Hennig and Jardim (1977) found that their sample
believed hard work and determination were the keys to the
participants' success. This held true for the women over
the age of 40 in the Keown and Keown (1985) study. A
difference however, existed for women who were under forty
years old. These women identified people skills, written
and verbal communication skills, and the ability to do a
good job as the attributes that lead them to success.
Collins (1983) conducted a descriptive field survey of
400 successful women to study their mentor relationships.
The women were between 30 to 61 years of age.
Approximately 200 (50%) were married and their salaries
ranged from $21,000 to over $100,000. Of the respondents,
232 (58%) stated that their mentors had significantly
contributed to their careers, 116 (29)% stated their
mentors were of some value, and 52 (13%) responded that
their mentors were of limited or no value. In contrast,
61
320 (80%) of the subjects responded that they perceived the
concept of mentors to be of great value to careers in
general, 64 (16%) responded that mentors were of some
value, and none responded that they thought mentors were of
no value. Collins (1983) concluded from the subjects'
responses that women perceive having a mentor as a benefit;
however, many of the subjects did not have that benefit.
In reference to the gender of the mentor , 300 (75%) of
the women had only male mentors, another 40 (20%) responded
that they had both male and female mentors, and only 20
(5%) had only female mentors. Two hundred (50%) of the
participants responded that a mentor was just as important
for both men and women and 134 (34%) of the women responded
that a mentoring relationship was more important for a
women. Two hundred ( 50% ) of the women indicated that their
mentor was their boss. Based on this response Collins
(1983) concluded that finding a mentor other than their
boss could be difficult.
In reference to the number of mentors the women had,
248 (62%) of the women had only one mentor and 68 (17%) had
two mentors. The age difference between the mentor and the
protege ranged from between 5 to 15 years of age. Of the
62 respondents, 168 (42%) indicated that the mentoring
relationship lasted two to three years and 136 (34%)
indicated that it either laster longer than five years or
was still active. The most frequent response given for the
relationship to end was that the mentor either moved or was
promoted (n = 264, 66%).
The three main mentoring functions identified by the
women were: (a) teaching the corporate rules, (b)
providing opportunities within the work setting, and (c)
increasing self-confidence. The functions of advising,
counseling, critiquing, challenging, formulating career
goals, and acting as a sounding board were also delineated.
The participants were asked to describe how they felt
about their mentor. The three most common responses were
respect, admiration, and trust or confidence. Attributes
of loyalty, friendship, appreciation, and awe were also
reported. One negative aspect, resentment, was reported.
Collins (1983) concluded from the study that women are
not as comfortable with their mentoring relationships as
are men and do not understand the concept of mentoring as
well as .men. In addition, women tend to stay in the
relationship longer and the relationship ends more
positively than between men. Further, Collins (1983) made
another conclusion based upon both the study's outcomes and
information from the literature. Collins stated that on
63 the average men had three to five mentors throughout their
careers; whereas, women had only one to three. Age
differences between mentors and proteges were similar
between men and women. Collins stated that men tend to
look for leadership development and risk-taking strategies
in their mentors; whereas, women sought support,
confidence- building, and visibility from their mentors.
Bova and Phillips (1981) conducted a study using 87
women and 73 men (N = 160) ranging in age from 19 to 52
years. The findings indicated that 67 (42%) males either
had been or were proteges. Forty (25%) males indicated
that their relationship began in their early adulthood
which is consistent with Levinson (1978). Eighty (50%) of
the females were or had been proteges. Forty-four (28%) of
the females indicated that they acquired their mentors in
their early adulthood.
There was a greater tendency for mentoring
relationships to occur within the same gender. There were
64 male mentors with male proteges and 43 female mentors
with female proteges. Thirty-seven (23%) female proteges
had male mentors whereas only 3 (1.8%) male proteges had
female mentors.
Analysis of the interviews with mentors and their
proteges revealed several traits. Both mentor and protege
placed a high value on the relationship and displayed
64
similar traits to one another. Four out of five mentors
had previously been a protege and all of the current
proteges .wanted to become mentors. According to the
interviews, gender was not a factor in influencing the
choice of mentor or protege. Additionally, the concept of
competence was introduced. Proteges choose a mentor who is
competent in the skills the protege wishes to develop and
the mentors choose proteges who they think will become
competent and subsequently reflect positively back on
themselves.
Research on Functional Patterns of Mentoring and Gender
Bowen (1985) conducted a study using 32 pairs of
mentors with female proteges. There were 14 female mentors
and 18 male mentors. Bowen hypothesized that female
mentors would provide a greater amount of psycho-social
functions than male mentors and that higher levels of
identification with the mentor by the proteges would be
more likely when greater amounts of psycho- social functions
were provided. Bowen (1985) concluded that proteges who
receive psycho-social functions in a mentoring relationship
are more likely to perceive their relationship as being in
the "fast track". The researcher surmized that men are
just as likely as women to provide mentoring functions for
female proteges. Furthermore, the effect of mentoring
functions is not dependent on the length of time that the
relationship exists and the identification of the protege
with the mentor tends to be higher in the early phases of
the relationship and the psycho-social functions become
more notable later on.
65
Dreher and Ash (1990) conducted a study which
addressed gender differences in career outcomes influenced
by mentoring functions (N = 320). The researchers examined
mentorship's effect on the career outcomes of both men and
women in managerial and professional occupations and
identified four career outcomes related to economic or
financial success. These four career outcomes are income,
number of promotions, pay level satisfaction, and benefits
satisfaction.
The mentoring scale consisted of 18 items which
reflected the career enhancing and psycho-social functions
developed by Kram (1985). Only one item on the mentoring
scale yielded a significant result (~(318) = -2.03, p
<.05). This item, which assessed the degree to which the
mentor conveyed empathy for the feelings of the
participant, indicated that women had a higher mean value
(M = 3.31) than men (M = 3.06). Female responses on this
item remained constant regardless of hierarchical level or
of managerial, professional, or technical position. The
researchers reported that statistically significant
66
differences occurred in income, degree held, years since
graduation, and marital status; however, no statistics were
reported. Dreher and Ash (1990) conducted regression
analysis of the effect of Sex x Mentoring cross-product in
regression equations estimated for each outcome variable.
There was no significant interaction, E(l, 304 ) = .28, .98,
.01, and .37, for promotions, income, pay-level
satisfaction, and benefits satisfaction, respectively. The
results indicated that mentoring had no effect on the
career-outcome differences that exist between men and
women. The main difference, regardless of mentoring, was
in annual income. The annual income received by women,
after all other variables were controlled, was $7,990 less
than that received by men.
Dreher and Ash (1990 ) concluded that the career
outcome differences that exist between men and women are
not attributable to mentoring. While mentoring was
significant is several instances, the relationship between
gender and other variables did not change when mentoring
was specified. According to Dreher and Ash, these results
do not support the notion that women are not fully
mentored. Although mentoring does aid career success, it
does not account for the income differences between men and
women.
67 Mentoring and Nursing
An examination of the nursing literature concerning
mentoring reveals an awareness in the field of nursing of
the advantages of such relationships in developing future
nurses. Four assumptions found throughout the nursing
literature are based on business literature. These four
assumptions are: (a) having a mentor is a prerequisite for
success (Collins & Scott, 1978; Roche, 1978), (b) everybody
should reach for upward mobility through mentoring (Fagan &
Fagan, 1983), (c) mentoring is homologous throughout all
professions (Hagerty, 1986), and (d) women's lack of
professional success is due to their inability to utilize
mentoring in their careers (Speizer, 1981; Shapiro,
Hazeltine, & Rowe, 1978).
The linkage of mentoring to developmental issues
exists within the nursing literature. Vance (1982) linked
mentoring to Erikson (1963) by considering mentoring as a
parental model in the generativity stage. The author
stated that the relationship between the mentor and the
protege has character istics similar to those of a parent
child relationship. These characteristics are intensity,
emotionalism, exclusionality, and transitionalism of
stages. Commonalties exist between a parent-child
relationship and a mentorship which include the development
of the self-confidence in the child or protege,
68
parental/mentor investment in the child/protege, and the
eventual leaving of the home/job of the child/protege.
Additionally, Vance (1982) identified similar problems that
exist in both the mentorship and the parental models.
These are the issues of control, dependency, exploitation,
cloning, over- protection, and excessive altruism.
Nursing has developed barriers to mentoring which are
rooted in the socialization process of women (Cameron,
1982; Megel, 1985). This process is manifested in distrust
and competitiveness among nurses. Brown (1983) reasoned
that nurses must learn to develop growth-producing
relationships that will foster the development of younger
nurses by older more successful nurses. The author
postulated that the method by which older nurses can
develop younger nurses without distrust and competitiveness
is a mentoring relationship.
May, Meleis, and Winstead-Fry (1982) examined the role
of mentorship in developing scholarliness in nursing.
Several premises concerning the scholarly role and
mentorship have been identified. These premises are:
1. Scholarliness is a learned, interactional role.
2. Roles develop in a supportive atmosphere.
3. Male patterns of socialization, cognitive
structure, affiliation needs, aggressive behavior,
and achievement orientation differ from those of
69 women and, thus, patterns of mentorship will
differ.
4. Mentorship of graduate students and junior faculty
members is necessary for the continuation of the
discipline of nursing.
5. Female scientists have different forms of scholarly
productivity and career continuity than their male
counterparts.
6. The reward for scholarliness is less tangible and
immediate in nursing than in other professions.
May, Meleis, and Winstead-Fry (1982) identified
attributes of a mentorship which include role modeling,
role clarification, and role rehearsal. In addition to
these attributes Schlotfeldt (1985) discussed the concept
of sponsorship of the protege in the scientific community.
Sponsors would increase the young scholars' visibility in
the scientific community through introduction and guidance
within the research network (Schlotfeldt, 1985; Megel,
1985). May, Meleis, and Winstead-Fry (1982) concluded that
mentorships are vital to the development of scholarliness
in nursing. Furthermore, the patterns of mentorship which
will be successful for nurses are different from the
patterns found in the business community.
Campbell-Heider (1986) indicated that nursing has
difficulty in operationalizing the traditional male
70 oriented form of mentoring that exists in the business
world because of the broad nature of nursing and the female
sociali~ation of nursing. In contrast to Hagerty (1986),
Campbell-Heider realized that the mentoring needs are
different not only between genders but also between nursing
and other professions. The mentoring needs of nurses at
the practice level are very different than the mentoring
needs of nurses at the administrative and managerial
levels. Based on this belief Campbell-Heider (1986)
supported the continuum of professional developmental
relationships proposed by Kram (1985) . Campbell-Heider
(1986) supported the use of peer pals, sponsors, and role
models as well as the traditional role of mentoring to
serve the diversity of nursing practice and the female
experience.
Nursing Research on Mentoring Traits Roles and Functions
Vance (1982) conducted a study based on the assumption
that nurses would not be supportive of each other because
nursing is a female-dominated profession. Vance referred
to Hennig and Jardim's (1977) suppositions that: (a)
because women have not been socialized into a competitive
role nurses would not be able to form successful mentoring
relationships, and (b) because the mentoring experience has
71
not been readily available to them female nurses would not
be skilled at being mentors.
The results of the Vance (1982) study were that
59(83%) of the nurse leaders (N = 71) had one or more
mentors and 66(93%) reported having mentored others. The
incidence of mentor relationships was found to be with
teachers (n = 18, 25%), professional work colleagues (n =
13, 18%), nurse employers and/or administrators (n= 13,
18%), deans/associate deans (n= 12, 17%), and other health
care disciplines (n = 15, 22%). Seventy percent of the
mentors were nurses and 79% of the mentors were of the same
gender. This supported the idea that mentoring usually
occurs within the same field and within the same gender
(Levinson, 1978; Bova & Phillips, 1981). Additionally,
Vance (1982) found that over 64 (90%) of the nurse leaders
act as mentors to others.
Vance (1982) identified the functions of the
mentorship to be guidance, career advice, counseling, role
modeling, intellectual stimulation, and providing emotional
support. Further, Vance acknowledged that the nursing
profession must provide these mentoring functions to
develop nurses.
Kinsey (1990) followed the Vance study with an update
of 42 contemporary nursing leaders and their mentor
relationships. According to the researcher the results
72
were similar to Vance's study. Kinsey found that 36 (86%)
of the nurse leaders had a mentor compared to the 83% in
the Vance study. Both the Kinsey (n = 39) and the Vance
(n= 66) studies reported 93% of the subjects to mentor
others in the nursing profession. Kinsey asked nursing
leaders to describe mentoring functions that they had had
with their mentor. The results were: (a) career advice,
guidance, promotion (n= 17, 41%); (b) intellectual and
scholarly stimulation (n= 7, 15%); (c) professional career
role modeling (n = 6, 13%); (d} inspiration and idealism (n
= 6, 13%); (e) financial support (n = 3, 8%), and;
(f) emotional support (n = 2, 5%).
Descriptions of unfavorable incidents with mentors
were: (a) confrontation with the mentor (n= 13, 33%),
(b) feeling disappointed by the mentor (n = 11, 25%),
(c) feeling pressured by the mentor (n = 11, 25%), and
(d) enduring physical separation from the mentor (n = 7,
17%). Kinsey (1990) concluded that perhaps nurses do
support younger , less experienced nurses. The researcher
supported mentoring as being a positive resource in the
career development of younger nurses in the early years of
their careers.
Based on Levinson's (1978) study, Fagan and Fagan
(1983) developed the Kentucky Mentoring Survey (KMS). The
purpose of the KMS was to ascertain the frequency and
nature of mentoring among nurses and to identify the
relationship of mentoring to job satisfaction, rank,
burnout, and becoming a mentor.
The survey (N = 264) was administered to a group of
RNs (n = 87) and a comparison group composed of police
officers (n = 70), and public school teachers (n = 107).
Results were not significantly different among the three
occupational groups (p ~ .05).
73
Of the 87 nurses there were 75 (84%) who reported some
mentoring. Interestingly the 84% mentoring rate exceeds
that of Roche (64%) and Phillips-Jones (61%) in the
business literature. Because of the homogenous nature of
the nursing sample the gender and race of the mentors were
the same as that of the proteges. The mean age and job
experience differences between the mentor and the protege
were 9.3 and 9.1 years, respectively.
Fagan and Fagan (1983) identified that the mentors
performed the following functions: (a) helped the protege
learn the technical aspects of the job, (b) helped the
protege gain more self-confidence, (c) listened to and
encouraged the protege, (d) helped the protege understand
hospital administration, and (e) taught the protege how to
work with people. The proteges identified that the mentors
had the following traits: (a) discipline and hard working,
(b) dedication, (c) independence, (d) honesty, (e)
74
persistence, and (f) tactfulness. The mentor roles of
peer, sibling, and parent were identified.
When examining the effect of having a mentor on job
satisfaction the Chi Square was 19.59 (df = 9, p < .025).
This indicated that subjects who had mentors were
significantly more satisfied with their jobs than those who
did not. The items on the KMS associated with burnout were
significant (x2 = 21.35, df = 6, p < .025). This finding
was contrary to what was expected as the subjects who had
more than one mentor were significantly more likely to have
more than one burnout episode. However, no data was
reported to indicate if burnout episodes were more
significant among nurses, police officers, or school
teachers. Rank was not significantly linked to having a
mentor (p = .05). A significant Chi Square of 23.49
(p = .005) was found on the question of whether individuals
who were mentored were more likely to mentor others.
Seventy percent of the subjects (n = 185) indicated
that their relationship with their mentor was continuing
and only 71 (27%) stated that their relationship had ended.
Of the 264 subject, 158 (66%) reported aspects of
friendship within the relationship. Conflict was not a
characteristic of those relationships that had ended. This
is contrary to the findings of Levinson (1978).
75
Based on the study's results, Fagan and Fagan (1983)
theorized that the frequency of mentoring among staff
nurses was probably as high as, or higher than, that of the
other two occupations. Also, based on the researcher's
conclusions that: (a) nurses frequently reported a
stronger identification with their mentors; (b) nurses
reported incorporating the mentor traits of self
discipline, honesty, and persistence; and, (c) individuals
who had been mentored were more likely to become mentors
themselves, Fagan and Fagan concluded that mentoring
facilitates professional growth among nurses.
Larson (1986) examined the effect of having a mentor
on job satisfaction for nurses (N = 116). The findings
were consistent with Fagan and Fagan (1983) in that
individuals who had been mentored were more likely to
mentor others. Job satisfaction scores were higher on each
of the scales for nurses who had been mentored than for
nurses who had not been mentored. However, these
differences were not significant at the .05 level. For
just those subjects who had been mentored, the results were
significant at the .05 level for satisfaction in work and
promotion.
Boyle and James (1990) conducted a study to better the
understanding of the role of mentoring among nursing
managers (N = 84). The questionnaires were derived from
76
Kram's (1983) study of mentoring. Of the 84 respondents,
82 (97.6%) were women and 54 (66.2%) were middle managers.
Results indicated that 66 (79%) of the nurses had a
mentor at some point in their careers. Only 29 (34%)
reported having a current mentor, 36 (43%) stated they did
not have a mentor, and the others were either unsure or did
not respond. The mentors were highly educated females and
were generally within either academia or the same hospital.
For individuals who reported strong influences by their
mentors, 58 (68.9%) of the relationships occurred during
the early years of their careers.
Nurses who had mentors reported that the relationship
had caused, or resulted in, positive changes in the their
careers. This finding was significant (r = .78, p < .001).
The most significant rnentorships occurred both between the
subordinate and superior organizational levels
(r = 44, p < .001) and between colleagues on the same
organizational level (r = 42, p < .001).
Boyle and James (1990) concluded that for nurses
without master's degrees the most significant contributions
made by mentors are: (a) assisting with the development of
new skills, (b) offering feedback on performance, and (c)
providing opportunities to demonstrate skills and
abilities. Nurses who had received a strong influence from
their mentors believed that the most significant
77
contributions made by their mentors were: (a) offering
feedback on performance, (b) sharing expertise with the
protege, (c) serving as a role model, and (d) demonstrating
a belief in the protege.
Summary
Clearly, the literature identifies mentoring as a
salient aspect of career development (Levinson, Darrow,
Klein, Levinson, & McKee, 1978; Kram, 1985). In the
earliest discussions of mentoring the focus was on the
positive outcomes that mentoring had for men. Gradually,
the literature began to consider mentoring for women who in
the 1960's were just beginning to appear in the corporate
milieu (Sheehy, 1974; Hennig & Jardim , 1977). The concept
of mentoring is slowly developing in the research
literature. A progression can be seen from the early
qualitative studies (Kram, 1983) and descriptive
quantitative studies describing merely demographics
associated with mentoring to the more elaborate
methodological designs (Olian, Carroll, Giannantonio, &
Feren, 1988). Gender has been addressed in the mentoring
literature in terms of homogeneous work settings. There
are no studies to date that explore the issue of gender
difference in mentoring within male and female dominated
professions.
CHAPTER 3
PROCEDURE FOR THE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT OF DATA
A non-experimental, four-group, explanatory research
design was used to examine the mentoring relationship
functions between male and female nurses and engineers.
Quantification of the professional development relationship
functions ·was accomplished using a demographic scale and a
45 item, five-point, Likert-type questionnaire. The
questionnaire was administered to a probability sample of
male and female middle managers who have been in their
profession for a period of at least three years. The
professions of nursing and engineering were selected.
The study was classified as nonexperimental because
the independent variable was not manipulated and a control
group was not used. The sample subjects were randomly
selected. According to Kerlinger (1973), the study design
was classified as explanatory because the differences
between the four study groups were compared.
The independent variables were gender and profession.
The dependent variables were the number and type of career
and psycho-social functions performed. These were
expressed as the scores on the Professional Developmental
Relationship Questionnaire (PDRQ). Hypotheses were used
78
79 because, the purpose of the research design was to explain
differences between groups (Kerlinger, 1973).
Setting
The sample was taken from a random selection of nurse
and engineer middle managers in the United States who were
members of national professional organizations. The area
of the country, city size, and population were controlled
by random selection of subjects throughout the United
States and its territories. The five regions of the United
States from which the subjects returned their
questionnaires were east, north, south, central, and west.
The size of the organizations in which the subjects
reported that they were employed varied from less than 99
to more than 1,000 employees. The work setting from which
the subjects were selected had at least three levels of
management. Nurses were limited to men and women who were
employed in health care administration, nursing management,
or health care business settings. Engineers were limited
to men and women employed in middle management or
administrative positions in the field of engineering.
Population and Sample
The population consisted of male and female middle
managers in nursing and engineering in the United States.
80 Engineering was selected because it has been identified as
the most male dominated profession; therefore, providing a
good contrasting population to nursing, a female dominated
profession (Green, 1988). The accessible population was
identified as the members of the American Organization of
Nurse Executives Council of Middle Managers (AONE), the
Society of Women Engineers (SWE), and the Society for
Engineering Management (SEM) (Appendix A).
Questionnaires were mailed to 797 professional nurses
and engineers using a disproportionate, stratified random
sampling technique. According to Kerlinger (1973)
stratified sampling is the division of the population into
subsets based on a variable that is essential to the study.
In this study the subsets were based on gender and
profession; therefore, the subsets were composed of
internally homogeneous subjects. This stratified sample
was considered disproportionate because the number of
subjects in each stratum was not proportional to the size
of their membership in the population.
The sample was limited to middle managers in nursing
and engineering. Based on the significant findings of the
pilot study an effect size of .5 is appropriate. According
to Cohen (1969), with an effect size of .5, power of .80,
and a confidence level of 95%, an estimated sample size of
twelve in each group should be adequate for testing the
hypotheses. A group size of 20 was established with a
total sample size of 80.
81
Both the Society of Women Engineers (SWE) and the
Society of Engineering Management (SEM) requested that the
questionnaires not to be coded. The organizations felt
that coding the questionnaires would compromise
confidentiality. The Society of Women Engineers (SWE)
supplied 250 mailing labels that had been randomly selected
by computer. The Society of Engineering Management (SME)
supplied their roster of 659 usable names and addresses.
The American Organi zation of Nurse Executives (AONE)
supplied the roster of the 500 members of the Counsel of
Middle Managers. A second mailing was conducted in order
to obtained the required number of subjects in each cell.
There were only 47 male nurses identified in the AONE
Counsel of Middle Managers and a coded questionnaire was
sent to all of them. Twenty-three (48.9%) responded, but
only 16 of those who responded identified themselves as
middle managers. Three weeks after the first mail-out the
male nurses who had not responded were mailed a second
questionnaire and the remaining 4 subjects were obtained.
There was a return rate of 462 (57.9%) and 267 of the
returned questionnaires could not be used because they were
either incomplete or they did not meet the criteria for
inclusion in the study. The selection of the study
82
subjects was based on the criteria developed by Kram (1985)
for selection of subjects for a previous qualitative study
on mentoring functions. The subjects selected were:
1. Members of the nursing and engineering professions.
2. Professionals who have worked in their discipline
or field for a minimum of three years, and
3. Professionals who occupy a middle management
level position.
Protection of Human Subjects
The rules and regulations for the protection of human
subjects established by the Human Subjects Review Committee
of Texas Women's University were followed (Appendix B). A
letter (Appendix C) that explained the purposes, risks,
benefits, and alternatives of participating in the study
was sent to each participant. The letter stated that
returning the questionnaire indicated informed consent and
willingness to participate, receipt of the questionnaire
did not obligate them to participate, there was no penalty
for not participating, and that their responses were
confidential.
The researcher's name, address, and telephone number
and the name of the school the researcher was attending
were included in the letter. Participants were encouraged
to telephone the researcher if they had any questions
83
concerning their participation. The letter closed by
informing the participant that his/her participation in the
study was both voluntary and without financial
reimbursement.
To preserve confidentiality, the participants were not
asked to provide either their name, address, or telephone
number or the name of the organization by which they were
they were employed. The list of code numbers used with the
male nurse questionnaires were kept in a locked file drawer
accessible only to the investigator. The returned
questionnaires were kept in the same locked file drawer as
the code sheets. The data were summarized as group data in
the final report so that the identification of individual
participants was not possible. After completion of the
study all questionnaires will be destroyed.
The risks of participation in the study included
participant concern or discomfort in providing information
regarding personality and history of career enhancing
relationships. A benefit of the study to the participants
was the possible increased awareness of the advantages to
having a professional development relationship.
Instruments
Two instruments were used in the study, a biographical
instrument designed to gather data concerning the
84
demographics of the subjects and the Professional
Developmental Relationship Questionnaire (PDRQ) (Appendixes
D and E). The PDRQ was a Likert-type questionnaire which
was based on work by Kram (1988), composed by the
researcher, and designed to collect data regarding the most
significant developmental relationship of individuals at
the middle management and administrative level.
Biographical Instruments
The biographical instrument included demographic data
related to mentoring relationships (Appendix D). This data
included gender, ethnic background, age, educational
background, discipline or field, years of experience,
geographical state of employment, management level, and
salary (Kerlinger, 1973; Kram, 1988).
According to Kram (1988), most professional
developmental relationships occur between individuals of
the same gender, same ethnic background and discipline or
field and similar educational backgrounds. The protege is
usually a middle manager between 25 and 35 years of age.
The mentor is generally superior in rank to the protege and
five to ten years the protege's senior. The mentor usually
receives a higher salary than the protege as a result of
his/her superior job position.
Stewart and Gudykunst (1982) reported that gender
affects a person's hierarchical level within an
organization. Their findings revealed that men attained
higher job levels than women. Consequently, men earned a
higher salary than females within the same organization.
85
According to Rawl (1989), self-concept and significant
individuals in the protege's life impact professional
development. The participants were asked to rank order
eight relationships according to the degree of positive
influence that person had on their career. These
relationships were significant other/spouse, parents,
family members, friend, teacher, professional peer,
superior, public/historical personality (Kram, 1988; Rawl,
1989). Additionally, the participants were asked to rank
order nine personal factors that have positively influenced
their career. These personal factors were interpersonal
skills, creativity, education, risk-taking, experience,
hard work, intellectual ability, networking, and personal
attractiveness (Kram, 1988; Rawl, 1989). The demographic
data regarding the participant were nominal, ordinal, and
ratio level data.
Professional Developmental Relationship ouestionnaire
The second instrument that was used in this study was
the Professional Developmental Relationship Questionnaire
86
(PDRQ) (Appendix E). This ordinal level instrument was
composed of forty-five Likert-type questions. The data
collected from the PDRQ is ordinal level data. The PDRQ
addressed the functions of the professional developmental
relationship which enhanced the subject's career
advancement and the psycho-social functions of the
relationship. According to Kram (1988), there are five
functions which are considered career enhancing. These
functions are: sponsorship, exposure-and-visibility,
coaching, protection, and challenging assignments (Kram,
1988). These five functions were addressed in 25 items
with the remaining 20 items addressing the psycho-social
functions of role-modeling, acceptance-and-confirmation,
counseling, and friendship (Kram, 1988).
Face and content validity for the PDRQ were
established prior to the pilot study by a panel of six
experts. Three experts were in the field of nursing and
three experts were in the field of engineering. Construct
validity was established by factor analysis. The minimum
acceptable point biserial was set at .3 and the level of
explained variance was set at 5%. Factor analysis was used
to identify the underlying factors present in the PDRQ
(Kerlinger, 1973).
Reliability was established after the pilot study by
using the alpha coefficient for internal consistency.
87
According to Waltz, Strickland, and Lenz (1991), the alpha
coefficient is the preferred index of internal consistency
as it yields one value that is equal to the " ... mean of all
possible distributions of the split-half coefficients''
(p. 136). The instrument received an Alpha of .90 and the
Career Enhancing Subscale an Alpha of yielded.89 and the
Psycho-social subscale yielded .83.
Pilot Study
A pilot study was conducted using the Professional
Developmental Relationship Questionnaire (PDRQ). The PDRQ
was administered or mailed to 150 male and female
management/administrative level professionals of whom 51
( 34%) responded.
A three group research design was used. The groups
were female nursing managers/administrators, female
business managers/administrators, and male business
professionals. The female nursing managers were obtained
from a convenience sample of registered nurses from two
area hospitals and from the graduate degree program at
Texas Woman's University. The female business
managers/administrators were obtained by distributing the
questionnaires at a local chapter meeting of a female
business women's organization. The male business
88
professionals were obtained from a local area profess~onal
roster.
The demographic data scale included two questions
which asked the subjects to rank order their personal
characteristics and the degree that significant others
positively influenced their careers. The subjects were
asked to rank order eight significant others according to
the influence each of those persons had on the success of
the subject's career. The data, using a Mann-Whitney U.
statistical test, were analyzed by to nursing versus
business and male versus female. Nurses ranked the
professional peer as the l east influential person affecting
their career as opposed to the business group ranking the
professional peer the most influential. This finding was
significant at the .05 level .
The findings were significantly different between
males and females. Females ranked parents as the most
influential significant other affecting their career and
the males ranked parents as the least influential (p =.03).
Females ranked their professional peer the least
influential in their career while males ranked professional
peers the most influential (p = . 03). This finding was
significant at the .03 level.
The subjects were asked to rank order ten personal
factors which they thought contributed to their success
89
within their current organization. Nurses rank ordered
intellectual ability as the most influential factor which
affected their career and subjects in business ranked
intellectual ability as least influential on their career
(p=.04). Females ranked intellectual ability as the most
influential personal factor and males ranked intellectual
ability the least influential. Females ranked
interpersonal skills the second most influential personal
factor and the males ranked it ninth out of ten. The
females ranked networking last while the males ranked it
the most important personal factor affecting their success.
Internal consistency of the data collection instrument
was established through the use of the alpha coefficient.
The PDRQ alpha level for questions 1 through 45 was Alpha
=.92. Both the PDRQ Career Enhancing and the Psycho-Social
subscales yielded an Alpha of .87.
A factor analysis was computed on the 38 items that
were above a point biserial level of .3. Two factors
accounted for 5% of the explained variance. Factor one was
focused on the Career enhancing functions of the
professional developmental relationship. These items are
Ql, Q9, QlO, Qll, Ql3, Ql4, Q15, Ql9, Q21, and Q25. Factor
two was focused on the psycho-social functions of the
professional developmental relationship. These items are
Q30, Q33, Q34, Q35, Q42, Q43, and Q44. The remaining PDRQ
90 items were also used in the study. Data were gathered on
these items using the larger sample size.
The PDRQ questionnaire used in the pilot study was a
5-point scale on a line continuum. It was changed to a
true likert-type scale which provided whole number
responses.
Data Collection
Approval was obtained from the Human Subjects Review
Committee of the Texas Woman's University at Houston. The
American Organization of Nurses Executive Counsel of Middle
Managers, the Society of Women Engineers, and the Society
of Engineering Management provided mailing labels or
rosters for the study.
Each nursing and engineering subject was mailed a
study packet. The subjects' packet contained the
questionnaire, a cover letter, and a pre-addressed, stamped
return envelope for the questionnaire. The cover letter
included the purposes, risks, benefits, and alternatives of
the study. The letter clarified that receipt of the
questionnaire did not obligate the participant to reply and
that responses were confidential. The researcher's name,
telephone number, name and location of the University the
researcher attends was included. The participant was
encouraged to contact the researcher either by telephone or
by letter if the participant had any questions. An
91
appreciation of the participant's time and a statement that
the participant's time would not be reimbursed was also
expressed in the letter.
The questionnaires were returned through the mail in
the unmarked, pre-addressed, stamped envelopes provided by
the researcher. After the mailing of the questionnaires, a
period of three weeks was allowed for an adequate return.
Upon return of the coded questionnaires of the male nurse
managers the code numbers were matched to a coded list.
Subjects who had not returned the questionnaires were
identified and sent a another packet for their
participation. For the three groups with which coded
questionnaires were not used, a replacement method was used
to calculate the number of questionnaires to be sent in the
second mail-out. The coded questionnaires and participant
code list were kept in a locked file drawer until data
analysis. All questionnaires will be retained for a one
year period in the advent that there are questions from the
subjects. At the end of the one year period the
questionnaires will be destroyed.
Treatment of Data
Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to
analyze the data gathered from the Professional
Developmental Relationship Questiopnaire (PDRQ).
92 Descriptive statistics were used to describe the sample and
summarize the data. Inferential statistics were used to
examine -:t.he data gathered for the hypotheses.
The demographic data were nominal, ordinal, and ratio
level data. The variables of age and number of years in
the profession were described using frequencies,
percentages, means, and standard deviations. The responses
to the socioeconomic status and educational level questions
on the demographic instrument were grouped and frequencies,
percentages, and mode were used to describe this data.
Sex, profession (engineering or nursing), and geographical
region of the country (north, south, central, east, and
west) were reported using frequencies and percentage in
each category (Roscoe, 1975).
The PDRQ is a Likert-type scale which yielded ordinal
level data. The level of measurement of the PDRQ was
violated by using statistical tests suitable for interval
level data on the results of the PDRQ. According to Roscoe
(1975) ordinal level scales may yield interval level data;
therefore, higher order statistical procedures are suitable
in these circumstances.
A two-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with
independent samples was used to analyze hypotheses 1,2 , and
3 based upon the data obtained from the study. According
to Kirk (1982) a two-way ANOVA is the preferred statistical
93 procedure for comparing the means of two independent
samples. The first variable, gender, consisted of males
and females. The second variable, profession, consisted of
nurses and engineers.
The effect of the variable of gender was examined in
hypothesis one and the effect of the variable of profession
was examined in hypothesis two. Interactions between the
variables of gender and profession were examined ih
hypothesis three.
Two questions on the demographic instrument asked the
participants to rank order the effect that their perceived
personal traits and the effect that their significant
others had on their career success. These data were
reported according to gender and profession. The mean
ranks were displayed in table form. A Kruskal-Wallis one
way analysis of variance was used to answer hypotheses four
and five, differences in the ranking of the personal traits
and significant others by group. Dunn ' s Post Hoc Test for
multiple comparisons was performed to ascertain which group
means were significantly different.
For hypothesis six a Spearman rank-order correlation
coefficient (rho) was used to describe the relationship
between the demographic variables of level of education and
size of the employer organization and the scores of the
PDRQ. The Pearson product-moment correlation was used to
94
describe the relationship between the number of years of
experience which was rat io level data and the scores of the
PDRQ.
Reliability of the PDRQ was established by using the
alpha coefficient of internal consistency. According to
Waltz, Strickland, and Lenz (1991), the alpha coefficient
is an index of internal consistency reliability which
provides a single value which reflects the distribution
mean of all possible split-half coefficients on a set of
data.
To establish validity, a factor analysis was computed
on the 45 items of the PDRQ. A point biserial level of .3
was used to determine which items were to be included in
the factor analysis. Factors accounting for 5% or more of
the explained variance were identified and classified.
Summary
A nonexperimental, four group explanatory study was
conducted to add to the existing knowledge of the mentoring
functions of professional developmental relationships.
This study was designed to identify gender differences in
mentoring functions that exist in male and female dominated
professions. Eighty middle managers in nursing and
engineering, randomly selected from the rosters of national
professional organizations, participated in this study.
95
The subjects responded to the Professional Developmental
Relationship Questionnaire (PDRQ) which is a 45-item
5-point Likert-type questionnaire. Validity and
reliability was established for the PDRQ. Descriptive and
inferential statistics were used to examine the collected
data.
97 mentors. Each is described separately with a third section
comparing the demographic variables of the subjects to
those of their mentors.
Biographical Characteristics of subjects
The sample of 80 subjects came from 30 states
representing every region of the country. The southern
region of the United States had the highest response rate
(N = 21; 26.3%) and the western region the lowest (N = 11,
13.8%). The majority of the subjects were employed by
organizations with more than 1,000 employees (n = 56; 70%)
while 6 (7.5%) subjects worked in organizations with fewer
than 99 employees. The mean salary for the sample was
$58,237 (S.Q = 14,248). Female engineers, female nurses and
male nurses mean annual salaries were $51,000 (S.Q =
11,424), $55,500 (SD= 10,259), and $53,000 (SD.= 7,863),
respectively. However, male engineers earned a mean of
$72,949 (S.Q = 14,258) per year ( Table 3) .
The ages ranged from 27 years to 68 years with a
sample mean of 40 years (S.Q = 8.149)(Table 3). The years
of experience of the subjects had a range of 45 years with
a minimum of 3 years to a maximum of 48 years. The mean
was 15 (SD= 9.49) years (Table 3).
The· sample was primarily Caucasian (N = 76; 95%) with
1 (1.3%) Hispanic , and 3 (3.8) Asian. The majority of the
Table 3
Summary Table of sample Age and
Years of Experience by Group and overall
Male Nurse
38.9 M 9.2 SD
Years of Experience
12.5 M 6.2 SD
Size of Organization
896.8 M 198.6 SD
Salary
53,000 M 7,863 SD
Female Nurse
43.1 M 5.6 SD
18.2 M 8.1 SD
889.3 M 214.6 SD
55,500 M 10, 259 SD
Male Engineer
45.6 M 8.7 SD
20.0 M 9.0 SD
819.3 M 354.4 SD
72, 949 M 15 ,338 SD
Female Engineer
32.7 M 5.9 SD.
9.8 M 6.5 SD.
701.9 M 414.9 SD.
51,500 M 11 , 424 SD.
98
Overall
40.0 M 8.2 SD
15.0 M 8.5 SD
826.8 M 313 .6 SD
58,237 M 14,258 SD
respondents had their master' s degree (N = 49; 61%). One
i ndividual had a doc toral degree, 26 ( 32.5% ) had
baccalaureate d e grees, 2 ( 2.5% ) associate degrees, and 1
(1 .3%) held a d i ploma. The associate degrees and the
diploma were all held by female nurs es ( Table 4 ) .
Table 4
summary Table of Education Level
by Group and overall
Male Nurse
n(.%.)
0( 0.0)
Female Nurse
n(.%.)
0( 0.0)
Male Engineer
n(.%.)
1( 1.3)
Female Engineer
n(.%.)
0( 0.0) Ph.D.
MS
BS
13(16.2) 11(13.8) 16(20.0) 9(11.3)
6( 7.5) 6( 7.5) 3( 3.8) 11(13.8)
AA 1 ( 1. 3)
Diploma 0( 0.0)
1( 1.3)
2( 2.5)
0( 0. 0)
0( 0. 0)
0( 0.0)
0( 0.0)
Biographical Characteristics of the Mentors
99
Overall n(SU)
1( 1.3)
49( 61.3)
26( 32.5)
2( 2.5)
2( 2.5)
Each subject was asked to identify the individual in
his or her current or most recent work setting that he or
she considered to be the most instrumental in enhancing his
or her career. The mentors' ages ranged from 30 to 85
years. The mean mentor age was 46.7 years (SU= 9.388).
The range of the mentors' years of experience was from 3 to
50 years (M = 20.5; SD= 9.729) (Table 5).
Seventy-four (92.5%) of the mentors were Caucasian.
One female nurse and one female engineer had black mentors
(2.5%). One participant in each of the groups, male
Table 5
summary Table of Mentors' Age and
Years of Experience by Group and Overall
Male Nurse
M(Sll)
Female Nurse M(Sll)
Male Engineer
M(Sll)
Female Engineer
M(SI:2)
100
Overall M(Sll)
Age 45.5(5.9) 46.8(8.1) 51.5(11.3) 43.0(9.7) 46.7(9.4)
Years of Experience
17.6(8.0) 23 .. 2(7.9) 24.7(11.8) 17.0(8.6) 20.5(9.7)
nurses, one male engineer, and one female engineer had an
Asian mentor (3.8%). Only one subject, a female nurse,
reported having a Hispanic mentor (1.3%). There were 12
(15%) mentors with doctoral degrees, 43 (53.8%) with
masters degrees, 24 (30%) with baccalaureate degrees, and 1
(1.3%) with a diploma in nursing (Table 6). Fifty-three
(66.3%) of the mentors were in the top level of management
and 23 (28.8%) of the mentors were middle managers (Table
6). Interestingly, 4 (5%) of the mentors were first level
managers. A female nurse and three engineers, one male and
two female, were each mentored by first level managers
(Table 6).
Table 6 101
Descriptive Characteristics of Mentors by
subject Group and overall
Meo:tc:cs' Geoder
Male
Female
Mentor's Education
Ph.D
MS
BS
AA
Diploma
Mentor's
Male Nurse
o( % )
0( 0.0)
20(25.0)
Level
4( 5 . 0)
14(17.5)
2( 2.5)
0( 0.0)
0( 9.0)
Management Level
Top 17(21.3)
Middle 3( 3.8)
First 0( 0.0)
Female Nurse
0(%)
4( 5.0)
16(20.0)
3( 3.8)
13(16.3)
3( 3.8)
0( 0.0)
1( 1. 3)
16(20.0)
3( 3.8)
1( 1. 3)
Male Female Engineer Engineer Overall
0(%) 0(%) 0(%)
19 (23 .8) 19(23.8) 42(52.5)
1( 1. 3) 1( 1. 3) 38(47.5)
4( 5.0) 1( 1. 3) 12(15.0)
8( 10.0) 8(10.0) 43(53.8)
8(10.0) 11(13.8) 24(30.0)
0( 0 .0 ) 0( 0 .0 ) 0( 0.0)
0( 0.0) 0( 0.0) 1( 1. 3)
13(16.3) 7( 8.8) 53(66.3)
6( 7.5) 11 ( 13. 8) 23(28.8)
1 ( 1. 3) 2( 2.5) 4( 5.0)
102
Demographic comparison of the subjects to Their Mentor
The age differences between the subjects and their
mentors ranged from -14 to 30 years. The mean age
difference was 6.638 (fill= 9.339) years. Sixteen (20% ) of
the subjects were older than their mentor. These age
differences ranged from 2 to 14 years. Of the 16 subjects
who were older than their mentors the mean age difference
was 7.188 (SD = 4.414) years.
Findings
This study was conducted to investigate the gender
difference in mentoring functions between the professions
of nursing and engineering. A total Professional
Developmental Relationship Questionnaire (PDRQ) score was
obtained by summing the responses for each subject. Table
7 presents the means and standard deviations obtained on
the PDRQ by gender, profession , and study group. The
findings of the study are presented and discussed according
to each hypothesis.
Table 7
Mean and standard Deviation of the PORO scores
by Gender and Profession
Nursing
Male
Female
170.85 M (16.89) fill
168.20 M (18 .55 ) fill
169.53 M (17.56) SD All Nurses
Hypotheses one Two and Three
Engineering
163.65 M (21.84) SD
165.55 M (15.68) SD
164.60 M (18.79) SD
All Engineers
103
167.25 M (19.61) SD All Males
166.88 M (17.01) SD
All Females
167.06 M (18.24) SD
Total Sample
The study employed a 2 x 2 factorial research design
with the variables of male and female and the variables of
nursing and engineering. A two-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was used to test the first three hypotheses:
H1: Professional males will have higher scores on the
Professional Developmental Relationship
Questionnaire ( PDRQ ) than professional females in
the fields of nursing and engineering.
H2: Professionals in engineering will have higher
scores on the PDRQ than professionals in nursing.
104
H3: There will be a significant interaction between
the variables of gender and profession as related
to the PDRQ.
There was no significant explanation for the variance
of the total score by males and females or nurses and
engineers (E(2,77) = .723 , ~ ~ .05) In addition there was
no significant interaction between the genders and
professions. Table 8 summarizes the findings of the
Analysis of Variance of the PDRQ.
Table 8
Analysis of variance: PORO
Source of Variance
Main Effects
Profession
Sex
Explained
Residual
Total
ss
485.113
484.784
.001
485.113
25815.574
26300.688
MS E
2 242.557 .723 .488
1 484.784 1.446 .233
1 .001 .000 .999
2 242.557 .723 .488
77 335.267
79 332.920
105
Hypothesis Four
The fourth hypothesis stated that there will be no
significant difference in the ranking of personal factors
related to career advancement between male and female and
between engineers and nurses. Subjects were asked to rank
order nine personal characteristics that had been a
positive influence on their career: interpersonal skill
(IS), creativity (CR), education (ED), risk-taking (RT),
experience (EX), hard work ( HW), intellectual ability ( IA) ,
networking (NT), and personal attractiveness (PA).
The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to determine if there
were any significant differences in the ranks of the nine
characteristics. Table 9 presents the mean ranks of each
personal characteristic variable by group. The personal
characteristic variables of creativity (x2 = 13.19, ~ =
.0042), risk-taking (x2 = 8.544, p = .0360), experience
(x2 = 14.19, p = .0027), and personal attractiveness
(x2 = 8.54, p = .0361) were significant after correction
for ties.
The Dunn's Post Hoc Test for multiple comparisons was
performed to ascertain which group means were significantly
different for each of the significant personal
characteristic variables. Female engineers ranked the
personal characteristic variable of creativity as having
significantly greater influence on their career than did
Table 9
Personal Characteristics Mean Ranks by Group
IS
CR
ED
RT
EX
HW
IA
NT
PA
tl £. .05
Male Nurse
M
44.67
32.35
42.35
28.88
51.10
42.22
44.72
37.42
44.20
Female Nurse
M
38.20
35.58
49.67
44.00
24.30
43.30
44.55
44.35
42.03
Male Female Engineer Engineer
M M
39.50 39.63
37.72 56.35
38.45 31.52
39.78 49.35
39.92 45.67
39.75 36.72
42.03 30.70
40.80 39.42
45.08 30.70
either the male or female nurses (z = 24, p £. .05;
106
Total Sample
M
40.50
40.50*
40.50
40.50*
40.25*
40.50
40.50
40.50
40.50*
z = 20.77, p ~ .05, respectively). Females (z = 20.47, p ~
.05) ranked the variable of risk taking significantly
higher than male nurses. The Dunn's Post Hoc Test
identified that for the variable of experience, the male
nurses (z = 25.8) and the female engineers (z = 20.37) had
significantly higher ranks than did the female nurses.
107 For the variable of personal attractiveness the ~hi-
Square was 4.9254 (p = .1773). Once corrected for ties the
Chi-Square was 8.5388 (p = .0361). The Dunn's Post Hoc
Test was not sensitive enough to indicate which groups were
significantly different. According to Roscoe (1975), it is
reasonable to assume that the male engineers, the group
with the highest mean (M = 45.08), ranked personal
attractiveness significantly higher than the female
engineers, the group with the lowest mean score (M = 30.7).
Hypothesis Five
The fifth hypothesis stated that there would be no
difference in the ranking of the effect of significant
others on career advancement by gender or by professional
group. Subjects were asked to rank order eight different
significant individuals in their lives who had a positive
influence on their career. The eight "significant other"
variables were significant other/spouse (SO), parents (P),
family member (FM), friend (F), teacher (T), professional
peer (PP), superior (S).
The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to determine if there
was a difference in the ranking of the effect of
significant others on career advancement by the study
groups. Table 10 presents the mean ranks of each
significant other" variable by group. The variable of
108 significant other/spouse was significant (x2 = 8.40,
p = .0384). The Dunn's Post Hoc Test for multiple
comparisons was performed to ascertain which of the four
groups were significantly different on the variable of
significant other/spouse. The findings indicated that
female engineers (z =18.38) ranked their significant other
or spouse as having greater influence on their careers than
did female nurses (p = .05).
Table 10
Significant Other variable Mean Ranks by Group
Sig Other
Parent
Family
Friend
Teacher
Peer
Superior
HP
Male Nurse
M
38.75
49.85
42.95
43.78
36.38
38.25
36.40
38.47
Female Nurse
34 . 67
34.75
36.63
39.72
51 . 03
37 . 20
45 . 10
47.00
Male Female Engineer Engineer
M M
35.53 53.05
39.90 36 . 50
44.05 38 . 38
44.60 33.90
38.75 35.85
45.55 41 . 00
38.28 42.22
45.08 31.45
Overall
40.50*
40.25
40.50
40.50
40.50
40.50
40.50
40.50
109
Hypothesis Six
The last hypothesis addressed whether there was a
significant relationship between level of education, size
of the employer organization, number of years of experience
and the scores of the Professional Developmental
Relationship Questionnaire (PDRQ). Both the Spearman rank
order correlation coefficient and the Pearson product
moment correlation coefficient were computed to answer this
hypothesis.
A Spearman rank order correlation coefficient was
conducted on the ordinal level variables of education and
size of the employer organization with the Professional
Developmental Relationship Questionnaire (PDRQ) score.
There were no significant differences found between the
variables of level of education (r = .1825) and the size of
the organization (r = .1478) at the .05 level of
significance. The findings from the Pearson's product
moment correlation coefficient computed for the ratio level
variable of years of experience (r = -.0083) was not
significant at the .05 level.
Summary of the Findings
A sample of 80 professional male and female nurses and
engineers was obtained from throughout the United States,
with the greatest number of participants being from the
south (26.3%). Seventy percent of the sample worked for
organizations employing more than 1,000 people.
110
Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to
analyze the data for this 2 x 2 (gender x profession)
research design with equal numbers in each cell (n = 80).
The majority of the subjects were Caucasian with a mean age
of 40 years old. There was a mean age difference between
the subjects and their mentors of 6.638 years. The
majority of the subjects (n = 49; 62.5%) had master's
degrees and had worked a mean of 15.09 years.
The mentors for the professional nurses were primarily
female (90%) and primarily male (95%) for the engineers.
The mean age for the mentors was 46.7 years. Seventy-four
percent of the mentors were Caucasian, and a majority held
master's degrees (53.8%) and were top level managers
(66.3%) with a mean of 20 years of experience.
The Professional Developmental Relationship
Questionnaire (PDRQ) was used to assesss if there were
significant differences in the PDRQ scores by either gender
or profession. The results indicated that there were no
significant findings.
The study sample was asked to rank the importance of
personal factors related to career advancement.
Significant findings found on the ranking of the personal
characteristic variables were that female engineers ranked
111
creativity as having greater influence on their career than
did both the male and female nurses (M = 24, ~ < .05; M =
20.77, ~ < .05, respectively). Females ranked risk taking
higher than male nurses (M = 20.47, ~ < .05). Male nurses
(M = 25 . 8) and female engineers (M = 20.37 ) ranked
experience higher than did the female nurses (M = 20.30) at
.05 level of significance.
The s ubjects were also asked to rank order the effect
of significant others on career advancement. Female
engineers (M = 18.38) were found to have ranked their
significant other or spouse as having greater influence on
their career than female nurses (M = 34 .67 ) at 05 level of
significance. No significant correlation coefficients were
found between the variables of level of education, size of
the employer organization, and the number of years of
experience to the PDRQ scores.
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY OF THE STUDY
The Potentiation Model (Souther, 1989) was the
conceptual framework used to examine professional
developmental relationships between male-dominated and
female-dominated professions. This chapter includes a
discussion of the findings of the study and conclusions and
implications which are based on these findings.
Recommendations for further research concludes this
chapter.
The six hypotheses formulated for the study were:
H1: Professional males wil l have higher scores on
the Professional Developmental Relationship
Questionnaire (PDRQ ) than professional females
in the fields of nursing and engineering.
H2: Professionals in engineering will have higher
scores on the Professional Developmental
Relationship Questionnaire (PDRQ ) than
professionals in nursing.
H3 : There will be a significant interaction between
the variables of gender and profession as
related to the Professional Developmental
Relationship Questionnaire PDRQ.
112
113
H4: There will be no difference in the ranking of
personal factors related to career advancement
between gender, and between engineers and nurses.
H5: There will be no difference in the ranking of
the effect of significant others on career
advancement by gender or by professional group.
H6: The level of education, the size of the
· organization, and the number of years of
experience will not be related to the scores of
the Professional Developmental Relationship
Questionnaire (PDRQ).
Summary
The study followed the criteria of a non-experimental,
four group, exploratory research design. A 2 x 2 factorial
design was used with gender as one independent variable and
profession (nursing and engineering) as the second
independent variable. The study adhered to the policy for
the protection of human subjects established by Texas
Woman's University.
The sample (N = 80 ) was taken from a random selection
of female and male, nurse and engineer middle managers in
the United States who were members of national professional
organizations. Data were collected on subjects in each of
the 4 groups using the Professional Developmental
114
Relationship Questionnaire (PDRQ) and a demographic data
tool.
The PDRQ was a 45-item, 5-point, Likert-type
questionnaire designed to assess an individual's most
significant professional developmental relationship in the
work setting. The two subscales addressed by the tool are:
(a) the career enhancing subscale and (b) the psycho-social
subscale. Acceptable levels of reliability and validity
were established for the PDRQ initially in a pilot study
and again in this study.
Discussion of the Findings
Major concepts found in the Potentiation Model
(Souther, 1989) are traits, roles and functional patterns.
These concepts are discussed in relationship to the
findings of this study.
Traits and Roles
Traits are defined as the personal characteristics of
the individual whereas the role of the individual refers to
how an individual professionally relates to others
(Souther, 1989). The typical subject in this study was a
40-year-old, highly educated Caucasian with a mean of 15.09
years of experience working in an organization of more than
1,000 employees and who earned $58,237 (SD.= 14,258)
115 1,000 employees and who earned $58,237 (SD.= 14,258)
annually.
The mean age of the subjects was 40 years (SD= 8.149)
which is consistent with Erikson's (1963) stage of
generativity versus stagnation (Levinson, 1978; Phillips
Jones, 1977) In contrast, Kram (1985) stated that most
proteges are younger, 25 to 35 years old, and that the
mentors are usually in the generativity versus stagnation
stage being 40 years old and older.
The mean age difference between the subjects and their
mentors (M = 6.638, SD.= 4.415)) was less than the mean age
difference sited in the literature (8 and 15 years) (Roche,
1980; Rivchun, 1980; Grote & Stine, 1980, Collins; 1983;
Kram, 1983). This study (n = 16) revealed proteges who
ranged from 14 years older to 30 years younger than their
mentors. These findings are contrary to those of Kanter
(1977) and Levinson (1978), whose work established the
original groundwork on protege and mentor traits. Kanter
and Levinson found that the protege was always younger than
the mentor. Currently, there has been an influx of older,
second-career individuals into nursing which could account
for the proteges who are older than their mentors and
especially for those proteges who are more than 10 years
older than their mentors.
116 Typically, the mentors were either Caucasian female
nurses or Caucasian male engineers in the same discipline
as the protege with a mean age of the mentors was 46.7
years (SD.= 9.388). These findings concur with those of
Kanter (1977), Levinson (1978), and Kram (1988).
Other traits that were found to be consistent with the
mentoring literature was that the majority of the mentors
(66.3%) held higher positions than the protege and that men
had higher salaries than women (Dreher & Ash, 1990). This
study found a greater disparity of income between that of
male engineers and women and male nurses than did Dreher
and Ash. With respect to income Dreher and Ash concluded
that career-outcome differences that exist between men and
women are not attributable to mentoring which is consistent
with the findings of this study.
The differences in the rankings of the proteges'
"personal traits" related to career advancement either
between genders or between professions were addressed in
this study. The personal trait variables of creativity,
risk-taking, experience, and personal attractiveness were
found to be significantly different among the 4 groups.
Females in both professions perceive risk-taking as an
important personal trait that contributes to career
success. Contrary to the study's results, Collins (1983)
reported that men valued risk-taking more than women.
117 Additionally, Hennig and Jardim (1977) developed the
assumption that women are not risk-takers. These
researchers theorized that women view risk-taking
negatively and should be avoided whereas men view risk
taking as a positive gamble. The research by Hennig and
Jardim in the 1970s is frequently cited in the literature
as reflective of the views and position that women held in
that decade. However, it is encouraging to note that this
study's results reflect a change in women's views and
position in business. Consequently, the results could be
attributed to a perceived need by women to take more risks
to get ahead or a change in women's attitudes and stature
in business as a natural evolutionary process occurring
since the 1970s.
Those individuals working in the profession that is
dominated by the opposite gender, male nurses and female
engineers, viewed the personal trait of experience as being
significant i n their career success. This belief may be
attributed to the concept that experience and hard work are
always valued and wil l tend to help an individual who is in
a field dominated by the opposite gender (Hennig & Jardim ,
1977, Keown & Keown, 1985) Additionally, the concepts of
experience and hard work are classic values of the American
work ethic which may be reflected in the subjects responses
(Bevis, 1988).
118
Female engineers viewed creativity as a significant
trait for career success whereas both male and female
nurses viewed creativity as having relatively little
influence on their career. This may be attributed to the
differing nature of nursing and engineering. To a large
extent nurses carry out orders rather than initiate orders
and follow strict government and legal guidelines which
leaves little room for creativity (Bevis, 1988).
Interestingly, only the male engineers viewed personal
attractiveness as significantly influencing their career
and the female engineers ranked personal attractiveness as
having less influence on their career. The concept of
personal attractiveness and career success was not found to
be adequately addressed in the mentoring literature.
Within the business literature, personal attractiveness has
been strongly linked to career success (Morrow, 1990).
However, gender perceptions of how important personal
attractiveness is in career success was not addressed.
This study addressed the ranking of the influence of
"significant others" on the subject's career success. A
significant difference was found between the rankings of
the female engineers and those of the female nurses. The
female engineers ranked significant others/spouses as
having the greatest influence on their career. This
finding may be the result of female engineers having
119
spouses or significant others in the engineering profession
whereas female nurses tend to marry and have significant
relationships outside of nursing.
Functional Patterns
Functi onal patterns refer to aspects of a relationship
(Gordon, 1983) which describe the quality and consistency
of the role- relationship pattern between individuals.
There were no significant differences found in the
mentoring functions between either gender or professions.
This lack of variability among the 4 groups may be
attributed to the homogeneity of the participants in the
study which is consistent with Hagerty's (1986) belief that
mentoring is homologous throughout all professions.
However, this finding does not support the premise
established by Hennig and Jardim (1977) and May, Meleis,
and Winstead-Fry (1982) that male patterns of mentorship
differ from female patterns .
Interestingly, George and Kummerow (1981) noted that
the focus of a mentorship for a woman should be moving the
female protege toward more androgynous behaviors. The
concept that a mentorship is actually androgynous behavior
rather than gender driven could account for the lack of
significant findings.
120
Conclusions and Implications
Findings of this study support the following
investigational conclusions:
1. This study does not support findings by other authors
that male pattern of mentoring differs from female
patterns.
2. The mentoring relationship was not found to differ
between the fields of nursing and engineering.
3. The subjects in this study were older than the mean
age of proteges reported in the literature.
4 . . The relationship of the mentor being older than the
protege was not supported by this study.
5. Females working in nursing and engineering thought
risk-taking to be an important contribution to career
success.
6. Female engineers and male nurses thought the trait of
experience positively contributes to career success.
7. Female engineers perceived that creativity
significantly contributes to their career success.
8. Male engineers, who as a group had greater career
success in terms of income, attributed the personal
trait of personal attractiveness as having a greater
influence on career success than did female engineers.
9. Women in engineering identified significant
others/spouses as having greater influence on their
career success than did female nurses.
Investigational Implications
The implications for career success for nurses are
derived from the investigational conclusions.
1. Nurse managers should develop and implement
strategies for career growth which include the
traits of creativity and risk-taking in the
management role.
121
2. Nurse managers should develop educational programs
which explore the use of alternative strategies and
management traits which would produce positive career
outcomes.
3. The nursing profession must develop formalized
mentoring programs to match stronger, more experienced
managers with nurses who demonstrate an aptitude for
nursing management.
4. The nursing profession must develop nurses from
different ethnic backgrounds to function in the
management role.
122 Recommendations for Further Study
Based on the findings of this study further research
is needed to determine and evaluate mentoring functions in
the nursing profession. To enhance the body of nursing
knowledge in the area of mentoring the following
recommendations are made:
1. Conduct a similar investigation comparing all levels
of management in both nursing and engineering.
2. Conduct a mentoring program in nursing management with
both qualitative and quantitative investigations of
the outcomes of the program.
3. Conduct a further investigation of the traits of
creativity, risk-taking, experience, and personal
attractiveness as indicators of career success.
REFERENCES
Atwood, A. (1979). The mentor in clinical practice. Nursing outlook, 21, 714-719.
Auster, D. (1984). dependent dyads. 142-153.
Mentors and proteges: PowerSociological Inquiry, .5.¾(2),
Berry, P. (1983). Mentors for women managers: Fasttrack to corporate success. Supervisory Management, 2.a{ 8), 36-40.
Bevis. L. M. (1988). manager (3rd. ed.).
The effective nurse leader/ St Louis: c. V. Mosby.
Bova, B. M., & Phillips, R. (1981). The Mentor Relationship: A study of Mentors and Proteges in Business and Academia. (Report No. CE 030 362). Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico, New Mexico Information System. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 208 233 )
Bowen, D. D. (1986). Were men meant to mentor women? Training and Development Journal , .3.9.(2),30-34.
Boyle, c., & James, s. K. ( 1990). Nursing leaders as mentors: How are we doing? Nursing Administration Quarterly, l.5.(1), 44-48.
Brown, B. s. (1983). Nurse-to-nurse mentoring. Pediatric Nursing, ~(6), 454, 469.
Burke, R. J. (1984a). Mentors in Organizations. Group and Organization Studies , ~, 353-372.
Burke, R. J. (1984b). Relationships in and around organizations: It' s both who you know and what you know that counts. Psychological Reports, .5..5. , 299-307.
Burke, R. J., & McKeen, C. A. (1990). mentoring programs in organizations. 5.3(3), 76-79.
Developing formal Business Quarterly,
Burke, R. J., McKeen, C. A. , & McKenna, C. S. (1990). Sex differences and cross-sex effects on mentoring: Some preliminary data. Psychological Reports, .6.2(10), 10011- 1023.
123
Cameron, R. K. (1982). Wanted: Mentor relationships within nursing administration. Nursing Leadership, .5.( 1), 18-22.
Campbell-Heider, N. (1986). Do nurses need mentors? Nursing and Health care, .5.(2), 88-91.
124
Cattell, R. B. (1950). Personality: A systematic theoretical and factual study. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Christman, L., & Counte, M.A. (1989). The changing health care environment: Challenges for the executive team. Nursin~ Administration ouarterly, .l.3.(2), 67-76.
Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, Academic Press: New York.
Collins, N. w. (1983). Professional women and their mentors. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Collins, E. G. & Scott, P. (1978). Everyone who makes it has a mentor: Interviews with F. J. Lunding, G. L Clements, and D. s. Perkins. Harvard Business Review, .5.fl(4), 89-101.
Dalton, G. W., Thompson, P.H., & Price, R. L. (1977). The four stages of professional careers: A new look at performance by professionals. Organizational Dynamics, .6.(1), 19-42.
Darling, L. w. (1985). Mentor matching. Journal of Nursing Administration, l.5.(1), 45-46.
Downey, R. G., & Lahey, M. A. (1988). Women in management. In M. London & M.A. Lahey (eds.), Career Growth and Human Resource Strategies: The Role of the Human Resource Professional in Employee Development (pp. 241-255). New York: Quorum Books.
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, 2.5.(5), 539-546.
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd. ed.). New York: w. W. Norton.
Fagan, M. M., & Fagan, P. D. (1983). Mentoring among nurses. Nursing & Health Care, ~(2), 77-82.
125
Fagenson, E. A. (1988). The mentor advantage: Perceived career/job experiences of proteges versus non-proteges. Journal of Organizational Behavior, .l..Q, 309-320.
Farren, C., Gray, J. D., & Kaye, B. (1984). Mentoring: A boon to career development. Personnel, .6.1.(6), 20-24.
Fawcett, J. (1984). models of nursing.
Fralic, M. (1987). nurse executive. l.Z(7,8), 35-38.
Analysis and evaluation of conceptual Philadelphia: F. A. Davis Company.
Patterns of preparation: The Journal of Nursing Administration,
Fralic, M. (1988). The effective nurse executive's blueprint for success: If we can't do the job, our successors will! Journal of Nursing Administration, .l.8.(6), 9-12.
Frey, B. R., & Noller, R. B. (1983). Mentoring: A legacy of success. Journal of creative Behavior, .l.Z, 60-64.
George, R., & Kummerow, J. (1981). Mentoring for career women. Training . .l.8.(2), 44-49.
Goh, S. C. (1991). Sex differences in perceptions of interpersonal work style, career emphasis, supervisory mentoring behavior, and job satisfaction. Sex Roles, M,11/12, 701-710.
Gordon, M (1983). Manual of nursing diagnosis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Green, G. P. (Ed.). (1988). Employment and Earnings. Bureau of Labor Statistics, .3.5.(2), U. S. Department of Labor.
Grote, R. C., & Stine, K. (1980). Mentors seen as key allies in career growth. Training, l..1(8), 107-108.
Gunderson, L. P. & Kenner, C. A. (1987). Socialization of newborn intensive care unit nurses through the use of mentorship. Clinical Nurse Specialist, i(l), 20-24.
Hagerty, B. Outlook,
(1986). A second look at mentors. .JA(l), 16-24.
Nursing
Hamilton, M. S. leadership.
(1981). Mentorhood: A Key to nursing Nursing Leadership, 4(1), 4-13.
126
Hanson, M. C. of managers.
(1977). Career development responsibilities Personnel Journal, .5..6.(9), 443-445.
Hennig, M. & Jardim, A. (1977). The managerial woman. New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday.
Hodges L., Knapp R., & Cooper, J. (1987). Head Nurses: Their practice and education. Journal of Nursing Administration, 12(12), 39-43.
Homer. (1909). The Odysseys of Homer (ed. c. E. Elliot). New York: P. F. Collier & Son.
Hunt, D. M., & Michael, C. (1983). training and development tool. Review, a(3), 475-485.
Mentorship: A career Academy of Management
Johnson, L. (1990). Strategic management: A new dimension of the nurse executive's role. Journal of Nursing Administration, .2.0(9), 7-10.
Johnson, J., & Bergmann, C. (1988). Nurse managers at the broker's table: The nurse executive's role. Journal of Nursing Administration, l.8.(6), 18-21.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Keown, A. L., & Keown, C. F. (1985). Factors of success for women in business. International Journal of Women's studies, a, 278-285.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research (2nd. ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.
Kinsey, D. C. (1990). Mentorship and influence in nursing. Nursing Management, 2.l(5), 45-46.
Kirk, R. E. (1982). Experimental Design (2nd. ed.). Belmont: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
Kram, K. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 2..6.(4), 608-625.
127
Kram, K. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer relationships in career development. Academy of Management Journal, 2.a(l), 110-132.
Kram, K. (1988). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. New York: University Press of America.
Kram, K. E., & Isabella L. A. (1983). Much ado about mentors, not enough about peers. The Career Development Bulletin, a(4), 14-15.
Larson, B. (1986). Job satisfaction of nursing leaders with mentor relationships. Nursing Administration Quarterly, ll(l), 53-60.
Levinson, D., Klein, E., Levinson, M., & McKee, B. (1978). The seasons of a man's life. New York: Ballentine Books.
Luft J. (1970). Group processes; An introduction to group dynamics. (2nd. ed.). Palo Alto: Mayfield Publishing.
Maslow, A. (1970). Religions. values. and peak experiences. New York: Penguin.
May, K. M., Meleis, A. I., & Winstead Fry, P. (1982). Mentorship for scholarliness: Opportunities and dilemmas. Nursing Outlook, 3.Q, 22-26.
Megel, M. E. (1985). New faculty in nursing: Socialization and the role of the mentor. Journal of Nursing Education, 2A.(7), 303-306.
Meleis, A. (1985). Theoretical nursing; Development & progress. New York: J. B. Lippincott Company.
Missirian, A. K. (1982). The corporate connection; Why executive women need mentors to reach the top. Englewood, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.
Moore, K., Biordi, D., Holm, K., & McElmurry, B. (1988). Nurse executive effectiveness. Journal of Nursing Administration, .l.8.(12), 23-27.
128
Morrow, P. C. (1990). Physical attractiveness and selection decision making. Journal of Management. 1..6.(1), 45-60.
Nadelson, C. C. (1989). Professional issues for women. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, l.2.(1), 25-33.
0chberg, R. L., Tischler, G. L., & Schulberg, H. C. (1986). Mentoring relationships in the careers of mental health administrators. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 31.(9), 939-941.
Olian, J . . D., Carroll, S. J., Giannantonio, C. M., & Feren, D. B. (1988). What do proteges look for mentor. Results of three experimental studies. of vocational Behavior, .3.3., 15-37.
in a Journal
Pilette, s. c. (1980). Mentoring: an encounter of the leadership kind. Nursing Leadership, 3(2), 22-26.
Phillips-Jones, L. (1982). Mentors and Proteges. New York: Arbor House.
Ragins, B. R. (1989). manager's dilemma.
Barriers to mentoring: The female Human Relations, .42., 1-22.
Rawl, s. (1989). Nursing education administrators: Level of career development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Chicago.
Riger, S., & Galligan, P. (1980). Women in Management: An exploration of competing paradigms. American Psychologist, 3.5.(10), 902-910.
Rivchun, S. (1980, August). Be a mentor and leave a lasting legacy. Association Management, pp. 71-74.
Roche, G. R. (1980). Business Review, 1,
Much ado about mentors. 21-28.
Harvard
Roscoe, J. T. (1975). Fundamental research statistics for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.
Schlotfeldt, R. M. (1985). Mentorship: A means to desirable ends. In J. C. Mc Closkey & H. K. Grace (eds.), Current Issues in Nursing (2nd ed.) (pp. 139-148). Boston: Blackwell Scientific Publication.
129
Schockett, M. R., & Haring-Hidore, M. (1985). Factor analytic support for psychosocial and vocational mentoring functions. Psychological Reports, .5.1., 627-630.
Schofield, V. M. (1986). Orientation of nurse executives. Journal of Nursing Administration, .l.6.(11), 13-17.
Shapiro, E. C., Haseltine, F. P., & Rowe, M. P. (1978). Moving up: Role models, mentors, and the patron system. Sloan Management, 1.9.(3), 51-58.
Sheehy, G. (1974). Passages. New York: Bantam Books.
Singleton, E., & Nail, F. (1986). Developing relationships with the board of directors. Journal of Nursing Administration, .l.6.(1), 37-42.
Souther, E. (1989). The potentiation model. Unpublished manuscript, Texas Woman's University, School of Nursing, Houston.
Speizer, J. J. (1981). Role models, mentors, and sponsors: The elusive concepts. Signs: Journal of Women in culture and society, n, 692-712.
SPSSX Inc. (1988). Statistical Package for the Social Sciences User's Guide (3rd ed.). Chicago: Author.
Stewart, L., & Gudykunst, W. (1982). Differential factors influencing the hierarchical level and number of promotions of males and females within an organization. Academ~ of Management Journal, 2..5., 586-597.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1983). Using multivariate statistics. Cambridge: Harper & Row.
Urbano, M. T. (1986). doctoral education. 2.8., 76-78.
A developmental approach to Journal of Nursing Education,
Vance, C. N. (1982). The mentor connection. The Journal of Nursing Administration, l.2.(4), 7-13.
Waltz, C. E., Strickland, 0. L., & Lenz, E. R. (1991). Measurement in nursing research. Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.
West, M. E. (1987). Nursing and the corporate world. Journal of Nursing Administration, .l.Z.(3), 22-33.
Willbur, J. (1987). Does mentoring breed success? Training and Development Journal, il(ll), 38-41.
Zey, M. G. (1984). The Mentor connection. Homewood, Illinois: Dow-Jones Irwin.
130
APPENDIX A
Agency Approvals
131
TEXAS WOMftNS ~IVERSfTY COlLEGEO:Nl.RSH3
1130 M.D. ANDERSON BLVD. HOUSTON, TEXAS no30-2897
AGENCY PEBMJSSIQN FOR CONDUCTING STUDY"
132
THE...__A_m_e_r1_·c_a_n_O_r_Q_a_n1_·z_a_t_io_n_o_f_N_u_r_s_e_E_x_e_c_ut_i_v_e_s ____________ _
GRANTSTO~ __ E_l1_·z_a_b_et_h_S_o_ut_h_e_r ___________________ _ a student enrolled in a program of nursing leading to a Ph.D. in nursing at Texas Woman's University, the privilege of Its facilities in order to study the following problem:
Gender Difference in Professional Develoomental Relationships Within Male and Female Dominated Professions
The conditions mutually agreed upon are as follows:
1 . The agenc9may not) be Identified In the final report.
2. The names of consultative or administrative personnel in the age-~may not) be Identified In the final report. •~
3 . The agency (wants} <E ~a conference with the student when the report is completed.
4 . The agency I """"-~-. nwilling) to allow the completed report to be circulated through Inter(..,
5. Other _ _,.;.A-.;._tf-:-~-£-----'-'~~=--· ..:::,;;·~;:a.......;..{NJ_,.;.;:;;...;:;;.--'-~..:...,.~~-,);n:----,', &~---~ ~ ~
Date; ~~~ ~ o1 Student
"Fill out and sign three copies to be distributed as follows : Original-Student; First copy • agency; Second copy - TWU College of Nursing.
DR:lt 1/13/92
TEXAS W~ l.JlllVERSlTY COUEGEO:NLRSlt..G
1130 M.O. ANDERSON BLVD. HOUSTON, TEXAS n030.2897
AGENCY PER MISSION FOB CONDUCTING STUDY-
133
THE, __ s_o_c_i_et_v_ o_f_W_o_m_en_E_n_q_in_e_e_r_s __________________ _,_
GRANTSTO~ __ E_l_i_za_b_e_t_h_S_o_u_t_he_r ____________________ _ a student enrolled In a program of nursing leading to a Ph.D. In nursing at Texas Woman's University, the privilege of Its facilities In order to study the following problem:
Gender Difference in Professi onal Develoomental Relationships Within Male and Female Dominated Professions
The conditions mutually agreed upon are as follows:
1 . The agenc>(@(may not) be Identified In the final report.
2 . The names of consultative or administrative personnel In the agency~(may not) be Identified In the final report.
3 . The agency (wants)Et ~a conference with the student when the repon is completed.
4 . The agency is~~ (unwilling) to allow the cx,mpleted repon to be circulated through lnterliorary oan.
"'-0 u I <l I ,b, lo r~ u N r.. o.r-- Pr-f,·r.,k_
((J,U 1/3 fir py bltcan Or\ ;" ;ts
Date· //-o?/ -9~
~d~ S~nature of Student
•Fm out and sign three copies to be distributed as follows: Original-Student; First copy . agency; Second copy - TWU College of Nursing.
DR:lt 1/13/92
TEXAS WOMAN'S UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF NURSN3
1130 M.D. ANDERSON BLVD. HOUSTON, TEXAS no30-2897
AGENCY PEBM(SS(ON FOR CONDUCTING STUDY"
THE Amer ican Society for Engineering
GRANTSTO Elizabeth L, Souther a student enrolled in a program of nursing leading to a Ph.D. in nursing at Texas Woman·s University, the privilege of Its facilities in order to study the following problem:
GENDER DI FFERENCE IN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENTAL RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN MALE AND :F.EMALE DOMINATED PROFESSIONS
The conditions mutually agreed upon are as follows:
1 . The agency (may) {INS 1 ,et) be Identified in the final report.
134
2 . The names of consultative or administrative personnel in the agency (may) (AlB) 1 ,at) be Identified in the final report.
3 . The agency (wants) ~ wt 1nO a conference with the student when the report is completed.
4 . The agency is (willing) ~tfR.1 illi11g) to allow the completed report to be circulated through Interlibrary loan.
5 . Other __ ~A..:.s......1.1d..1.i ..:.s .. c;.i.JJi..:s..::suae:..i.dL....4p.ur~e::..ix"-iuo.u1.1...1 s:...Ji..;y~, _r~e~Q~u.n .i.i ..:.r.s:.f...J,1.p,.r..1,,j..:.:v..1,,i..1,l.s:eJ.1d.J;jg..l:e:._.i.t..!.lo"----
rev,ev and no s si hJy publish finished Dissertat i on in our
Date· +~1-q ~
~✓L,< Signature of Student
•Fm out and sign three copies to be distributed as follows: Original-Student; First copy -agency; Second copy - TWU College of Nursing.
DR:11 1 /1 3 / 92
APPENDIX B
Human Subjects Review Committee Approval
135
TEXAS WOMAN'S UNIVERSITY DENTON DAI..U.S HOUSTON
HUMAN SUBJECTS RBVIBW COMMITTBB • HOUSTON CBNTPJl
EXEMPT FROM HSRC REVIEW
u il is lhe -dccisioo d the rcscarcb conuniaec (for midall rc,carcli) or the department coocdinala er a faculty rcscct,h) tb&t tbe proposed rcscaJcll is exempt from expedited or full review by the Human Subjects Review Commia.oc (HSRC), please compl~ the following form. A cqgy or this prooedx signed fonn musx bs: s11broiaC4l IP Jhe chllianno or lh¢ HSRC
Principal inve.mpur.
Social Sccuruy Number:
Elizabeth L. Souther
455-94-9659
Tille rl lhe Research: GENDER DIFFERENCE IN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENTAL RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN MALE ANO FEMALE DOMINATED
PROFESSIONS . 1. Give a brief desaiption oC the swdy (use continuatioo pages or amdunents. if occessary). Describe the procedure that relates to the subjects' panicipation, i.c~ what will lhe subjects do or what will be done to
•them. ·
See Attachment
2. Whal are the potential risks to the human subjects involved in this research or investigation (use continuation pages if occ:cs.my) ?
The risk of participation in th is study includes particioant concern or discomfort in providing information reqarding personality and history of career enhancinq relationshios.
3. ls research being cooductcd Cora nonuniYaSiry spoosar'1 Yes No _x _
Namcol~------------------------1 cenify that th.is tc$Wt:h mceu the rcqu.iranents for being exempt from review by lhe HSRC as specified in the Hwnan Subjects Program Guideline {March 1986, revised). Three coauniaoe members sign for pro-
or · and all mi.ace mcmbcn sip foe die disscna.tion rc:scan:b.
or, In the u.u o( faculty research
_____________ Dcpanmcnl Coordina10r, Da. _______ _
Dcparunent, _____________ _
!Date received by HSRC Chairman Initials
HSRC 1991-92
136
APPENDIX C
Letter to Participants
137
Dear Participant,
As a doctoral student at Texas Woman's University in Houston, Texas I am conducting research in the area of professional development. The enclosed questionnaire i s part of my dissertation and deals with professional developmental relationships.
You have been selected for participation because of your achievement in your professional field, the status of your position in your profession, and the likelihood of having had a significant professional developmental relationship. I consider your responses to the questionnaire extremely valuable in the completion of my dissertation and to the addition of information on the subject of professional and career development.
A benefit for participation is the acquisition of new insight into your career progress. A risk involved in participation is the possible anxiety associated with the subject matter. You are not obligated to participate in this study. There is no penalty for not returning the questionnaire. The investigator does not know of any additional research in progress at this time.
All precautions have been taken to maintain confidentiality of individual responses. You are asked not to sign your name to the questionnaire and to return it in the self addressed stamped envelope that has been provided. To preserve confidentiality the information that is obtained will be summarized as group data in the final report.
If you are uncomfortable about answering certain items you may leave the items unanswered. Additionally, if you think that an item does not apply to you please do not answer the item.
Participation is voluntary without reimbursement. The return of the questionnaire indicates your informed consent and willingness to participate.
I realize that an individual in your position is extremely pressed for time. I appreciate your time, effort, and openness in responding. If you have questions concerning the study please contact the investigator at 713/556-1166.
The American Organization of Nurse Executives is not responsible for the content of this questionnaire and did not initiate this study.
R~spectfully, / /
U;~lad~o~ Elizabeth Souther RN.C., M.S.
138
Dear Participant,
As a doctoral student at Texas Woman's University in Houston, Texas I am conducting research in the area of professional development. The enclosed questionnaire is part of my dissertation and deals with professional developmental relationships .
You have been selected for participation because of your achievement in your professional field , the status of your position in your profession, and the likelihood of having had a significant professional developmental relationship. I consider your responses to the questionnaire extremely valuable in the completion of my dissertation and to the addition of information on the subject of professional and career development.
A benefit for participation is the acquisition of new insight into your career progress. A risk involved in participation is the possible anxiety associated with the subject matter. You are not obligated to participate in this study. There is no penalty for not returning the questionnaire. The investigator does not know of any additional research in progress at this time.
All precautions have been taken to maintain confidentiality of individual responses. You are asked not to sign your name to the questionnaire and to return it in the self addressed stamped envelope that has been provided. To preserve confidentiality the information that is obtained will be summarized as group data in the final report.
If you are uncomfortable about answering certain items you may leave the items unanswered. Additionally, if you thi nk that an item does not appl y to you please do not answer the item.
Participation is volunt ary without reimbursement. The return of the questi onnaire indicates your informed consent and willingness to participate.
I realize that an indi vidual in your position is extremely pressed for time. I appreciate your time, effort, and openness in responding. If you have questions concerning the study please contact the investigator at 713 / 556-1166.
The American Society for Engineering Management is not responsible for t he content of this questionnaire and did not initiate this study.
139
Dear Participant,
As a doctoral student at Texas Woman's University in Houston, Texas I am conducting research in the area of professional development. The enclosed questionnaire is part of my dissertation and deals with professional developmental relationships.
You have been selected for participation because of your achievement in your professional field, the status of your position in your profession, and the likelihood of having had a significant professional developmental relationship. I consider your responses to the questionnaire extremely valuable in the completion of my dissertation and to the addition of information on the subject of professional and career development.
A benefit for participation is the acquisition of new insight into your career progress. A risk involved in participation is the possible anxiety associated with the subject matter. You are not obligated to participate in this study. There is no penalty for not returning the questionnaire. The investigator does not know of any additional research in progress at this time.
All precautions have been taken to maintain confidentiality of individual responses. You are asked not to sign your name to the questionnaire and to return it in the self addressed stamped envelope that has been provided. To preserve confidentiality the information that is obtained will be summarized as group data in the final report.
If you are uncomfortable about answering certain items you may leave the items unanswered. Additionally, if you think that an item does not apply to you please do not answer the item .
Participation is voluntary without reimbursement. The return of the questionnaire indicates your informed consent and willingness to participate.
I realize that an individual in your position is extremely pressed for time. I appreciate your time, effort, and openness in responding. If you have questions concerning the study please contact the investigator at 713/556-1166.
The Society of Women Engineers is not responsible for the content of this questionnaire and did not initiate this study.
Respectfu;l:u ¼:::!Souther RN.C., M.S.
140
APPENDIX D
Demographic Instrument
141
Demographic Data
Please CIRCLE the most appropriate number for each question.
1. What is your gender?
1 Male
2 Female
2. What is your ethnic background?
1 Caucasian American
2 Black American
3 Hispanic/Puerto Rican/Latin American
4 Filipino/Oriental/Asian
5 Other (Please specify) _________ _
3. Your age: (Please specify) _______ _
4. What is your highest educational degree?
1 Doctorate
2 Master's
3 Baccalaureate
4 Associate
5 Diploma
6 High School
142
5. In what discipline/field is your highest degree? (Please specify) ___________ _
6. How many years of experience do you have in his discipline/field? (Please specify). __ _
7. In what state are you currently employed? (Please specify) ___________ _
8. At what level of management is your current position classified?
1 Top management
2 Middle management
3 First level management
9. What is your current gross annual salary?
1 Under $20,000
2 $20,000-$29,999
3 $30,000-$39,999
4 $40,000-$49,999
5 $50 I 000-$59 I 999
6 $60 I 000-$69, 999
7 $70 I 000-$79 I 999
8 $80,000-$89,999
9 $90 I 000-$99, 999
10 OVER $100,000
143
144 10. Rank order each person according to the degree of positive influence each
indiividual had on your career.
Rank 1 - 8 with 1 having the greatest influence. USE EACH NUMBER ONLY ONCE.
__ spouse/significant other
__ parents
__ family member {brother, sister, etc)
friend
teacher
__ professional peer
__ superior
__ public/historical personality
11 . Rank order the following factors that have been a positive influence on your career.
Rank 1 - 9 with 1 having the greatest influence. USE EACH NUMBER ONLY ONCE.
_ interpersonal skills
creativity
education
risk taking
__ experience
hard work
intellectual ability
networking
personal attractiveness
145 12. Which of the following best indicates the number of individuals employed by the
organization in which you work?
1 less than 99
2 100-199
3 200-399
4 400-699
5 700-999
6 greater than 1,000
The following questions refer to the individual in your current or most recent work setting that you consider to be the most instrumental in enhancing your career.
Please CIRCLE the most appropriate number for each question.
13. What is this person's gender?
1 Male
2 Female
14. What is this person's ethnic background?
1 Caucasian American
2 Black American
3 Hispanic/Puerto Rican/Latin American
4 Filipino/Oriental/Asian
5 Other (Pibase specify) ___________ _
15. What is the age of this individual? (Please specify), ___________ _
16. What is this person's highest educational degree?
1 Doctorate
2 Master's
3 Baccalaureate
4 Associate
5 Diploma
6 High School
17. In what discipline/field is this person's highest degree? (Please specify) _______ _
146
18. Approximately, how many years has this person been in this discipline/field? (Please specify) ____________ _
19. In which of the following levels of management is this person's position?
1 Top management
2 Middle management
3 First level management
APPENDIX E
Professional Developmental Relationship Questionnaire
147
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENTAL RELATIONSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE
The following questions apply to your professional developmental relationship with the person you consider to have been the most instrumental in enhancing your career.
Please use the following scale when indicating your answers.
5 always
4 usually
3 sometimes
2 seldom
Please CIRCLE your best response.
DID THE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS INFLUENCED YOUR CAREER. ..
1 .. help you build a positive reputation in the organization?
2 .. block you from becoming known to higher level managers within the organization?
3 .. discuss your abilities with his/her peers thereby assisting you in obtaining opportunities that prepared you for higher level positions?
4 .. assist you in obtaining a promotion?
5 .. sponsor you among higher level managers as being the best candidate for a task or job?
6 .. block opportunities to demonstrate your competence to senior managers?
5 4
5 4
5 4
5 4
5 4
5 4
3
3
3
3
3
3
1 never
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
148
149
5 4 3 2 1 always usually sometimes seldom never
Please CIRCLE your best response.
DID THE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS INFLUENCED YOUR CAREER. ..
? .. assign you tasks that gave you 5 4 3 2 1 exposure and visibility opportunities with senior managers?
B .. prevent you from developing relation- 5 4 3 2 1 ships with key figures in the organi-zation who would be instrumental in advancing your career?
9 .. discuss with you specific strategies 5 4 3 2 1 that help you obtain exposure and visibility with key individuals within the organization?
10 .. help plan tasks and assignments 5 4 3 2 1 that would assist you in learning about higher levels of the organi-zation?
11 .. suggest specific strategies for 5 4 3 2 1 accomplishing work objectives?
12 .. withhold information that would 5 4 3 2 1 have aided you in achieving career advancement?
13 .. share ideas that would improve your 5 4 3 2 1 performance?
150
5 4 3 2 1 always usually sometimes seldom never
Please CIRCLE your best response.
DID THE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS INFLUENCED YOUR CAREER. ..
14 .. offer constructive feedback on your 5 4 3 2 1 leadership style?
15 .. provide you with valuable informa- 5 4 3 2 1 tion on the political structure of the organization?
16 .. protect your reputation with senior 5 4 3 2 1 managers?
17 .. set you up for a damaging contact 5 4 3 2 1 with upper level management?
18 .. take the blame for you in contra- 5 4 3 2 1 versial situations?
19 .. intervene on your behalf when you 5 4 3 2 1 would not have been successful?
20 .. protect you to the extent that you 5 4 · 3 2 1 felt smothered?
21 .. provide you with assignments that 5 4 3 2 1 helped you develop specific competencies?
151
5 4 3 2 1 always usually sometimes seldom never
Please CIRCLE your best response.
DID THE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS INFLUENCED YOUR CAREER. ..
22 .. withhold important feedback on 5 4 3 2 1 critical assignments?
23 .. deny you needed support on a 5 4 3 2 1 critical task or assignment?
24 .. plan challenging assignments to 5 4 3 2 1 help prepare you for future advancement?
25 .. provide you with constructive advice 5 4 3 2 1 on challenging assignments?
26 .. influence your PERSONAL style 5 4 3 2 1 within the organization?
27 .. influence your PROFESSIONAL style 5 4 3 2 1 within the organization?
28 .. provide you with a model of 5 4 3 2 1 corporate behavior?
29 .. affect your personal attitudes 5 4 3 2 1 and values?
152
5 4 3 2 1 always usually sometimes seldom never
Please CIRCLE your best response.
DID THE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS INFLUENCED YOUR CAREER. ..
30 .. set a negative example of behavior 5 4 3 2 1 which you rejected?
31 .. provide support and encouragement? 5 4 3 2 1
32 .. enable you to express disagreement 5 4 3 2 1 in a safe environment?
33 .. expect total conformity to his/her 5 4 3 2 1 managerial methods?
34 .. negatively affect your self esteem? 5 4 3 2 1
35 .. make you feel extremely pressured 5 4 3 2 1 to please him/her?
36 .. offer h is/her personal experience 5 4 3 2 1 and self insights as a method for helping you to learn?
37 .. help you resolve personal 5 4 3 2 1 problems?
38 .. become your confidant? 5 4 3 2 1
153
5 4 3 2 1 always usually sometimes seldom never
Please CIRCLE your best response.
DID THE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS INFLUENCED YOUR CAREER. ..
39 .. allow you to talk openly and 5 4 3 2 1 honestly about your personal anxieties and fears?
40 .. betray your confidence? 5 4 3 2 1
41 .. participate in social functions 5 4 3 2 1 with you outside of the organization?
42 .. make you feel that you were not 5 4 3 2 1 his/her peer?
43 .. make you feel that his/her 5 4 3 2 1 relationship with you was distant, evaluative, and parental?
44 .. make you feel as if you were 5 4 3 2 1 a close friend?
45 .. escape from work with you to 5 4 3 2 1 have fun?
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND EFFORT
Developed from: Kram, K. E. (1988). Mentoring at work. Boston: University Press of America.