Gender and willingness to mentor in organizations

Journal of Management, Spring, 1993 by Belle Rose Ragins, John L. Cotton

Mentoring relationships are important for the career development of both mentors and proteges (Hunt & Michael, 1983; Kram, 1985). For proteges, mentoring relationships are related to organizational advancement, career development and career satisfaction (Fagenson, 1988, 1989; Roche, 1979; Scandura, 1992; Whitely, Dougherty & Dreher, 1991). From the mentor's perspective, the mentoring role is an important developmental component of career (Dalton, Thompson & Price, 1977; Kram, 1985) and life stages (Erikson, 1963; Levinson, 1978). Moreover, mentoring has increasingly become part of the managerial role in organizations; managers are expected to provide socialization and career assistance to promising young proteges (cf. reviews by Feldman, 1988; Hall, 1987; Hunt & Michael, 1983).

While the mentoring relationship is important for the career development of both sexes, it is particularly critical for women in organizations (Solomon, Bishop & Bresser, 1986). Mentoring relationships are important for female protegees and female mentors. For female protegees, mentors can assist in overcoming barriers to advancement in organizations (see review by Ragins, 1989). It is particularly important for female protegees to have access to female mentors, because these mentors can provide critical role modeling functions and will not elicit the detrimental sexual issues common to female protege-male mentor relationships (Clawson & Kram, 1984; Fitt & Newton, 1981; Ragins & McFarlin, 1990). Mentoring relationships are also important for female mentors. These relationships offer a host of potential benefits for the female mentor, such as career rejuvination, organizational recognition, improved job performance, and a loyal base of support (Kram, 1985).

For the reasons given above, women are generally encouraged to gain a female mentor or become one. However, current theory on the development of mentoring relationships predicts that women face gender-related barriers to becoming a mentor (Hunt & Michael, 1983; Kram, 1985; Ragins, 1989). Anecdotal reports support the prediction that women may be less willing than men to assume a mentorship role (Halcomb, 1980). However, to date no empirical study has investigated gender differences in willingness to mentor. The purpose of this study, then, is to provide a test of mentorship theory on gender differences in willingness to mentor. The second purpose of this study is to guide the future development of mentorship theory by providing some insights into factors that may influence the decision of both men and women to enter a mentoring role.

Theoretical Review

Gender and Decisions to Mentor

Theory concerning women in management suggest that women may face more obstacles to assuming a mentoring role than their male counterparts. According to Kanter (1977), women in the numerical minority (e.g., tokens) are placed in the organizational limelight and are faced with increased performance pressures and stereotypical expectations. Their actions are scrutinized and their performance becomes public knowledge. This increased visibility places the token woman in a more precarious position than her male counterpart.

This perspective has direct implications for female mentors. Because of their numerical rarity, female mentors are more visible than their male counterparts. One key risk involved with mentoring is that protege performance is often viewed as a direct reflection of the mentor's judgement and competency (Roche, 1979; Zey, 1984). Due to their precarious position and limelight status, female mentors may be less willing and able to withstand the risk of protege failure. This problem may be compounded if she has a female protegee. While the female mentor-female protege relationship avoids complications associated with cross-gender relationships, it is the most visible of all gender combinations, and therefore entails the greatest risk. Moreover, if one assumes that while male and female proteges are equal in talent, women face greater obstacles to advancement and successful performance (e.g., Powell, 1988; Sutton & Moore, 1985), then there is a greater risk associated with female than male proteges. Finally, the female mentor-female protege relationship may be met with negative reactions if it is viewed as constituting a "female power coalition" (Kanter, 1977; Ragins, 1989).

A second obstacle is time constraints. Compared to men, women face greater barriers to advancement (e.g., Freedman & Phillips, 1988; Ragins & Sundstrom, 1989; Sutton & Moore, 1985) and may consequentially need to spend their time advancing their own careers rather than helping others. In addition, in the role of a token, women may face greater time constraints in that they may be requested to represent their gender on various organizational committees and task groups (Kanter, 1977). Combined, these factors suggest that women may have less time available for developing mentoring relationships than their male counterparts.

Two studies provide tangential support for these propositions. Brown (1986) found that female protegees reported a shortage of female mentors and that they viewed potential female mentors as lacking the time available to become a mentor. Bowers (1985) conducted an exploratory study of 16 female executives. Although the study was limited by sample size and the lack of a male comparison group, the female executives reported that they lacked the time to be a mentor and that they wanted to avoid the high visibility involved with mentoring another woman.