See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/8881166

Career Benefits Associated With Mentoring for Protégés: A Meta-Analysis

Article in Journal of Applied Psychology · February 2004

DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.127 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
1,490 22,750

5 authors, including:

Tammy D Allen Lillian Eby

University of South Florida University of Georgia
227 PUBLICATIONS 30,169 CITATIONS 161 PUBLICATIONS 19,806 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mark L. Poteet Elizabeth Lentz

Organizational Research & Solutions, Inc. University of South Florida
39 PUBLICATIONS 3,065 CITATIONS 17 PUBLICATIONS 2,752 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Tammy D Allen on 29 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2004 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
2004, Vol. 89, No. 1, 127–136 0021-9010/04/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.127

Career Benefits Associated With Mentoring for Protégés: A Meta-Analysis

Tammy D. Allen Lillian T. Eby

The University of South Florida The University of Georgia

Mark L. Poteet Elizabeth Lentz

Organizational Research & Solutions The University of South Florida

Lizzette Lima
The University of South Florida

Meta-analysis was used to review and synthesize existing empirical research concerning the career
benefits associated with mentoring for the protégé. Both objective (e.g., compensation) and subjective
(e.g., career satisfaction) career outcomes were examined. Comparisons of mentored versus nonmentored
groups were included, along with relationships between mentoring provided and outcomes. The findings
were generally supportive of the benefits associated with mentoring, but effect sizes associated with
objective outcomes were small. There was also some indication that the outcomes studied differed in the
magnitude of their relationship with the type of mentoring provided (i.e., career or psychosocial).

The benefits of mentoring relationships have been publicized for grow, it is imperative to critically and quantitatively summarize
several decades (Levinson, Darrow, Klein, Levinson, & McKee, what we know about the benefits associated with mentoring for
1978; Roche, 1979). However, not until the publication of Kram’s protégés in order to advance future theory and research on the
(1985) seminal work on mentoring relationships at work has topic. Outside of several qualitative reviews focusing on mentoring
empirical research on the topic proliferated. Much of the extant and gender issues (Noe, 1988b; Ragins, 1989, 1999), there have
research has examined the benefits of mentoring for protégés, been few attempts to review the existing literature. As noted by
finding that mentoring is related to important career outcomes such Reichers and Schneider (1990) in their stage model describing the
as salary level, promotion rate, and job satisfaction, among other pattern by which new concepts are advanced, critical review and
outcomes (e.g., Chao, Walz, & Gardner, 1992; Fagenson, 1989; summarization of existing literature plays a key role in the evolu-
Scandura, 1992; Whitely, Dougherty, & Dreher, 1991). Noting the tion of concepts. For example, if we know that mentoring is more
potential benefits of mentoring for protégés, individuals are often likely to relate to a specific set of outcomes than to others, we can
advised to seek out a mentor, and many organizations encourage refine mentoring theory accordingly. It seems likely that progres-
mentoring relationships between organizational members (Burke sive theoretical development of the mentoring construct and its
& McKeen, 1989; Douglas & McCauley, 1999; Kram, 1985). nomological net has been hampered by the lack of critical evalu-
Given the important role ascribed to mentoring relationships ation and assessment of existing research. We attempted to address
regarding individual career development and its growing use in this gap by conducting a meta-analytic review of the benefits of
organizational settings as a career management tool, it seems mentoring for protégés.
important that researchers provide organizational leaders and prac-
titioners with concrete information on the benefits of mentoring for
protégés. Likewise, as the body of mentoring research continues to Definitional Issues and Overview of Mentoring Research
The term mentor dates back to Greek mythology and describes
a “relationship between a younger adult and an older, more expe-
Tammy D. Allen, Elizabeth Lentz, and Lizzette Lima, Department of rienced adult [who] helps the younger individual learn to navigate
Psychology, The University of South Florida; Lillian T. Eby, Department the adult world and the world of work” (Kram, 1985, p. 2). The
of Psychology, The University of Georgia; Mark L. Poteet, independent study of mentoring relationships is often traced to Levinson et al.’s
practice, Organizational Research & Solutions, Tampa, Florida. (1978) research on the career development of adult men. In this
A previous version of this article was presented at the 17th Annual work, Levinson and colleagues describe the relationship that de-
Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, velops with a mentor as one of the most important experiences in
Toronto, Ontario, Canada. We thank Michael Brannick and Paul E. Spector
young adulthood. Mentors reportedly are not only a source of
for their helpful comments and assistance concerning various aspects of
this study.
learning for protégés, but they also play a key role in the devel-
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Tammy opment of protégés’ self-esteem and work identity. Other scholars
D. Allen, Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, 4202 such as Kanter (1977), Dalton, Thompson, and Price (1977), and
East Fowler Avenue, PCD 4118G, Tampa, Florida 33620-7200. E-mail: Shapiro, Hazeltine, and Rowe (1978) also discussed the important
[email protected] role of relationships between younger and older adults in shaping

127
128 ALLEN, EBY, POTEET, LENTZ, AND LIMA

individuals’ career development, referring to such relationships as ries. The first category includes objective career outcomes such as
sponsor, patron, and godfather relationships. promotion and compensation (e.g., Dreher & Ash, 1990). The
Later work by Kram (1985) further outlined the important role second category consists of subjective career outcomes. This in-
of mentoring relationships in organizational settings. In this work cludes more affective and less tangible signs of career success such
Kram conducted an in-depth qualitative examination of mentor– as career satisfaction, career commitment, job satisfaction, and
protégé dyads and, among other things, outlined the functions turnover intentions (e.g., Koberg, Boss, & Goodman, 1998; Noe,
served by mentors. Broadly speaking, two types of mentor func- 1988a). Investigating both subjective and objective indicators of
tions were identified by Kram. The first is career-related support. career success is important because career success is often opera-
This type of support enhances protégés’ advancement in the orga- tionalized in terms of both tangible, extrinsic outcomes and more
nization and includes the mentor functions of sponsorship, expo- subjective outcomes (e.g., Greenhaus, Parasuraman, & Wormley,
sure and visibility, coaching, protection, and challenging assign- 1990; Turban & Dougherty, 1994). Moreover, correlations be-
ments. This mentor function is possible because of the senior tween subjective and objective career success are typically low to
person’s position, experience, and organizational influence and moderate. For example, Judge, Boudreau, and Bretz (1994) found
serves the career-related ends of the junior person by helping him the correlation between subjective career success with pay success
or her learn the ropes of organizational life, gain exposure, and and promotion success was .19 and .15, respectively. Similarly,
obtain promotions. The second type of support is psychosocial. Seibert, Crant, and Kraimer (1999) found a correlation between
This type of support addresses interpersonal aspects of the rela- career satisfaction and promotions of .20 and a correlation of .31
tionship and refers to “those aspects of a relationship that enhance between career satisfaction and salary. In accordance, both objec-
an individual’s sense of competence, identity, and effectiveness in tive and subjective career outcomes are included in the present
a professional role” (Kram, 1985, p. 32). Specific psychosocial study.
functions include role modeling, acceptance and confirmation,
counseling, and friendship.
Hypotheses
Follow-up work has empirically supported Kram’s (1985) two
broad mentor functions, although the matter by which the func- As purposeful relationships designed to bring about individual
tions are measured varies across studies. Specifically, Noe (1988a) change, growth, and development, mentoring theory suggests that
developed a measure confirming that career-related and psycho- mentorships should be inherently linked to career success (Kram,
social support are two unique mentor functions. Subsequent stud- 1985; Levinson et al., 1978). Several specific processes help
ies have produced similar factor-analytic results (Ensher & Mur- explain why mentoring relationships relate to protégé career suc-
phy, 1997; Tepper, Shaffer, & Tepper, 1996). Scandura and col- cess (Dreher & Ash, 1990). First, the mentorship serves as a
leagues empirically identified three overarching mentor functions: mechanism for information exchange and knowledge acquisition
career-related support, psychosocial support, and role modeling (Mullen, 1994). Mentors provide access into social networks that
(Scandura, 1992; Scandura & Viator, 1994). Using a measure include repositories of knowledge not available through formal
developed by Ragins and McFarlin (1990), several studies have communication channels (Dreher & Ash, 1990). Entry into these
examined mentor functions in a more fine-grained manner, sepa- social networks also provides the protégé with the opportunity to
rating career-related and psychosocial functions into specific types display talent and skills to decision makers within the organization.
of support (e.g., exposure and visibility, sponsorship, counseling, Because career-related mentoring functions consist of behaviors
friendship; Aryee & Chay, 1994; Ragins & Cotton, 1999). How- that prepare the protégé for career advancement, it makes sense
ever, the extant theoretical and empirical research is clear that that those who have been mentored would achieve greater career
career and psychosocial functions serve as the primary distinct and success than those who have not been mentored. Moreover, it also
reliable overarching operationalizations of mentoring provided. In follows that the greater the amount of career-related mentoring
accordance, our analyses focused on these two facets of mentoring. provided, the greater the outcome (i.e., compensation, job satis-
It is also important to note that other studies have used mentoring faction) realized.
measures that combine psychosocial and career-related support Another process that helps explain why mentoring relates to
(e.g., Bolino & Feldman, 2000; Dreher & Ash, 1990). Because of career success is social learning theory (Bandura, 1977). The
their small number (n ⫽ 5) and uncertain interpretation, these psychosocial functions described by Kram (1985) are key to the
studies were excluded from the study. social learning process. Social learning theory describes the mod-
Two types of studies characterize the literature examining the eling process that takes place as individuals vicariously learn
benefits of mentoring for protégés. The first includes studies that through senior members of an organization (Manz & Sims, 1981).
compare outcomes across protégés and nonprotégés (e.g., Chao et Mentors serve as the veteran models of behavior for their protégés
al., 1992; Fagenson, 1989). Other studies involve those that cor- and provide protégés with the rules that govern effective behavior
relate mentor functions with protégé outcomes (e.g., Noe, 1988a; in the organization (Bolton, 1980; Dreher & Ash, 1990; Zagumny,
Ragins & Cotton, 1999). Both kinds of studies are included in the 1993). Through friendship, counseling, and acceptance the mentor
present meta-analysis. also helps the protégé develop the sense of professional compe-
tence and self-esteem needed to achieve career success (Kram,
Outcomes Associated With Mentoring Relationships for 1985).
Protégés
Hypothesis 1: Individuals who have been mentored will re-
Various protégé outcomes have been the subject of empirical port greater career outcomes than will individuals who have
inquiry. These outcomes can be classified into two broad catego- not been mentored.
 MENTORING META-ANALYSIS 129

Hypothesis 2: Career-related mentoring will be positively been conducted within an organizational setting (i.e., studies involving
related to career outcomes. student relationships with mentors–advisors were excluded), and a Pearson
correlation coefficient (or some other type of test statistic that could be
Hypothesis 3: Psychosocial mentoring will be positively re- converted into a correlation) between mentoring and the outcome variable
lated to career outcomes. must have been reported. A total of six studies were excluded because of
insufficient information (e.g., only regression coefficients were reported).
Most researchers who examine the relationship between men- When possible, an attempt was made to contact a study author to obtain
toring provided and career outcomes assume both career and usable statistics. In cases in which a study involved a sample that was a
subset of the same sample used in another study, the study with the largest
psychosocial forms of mentoring are similarly related to the out-
sample was included in the analysis. In studies in which statistics were
comes of interest. However, it seems likely that career-related
reported for different subgroups (e.g., men, women), each subgroup was
mentoring and psychosocial mentoring differ in the magnitude of weighted by sample size and combined. Five studies that used an overall
their relationship to various outcomes. For example, the behaviors measure of mentoring functions (i.e., a composite that combined career and
associated with career mentoring are highly focused on preparing psychosocial functions together) were excluded. Using the criteria listed, a
protégés for advancement (e.g., exposure and visibility, sponsor- total of 43 individual studies were included.
ship, challenging assignments). In accordance, it stands to reason
that career mentoring may relate more highly to objective career Coding of Studies
outcomes than does psychosocial mentoring. Psychosocial men-
toring (e.g., role modeling, acceptance and confirmation, counsel- Depending on the results reported by each particular study, statistics
ing) centers on enhancing protégé self-esteem, confidence, and coded included sample size, correlations, variable means and standard
identity. Given the more relational focus of psychosocial mentor- deviations, t tests, or F tests. To ensure accuracy, each study was coded
ing, it may more highly relate to affective outcomes such as career independently by at least two of the study authors. The coders showed very
high agreement (greater than 90%) in coding the statistics outlined above.
and job satisfaction than does career mentoring. Thus, we pose the
Divergent recordings were discussed until agreement was reached.
following hypotheses.

Hypothesis 4: Objective career outcomes will have a stronger Statistical Procedures

relationship with career mentoring than with psychosocial
mentoring. In conducting the meta-analysis, we employed what Hunter and Schmidt
(1990) referred to as a “bare bones” meta-analysis. That is, no corrections
Hypothesis 5: Subjective career outcomes will have a stron- are made for artifacts other than that due to sampling error. Although
Hunter and Schmidt made it clear that they believe this form of meta-
ger relationship with psychosocial mentoring than with career
analysis is deficient, other researchers have demonstrated that corrections
mentoring. for artifacts can be inaccurate with a small number of studies, such as the
case in the present meta-analysis (Spector & Levine, 1987). Given the
Summary small number of studies involved in many of the relationships estimated,
Mentoring is frequently touted as beneficial, yet the literature we believed a more conservative approach was warranted. Results are
lacks precise estimates of the effect sizes associated with mentor- tabled for all variables in which we had at least three samples.
ing or the extent that mentoring may be more highly related to We chose the correlation coefficient as our indicator of effect size. All
some outcomes than others. We judged the accumulated literature reported study statistics were converted to correlation coefficients follow-
ing coding by the raters. For each independent and dependent variable
on outcomes associated with mentoring substantial enough to
combination, statistics calculated included the mean unweighted observed
warrant a meta-analytic review of findings. Indeed, a meta- correlation, the mean correlation weighted by sample size, and the
analysis at this juncture can help identify research issues that need weighted standard deviation of the observed correlations. In addition, we
attention and perhaps better direct the field. used a computer program based on procedures developed by Raju, Burke,
Normand, and Langlois (1991) to calculate the standard deviation of effects
Method corrected for sampling error, the asymptotic standard error of the estimated
Literature Search mean correlation and its associated 95% confidence interval, and the lower
90% credibility value (CV; Raju, & Fleer, 2003). A 95% confidence
We used several methods to identify studies. First, we conducted a interval that does not contain zero indicates that one can be 95% sure that
computerized bibliographic search of PsycINFO and ABI/INFORM by the mean sample-weighted correlation is indeed nonzero. The lower 90%
using the terms mentor, mentoring, protégé, mentorship, and career suc- CV indicates that 90% of the estimates of the true correlation lie above that
cess. We also conducted a manual search of journals that regularly publish value.
mentoring research such as the Academy of Management Journal and Finally, we conducted a file drawer analysis based on effect size using
Journal of Vocational Behavior. We reviewed the reference list of each the formula provided by Hunter and Schmidt (1990, p. 513). The value
article to identify additional citations that were not revealed by other search represents the number of missing studies averaging null results that are
means. We also reviewed the Society for Industrial and Organizational needed to reduce the effect size to a specified level. In the present study we
Psychology and Academy of Management programs from the last 5 years to used a critical value of .01.
identify unpublished articles. Finally, we sent an e-mail to frequent con-
tributors to the mentoring research literature requesting copies of in-press
or unpublished articles. Variables Included in Analysis
Mentoring. In studies that compared mentored versus nonmentored
Criteria for Inclusion individuals, we coded so that positive correlations indicated that being
To be included in the analysis, the study had to meet the following mentored was associated with a higher level of the outcome variable (e.g.,
criteria: The sample size must have been reported, the study had to have higher salary). The majority of studies examined the relationship between
130 ALLEN, EBY, POTEET, LENTZ, AND LIMA

mentoring and the outcomes of interest. Several measures of mentoring Results

functions exist (Noe, 1988a; Ragins & McFarlin, 1990; Scandura & Kat-
erberg, 1992; Whitely et al., 1991). In most cases, authors examined career We stated in Hypothesis 1 that individuals who have been
mentoring and/or psychosocial mentoring. In several instances, authors mentored will report greater career outcomes than those who have
broke down the broad psychosocial and career-related mentoring factors not been mentored. Table 1 shows the results for studies compar-
into subfactors (e.g., Counseling, Exposure, Friendship, Protection) that ing outcomes for mentored versus nonmentored groups. Regarding
were individually correlated with career outcomes. Because of the small objective career outcomes, compensation (weighted mean r ⫽ .12)
number of these types of studies (n ⫽ 3) and because we were interested and number of promotions (weighted mean r ⫽ .31) were higher
in the effects for the overall psychosocial and career factors, in these cases
among mentored than nonmentored individuals. The results indi-
we combined the subfactors into their overall psychosocial or career factor
cated that mentored individuals were more satisfied with their
by averaging the subfactor correlations with career outcomes. Likewise,
career (weighted mean r ⫽ .21), more likely to believe that they
because there were few studies examining role modeling separately with
would advance in their career (weighted mean r ⫽ .26), and more
each of the outcomes (n ⫽ 4), we averaged role modeling with the higher
order factor of psychosocial mentoring. In cases in which we averaged
likely to be committed to their career (weighted mean r ⫽ .15) than
subfactor correlations, we used the statistical formula provided by Hunter were their nonmentored counterparts. In addition, mentored indi-
and Schmidt (1990, p. 457) that takes into account intercorrelations among viduals were more satisfied with their jobs than were nonmentored
the subfactors. individuals (weighted mean r ⫽ .18). The results also indicated
Objective career success. We examined indicators of objective career mentored individuals had greater intentions to stay with their
success. Compensation was most commonly measured by asking partici- current organization than did nonmentored individuals (weighted
pants to indicate total annual salary including all forms of compensation. mean r ⫽ .06); however, the 95% confidence interval associated
Several studies examined salary growth (e.g., percentage change in salary with this mean included zero (⫺.05 to .17). Thus, with the excep-
during a specified time period as opposed to current income). Promotions tion of intentions to stay, Hypothesis 1 received full support.
were typically measured by asking participants to report number of pro- We predicted in Hypothesis 2 that career-related mentoring
motions received. would positively relate to career outcomes. Table 2 summarizes
Subjective career success. Career satisfaction is typically a multi-item the results for studies examining the relationship between career
self-report measure of how happy one is with one’s career or how suc- mentoring and outcomes. In terms of objective career success, the
cessful an individual believes he or she has been in his or her career to date. results indicated greater career mentoring related to greater com-
Expectations for advancement concerns the extent that one believes future
pensation (weighted mean r ⫽ .08), greater salary growth
advancement in the organization is likely. In some studies this construct
(weighted mean r ⫽ .19), and more promotions (weighted mean
was labeled promotion opportunities or career plateau. Correlations re-
r ⫽ .10). Regarding the subjective outcomes, career mentoring was
ported between mentoring and job satisfaction were included. In some
positively related to career satisfaction (weighted mean r ⫽ .29),
cases (n ⫽ 2), researchers measured specific aspects of job satisfaction,
such as intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction. Given that it is not uncommon
job satisfaction (weighted mean r ⫽ .30), and satisfaction with the
to aggregate various satisfaction facets (Spector, 1997), for these studies mentor (weighted mean r ⫽ .37). Hypothesis 2 was fully
we averaged specific factors into an overall job satisfaction outcome supported.
measure using the formula provided by Hunter and Schmidt (1990). Stud- We suggested in Hypothesis 3 that psychosocial mentoring
ies examining career commitment and intent to stay with the organization would positively relate to career outcomes. Table 3 shows the
were included. Given the recent interest in assessing perceptions of quality results for studies examining psychosocial mentoring and out-
or satisfaction of the mentorship, we included studies examining the comes. Psychosocial mentoring related to compensation (weighted
relationship between mentoring provided and satisfaction with the mentor. mean r ⫽ .04) and promotions (weighted mean r ⫽ .06). The

Table 1
Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Career Outcomes and Mentored Versus Nonmentored Groups

% variance Lower Fail-safe

Dependent variable k N Mr Mwr SDwr SD␳ SE␳ sampling 95% CI 90% CV k

Objective
Compensation 7 2,260 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.03 38.45 .06, .19 .03 77
Promotions 3 561 0.30 0.31 0.04 0.00 0.02 100.00a .27, .35 .31 90
Subjective
Career satisfaction 7 2,602 0.23 0.21 0.10 0.08 0.04 25.31 .13, .28 .10 140
Expectations for advancement 3 691 0.27 0.26 0.03 0.00 0.02 100.00a .23, .30 .26 75
Career commitment 4 2,207 0.17 0.15 0.06 0.04 0.03 44.02 .09, .22 .09 56
Job satisfaction 10 3,029 0.23 0.18 0.10 0.08 0.03 29.41 .12, .25 .08 170
Intention to stay 3 1,606 0.10 0.06 0.10 0.09 0.06 18.91 ⫺.05, .17 ⫺.06 15

Note. k ⫽ number of correlations; N ⫽ total sample size for studies combined; Mr ⫽ mean unweighted correlations; Mwr ⫽ sample-weighted mean
correlations; SDwr ⫽ standard deviation of the sampled-weighted correlations; SD␳ ⫽ standard deviation of correlations corrected for sampling error; SE␳ ⫽
asymptotic standard error of the mean correlations corrected for sampling error; % variance sampling ⫽ percentage of variance because of sampling error;
CI ⫽ confidence interval; CV ⫽ credibility value; fail-safe k ⫽ the number of studies averaging null results that would be needed to reduce the
sample-weighted mean r to .01.
a
Sampling error accounted for more than 100% of the variance in the observed effect size.
 MENTORING META-ANALYSIS 131

Table 2
Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Career Outcomes and Career Mentoring

% variance Lower Fail-safe

Dependent variable k N Mr Mwr SDwr SD␳ SE␳ sampling 95% CI 90% CV k

Objective
Compensation 9 7,454 0.12 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.02 34.64 .04, .11 .02 63
Salary growth 3 525 0.21 0.19 0.07 0.00 0.04 100.00a .11, .27 .19 54
Promotions 11 7,570 0.16 0.10 0.07 0.06 0.02 25.64 .05, .14 .02 99
Subjective
Career satisfaction 10 2,748 0.25 0.29 0.11 0.10 0.04 24.37 .22, .36 .17 280
Job satisfaction 7 1,569 0.24 0.30 0.07 0.03 0.03 82.37 .25, .35 .26 203
Satisfaction with mentor 6 1,282 0.43 0.37 0.15 0.14 0.06 13.82 .26, .49 .20 216

Note. k ⫽ number of correlations; N ⫽ total sample size for studies combined; Mr ⫽ mean unweighted correlations; Mwr ⫽ sample-weighted mean
correlations; SDwr ⫽ standard deviation of the sampled-weighted correlations; SD␳ ⫽ standard deviation of correlations corrected for sampling error; SE␳ ⫽
asymptotic standard error of the mean correlations corrected for sampling error; % variance sampling ⫽ percentage of variance because of sampling error;
CI ⫽ confidence interval; CV ⫽ credibility value; fail-safe k ⫽ the number of studies averaging null results that would be needed to reduce the
sample-weighted mean r to .01.
a
Sampling error accounted for more than 100% of the variance in the observed effect size.

results also indicated greater psychosocial mentoring was associ- was .01 and for the relationship between psychosocial mentoring
ated with greater career satisfaction (weighted mean r ⫽ .25), and promotions was .07, suggesting a much larger difference.
greater job satisfaction (weighted mean r ⫽ .20), and stronger Thus, there was somewhat mixed support for Hypothesis 4.
intentions to stay with the company (weighted mean r ⫽ .09). The We predicted in Hypothesis 5 that subjective career outcomes
variable most highly related to psychosocial mentoring was satis- would have a stronger relationship with psychosocial mentoring
faction with the mentor (weighted mean r ⫽ .62). Hypothesis 3 than with career mentoring. As shown in Tables 2 and 3, career
was supported. mentoring and psychosocial mentoring were similarly related to
We suggested in Hypothesis 4 that objective career outcomes career satisfaction. Job satisfaction was somewhat more highly
would have a stronger relationship with career mentoring than with related to career mentoring than to psychosocial mentoring as
psychosocial mentoring. As shown in Tables 2 and 3, the effect evidenced by the limited overlap in confidence intervals. On the
sizes associated with compensation and promotion with career other hand, satisfaction with the mentor was considerably more
mentoring were somewhat higher than those associated with com- highly related to psychosocial mentoring than to career mentoring,
pensation and promotion with psychosocial mentoring. There was with no overlap in confidence intervals. Thus, there is minimal
little overlap in the confidence intervals associated with compen- evidence that subjective career outcomes more highly relate to
sation and promotion. It should be noted that these particular psychosocial mentoring than to career mentoring. However, psy-
estimates were heavily influenced by one large sample study chosocial mentoring does clearly relate more highly to satisfaction
(Tharenou, 2000). After removing the Tharenou (2000) study, the with the mentoring relationship than does career mentoring. In
weighted mean r for the relationship between career mentoring and sum, there was mixed support for Hypotheses 5.
compensation was .13 and the relationship between career men- The results of the file drawer analyses yielded values ranging
toring and promotions was .19. The weighted mean r for the from a low of 15 to a high of 366. For example, it would take 77
relationship between psychosocial mentoring and compensation studies averaging null results to reduce the effect size between

Table 3
Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Career Outcomes and Psychosocial Mentoring

% variance Lower Fail-safe

Dependent variable k N Mr Mwr SDwr SD␳ SE␳ sampling 95% CI 90% CV k

Objective
Compensation 5 6,022 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 84.79 .01, .06 .02 15
Promotions 6 5,955 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.02 74.75 .03, .09 .04 30
Subjective
Career satisfaction 4 582 0.22 0.25 0.15 0.12 0.07 28.10 .10, .39 .09 96
Job satisfaction 5 786 0.22 0.20 0.08 0.00 0.03 100.00 .14, .26 .20 95
Intention to stay 3 704 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.03 0.04 80.06 .01, .17 .05 24
Satisfaction with mentor 6 1,282 0.63 0.62 0.12 0.11 0.05 11.90 .52, .72 .48 366

Note. k ⫽ number of correlations; N ⫽ total sample size for studies combined; Mr ⫽ mean unweighted correlations; Mwr ⫽ sample-weighted mean
correlations; SDwr ⫽ standard deviation of the sampled-weighted correlations; SD␳ ⫽ standard deviation of correlations corrected for sampling error; SE␳ ⫽
asymptotic standard error of the mean correlations corrected for sampling error; % variance sampling ⫽ percentage of variance because of sampling error;
CI ⫽ confidence interval; CV ⫽ credibility value; fail-safe k ⫽ the number of studies averaging null results that would be needed to reduce the
sample-weighted mean r to .01.
132 ALLEN, EBY, POTEET, LENTZ, AND LIMA

mentoring and promotions from .12 to .01 (see Table 1). It should lutes the impact on career outcomes. For example, in one study
be noted that the values produced by the Hunter and Schmidt that used separate measures of the five subfactors associated with
(1990) formula we used are usually much smaller than the number career mentoring and correlated each with compensation (Ragins
of studies needed to reduce the combined probability value to p ⫽ & Cotton, 1999), correlations ranged from ⫺.01 for coaching to
.05, as described in the procedures developed by Rosenthal (1991). .12 for exposure. In future research efforts, it may be beneficial to
In some cases, initially small effect sizes coupled with a small conduct more studies that assess specific mentoring subfactors in
number of primary studies resulted in a small number of additional order to increase our understanding of the unique aspects of
studies averaging null results that would be needed to reduce the mentoring that relate to career benefits.
effect size to .01 (e.g., mentoring and intentions to stay). The The results also indicate that behaviors associated with psycho-
reliability of the results pertaining to those relationships should be social mentoring, such as role modeling, acceptance and confir-
viewed cautiously. mation, counseling, and friendship, were more highly related to
satisfaction with the mentor than was career mentoring. According
Discussion to Kram (1985), the psychosocial mentoring functions represent a
deeper, more intense aspect of mentoring relationships and “psy-
The most consistent claim made in the mentoring literature is chosocial functions depend more on the quality of the relation-
that those who are mentored accrue substantial benefits. Indeed, ship . . . [than career functions]” (p. 32). Further, the fulfillment of
introductions of mentoring studies are frequently prefaced with psychosocial functions means that the mentoring relationship has
this point. Moreover, the existence of a formal mentoring program evolved into a true mentorship and that an emotional bond has
is now being used as criteria against which the “Best Companies to developed between the mentor and the protégé (Kram, 1985).
Work For” are judged (Branch, 1999). Our purpose in conducting Social psychologists note that relational depth and intimacy are
the present study was to summarize existing data concerning the important markers of satisfying dyadic relationships (Hinde,
relationship between mentoring and benefits for protégés. The 1981). Thus, it is not surprising that the provision of psychosocial
results are generally supportive of claims associated with the mentoring is strongly associated with protégé satisfaction with the
benefits of mentoring but also reveal that the effect size associated mentor. This suggests that an important theoretical bridge may be
with objective career outcomes is small. In addition, the findings social–psychological research on other types of close relationships
suggest that the type of mentoring provided may make an impor- such as friendships and marriages. This research may help men-
tant difference in benefits realized. toring researchers more fully articulate the interpersonal processes
As we hypothesized, the results provide some evidence that (e.g., liking, reciprocity, trust) linking mentoring to protégé
objective career success indicators, such as compensation and outcomes.
promotion, are more highly related to career mentoring than to What was surprising was that career and psychosocial mentor-
psychosocial mentoring. The results are not surprising when con- ing had comparable relationships with job and career satisfaction.
sidering the different behaviors associated with career versus psy- We had speculated that these more subjective forms of career
chosocial mentoring. Mentoring behaviors, such as sponsorship, success would more highly relate to psychosocial mentoring than
exposure and visibility, coaching, and protection, are more directly to career mentoring; however, the career-related aspects of men-
related to enhancement of the task-related aspects of work that toring appear just as important to generating positive attitudes
facilitate objective career success. It was also noted that the effect regarding one’s job and career. One possible reason for this finding
sizes for the objective career indicators were stronger when com- is that career-related mentoring likely provides informational and
paring mentored versus nonmentored groups than when examining instrumental social support (Allen, McManus, & Russell, 1999;
the relationship between mentoring functions provided and objec- McManus & Russell, 1997). Such support may help individuals
tive career benefits. Although caution must be observed given the feel more confident in their career decisions and enhance their
small number of studies involved, it may be that the degree of career-related efficacy through coaching and challenging job as-
mentoring provided does not play as large of a role in objective signments, which in turn lead to feelings of greater career satis-
career success as does the presence of a mentor. Alternatively, it faction. In addition, because an important aspect of career-related
may be that current operationalizations of mentoring provided do mentoring involves providing challenging assignments, it may
not adequately capture aspects of the mentoring process that im- serve as a form of job enrichment, which in turn enhances protégé
pact objective career success. For example, recent qualitative re- job satisfaction (Hackman & Oldham, 1976).
search on protégés’ most positive mentoring experiences found There appear to be several fairly robust relationships to men-
that mentoring behaviors such as the provision of networking toring. Specifically, the weighted effect sizes for job satisfaction
opportunities outside the organization, intellectually challenging ranged from .18 to .30 and for career satisfaction ranged from .21
assignments that lead to breadth of skill development rather than to .29. Indeed, the effect sizes associated with job satisfaction rival
increased specialization, help in developing lateral and cross- those typically found for well-established correlates of job satis-
functional relationships in addition to hierarchical relationships, faction, such as age and role variables (Spector, 1997). In addition,
and the provision of personalized feedback and career strategy the mentored versus nonmentored results revealed strong effects
advice were particularly important for protégés (Eby & McManus, for career specific variables such as career commitment, expecta-
2002). Existing measures of mentoring functions typically do not tions for advancement, and career satisfaction. These results sug-
capture all of these types of mentoring behaviors. It also seems gest that the most consistent benefits of mentoring may be the
possible that specific subfactors of the two overarching mentoring impact on affective reactions to the workplace and positive psy-
functions are more or less related to objective career success and chological feelings regarding one’s career. This may not be too
that measuring mentoring functions at the higher order level di- surprising when considering that objective outcomes such as pro-
 MENTORING META-ANALYSIS 133

motion and salary are more reliant on outside influences than are may impact the benefits realized by protégés (e.g., Dreher & Cox,
processes internal to the individual, such as career and job atti- 1996; Ragins, 1999).
tudes. That is, salary increases and promotions can also be con- For several relationships, it was determined that the estimates of
tingent on the financial solvency and hierarchical structure of the sampling error variance were greater than 100% (i.e., estimates of
organization in which the employee works. In addition, it may take “true” variance were negative). Although this would seem to
a greater amount of time for objective benefits to accrue than for indicate that moderators do not exist for these relationships, ac-
affective reactions such as job satisfaction to be impacted by a cording to Hunter and Schmidt (1990), negative true variance
mentoring experience. estimates more accurately mean that second-order sampling error
is operating for these distributions. Essentially, the estimates of
Theoretical Implications sampling error variance in the current study include not only
estimates of variance because of within-study artifacts but also
These findings have important implications for mentoring the- include sampling error resulting from effect size variance across
ory. As discussed by Kram (1985) and others, mentoring is pur- studies (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). This is particularly relevant for
ported to influence career progression, as well as enhance a pro- these relationships because the small number of studies in the
tégé’s sense of professional identity and self-competence. The meta-analysis results in greater sampling error variance in the
accumulated empirical evidence indicates that focusing on men- effect sizes. With a large degree of sampling error variance
toring primarily as a means to achieve objective career success present, it becomes more difficult to estimate how much “true”
may not be warranted. More specifically, our review illustrates that variance actually exists for each calculated effect size. As noted by
mentoring is more strongly related to subjective indicators of Hunter and Schmidt, this phenomenon is related to the issue of
career success, such as career and job satisfaction, than it is to statistical power, with the implication being that in the present
objective career success indicators. Several specific suggestions study, there likely is not enough power for these relationships to
for future research and theory building emerge from these findings. determine whether moderators actually exist (irrespective of the
First, a refinement of mentoring theory that focuses more on how finding that greater than 100% variance is due to sampling error).
mentoring relationships influence subjective indicators of career The nature of most research designs used in mentoring research
success and less on the role of mentoring in understanding objec- also creates reason for debate regarding the causal ordering of
tive career success may be necessary. Second, empirical research variables. Few organizational studies have been designed such that
is needed that examines the link between mentoring and profes- mentoring data are collected prior to that of outcome data (see
sional identity and self-competence because this is discussed in Wayne, Liden, Kraimer, & Graf, 1999, for an exception). More-
mentoring theory but has not been the subject of much research over, outside of Kram’s (1985) theory concerning the stages of the
attention. Finally, given that some support was found for differ- mentoring relationships, we have little guidance concerning the
ential relationships between career-related and psychosocial men- appropriate time lag for capturing mentoring effects. We echo the
toring and career outcomes, additional theoretical work is needed call of many mentoring researchers regarding the need for long-
that articulates the processes by which mentoring influences such term longitudinal research designs to better address the exact
outcomes. For example, we found that career-related mentoring nature of mentoring benefits. For example, although mentoring
was more highly related to objective career outcomes than was may result in greater job satisfaction, it may also be that satisfied
psychosocial mentoring. However, existing mentoring theory does employees are more apt to put themselves in a position to benefit
not discuss the specific behavioral and psychological processes from mentoring.
that may explain this pattern of effects. In contrast, our review As researchers have turned their attention to investigations of
indicates that career-related and psychosocial mentoring are both within-mentorship differences, such as the effectiveness of formal
related to career and job satisfaction to a similar extent. Yet again, versus informal mentorships (e.g., Ragins & Cotton, 1999), few
existing mentoring theory does not provide an explanation for why studies have continued to report effects associated with mentored
this may be the case. versus nonmentored groups. For example, we were able to locate
The results reveal a number of other opportunities for future only three studies that included usable data concerning promotions
research. As mentoring research accumulates, we need to make between mentored and nonmentored individuals. Studies that com-
more fine-grained distinctions regarding the conditions under pared mentored versus nonmentored, as well as the degree of
which protégés benefit most from mentorships. Although we mentoring provided, are necessary because there are weaknesses
thought it premature to conduct moderator analyses given the inherent in either approach alone. As noted by Ragins, Cotton, and
small number of cases for many of the studied variables, such Miller (2000), the simple presence of a mentor may not automat-
analyses seem an important future research endeavor. This is ically relate to positive outcomes, because the outcomes may
especially true given the results of the analyses estimating the depend on the quality of the mentorship. There are also interpre-
percentage of observed variance because of sampling error sug- tation issues associated with the assessment of mentoring func-
gests that a number of moderated relationships may indeed exist. tions. When reports of mentor functions provided are obtained, the
For example, the type of mentorship (i.e., formal vs. informal) is instructions given to participants vary greatly. Some instruct par-
a likely candidate for consideration as a moderating factor. The ticipants to think about their current or most recent mentoring
few studies examining formal versus informal mentorships sug- relationship (e.g., Chao et al., 1992; Scandura & Williams, 2001),
gests that the two may not be equally beneficial (e.g., Chao et al., some instruct participants to base their reports on the most influ-
1992; Ragins & Cotton, 1999). Likewise, research examining race ential mentor (e.g., Murphy & Ensher, 2001), and others ask
and gender diversity within mentorships suggest that the dyadic protégés to reflect on total mentoring received, not limiting re-
composition of the mentorship (e.g., male–male vs. male–female) sponses to a single mentoring relationship (e.g., Turban & Dough-
134 ALLEN, EBY, POTEET, LENTZ, AND LIMA

erty, 1994). It seems likely that the instructions given concerning absence of such interim meta-analyses, psychologists would likely
how to respond in multiple mentorship cases have some impact on base judgments on the findings of individual studies or nonquantita-
the results. For example, an individual may have had a productive tive (i.e., narrative reviews of the literature— both of which are much
mentoring relationship in the past but one of poor quality more more likely to lead to error). Thus, such meta-analyses are, in fact,
very desirable (p. 749).
recently. In such a scenario, the correlations between mentoring
provided and career outcomes may not be an accurate representa-
It has been taken as a universal given that mentoring results in
tion of the overall impact mentoring has had on the individual’s
substantial rewards for protégés. This study provides a more reli-
career. Another concern is that studies often ignore the stage of
able and needed understanding of the strength of these assumed
mentorship. This is important in that Chao (1997) found that
relationships.
protégés in the initiation stage of the mentorship reported receiving
less career and psychosocial mentoring than did protégés in the
other three stages of mentoring. Although we did not have a large Conclusion
enough number of studies to do subgroup analyses of these issues,
It was hoped that by aggregating the results of mentoring studies
these topics raise additional considerations for future research
a clearer picture of the benefits of mentoring would emerge. For
efforts.
the most part, the results of the present analyses shed positive light
Through the course of our literature review, we detected several
on the benefits associated with mentoring. This is especially en-
promising career-related variables that have been linked to men-
couraging given that we used a conservative approach to meta-
toring but that have been examined in only a limited number of
analyzing the research studies that did not correct for various
studies and thus could not be included in our analyses. For exam-
measurement errors. Moreover, the results reveal interesting dif-
ple, although existing studies suggest a positive relationship, we
ferences in the relationship between the two types of mentoring
were unable to examine effect sizes between mentoring and so-
behavior and the various outcomes investigated. Still, given the
cialization. Chao et al. (1992) examined socialization outcomes for
small number of correlations for many of the outcome variables
mentored versus nonmentored as well as the relationship between
studied, much research remains to be done before firmer conclu-
mentoring functions and socialization. Likewise, Feldman, Folks,
sions can be reached. Pursuing the avenues of research outlined
and Turnley (1999) found significant relationships between several
above should enhance our theoretical and practical understanding
aspects of socialization and mentoring; however, they used a
of these important work relationships.
composite measure of mentoring so that their results could not be
combined with Chao et al. Finally, Allen et al. (1999) also found
a positive relationship between mentoring and socialization; how- References
ever, their study was conducted in an academic setting so it was
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the
excluded from the present analyses. meta-analysis.
Another important area for future study is to examine the
incremental value of mentoring on career success. Little research Allen, T. D., McManus, S. E., & Russell, J. E. A. (1999). Newcomer
socialization and stress: Formal peer relationships as a source of support.
has examined the impact of mentoring on career success beyond
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 453– 470.
other factors associated with career success. The studies that have *Aryee, S., & Chay, Y. W. (1994). An examination of the impact of
controlled for protégé factors such as human capital and motiva- career-oriented mentoring on work commitment attitudes and career
tion have produced mixed results (Green & Bauer, 1995; Wayne et satisfaction among professional and managerial employees. British
al., 1999). This line of research seems all the more important given Journal of Management, 5, 241–249.
the small effect sizes associated with mentoring revealed in the *Aryee, S., Wyatt, T., & Stone, R. (1996). Early career outcomes of
present study. graduate employees: The effect of mentoring and ingratiation. Journal of
Management Studies, 33, 95–118.
Bandura, A. L. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Limitations Prentice Hall.
*Barker, P., Monks, K., & Buckley, F. (1999). The role of mentoring in the
As an area of study, mentoring is at a relatively young stage career progression of chartered accountants. British Accounting Review,
compared with many other areas within the organizational behav- 31, 297–312.
ior literature. Consequently, many of our estimated relationships *Baugh, S. G., Lankau, M. J., & Scandura, T. A. (1996). An investigation
involve a small number of studies. Although we are not aware of of the effects of protégé gender on responses to mentoring. Journal of
any firm guidelines concerning the number of studies needed to Vocational Behavior, 49, 309 –323.
warrant conducting a meta-analysis, it should be recognized that Bolino, M. C., & Feldman, D. C. (2000). The antecedents and conse-
second-order sampling error poses a threat to the validity of our quences of underemployment among expatriates. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 21, 889 –911.
reported results (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). Nevertheless, given the
Bolton, E. B. (1980). A conceptual analysis of the mentor relationship in
claims commonly made in the mentoring literature and growing career development of women. Adult Education, 30, 195–207.
practical interest, we believe a quantitative summary of mentoring Branch, S. (1999, January 11). The 100 best companies to work for in
benefits for protégés is a welcome contribution to the literature at America. Fortune, 139, 118 –130.
this juncture. As stated by Schmidt, Hunter, Pearlman, and Hirsh Burke, R. J., & McKeen, C. A. (1989, Winter). Developing formal men-
(1985), toring programs in organizations. Business Quarterly, 53, 76 – 80.
Chao, G. T. (1997). Mentoring phases and outcomes. Journal of Vocational
Even with small numbers of studies and small N’s, meta-analysis is Behavior, 51, 15–28.
still the optimal method for integrating findings across studies. In the *Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal
 MENTORING META-ANALYSIS 135

mentorships: A comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-
nonmentored counterparts. Personnel Psychology, 45, 619 – 636. mance, 35, 250 –279.
*Colarelli, S. M., & Bishop, R. C. (1990). Career commitment: Functions, *Higgins, M. C., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Constellations and careers:
correlates, and management. Group & Organization Studies, 15, 158 – Toward understanding the effects of multiple developmental relation-
176. ships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 223–247.
*Corzine, J. B., Buntzman, G. F., & Busch, E. T. (1994). Mentoring, Hinde, R. A. (1981). The bases of a science of interpersonal relationships.
downsizing, gender and career outcomes. Journal of Social Behavior In S. Duck & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Personal relationships 1: Studying
and Personality, 9, 517–528. relationships (pp. 1–22). London: Academic Press.
*Cox, T. H., & Nkomo, S. M. (1991). A race and gender-group analysis of Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Cor-
the early career experience of MBAs. Work and Occupations, 18, recting error and bias in research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
431– 446. *Johnson, W. B., Lall, R., Holmes, E. K., Huwe, J. M., & Nordlund, M. D.
Dalton, G., Thompson, P., & Price, R. (1977, Summer). Four stages of (2001). Mentoring experiences among navy midshipmen. Military Med-
professional careers-A new look at performance by professionals. Or- icine, 166, 27–31.
ganizational Dynamics, 6, 19 – 42. Judge, T. A., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D. (1994). Job and life attitudes
*Day, R., & Allen, T. D. (in press). The relationship between career of male executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 767–782.
motivation and self-efficacy with protégé career success. Journal of Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York:
Vocational Behavior. Basic Books.
Douglas, C. A., & McCauley, C. D. (1999). Formal developmental rela- *Kirchmeyer, C. (1998). Determinants of managerial career success: Evi-
tionships: A survey of organizational practices. Human Resource De- dence and explanation of male/female differences. Journal of Manage-
velopment Quarterly, 10, 203–220. ment, 24, 673– 692.
Dreher, G. F., & Ash, R. A. (1990). A comparative study of mentoring *Kirchmeyer, C. (2002). Change and stability in managers’ gender roles.
among men and women in managerial, professional, and technical Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 929 –939.
positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 539 –546. *Koberg, C. S., Boss, R. W., Chappell, D., & Ringer, R. C. (1994).
*Dreher, G. F., & Chargois, J. A. (1998). Gender, mentoring experiences, Correlates and consequences of protégé mentoring in a large hospital.
Group & Organization Management, 19, 219 –239.
and salary attainment among graduates of an historically black univer-
*Koberg, C., Boss, R. W., & Goodman, E. (1998). Factors and outcomes
sity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 401– 416.
associated with mentoring among health-care professionals. Journal of
*Dreher, G. F., & Cox, T. H., Jr. (1996). Race, gender, and opportunity: A
Vocational Behavior, 53, 58 –72.
study of compensation attainment and the establishment of mentoring
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in
relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 297–308.
organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
Eby, L. T., & McManus, S. E. (2002, April). Protégés most positive
Levinson, D. J., Darrow, D., Klein, E., Levinson, M., & McKee, B. (1978).
mentoring experience. In R. Day & T. D. Allen (Co-Chairs), Underlying
Seasons of a man’s life. New York: Knopf.
processes responsible for beneficial mentorships: Implications of emerg-
Manz, C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1981). Vicarious learning: The influences of
ing research. Annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organi-
modeling on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review,
zational Psychology, Toronto, Canada.
6, 105–113.
*Ensher, E. A., & Murphy, S. E. (1997). Effects of race, gender, perceived
McManus, S. E., & Russell, J. E. A. (1997). New directions for mentoring
similarity, and contact on mentor relationships. Journal of Vocational
research: An examination of related constructs. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 50, 460 – 481.
Behavior, 51, 145–161.
*Ensher, E. A., Thomas, C., & Murphy, S. E. (2001). Comparison of
*Mobley, G. M., Jaret, C., Marsh, K., & Lim, Y. Y. (1994). Mentoring, job
traditional, step-ahead, and peer mentoring on protégés’ support, satis- satisfaction, gender, and the legal profession. Sex Roles, 31, 79 –98.
faction and perceptions of career success: A social exchange perspective. Mullen, E. (1994). Framing the mentoring relationship in an information
Journal of Business and Psychology, 15, 415– 438. exchange. Human Resource Management Review, 4, 257–281.
*Fagenson, E. A. (1989). The mentor advantage: Perceived career/job *Murphy, S. E., & Ensher, E. A. (2001). The role of mentoring support and
experiences of protégés versus non-protégés. Journal of Organizational self-management strategies on reported career outcomes. Journal of
Behavior, 10, 309 –320. Career Development, 27, 229 –246.
Feldman, D. C., Folks, W. R., & Turnley, W. H. (1999). Mentor–protégé *Noe, R. A. (1988a). An investigation of the determinants of successful
diversity and its impact on international internship experience. Journal assigned mentoring relationships. Personnel Psychology, 41, 457– 479.
of Organizational Behavior, 20, 597– 611. Noe, R. A. (1988b). Women and mentoring: A review and research agenda.
*Finkelstein, L. M., Allen, T. D., & Rhoton, L. (2003). An examination of Academy of Management Review, 13, 65–78.
the role of age in mentoring relationships. Group & Organization *Orpen, C. (1995). The effects of mentoring on employees’ career success.
Management, 28, 249 –281. The Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 667– 668.
*Gaskill, L. R., & Sibley, L. R. (1990). Mentoring relationships for women *Prevosto, P. (2001). The effect of mentored relationships on satisfaction
in retailing: Prevalence, perceived importance, and characteristics. The and intent to stay of company-grade U. S. Army reserve nurses. Military
Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 9, 1–10. Medicine, 166, 21–26.
*Godshalk, V. M., & Sosik, J. J. (2000). Does mentor–protégé agreement Ragins, B. R. (1989). Barriers to mentoring: The female manager’s di-
on mentor leadership behavior influence the quality of a mentoring lemma. Human Relations, 42, 1–22.
relationship? Group & Organization Management, 25, 291–317. Ragins, B. R. (1999). Gender and mentoring relationships: A review and
Green, S. G., & Bauer, T. N. (1995). Supervisory mentoring by advisors: research agenda for the next decade. In G. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of
Relationships with doctoral student potential, productivity, and commit- gender and work (pp. 347–370). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
ment. Personnel Psychology, 48, 537–561. *Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A
Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W. M. (1990). Effects of comparison of men and women in formal and informal mentoring
race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 529 –550.
career outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 64 – 86. *Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring:
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of The effects of type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program
 136 ALLEN, EBY, POTEET, LENTZ, AND LIMA

design on work and career attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, models, mentors, and the “patron system.” Sloan Management Review,
43, 1177–1194. 19, 51–58.
Ragins, B. R., & McFarlin, D. B. (1990). Perceptions of mentor roles in *Sosik, J. J., & Godshalk, V. M. (in press). Self-other rating agreement in
cross-gender mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, mentoring: Meeting protégé expectations for development and career
37, 321–339. advancement. Group & Organization Management.
Raju, N. S., Burke, M. J., Normand, J., & Langlois, G. M. (1991). A new *Sosik, J. J., & Godshalk, V. M. (2000). Leadership styles, mentoring
meta-analytic approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 432– 446. functions received, and job related stress: A conceptual model and
Raju, N. S., & Fleer, P. F. (2003). VG2M: A computer program for preliminary study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 365–390.
conducting validity generalization analysis. Chicago: Illinois Institute of Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes,
Technology. and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reichers, A. E., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution Spector, P. E., & Levine, E. L. (1987). Meta-analysis for integrating study
of constructs. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture outcomes: A Monte Carlo study of its susceptibility to Type I and Type
(pp. 5–39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. II errors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 3–9.
*Riley, S., & Wrench, D. (1985). Mentoring among women lawyers. Tepper, K., Shaffer, B. C., & Tepper, B. J. (1996). Latent structure of
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 374 –386. mentoring function scales. Educational & Psychological Measurement,
Roche, G. (1979). Much ado about mentors. Harvard Business Review, 57, 56, 848 – 857.
14 –28. *Tharenou, P. (2000, April). Consequences of mentoring on career ad-
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (re- vancement: Does protégé gender make a difference? Presented at the
vised edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 15th Annual Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Con-
Scandura, T. A. (1992). Mentorship and career mobility: An empirical ference, New Orleans, LA.
investigation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 169 –174. *Turban, D., & Dougherty, T. (1994). Role of protégé personality in
*Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1994). Leader–member exchange receipt of mentoring and career success. Academy of Management Jour-
and supervisor career mentoring as complementary constructs in lead- nal, 37, 688 –702.
ership research. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1588 –1602. *Wallace, J. E. (2001). The benefits of mentoring for female lawyers.
Scandura, T. A., & Katerberg, R. J. (1992). Much ado about mentors and Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 366 –391.
little ado about measurement: Development of an instrument. Paper *Waters, L., McCabe, M., Kiellerup, D., & Kiellerup, S. (2001, August).
presented at the Academy of Management Conference, Anaheim, CA. The role of career-related support and psychosocial support in a formal
Scandura, T. A., & Viator, R. (1994). Mentoring in public accounting mentoring program designed to assist in new business start-up? Paper
firms: An analysis of mentor-protégé relationships, mentoring functions, presented at the annual conference of the Academy of Management,
and protégé turnover intentions. Accounting, Organizations, and Society, Washington, DC.
19, 717–734. *Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., Kraimer, M. L., & Graf, I. K. (1999). The role
Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2001). An investigation of the of human capital, motivation and supervisor sponsorship in predicting
moderating effects of gender on the relationships between mentorship career success. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 577–595.
initiation and protégé perceptions of mentoring functions. Journal of *Whitely, W. T., & Coetsier, P. (1993). The relationship of career men-
Vocational Behavior, 59, 342–363. toring to early career outcomes. Organization Studies, 14, 419 – 441.
Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., Pearlman, K., & Hirsh, H. R. (1985). Forty *Whitely, W., Dougherty, T. W., & Dreher, G. F. (1991). Relationship of
questions about validity generalization and meta-analysis. Personnel career mentoring and socioeconomic origin to managers’ and profes-
Psychology, 38, 697–798. sionals’ early career progress. Academy of Management Journal, 34,
*Seibert, S. (1999). The effectiveness of facilitated mentoring: A longitu- 331–351.
dinal quasi-experiment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 483–502. Zagumny, M. J. (1993). Mentoring as a tool for change: A social learning
Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality perspective. Organization Development Journal, 11, 43– 48.
and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 416 – 427.
*Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital
theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 219 – Received July 29, 2002
237. Revision received March 19, 2003
Shapiro, E. C., Hazeltine, F. P., & Rowe, M. P. (1978). Moving up: Role Accepted May 12, 2003 䡲

View publication stats