chaperone by Doug Minter

chaperone â&#x20AC;&#x153;How Mentoring creates Economic Developmentâ&#x20AC;?

Written By W. Douglas Minter Jr. Knoxville Chamber/Innovation Valley

11607

about the Author There is a relatively small segment of leaders in the business world; individuals who seem able to build relationships, trust, and rapport with almost anyone, and then are able to broker the relationships and make connections between people, creating partnerships and alliances, and motivating forward momentum to ‘get things done.’ W. Douglas Minter is one of those people, and ‘getting things done’ and driving results—through collaboration, partnerships, and relationships—as business development manager for the Knoxville Chamber Partnership, that is what he is all about. With an enthusiastic and genuinely friendly attitude, Doug radiates a sincere passion for delivering value and benefits to the East Tennessee business community. An insurance agent by training, Doug earned his B.A. in Political Science at University of Tennessee. Minter’s interesting work life began when he graduated “Honor Man” in boot camp with the USMC. He served for eight years in the reserves and saw combat during Operation Desert Storm serving on the front lines clearing mine fields in Kuwait. Minter then served three years with the United States Forestry Department as a firefighter with the Deschutes National Forest. He cites

11607 one of the hallmarks of his time was being able to save Clint Eastwood’s home in Sun Valley from burning in a very large forest fire. After flirting with aspirations of following his father’s footsteps in politics the entrepreneurial flame won him over. He spent a few years as a comedian and was voted the University of Tennessee’s “funniest man”. He was also a Doritos’s College Comedy finalist ranked as one of the top ten funniest students in college America. Minter and a partner started Silver Cloud Valet in an apartment and became one of the first full service Valet Parking companies in the region. They started with one employee and grew it to over 60 employees in three years. Minter then joined his family in running The Casey Jones Insurance Group. He became Vice President of the firm and grew the small agency into the largest owned African-American independent insurance firm in the State of Tennessee 2008. . In 2005 he bought the firm and grew by 30% each year until selling the firm in 2008. Minter was recruited by the Knoxville Chamber for his small business expertise to run the small business outreach department of the chamber’s Innovation Valley region which encompasses five counties in East Tennessee. Minter now counsels over 150 businesses each year assisting them in becoming successful. Minter started the Propel Mentor Protégé program which is one of just a handful of programs like it within chambers across the country. Currently professors from Cal Poly and Harvard are researching his program. Throughout it all, Doug has repeatedly proved his ability to lead through diverse and challenging situations. He is an excellent agent of change and has a documented track record of accomplishments that include the turnaround of chaotic and struggling operations; start-up and management of new businesses; creation and launch of new and improved ways to help grow businesses and motivate people.

11607

contents • Conclusion

Why have a preface begin with the end in mind!

• Chapter One

Honor(Wo)Man – Basic Training: Leading and Following

• Chapter Two Success

HITS HAPPEN!!! – Managing Failure: the Fastest Road to

• Chapter Three

Chambers of Commerce - Please Try This at Home!!!

• Chapter Four

The Great Mentor

• Chapter Five

The Great Protégé

• Chapter Six

Wielding Cupid’s Bow - How to Make Great Matches

• Chapter Seven

Marketing –The Management of Apathy

• Chapter Eight

Show Me the Money! - Measuring the ROI

• Chapter Nine

White Men CAN Jump - Diversity & Inclusion Matters

• Chapter Ten

Size Matters – How to Measure Results

appendix “An ode to DIY”

• Research - Harvard/Cal Poly Study • Reports - PROPEL Mentor Protégé Program Results • Testimonials - Words from Mentors & Protégés • Resources – Valuable links Related to Each Chapter • Casting Call - How to select a Director of A Mentor/Protégé Program 4

11607

chapter One - Honor (Wo)Man Basic Training: Leading and Following â&#x20AC;˘

The Story

â&#x20AC;˘

The Moral

11607

chapter Two - HITS HAPPEN!!! Managing Failure: the Fastest Road to Success

The Story

The Moral

11607

chapter Three - Chambers of Commerce Please Try This at Home!!! •

The Story

•

The Moral

•

The Knoxville Chamber of Commerce sees business to business mentoring as a function of local economic development. Based on this assumption we have opted to create a formal Mentor Protégé program. Our Mentors are gleaned from those members with high status which we call our “Premier Partners”. Our protégés are selected by a small committee who vets the applicants on three things: revenues, innovation, and market distinction. In our first 6 months of the program protégés landed over $5 million in new contracts. Since inception of the program in January of 2010 our protégés have maintained 94 employees and grown that number to 140. This is a growth of over 67% over their original baseline. Revenue growth for the same time period shows an increase of 39%. See the attached economic impact of our program for fiscal year July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011.

•

We think that other organizations can follow this model as long as the 5 basic best practices for the program infrastructure exist. (Please see best practices section):

•

We think this model can be duplicated at any organization with a mission to facilitate the growth of small business. We think the following 10 ideas can be applied unilaterally between governmental and non-governmental mentor protégé programs:

•

Partner with local Chamber of Commerce.

•

Size of protégé class should be limited to 10% of the mentor population.

•

Protégés and Mentors should have personality test and or reviews.

•

Protégés should be required to be in program for 3 years. Two years of mentorship and one year of giving back to the program. We follow the philosophy of Learn, Earn, and Return. In the third year we ask for high producing protégés to become mentors to replenish the pool.

•

Protégés should be required to attend monthly classes to learn technical back office items. We call our monthly classes a “street mba”. We utilize the industry leading SMLS(Strategic Management Learning System).

•

Networking socials for protégés and mentors should be done collectively and as separate groups.

11607 •

Instruction on relationship building for both the mentors and protégés should be a part of the curriculum.

•

Mentors should be required to spend at least two hours a month with protégé

•

Partner with local media to highlight the program and do monthly profiles on the mentor protégé teams.

•

Reporting of revenues, objectives, contracts, economic impact is critical to showing the ROI of the program.

•

Companies can and do band together through mentorship without formal programs. This is done either through loose or non binding terms where there is a mutual benefit based on some ROI and or specific project or client. However we believe that a formal Mentor Protégé program allows for an organized way to share best practices and networks between companies. It allows for a formal pathway for firms to band together for mutual benefit while using the endorsements of others and their resources to allow for better due diligence. As companies band together on their own, large firms have the control. Smaller firms typically do not have the resources to provide the same level of due diligence. Formal mentor protégé programs allow for a standard of interactions, ethics, respect, and learning that may not exist in totality with direct informal b to b interactions. The best examples of b to b mentoring outside of formal programs can be mutually beneficial. However, the success of these ventures are difficult to track and the best ROI from those partnerships typically occur among family owned businesses that transfer from family to family. ROI also is evident when companies band through “teaming agreements” and “joint ventures” , however this is typically common when both firms are participating in federal government, municipal, and or minority based contracting where those arrangements are encouraged. These clusters of b to b bands tend to be seen when procurement opportunities require such. Outside the government and municipal world mentoring tends to be less defined. Our philosophy is that the mentor protégé arrangement through a CofC can operate with or without the influence of government contracting and can also be a feeder source to this world or an exit plan for government contractors wishing to grow their business in the commercial world.

•

As it relates to the government sector and in cases where large domestic and global firms have goals to do business with small, minority, and veteran owned businesses the bands of companies working together is more prevalent as it is a requirement of the client. For example Volkswagen built its first plant in the United States in Chattanooga, Tennessee. As a part of its procurement goals they set goals for the percentage of their spend, to go to small and minority businesses. In their communications with the business community they encouraged “teaming agreements” and “joint ventures”. As a result clusters of automotive and other suppliers have joined forces to bid on opportunities. Additionally Volkswagen fosters networking between “tier one” or primes with smaller companies. Mentoring is less formally conducted with Tier One suppliers and their subcontractors. However this mentorship is specific and narrowly focused on

11607 the specific job at hand. These relationships are most often temporary in nature and may not address other issues in the development of that small business. •

Based on our findings there are 5 key best practices:

•

Have a pool of Mentors who have the desire to Mentor. We follow the rule of 10%. If the pool of Mentors is 200 members and 10% of those should be able to be mined as Mentors. Which means you can have a class of 20 protégés.

•

The organization should have direct access to the mentors through their organization, i.e. the Mentors are members of your organization. Third party access of another organization’s members can be cumbersome and most organizations are very protective of their databases. If a third party is needed to access Mentors then we suggest partnering with a CofC. Generally CofC are the largest business based organization in a region or city.

•

Have a fulltime program administrator who has been an entrepreneur to facilitate the program. This person is the link between the mentors and protégés and drives the direction of the program, sets the proper expectations and tracks results.

•

Location of the program is important and a proper meeting space is needed to facilitate meetings, networking, and classroom instruction. The physical location should be a hub that is centrally located to other resources. We also encourage arming the mentors and protégé with the latest free or low cost video conferencing equipment. Currently we have found that we can video link our mentor, protégés, and other business resource partners for about $300 per participant annually.

•

Create a formal support network of partners from other business resource groups i.e., SCORE, SBDCs, college and universities, economic development agencies and the like.

11607

chapter Four - The Great Mentor •

The Story

•

The Moral

11607

chapter Five - The Great Protégé The Story

The Moral

11607

chapter Six - Wielding Cupid’s Bow How to Make Great Matches •

The Story

•

The Moral

11607

chapter Seven - Marketing The Management of Apathy â&#x20AC;˘

The Story

â&#x20AC;˘

The Moral

11607

chapter Eight - Show Me the Money! Measuring the ROI •

The Story

•

The Moral

11607

chapter Nine - White Men CAN Jump Diversity & Inclusion Matters •

The Story

•

The Moral

11607

Chapter Ten - Size Matters How to Measure Results •

The Story

•

The Moral

11607

Appendix An ode to DIY

11607

Research Presenter Symposium Submission for 2011 Academy of Management Meeting

THE YIN & YANG OF MENTORING: EXPLORING THE CONTINUUM OF MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS AND EXPERIENCES

Organizers:

Additional Authors/Participants:

Dawn E. Chandler College of Business

Wendy Marcinkus Murphy Management Division

California Polytechnic State University Babson College San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Babson Park, MA 02457 Phone: (805) 756-1760 Phone: (617) 816-5388 dachandl@calpoly.edu wmurphy@babson.edu

Shoshana Dobrow School of Business Discussant: Fordham University 1790 Broadway, Suite 1314 Belle Rose Ragins New York, NY 10019 Professor of Human Resource Management 212.636.7304 Sheldon B. Lubar School of Business dobrow@fordham.edu University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee 3202 N. Maryland Avenue

11607 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53211

Lillian T. Eby, Ph.D.

Telephone: (414) 229-6823

Professor of Psychology

Ragins@uwm.edu

228 Psychology Building The University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602 Phone: 706-542-2174 Fax: 706-542-3275

Kyle Ehrhardt Marcus M. Butts, Ph.D.

Sheldon B. Lubar School of Business

Assistant Professor of Management

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

University of Texas at Arlington

3202 N. Maryland Avenue

College of Business Administration

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53211

701 S. West Street, Suite 212

Phone: 414-229-2536

Arlington, TX 76019-0467

kpe@uwm.edu

Phone: (817)-272-3855 Email: mbutts@uta.edu

Lisa Finkelstein Department of Psychology

John F. Capman

Northern Illinois University DeKalb, IL 60115

Department of Psychology, Box B 8-215 Baruch College, City University of NY

Phone: (815) 753-0439 lisaf@niu.edu

One Bernard Baruch Way

Additional Authors/Participants Contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d:

New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-3809

Monica C. Higgins

capman84@yahoo.com

Graduate School of Education Harvard University

11607 Cambridge, MA 02138

Douglas Minter

Phone: (617) 496-8826

Business Development Manager, Knoxville Chamber of Commerce

monica_higgins@gse.harvard.edu

17 Market Square, Ste 201 Knoxville, TN 37902  Kurt Kraiger Phone: 865-246-2662 Department of Psychology dminter@knoxvillechamber.com Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 Dianne Murphy Phone: (970) 491-6821 Sheldon B. Lubar School of Business kurt.kraiger@colostate.edu University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee 3202 N. Maryland Avenue Karen S. Lyness

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53211

Department of Psychology, Box B 8-215 Phone: 414-791-3426 Baruch College, City University of New York ddmurphy@uwm.edu One Bernard Baruch Way New York, NY 10010 Belle Rose Ragins Phone: (646) 312-3842 Sheldon B. Lubar School of Business Karen.Lyness@verizon.net University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee 3202 N. Maryland Avenue Kristina Matarazzo Department of Psychology Northern Illinois University DeKalb, IL 60115

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53211 Phone: (414) 229-6823 Ragins@uwm.edu

phone: 773/368.8881 kmataraz@gmail.com

11607

11607 "We have received signed statements from all intended participants agreeing to participate in the entire symposium, AND that they are not in violation of the Rule of Three + Three. "

Signed: Dawn Chandler, Shoshana Dobrow & Wendy Marcinkus Murphy, January 10, 2010

THE YIN & YANG OF MENTORING: EXPLORING THE CONTINUUM OF MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS AND EXPERIENCES ________________________________________________________________________

Abstract This symposium’s purpose is to broaden our understanding of mentoring relationships at opposite ends the mentoring relationship continuum, ranging from positive and high-quality relationships to negative and dark experiences. Mentoring has been and remains critically important in an increasingly turbulent economy and competitive job market marked by numerous career transitions by individuals and by steep learning curves in a technologically-sophisticated, global environment. The four papers balance the yin and yang of mentoring in relation to workplace discrimination, maintaining or dropping out of relationships, mentor and protégé reports of bad experiences, and the benefits and challenges of interorganizational mentoring. These studies stretch our research agendas and expand how we understand mentoring and its relevance in practice. The presentations will explore (i) the relational buffering of mentoring for employees of color from the negative effects of workplace discrimination; (ii) the factors that affect perceptions of relationship quality and dropping out of a formal mentoring program; (iii) the synchronous (time 1 to time 1, time 2 to time 2) and lagged (time 1 to time 2) associations between mentor and protégé reports of bad experience, and at the stability of bad experiences from both persons’ perspective over time; and (iv) the nature of interorganizational mentoring and its benefits and challenges. The symposium will end with a thematic discussion around central positive and negative mentoring questions underpinning the presentations and will prod audience members and participants to brainstorm questions relevant to future research.

Submitted to: CAR, HR

Keywords:

11607

CAR:

Careers, mentoring, developmental relationships

HR:

Formal mentoring programs, mentoring, career development

OVERVIEW OF THE SYMPOSIUM The first 15 years of mentoring research focused on the “traditional” mentoring relationship, which was implicitly assumed to bring significant value to protégés, mentors, and organizations. Over time, however, researchers began to explore the “dark side” of mentoring, articulating a host of negative experiences that may accompany participation in a mentoring relationship (e.g., Eby, Butts, Lockwood & Simon, 2004; Eby & McManus, 2004; Scandura, 1988). Consistent with the idea that mentoring can involve good and bad experiences, researchers highlighted a continuum of relationships ranging from

11607 highly satisfying to dissatisfying (Ragins, 2005; Ragins, Cotton, & Miller, 2000; Ragins & Verbos, 2007). In stark contrast to negative experiences stand high-quality mentoring relationships, which are borne of Positive Organizational Scholarship, and include the subjective experiences of vitality, connectivity, and mutual regard, among others (Dutton & Ragins, 2007). High-quality connections can be considered “transcendental” in that they potentially “surpass all others” and are “beyond common thought or experience” (Dictionary.com, 2010). Taken together, negative experiences and high-quality relationships represent “the yin and yang of mentoring,” that is the dark and negative and the positive and bright in mentoring. This symposium focuses on new insights and understandings of these two ends of the mentoring continuum. The Academy theme overview notes that the Chinese word for crisis, “wei-ji,” “is made up of the two characters representing danger and opportunity” and notes that as management scholars, we should seek to turn challenges into opportunities and contribute to the debate on critical business issues (Academy of Management “East Meets West” overview, 2010). Our aim is to bring value to the mentoring debate by asking enlightened questions and offering sound insight around how to create conditions for high-quality, transcendental relationships, both formally assigned and informally cultivated, as well as to mitigate the challenges of negative experiences and lessen the likelihood of their occurrence. During the symposium, the presenters address a number of questions related to these topics, including: What are the functions and outcomes of high-quality mentoring relationships? How can mentoring relationships bring about positive outcomes and create buffer against negative outcomes for people of color and other disadvantaged groups? How can individuals establish relationships so that negative experiences are less likely to occur? What is the association between mentor and protégé reports of bad experiences over time? What are the benefits of and challenges associated with business-tobusiness mentoring?

11607 This symposium has balance in terms of having papers that address both negative experiences and high-quality relationship, papers that have diverse samples, and a variety of methods, including longitudinal, qualitative and quantitative designs. Taken together, the four paper presentations address both formal and informal mentoring relationships, individual and organizational-level relationships, as well as positive and negative outcomes.

Symposium Structure and Summary of the Contributions The papers are ordered to move from positive (Ragins, Lyness, Ehrhardt, Murphy, and Capman) to negative, and ending with both positive and negative (Chandler, Higgins, & Minter) for a balanced view of mentoring that begin to fill the gaps in our knowledge of the yin-and-yang of mentoring relationships. These studies contribute to the theoretical extension of the yin and yang of mentoring by introducing empirical research on the effects of high-quality mentoring—as a means to buffer against discrimination—identifying factors associated with retention in and satisfaction associated with a program in a negative economic context, offering a more complex view of the effects of negative mentoring experiences over time, and introducing positive effects of and challenges associated with interorganizational mentoring as a new area of scholarly attention. In addition, the authors employ several different methodological approaches for understanding high-quality relationships and negative mentoring experiences that include exploring longitudinal effects as well as qualitative interviews. The proposed 90 minutes will include four presentations with allotted time for specific questions following each paper and facilitated discussion. First, Ragins, Lyness, Ehrhardt, Murphy, and Capman test the relational buffering effect in a sample of 617 White and 199 protégés of color. They found that high quality informal mentoring buffered protégés of color, but not Whites, from the negative effects of ambient discrimination on organizational commitment. Those with formal mentoring relationships did not experience this buffering effect. While

11607 high quality informal mentoring helped protégés of color maintain their organizational commitment in the face of a discriminatory workplace, these relationships were unable to buffer them from the effects of discrimination on promotions, or their expectations about racial barriers to their future career success. White mentors were associated with more frequent promotions for both White protégés and protégés of color in less discriminatory environments; however, this advantage held for Whites but disappeared for protégés of color in discriminatory environments. Although protégés of color are often advised to seek out White mentors, the results shed new light on these assertions by highlighting the potential tempering effect of organizational context on the effectiveness of mentoring relationships.

In the second presentation, Finkelstein, Kraiger, and Matarazzo discuss a year-long formal mentoring program created for a state-wide employment system in the western United States. The implementation of the program happened to coincide with a difficult economic downturn in the state during which many employees were being laid off or asked to take on the work of others, and thus employee development was no longer at the forefront of priorities. In their study they look at how factors impacted perceived relationship quality and outcomes, including their likelihood to drop out of the program. A FEW MORE SENTENCES HERE…SHASA? The third contribution by Eby and Butts take a longitudinal perspective to explore the relationship between mentor and protégé reports of bad mentoring experiences over time. The study uses two waves of data collected from intact mentor-protégé dyads to examine the synchronous (time 1 to time 1, time 2 to time 2) and lagged (time 1 to time 2) associations between mentor and protégé reports of bad experiences. The authors also look at the stability of bad experiences from both persons’ perspective over time. Their findings indicate that there is some stability in bad experiences over time but there is also variability. They also find significant cross-source synchronous and lagged relationships between mentor and protégé reports of bad experiences. Their study highlights the dynamic nature of bad experiences in

11607 mentoring relationships, the importance of studying relationships over time, and provides a more finegrained examination of the association between mentor and protégé reports of bad experiences. Finally, Chandler, Higgins, & Minter introduce a new level of mentoring analysis and an associated construct: inter-organizational mentoring. Using survey and interview data, they examine the experiences of mentor and protégé participants involved in a Chamber of Commerce facilitated businessto-business mentoring program. While a strong body of research has explored mentoring in terms of its individual participants, their informal and formal relationships and formal mentoring program charateristics, no research has considered mentoring when the participants are paired with the intention of aiding the businesses of which they are a part. The Chamber of Commerce program represents just one of a number of types of inter-organizational pairings in place across the United States (others include environmental and school district mentoring programs) that have not received scholarly attention. Survey and interview data included questions aimed at understanding what participants gained from the mentoring experience, challenges in working together, suggestions for the business-to-business program, efforts taken to make the relationship of high quality. Data have been content analyzed by one author and will be by a second author prior to the presentation. The study intends to shed light on what leads to highquality interorganizational relationships as well as challenges that face partnerships. Following the presentations, Belle Rose Ragins will identify themes that have emerged and offer her thoughts on the future of the mentoring literature. To facilitate discussion between the presenters and the audience, she will begin by highlighting links among the symposium contributions and offering questions relevant to the development of a future research agenda.

Relevance of this Symposium to the Careers and Human Resources Divisions

Research on mentoring has flourished in the area of careers and the importance of interpersonal relationships has many applications for human resources management. For career scholars, this

11607 symposium offers innovative studies at the forefront of positive and negative mentoring research. For human resource management scholars, this symposium emphasizes how the globalization of careers affects both the antecedents and consequences of mentoring support. For one, it suggests that human resources representatives should create programs that emphasize the need for employees to foster their own developmental relationships. This symposium should provide insights for human resource scholars and professionals interested in understanding and improving the effectiveness of cross cultural developmental relationships. SHASA? This session should provide guidance and relevant questions for both scholars and practitioners looking to foster effective developmental relationships in a variety of contexts.

PRESENTATION #1

Can the Yin of Mentoring Counter the Yang of a Discriminatory Workplace? Relational Quality and Mentor Race as Potential Buffers to Workplace Discrimination

Belle Rose Ragins University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Karen S. Lyness Baruch College

Kyle Ehrhardt Dianne Murphy University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

11607 John F. Capman Baruch College

Relational perspectives on mentoring hold that the quality of the relationship is central to its effectiveness (Ragins & Verbos, 2007; Ragins, in press) and that effective mentoring is particularly important for people of color (Blake-Beard, Murrell & Thomas, 2007; Ragins, 2007; Thomas, 2001; Thomas & Gabarro, 1999). High quality relationships may buffer workers from the effects of negative workplaces (Dutton & Ragins, 2007). Extending this “buffering hypothesis” (Cohen & Wills, 1985) to the diversity and mentoring arena, we test the proposition that high quality mentoring buffers protégés from the adverse effects of discriminatory workplaces (cf., Ragins, 2002, 2007). Our study tests this “Relational Buffering Hypothesis” by examining whether and under what conditions high quality mentoring buffers protégés from the negative effects of racial discrimination at work. We know that mentoring can be a powerful tool for creating inclusive workplaces (Blake-Beard et al., 2007; Ragins, 2007), but what is the full reach of this relationship? Can high quality mentors buffer protégés, particularly protégés of color, from the adverse effects of workplace discrimination? Our study had four objectives. The first was to test the Relational Buffering Hypothesis and examine whether high quality mentoring can buffer protégés from the effects of workplace discrimination. The second was to test the assertion that White mentors are preferable to mentors of color, irrespective of environmental context. Diversified mentoring theory holds that White mentors have more power than mentors of color, and are therefore better able to provide career support to their protégés (Ragins, 1997). Existing research has found that the presence of White male mentors is associated with greater compensation, and protégés of color are often advised to seek out White mentors because of the power they can bring to the relationship (Dreher & Cox, 1996; Dreher & Chargois, 1998). However, diversified mentoring theory also points out that the organization’s diversity climate plays a powerful role in these relationships (Ragins, 1997). A key question, therefore, is whether White mentors are able to

11607 buffer their protégés from the effects of discriminatory environments. The third objective was to examine whether the buffering from these relationships extends to formally assigned mentoring relationships. Although formal relationships are generally less effective than informal relationships (Underhill, 2006), relational quality matters more than the type of relationship (Ragins, Cotton, & Miller, 2000), so it is important to assess whether high quality formal relationships can also buffer protégés from the effects of workplace discrimination. Last, we wanted to explore whether White protégés also experience these buffering effects. Existing research has found that although Whites are less likely to be the direct targets of racial discrimination than people of color, they still suffer from the effects of discriminatory workplaces (Gonzalez & DeNisi, 2009; McKay et al., 2007) and the “second hand smoke effects” of ambient forms of workplace harassment (Chrobot-Mason et al., 2010; Glomb et al., 1997; Hitlan, Schneider & Walsh, 2006; Raver & Gelfand, 2005). Our study focuses on ambient racial discrimination, which involves the exposure to racial discrimination aimed at others in the workplace, and therefore captures the experiences of both White protégés and protégés of color. METHOD Web surveys were completed by 4,043 college alumni who were employed in organizations in the U.S. and worked a minimum of 10 hours per week. We restricted our sample to those who had mentors when they took the survey (20%; n = 816). The protégés’ average age was 37 and their average organizational tenure was 4 years. Of those reporting their gender, 39% (n = 323) were men and 61% (n = 496) were women. The sample included 199 protégés of color (57 African-Americans, 59 Latinos, 56 Asians, 3 Native Americans, 24 multi-racial) and 617 White protégés. In terms of type of mentor, 74% (n = 146) of the protégés of color had informal mentors and 26% (n = 52) had formally assigned mentors. Equivalent proportions were found for Whites; 74% (n = 457) were informally mentored and 26% (n = 158) had formal mentors. In terms of racial composition of the relationship, 33% (n = 64) of the protégés of color had same-race mentors, while 67% (n = 132) had a mentor of a different race. In contrast, for Whites, 89% (n = 540) had a same-race mentor while 11% (n = 68) were in a cross-race relationship.

11607 Established instruments were used for all measures; alphas were all acceptable (ranging from .79 to .90). Ambient workplace discrimination was measured with a 10-item subscale of James, Lovato & Cropanzano’s (1994) Workplace Prejudice and Discrimination Inventory that measures awareness of discrimination aimed at others at work (“At work, minority employees receive fewer opportunities”, “There is discrimination where I work.”). Quality of mentoring relationship was assessed with Ragins and Cotton’s (1999) 4-item Satisfaction with Mentoring Scale. Dependent variables included Meyer, Allen and Smith’s (1993) 6-item measure of organizational commitment, the length of time since last promotion, and McWhirter’s (1997) 4-item measure of perceived racial barriers to career success (“In my career, I will probably be treated differently because of my racial/ethnic background.”). Hierarchical regression analyses were used to test relationships. Control variables included gender, education, organizational size, organizational tenure, length of mentoring relationship, whether the mentor was the protégé’s direct supervisor, and type of relationship (informal or formal). Racial identity (Sellers et al., 1997) was controlled in analyses involving protégés of color. RESULTS Initial correlational analyses illustrated the negative effects of ambient workplace discrimination for both White protégés (W) and protégés of color (POC). For example, protégés’ reports of discrimination was negatively related to organizational commitment for both POC and Whites (r = -.33, -.29; p<.01, respectively). The quality of their mentoring relationship made a difference; compared to those in low quality relationships, those in high quality relationships reported more organizational commitment (r =.21 (POC); r =.19 (W); p≤.001), and protégés of color were less likely to anticipate racial barriers to their career success (r = -.23, p<.001) ). However, relational quality did not predict promotions for either group. High quality mentoring buffered protégés of color from the negative effects of discrimination on organizational commitment, but did not buffer them from the effects of discrimination on promotions or

11607 anticipated race-related barriers to their career success. A three-way interaction was found between quality of mentoring relationship, ambient discrimination and protégé race in predicting organizational commitment (β = .22, p<.05; R2 for step=.17, p<.001). Follow-up sub-group analyses revealed that relational quality interacted with discrimination in predicting organizational commitment for protégés of color, but not for Whites. Both White protégés and protégés of color who perceived discrimination reported less organizational commitment than those who did not, but relational quality only moderated this relationship for people of color. Protégés of color reported less organizational commitment in environments with greater discrimination, but this effect only held for those with low quality relationships. There were no significant differences in reports of organizational commitment across levels of discriminatory environments for protégés of color in high quality relationships. However, for Whites, high quality mentoring relationships were associated with greater organizational commitment than low quality mentoring irrespective of the level of ambient discrimination experienced in their workplace. These results suggest that high quality mentoring predicts organizational attachment for both protégés of color and White protégés, and that quality of mentoring appears to buffer the effects of discriminatory workplaces for protégés of color. Turning to mentor race, protégés in same-race relationships did not report higher quality relationships (r (POC)= -.02; r (W)= -.002, ns) or less discrimination (r (POC) =.08; r (W) =-.02, ns) than those in cross-race relationships. A significant three-way interaction was found between protégé race, race of mentor and discrimination in predicting promotions (β=-.17, p<.05; R2 for step=.07, p<.001). Follow-up analyses revealed that White mentors were associated with more frequent promotions for both White and protégés of color in low-discrimination environments; however, in high-discrimination environments this advantage held for White protégés but not for protégés of color. These findings suggest that White mentors may be beneficial for protégés of color in workplaces that foster racial equality, but in discriminatory environments, White mentors may be unable, or unwilling, to help their

11607 protégés of color advance. A key implication of this finding is that the common practice of advising protégés of color to seek White mentors needs to be tempered with an assessment of the organizational context. Although we controlled for the type of mentor in the above analyses, we also wanted to explicitly examine whether these relationships held for those with formal mentors. We conducted separate analyses for those with formal and informal mentors, and found the effects held only for those with informal mentors. Irrespective of relational quality, mentor or protégé race, formal mentors did not buffer their protégés from the effects of ambient discrimination. Taken together, the findings of this study suggest that although protégés of color report more positive career attitudes and outcomes in the presence of high quality mentors, mentors can only do so much to buffer them from the effects of a discriminatory workplace. High quality mentoring may help maintain the protégé’s commitment to the organization in the face of discrimination, but it cannot alter the ultimate effects of discrimination on promotions or the protégé’s perceptions of the role that race may play in their future career success. In essence, the yin of mentoring may not be enough to counter the yang of organizational discrimination.

PRESENTATION #2

The Show Must Go On: What Predicts Mentoring Program Retention and Satisfaction in an Economic Crisis?

Lisa Finkelstein Northern Illinois University

11607 Kurt Kraiger Colorado State University

Kristina Matarazzo Northern Illinois University

In mid-2008, we set out to create a mentoring program from the ground up for a state-wide employment system in a western U.S. state. Our associated research goal was to test a comprehensive model of individual, organizational, and process influences on the effectiveness of formal mentoring programs. We created a model, based largely on direction from Wanberg, Welsh, and Hezlett (2003), that included mentee and mentor individual difference variables (proactive personality and self-theory), department-level variables (organization support climate and learning climate), an experimental (manipulated) goal-progress intervention, and mediating mechanisms (such as similarity, communication, respect, and relationship quality). Our planned outcomes included not only perceived learning and organizational commitment, but also actual improvements on a 360 competency measure as well as comparisons on that measure between mentored and non-mentored employees. We also planned a longitudinal data collection procedure, collecting data from both mentees and mentors quarterly and immediately after monthly meetings. Because many departments (that function independently) were committed to the program, we planned to examine climate variables at an organizational level. Several scholars (e.g., Finkelstein & Poteet, 2007) have argued that the broad stroke comparison of “informal” vs. “formal” mentoring avoids the question of what specifically can be done to maximize the effectiveness of formal programs. Data such as these would make address that question and make a large contribution to our knowledge of the specific factors and underlying procedures that lead to success in formal programs. As the study was being pitched to the decision makers in the State government system, there was a great deal of excitement around an official mentoring program. Several HR directors across the

11607 departments pledged mentoring pairs, and support for the program and the accompanying research project was firm enough to propose and receive a small grant to support the project. Things were looking great. And then… And then when we began to recruit mentors and mentees to start an extensive matching process, excitement for the program cooled off. The economy in the state was starting to downturn, and although the program was of no cost to the departments, it did require pairs to meet at least once per month during work time. Several departments backed out or wished to delay participation. Around the same time the state cancelled their plans for the statewide 360 system (and thus by proxy eliminating one of the most exciting features of our research design). When we had originally planned to kick-off the project (after a few labor-intensive months of developing research materials, an on-line training program, a mentoring guidebook, and matching surveys), we instead redoubled our efforts toward recruitment. We received permission from the state director of personnel to send a recruitment email statewide directly to potential participants. Eventually we accumulated enough interest to kick-off the program again, although in three separate starting cycles to accommodate various department needs. Matching was done to create within-department pairs (with the intent of looking at organizational variables at the department level). Two of the authors used surveys that assessed specific job level, competency interests, desires in a mentor/mentee, ‘deal-breakers’, and general interests to hand-match as many pairs as possible. Our initial count at the end of the match process was 197 pairs across 18 departments. Mentors and mentees were informed of their match in an email that included the mentoring guidebook and a link to the on-line training program to complete together in their first meeting. As part of that training, pairs were to engage in an exercise to help them get to know each other, and to create a mentoring agreement and to set initial goals (driven by the mentee’s needs). They were instructed to complete brief (5 minute) after-meeting check in surveys each time they met, and also received a pre-

11607 program questionnaire to assess individual differences, climate perceptions, and demographics. Halfway through the program a randomly selected pairs received a goal-progress intervention in which they were fed back their reported data on how frequently they were meeting, asked to reflect on their satisfaction with this, and asked to assess progress in their goals and if they’d like to change them or create new ones. Only 138 pairs met at least one time. We later learned that several pairs never received our email (blocked by their server) or didn’t see it. Other pairs decided, by the time the program actually launched, that they were no longer interested due to an increased workload and fear of layoffs. Each month after we sent a check-in email reminder, we received a wave of disheartening emails of people dropping the program. In some cases there was no chemistry in the match, but the majority of drop-outs cited lack of time as the main reason. Ultimately, only 58 pairs completed the one-year program. This is both the bad news and the good news. Clearly we were quite disappointed at the attrition rate, but 58 pairs survived – despite increased work pressures and general low morale due to the ‘state of the state.’ Though we were not able to test the complete multi-level model we intended, we did receive enough data at different time periods to create composite variables to investigate such questions as: 1. How does mentee and mentor proactive personality and mentee self theory relate to relationship satisfaction, learning and self-rated competencies, commitment, and retention? 2. How do perceptions of similarity (surface and deep level) relate to relationship satisfaction, learning and self-rated competencies, commitment, and retention? 3. Did the goal progress intervention have an impact on those outcomes? 4. Does perceived relationship quality mediate these relationships? 5. How do individual perceptions of perceived organizational support and learning climate moderate the effects of the above variables on the outcomes?

11607 The results show a primary determinant of program effectiveness was perceived similarity of the mentor and mentee. Perceived similarity was measured for factors such as life experiences and background. There were strong significant relationships between Early, Late, and Overall Perceived Similarity and Early, Late, and Overall Learning. There was also a significant relationship between Late and Overall Perceived Similarity and self-ratings of interpersonal competence. Thus, the more mentees perceived their mentor to be similar to them, the more they felt they learned throughout the program, and the higher they rated their interpersonal competence at the end of the program. Perceived similarity was also directly related to relationship quality and to pair retention. Follow-up mediation analyses revealed that the observed relationships between perceived similarity and mentee learning were fully mediated by the quality of the relationship between the mentor and mentee. Thus, it appears that when mentees perceive themselves as more psychologically similar to the mentor, the two develop a stronger relationship in terms of factors such as satisfaction, communication, and respect. A stronger relationship, in turn, leads to both greater learning and development by the mentee, and a longer mentoring relationship. Importantly, we found main effects for the goal-progress intervention on both dyad quality and on pair retention. Mentees in pairs who received this email and returned the exercise rated the overall quality of their relationship to be higher than pairs who did not. Additionally, pairs receiving the email met longer than did pairs who did not receive the email; the relationship between the intervention and retention was fully mediated by the effects on relationship quality. There are several explanations as to why this effect may have occurred. One is that the reminder may have served as a reminder that someone was â&#x20AC;&#x153;watching them,â&#x20AC;? and hence interpreted as either organizational support (e.g., Eby et al. 2004) or a call for increased accountability (Eby & Lockwood, 2005). Alternatively, the reminder may have triggered self-regulatory behaviors on the participants. For example, Sitzmann and colleagues (Sitzmann & Ely, 2010; Sitzmann, Bell, Kraiger, & Kanar, 2009) has

11607 shown that simple prompts such as â&#x20AC;&#x153;are you trying your hardest to reach your goals?â&#x20AC;? can improve training performance. Finally we found some evidence of moderation of perceived organizational support for several, but not all outcomes. The overall message appears to be that perceived support can sometimes enhance the positive effects of similarity. For example, mentee organizational commitment was increased only when both similarity and perceived support were high. Our general lack of findings regarding organizational commitment could be in part due to the current economic situation with the state. A strong situation (cf. Mischel, 1977) such as this, that affects all employees on a daily basis, is bound to trump the effects of a once-a-month intervention. During our presentation we will present the statistical details of these findings and further discuss the implications of our findings for formal programs, particularly in the light of forces working against them. The show can go on.

PRESENTATION #3 Title Lilian T. Eby

PRESENTATION #4 The Yin & Yang of Inter-Organizational Mentoring Dawn E. Chandler California Polytechnic State University

11607 Monica C. Higgins Harvard University

Douglas Minter Knoxville Chamber of Commerce Over the past 30 years, an impressive body of mentoring studies has examined mentoring functions, outcomes, types of alternative relationships, formal programs, diversified relationships, antecedents, negative experiences, among other mentoring topics (e.g., see Eby & Allen, 2007, Ragins & Kram, 2007, Noe, Greenberg & Wang, 2003, Wanberg, Welsh & Hezlett, 2003 for reviews). Throughout, it has been substantiated that mentoring and other developmental relationships—relationships that contribute to personal growth and career advancement—are key relational vehicles for protégé learning and development and for organizational benefits such employee training, retention and commitment (see Table 1 for mentoring benefits) (e.g., Allen et al, 2004, Laband & Lentz, 1995, Lankau & Scandura, 2002, Zey, 1984). Most of the field’s studies—sans research on formal mentoring programs, which focuses on organizational characteristics such as training and volunteerism that affect participant outcomes (e.g., Allen, Eby & Lentz, 2006)—occur at an interpersonal level of analysis, that is between individuals. While most empirical research until the mid-90s focused on the traditional mentoring relationship that involves a senior, more experienced mentor and a relatively junior protégé, over time, researchers have identified various types of interpersonal developmental relationships—e.g., peer relationships, intra-team mentoring—that vary in the type and amount of support they provide a protégé (e.g., Eby, 1997; Hall & Kahn, 2001). Practice, however, is outpacing researchers’ efforts to understand mentoring phenomena. The organizational landscape is littered with learning partnerships between organizations of greater and lesser knowledge and capability with the intention of furthering one or more organizations’ capabilities. Intra-

11607 organizational mentoring arrangements are occurring in such industries an environmental and defense contracting (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, 2002; Department of Defense Mentor Protégé Program, 2011). To date, a handful of practitioner writings, either in the form of conference proceedings (White House Council on Environmental Quality & The National Environmental Education & Training Foundation Conference Proceedings, 1998) or online anecdotes associated with programs (Department of Defense Mentor-Protégé Program, http://www.acq.osd.mil, 2011) have made their way online, yet no scholarly research has considered these alliances. This study takes a qualitative approach to understanding this phenomenon. Its significance lies in its dual goals to begin to bridge this gap between practice and research and to further the literature by introducing inter-organizational mentoring (alternatively referred to as business-to-business mentoring) as a subject of study.

Inter-organizational mentoring What is inter-organizational mentoring and what are its benefits? According to the Institute for Corporate Environmental Mentoring (1998), inter-organizational (“business-to business”) mentoring is an application of the traditional mentoring relationship involving the senior mentor and junior protégé. Under inter-organizational environmental mentoring, organizations benefit from other organizations with greater expertise by gaining greater access to resource and experience in developing and pursuing environmental strategies (9). In “Environmental Mentoring: Business to Business, Peer to Peer,” the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality describes environmental mentoring as “…a tool that can help a company achieve environmental results, with benefits to both the mentor and mentee and the industry sector. Benefits of mentoring include greater efficiency in achieving solutions, networking, and enhanced public image” (2: 2002). In a similar mentoring arrangement not aimed at the environmental industry, the Department of Defense (2008) “assists small businesses (Protégés) to successfully compete for prime

11607 contract and subcontract awards by partnering with large companies (Mentors) under individual, projectbased Agreements” (http://www.acq.osd.mil). Common among these inter-organizational mentoring applications is a partnership between an organization or group of organizations as mentors and as protégés. The partnerships can be structurally arranged in various ways, including as associations, in which a larger facility organizes its smaller-sized competitors into an industry network (association members mentor each other) with the goal of helping the industry’s image and overall capability, or as supply chain mentoring, in which a larger company with few peers chooses to mentor its suppliers on best practices. Table 1 on page 6 shows five such structural mentoring arrangements as well as accompanying benefits purported in practitioner writings (e.g., White House Council on Environmental Quality & The National Environmental Education & Training Foundation Conference Proceedings, 1998). We assert inter-organizational mentoring is a tool that can help a company achieve enhanced strategic and technical results, with benefits to both the mentor and protégé and the industry sector. This study involved an examination of 16 mentor and 17 protégé participants in an ongoing threeyear “business-to-business” mentoring program facilitated by a Tennessee Chamber of Commerce. The first two years protégés are paired with a mentor organization and in year three they become mentors for another firm. The mentoring firms represent industries such as real estate development, information technology, regional hospitals, engineering, construction, public relations, dry cleaning, cellular phone, and financial services. The combined 2009 revenues of the mentors was over $2.6B. Protégés businesses represent such industries as restaurants, reverse pharmacy distribution, project management, trucking, military staff augmentation, manufacturing, accounting, janitorial, nuclear and equipment testing, and safety consulting. The protégé organization representatives are diverse in ethic and gender backgrounds with nine of the owners being women, nine being minorities, four veteran owned firms, and one of the owners being from India.

11607 Survey and interview data, collected between the first six months to a year into the program, included questions aimed at understanding what participants gained from the mentoring experience, challenges in working together, suggestions for the business-to-business program, and efforts taken to make the relationship of high quality, and factors that lead to successful relationships. Data have been content analyzed by one author and will be by a second author prior to the presentation. As a third prong to the qualitative approach, the authors will content analyze a handful of conference proceedings and online reports of these partnerships for themes related to mentoring benefits, challenges, and the nature of inter-organizational mentoring. We anticipate introducing a typology of relationships based on the empirical data analysis. Our presentation will report findings associated with this three-pronged qualitative approach.

REFERENCES

Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., & Lentz, E. (2006). The relationship between formal mentoring program characteristics and perceived program effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 59: 125-153.

Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lima, L., & Lentz, E. (2004). Mentoring benefits: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 127â&#x20AC;&#x201C;136. Allen, T.D. & Eby, L. (2007) (eds.) The Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring: A Multiple Perspectives Approach. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, Inc. Blake-Beard, S. D., Murrell, A., & Thomas, D. (2007). Unfinished business: The impact of race on understanding mentoring relationships. In B. R. Ragins and K. E. Kram (Eds.) The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research and practice (pp. 223-247). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Chrobot-Mason, D., Ragins, B. & Linnehan, F. (2010) The Second Hand Smoke Effect: Race and awareness of racial harassment in the workplace (under review).

11607 Cohen, S. & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357. Department of Defense, Office of Small Business Programs, Mentor Protégé Program (2008). http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/mentor_protege/ Dreher, G. F., & Cox, T. H. Jr. (1996). Race, gender, and opportunity: A study of compensation attainment and the establishment of mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 297-308. Dreher, G. F. & Chargois, J. A. (1998) Gender, mentoring experiences, and salary attainment among graduates of a historically Black University. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 401-416. Dutton, J. & Ragins, B. R. (Eds.) (2007). Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates Eby, L.T., Butts, M., Lockwood, A., & Simon, S.A. (2004). Protégés’ negative mentoring experiences: Construct development and nomological validation. Personnel Psychology, 57, 411-447. Eby, L. T., & Lockwood, A. (2005). Protégés’ and mentors’ reactions to participating in formal mentoring programs: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 441-458. Eby, L.T. (1997). Alternative forms of mentoring in changing organizational environments: A conceptual extension of the mentoring literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 125-144. Finkelstein, L. M., & Poteet, M. L. (2007). Best practices in formal mentoring programs in organizations. In T. Allen & L. Eby (Eds.). The Blackwell handbook of mentoring. Malden, MA: Blackwell Press. Glomb, T. M., Richman, W. L., Hulin, C. L.,Drasgow, F., Schneider, K. T., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997). Ambient sexual harassment: An integrated model of antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71 (3), 309-328. Gonzalez, J., & DeNisi, A.S. (2009). Cross-level effects of demography and diversity climate on organizational attachment and firm effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 21-40. Hall, D.T., & Kahn, W.A., (2001). Developmental relationships at work: a learning perspective. From Cary Cooper and Ronald J. Burke (Eds.), The New World of Work. London: Blackwell, 2001, 4974.

Hitlan, R. T., Schneider, K. T. & Walsh, B. M. (2006). Upsetting behavior: Reactions to personal and bystander sexual harassment experiences. Sex Roles, 55, 187-195.

11607 Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Pollution Prevention Program.(2002). Environmental Mentoring, Business to Business, Peer to Peer. (June 20, 2002). Institute for Corporate Environmental Mentoring (1998). Business helping business corporate environmental mentoring conference proceedings. www.neetf.org. James, K., Lovato, C., & Cropanzano, R. (1994). Correlational and known-group comparison validation of a workplace prejudice/discrimination inventory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 15731592. Laband, D.N., & Lentz, B.F. (1995). Workplace mentoring in the legal profession. Southern Economic Journal, 61, 783-802. Lankau, M.J., and Scandura, T.A. (2002). An investigation of personal learning in mentoring relationships: content, antecedents, and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 779-790. Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 538551. McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., Tonidandel, S., Morris, M. A., Hernandez, M., & Hebl, M. R. 2007. Racial differences in employee retention: Are diversity climate perceptions the key? Personnel Psychology, 60: 35-62. McWhirter, E. H. (1997). Perceived barriers to education and career: Ethnic and gender differences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 124-140. Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333-352). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Noe, R.A., Greenberger, D.B., & Wang, S (2002). Mentoring: What we know and where we might go. In: G.R. Ferris & J.J. Martoccio (Eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (Vol. 21, pp. 129-174). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science Ltd. Ragins, B.R. (in press). Relational mentoring: A positive approach to mentoring at work. To appear in K. Cameron and G. Spreitzer (Eds.) The Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship. New York: Oxford University Press. Ragins, B. R. (2007). Diversity and workplace mentoring relationships: A review and positive social capital approach. In T. D. Allen and L. T. Eby (Eds.) Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach. (pp. 281-300). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. Ragins, B. R. (2002). Understanding diversified mentoring relationships: Definitions, challenges and strategies. In D. Clutterbuck & B. R. Ragins, Mentoring and diversity: An international perspective (pp. 23-53). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

11607 Ragins, B. R. (1997) Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations: A power perspective. Academy of Management Review, 22, 2, 482-521. Ragins, B. R. & Cotton, J. L., (1999) Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 4, 529-550. Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: The effects of type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 6, 1177-1194. Ragins, B.R., and K.E. Kram (eds) (2007), The Handbook of Mentoring at Work: Theory, Research, and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Ragins, B. R. & Verbos, A. K. (2007) Positive relationships in action: Relational mentoring and mentoring schemas in the workplace. In Dutton, J. & Ragins, B. R. (Eds.) Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation. (pp: 91-116) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates. Raver, J. L. & Gelfand, M. J. (2005). Beyond the individual victim: Linking sexual harassment, team processes, and team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48 (3), 387-400. Sellers, R. M., Rowley, S. A. J., Chavous, T. M., Shelton, J. N., & Smith, M. A. (1997). Multidimensional inventory of Black identity: A preliminary investigation of reliability and construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 805-815. Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. (2010). Sometimes you need a reminder: The effects of prompting self-regulation on regulatory processes, learning, and attrition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 132-144. Sitzmann, T., Bell, B. S., Kraiger, K., & Kanar, A. M. (2009). A multilevel analysis of the effect of prompting self-regulation in technology-delivered instruction. Personnel Psychology, 62, 697-734. Thomas, D. A. (2001) The truth about mentoring minorities: Race matters. Harvard Business Review, April, 99-107. Thomas, D. A. & Gabarro, J. J. (1999). Breaking through: The making of minority executives in corporate America. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA. Underhill, C. M. (2006). The effectiveness of mentoring programs in corporate settings: A metaanalytical review of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 292-307. Wanberg, C. R., Welsh, E. T., & Hezlett, S. A. (2003). Mentoring research: A review and dynamic process model. In J. J. Martocchio & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 22, pp. 39-124). Oxford, England: Elsevier. White House Conference Center (1998). Business helping business corporate environmental mentoring conference proceedings. Jointly sponsored by The White House Council on Environmental Quality and The National Environment Education and Training Foundation. Zey, M., (1984). The mentor connection. Homewood, IL: Dow-Jones-Irwin.

11607

Table 1 – “Interpersonal” Versus Inter-Organizational Mentoring

“Interpersonal” (Between Individuals)

Key Features

Inter-Organizational (Between Organizations)

Dyadic, network, team or organizational mentoring vehicles that aid a focal person’s (protégé’s) development.

An organization or group of organizations as mentors and as protégés

Mentoring functions imparted to protégé drive personal and professional growth

Varying types of support based on the structural arrangement (type of relationship)

Developmental relationships offer varying types of and amount of functions Types of Relationships

Traditional mentoring relationship Developmental network Peers Intra-team

Supply chain Association Government, Business-to-business

11607 Professional group association Family members Friends

Benefits*

(larger to smaller) Peer

ProtĂŠgĂŠ Heightened job satisfaction Heightened job commitment Enhanced personal learning Greater career advancement Heightened compensation

Improved industry image Lowered costs Expanded networking opportunities Widened knowledge base

Organizational Greater employee retention Improved employee training Greater employee commitment

* In the case of interpersonal relationships, the benefits have been substantiated by a significant number of empirical studies. Since there is a paucity of inter-organizational/business-to-business mentoring studies, the purported benefits have been asserted in practitioner reports, not on the basis of empirical investigation.

RULE OF THREE STATEMENTS (In alphabetical order by last name)

11607 Dear Program Chairs:

This e-mail is written to confirm that I have been invited to participate in a paper symposium being organized by Shoshana Dobrow, Dawn Chandler and Wendy Murphy for the 2011 meeting of the Academy of Management. I have agreed to be available during the meeting dates and to participate in the session, should it be selected by the program chairs. I further agree that my participation will not violate AOM's "Rule of Three."

Best, Marcus Butts

Dear Program Chairs:

Best, Lillian Eby

Dear Program Chairs:

Should the symposium be accepted, my participation will not violate AOM's rule of three.

11607 Kyle Ehrhardt

Dear Program Chairs:

Best, Lisa Finkelstein

Dear Program Chairs:

This e-mail is written to confirm that I have been invited to participate in a paper symposium organized by Shoshana Dobrow, Dawn Chandler and Wendy Murphy for the 2011 meeting of the Academy of Management. I have agreed to be available during the meeting dates and to participate in the session, should it be selected by the program chairs. I further agree that my participation will not violate AOM's "Rule of Three." My contact information is below.

Cordially, Kurt

11607

Dear Program Chairs:

Sincerely,

Monica Higgins

Dear Program Chairs:â&#x20AC;¨

Best,

Karen Lyness

Dear Program Chairs:

This e-mail is written to confirm that I have been invited to participate in a paper symposium organized

11607 by Shoshana Dobrow, Dawn Chandler and Wendy Murphy for the 2011 meeting of the Academy of Management. I have agreed to be available during the meeting dates and to participate in the session, should it be selected by the program chairs. I further agree that my participation will not violate AOM's "Rule of Three."

Sincerely,

Kristina Matarazzo

Dear Program Chairs:â&#x20AC;¨

Best,

Douglas Minter

Dear Program Chairs:

11607 session, should it be selected by the program chairs. I further agree that my participation will not violate AOM's "Rule of Three."

Best Regards,

Dianne Murphy

Dear Program Chairs:

Sincerely,

Belle Rose Ragins

11607

Reports PROPEL Mentor Protégé Program Results Propel Results July, 2010- June, 2011: http://issuu.com/dougminter/docs/knoxville_chamber Proplel Results July, 2011 – June, 2012: Pending

11607

Testimonials Words from Mentors & ProtĂŠgĂŠs

11607

Resources Valuable links Related to Each Chapter Chapter One Chapter Two Chpater Three Chapter Four Chapter Five Chapter Six Personality Test: www.annimalinyou.com Chapter Seven Chapter Eight Chapter Nine Chapter Ten

11607

Casting Call How to select a Director of a Mentor/ProtĂŠgĂŠ Program