Invited reaction: Challenging research in mentoring

✍ Scribed by Georgia T. Chao

• Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
• Year: 1998
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 371 KB
• Volume: 9
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 1044-8004
• DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.3920090404

✦ Synopsis

Georgia 1 Chao Most people can describe what a mentor is and how a mentor can aid in a protege's career development. Yet the scientific study of mentoring is quite complicated. Theoretical definitions of mentoring generally converge in describing it as an intense, professional relationship that is mainly devoted to developing the protege's career (Carden, 1990). Such relationships are distinguished from less powerful relationships involving sponsors, guides, and peer pals (Shapiro, Haseltine, and Rowe, 1978) or from typical supervisory relationships (Burke, McKenna, and McKeen, 1991). Empirical studies claiming to examine mentoring have often not specified what mentoring is, however. Such studies should be seen with severe doubts; they may not examine mentoring at all. Furthermore, empirical studies of mentoring should look at these complex relationships comprehensively. Such studies would demand high-quality data from proteges and their mentors-a challenge for only the most dedicated researchers.

The Mullen study is a good example of the promise and pitfalls in mentoring research. I have titled this reaction chapter "Challenging Research in Mentoring" to capture two meanings. Challenging can serve as an adjective; indeed, my reaction to the lead article is that it presents invitingly provocative research. Challenging can also function as a gerund; using it in that sense, I identify difficulties in the Mullen study and hope that this critique will arouse or stimulate future mentoring research. My reactions to the study emphasize four major areas: the definition of mentorship, the study's methodology, implications for organizations, and implications for future research.