Cross-gender mentoring relationships critical issues.

Mentoring is an appropriate vehicle for promoting professional development of rehabilitation counseling students and novice professionals. Viranyi, Crimando, Riggar and Schmidt (1992) maintained that mentoring can be a beneficial way for rehabilitation agencies to provide needed information to new graduate degree holders who landed supervisory positions, yet have limited management and/or supervisory skills. Blackwell (1989) defined mentoring as "a process by which persons of special rank, special achievements, and prestige instruct, counsel, guide and facilitate the intellectual and/or career development of persons identified as proteges". The mentor-protege relationship helps the agency reach its goals while facilitating the career and professional development of both parties (Kram, 1985).

Mentoring relationships are typically intense, close, interactive and sometimes immensely complex. More often than not, mentoring relationships parallel parenting relationships due to such patterns as authority, respect, intimacy and trust (Blackwell, 1989). According to Thomas (1989),

Mentors and proteges are frequently pulled between two opposing archetypal images of the relationship itself. On the one side, the protege feels like the child, and the mentor like the parent. On the other side, nourished by the myth of "Mentors," the servant who raised the son of his master Oedipus to manhood, mentors feel obliged to educate the "young" so that the corporation can thrive.

Informal or natural mentoring has existed throughout the ages. Serendipitously, two individuals grow to know and like each other through interactions. Common interests are discovered and a relationship is developed where the less experienced person is provided unofficial intermediary assistance by the more experienced person (Redmond, 1990). Although this form of mentoring is ideal, many rehabilitation counseling students and/or novice professionals are not privy to such involvement. Natural mentoring usually takes place among persons who feel comfortable with each other. While shifts in gender composition are becoming apparent in the workplace, European-American males still surpass all other groups; therefore, females are less likely to be in situations where natural mentoring takes place. Thus, planned or formal mentoring programs must be developed to ensure that females are receiving increased opportunities for professional development.

Mentoring relationships can be invaluable to one's professional growth and development; however, they are not free from problems. When a mentor and protege are paired in relationships where differences exist, i.e. gender, problems sometimes arise. Many studies have focused attention on the benefits proteges garner through both formal and informal mentoring relationships (Noe, 1988; Kram, 1985, Roche, 1979). To date, Viranyi et al. (1991) is the only piece of rehabilitation literature that talks about the significance of mentoring. This article examines issues and adversities that may exist when persons are paired in cross-gender mentoring relationships.

Mentors and the Mentoring Relationship

Mentoring has been considered to be so effective as a management training and career development tool that organizations are investigating formal programs designed to foster such relationships among their employees (Kram, 1985; McKeen & Burke, 1989). Mentoring can be seen as having two components, one dealing with the transfer of marketable and often discipline-based skills, behaviors and attitudes, and the other related to the social and emotional interaction that makes the transfer of knowledge and skills possible (Hill, 1989: Schockett, 1985).

According to Blackwell (1989), mentors perform a multitude of functions in order to foster professional development of proteges. Such functions include: (1) providing training; (2) stimulating the acquisition of knowledge; (3) providing information about various programs within the setting; (4) providing emotional support and encouragement and helping the protege develop coping strategies during periods of turmoil; (5) socializing proteges regarding the role requirements, expectations, and organizational imperatives or demands of the profession; (6) creating an understanding of the organizational bureaucracy and the ways one can maneuver within the system: (7) inculcating, by example, a value system and a professional ethic; (8) providing informal instructions, again by example, about demeanor, etiquette, collegiality, and day-to-day inter-personal relations; (9) helping the protege build self-confidence, heighten self-esteem, and strengthen motivation to perform at one's greatest potential; and (10) defending and protecting the protege, correcting mistakes, and demonstrating techniques of avoiding unnecessary problems.

Gaskill (1991) communicated that mentors provide assistance to proteges through various career and psychosocial functions. Career functions include those aspects of mentoring relationships that prepare the protege for career advancement, including nominating the protege for desirable projects, lateral moves, and promotions (sponsorship); providing the protege with assignments that increase visibility to organizational decision makers and exposing them to future opportunities (exposure and visibility); providing feedback, sharing ideas, and suggesting strategies for accomplishing work objectives (coaching); reducing necessary risks that might threaten the protege's reputation (protection); and providing challenging work assignments (challenging assignments).

Psychosocial functions enhance the protege's sense of competence, identity, and work-role effectiveness. Among these mentor functions include serving as a role model relative to appropriate attitudes, values, and behaviors for the protege (role model); conveying unconditional positive regard (acceptance and confirmation); providing a forum in which the protege is encouraged to talk openly about anxieties and fears (counseling); and interacting informally with the protege at work (friendship) (Kram, 1985). Such functions are more often provided by females in same-gender mentoring relationships (Burke, McKeen, & McKenna, 1990).

Specific ingredients are necessary for successful formal mentoring to exist among rehabilitation practitioners and professionals. Mentoring relationships assigned successfully, a focus on career functions and psychosocial functions are crucial determinants of formal mentoring (Kram, 1985). In a study to assess the extent to which mentors provide career and psychosocial benefits gained by the protege, Noe (1988) developed nine different sites across the United States. Involved were 139 educators and 43 mentors. Among educators/proteges, 74 were female and 65 were male; and among mentors 22 were male and 21 were female. Using factor analysis, results suggest that mentors do provide two functions, a career function and a psychosocial function. Proteges reported receiving beneficial psychosocial outcomes but limited career functions (e.g., sponsorship, coaching, protection) from the assigned mentor. However, in this study a limited amount of time was actually spent interacting with the mentor. Proteges' job and career attitudes were found to have no effect on the time spent with the mentor or on quality of the relationship. Burke, McKeen, and McKenna (1990) conducted a study of 94 respondents, 13 females and 81 males, on gender differences and cross-gender effects of the mentor-protege relationship. Data were collected, using questionnaires, from 81 male and 13 female mentors in high technology firms. The results indicated that psychosocial functions were significantly more common in same-gender female relationships.

Adversities of Cross-Gender Relationships

If women speak and hear a language of connection and intimacy, while men speak and hear a language of status and independence, then communication between men and women can be like cross-cultural communication, prey to a clash of conversation styles. Instead of different dialects, it has been said they would speak different genderlects (Tannen, 1990, p. 42).

Day-to-day stressors of the work environment can cause problems that hamper productivity. Unfortunately, the men-toting relationship may sometimes cause additional adversities. Despite the success that often accompany mentoring, cross-gender relationships sometimes cause adversities. Cross-gender mentoring relationships have raised additional issues that are absent in the female-female or male-male relationship (Clawson & Kram, 1984). According to Viranyi et al. (1992), with a mismatched pair, trust and confidence needed to attain a meaningful level of communication and feeling may never occur. Kram (1985) identified five major categories of cross-gender relationship complexities. Included are collusion in stereotypical roles, limitations of role modeling, intimacy and sexuality concerns, public scrutiny, and peer resentment. These categories are described below.

Collusion in Stereotypical Roles. Men and women are inclined to assume stereotypical roles in relating to each other in work settings when they are not sure of their roles (Kanter, 1977). These roles are defined by assumptions and expectations about appropriate behavior for each gender. To reduce the uncertainty, ambiguity, and anxiety created by the emergence of cross-gender work relationships, individuals rely on what is familiar (Kram, 1985). In mentoring relationships where the woman is the mentor and the man is a protege, men's and women's styles exist. Whereby many women are inclined to do what is asked of them, many men are inclined to resist even the slightest hint that anyone, especially women, is telling them what to do (Tanner, 1990). Stereotypical gender role relationships distort and limit the expected behavior of career development and psychosocial roles (Wiley & Eskilson, 1982; Johnson, 1976). According to Goh (1991), a stereotypical bias is a belief that women tend to be more emotional under pressure and less assertive than their male counterparts in work situations. While this may be the case for some females, just as it is the case for some males, this is not true in all situations.

Kanter (1977) identified four reciprocal stereotypical role relationships that may exist when men and women rely on stereotypical roles. The most common experience in mentoring relationships is that of the "parent" and "preferred child". In this situation, the "father" or "mother" (mentor) takes on a protective role, providing coaching and advice, and shielding the protege from the risks and struggles of organizational life.

According to Tanner (1990), a social contract usually exists between a man and women. Many women feel comfortable seeking help as well as "honor-bound" to accept it, and display gratitude in exchange. On the other hand, men feel "honor-bound" to fulfill requests for help even though it may not be continent to do so. Based on the established social contract, men are viewed as dominant over women and women are viewed as a subordinate to men.

The second reciprocal stereotypical role relationship is characteristic of the "chivalrous knight" and "helpless maiden". In this inter-relationship, the mentor considers himself/herself as stronger and more competent than the protege. The protege is not viewed as having many academic capabilities or skills related to the job duties. In such a role relationship, Tanner (1990) suggests that the person in the subordinate role (protege) is "negotiating both status and connection". Mentors are considered to be in a dominant role or in a position to grant wishes or give permission. Conversely, proteges are thought to be inferior. They are considered to be persons of lower rank and serve as an assistant to the mentor.

The third reciprocal stereotypical role relationship is characteristic of a "tough warrior" and "weak warrior". This role prohibits the mentor from expressing emotions and being rational and logical. For men, it may appear important to maintain an image of being tough and independent, and suppressing all emotions (Spiezer, 1981). Tanner (1990) explained that asymmetries exist when people are differently placed in a relationship (i.e., mentor and protege). The asymmetry of status is what creates contest in a mentoring relationship, especially where gender differences exist.

In the fourth set of stereotypical roles, the mentor and protege are characterized as "macho" and "seductress", respectively. In this situation, the mode of relating is sexual, with elements of game playing and flirtation. This relationship ignores the protege's competence and intellectual contributions. Such roles are entrapping when they do not allow for intellectual exchange of ideas. Situations sometimes exist in cross-gender relationships where one person may misconstrue an honest complement for flirting. However, this is usually not the case in same-gender mentoring relationships.

Limitations of Role Modeling. The second adversity or complexity of cross-gender mentoring relationships is the lack of role modeling functions. Although women in the early career years face developmental dilemmas similar to those of their male counterparts, women face some problems that are unique to being female in male-dominated organizational contexts (Kanter, 1977; Missirian, 1982), for example, a mother having to miss work due to her child being ill.

Role modeling involves both interaction and identification (Spiezer, 1981). When professional and personal dilemmas are different, interaction concerning how to manage them are of limited value because empathy and joint problem-solving are difficult to achieve. Collins (1983) suggested that when neither individual perceives central parts of self embodied in the other, the identification process is lacking. Thus, both interaction and identification seem less likely to occur in cross-gender mentor relationships.

Intimacy and Sexuality Concerns. The third complexity in cross-gender mentoring relationships is intimacy and sexual tensions. The potential for intimacy and sexuality is a source of anxiety that can be both threatening as well as exciting to men and women who work together (Kanter, 1977). This is especially a problem when a man serves as a mentor to a woman.

Public Scrutiny. Cross-gender mentoring relationships are subject to public scrutiny and suspicion. Using survey data from 181 proteges in three research and development organizations, Ragins and McFarlin (1990) investigated proteges' perceptions of mentors roles in cross- and same-gender mentoring relationships. Based on hierarchical regression analyses, the results indicated that cross-gender proteges are less likely than same-gender proteges to report engaging in after-work social activities with their mentors due to the potential for damaging gossip about sexual involvement. Certainly, rumors may develop that can be destructive to one or both individuals' career. Ragins and McFarlin (1990) maintained that women may hold restrictions in developing mentoring relationships because they are more likely to be in cross-gender relationships than men. However, public scrutiny affects both individuals' perceptions and behaviors. As this occurs, the potential for quality career and psychosocial possibilities diminish.

Peer Resentment. The complexity of peer resentment usually occurs for women with male mentors who are working in predominantly male peer groups. Because of the competitive environment among peers aspiring to advance, the only female stands out as one who receives special attention if she is regularly coached by a male superior. Kram (1985) indicated that each of these complexities is shaped by individual and organizational factors, and each has the potential to be destructive by limiting the competence and effectiveness of both men and women. However, with proper precautions, mentors and proteges can circumvent problems from occurring.

Requisite Characteristics for Successful Cross-Gender Mentoring Relationships

Having a formal mentoring program in place is not enough to ensure program success. As in most situations, the human variable will play an important part in shaping a mentor-protege outcome. When mentors and proteges anticipate possible conflicts and pitfalls of a cross-gender relationship more effective mentoring programs and outcomes are established. Hence, if gender differences in relationships are recognized and understood between persons involved in the (mentoring) relationship, they can be taken into account, adjustments can be made and learning can exist from each individual (Tannen, 1990).

Complexities related to stereotypical behaviors may present problems for women mentored by men. For example, feelings of dependency and incompetence may arise when proteges are attempting to become independent contributors (Kanter, 1977). Tannen (1990) identified an approach called sociolinguistic to be an effective way to express gender differences "without assessing anyone as being crazy or wrong, and without blaming -- or discarding--the relationship". The sociolinguistic approach takes into account the fact that men and women grow up in what are essentially different cultures, and communicate in different styles. Men are thought to seek to be dominant over women in our society. Nevertheless, this attitude may limit the extent to which men can be effective mentors to women.

Zey (1985) identified seven factors that enhance the likelihood of successful mentoring relationships. While these characteristics are not specific to cross-gender mentoring, if adhered to, relationships and outcome expectations of both same-gender and cross-gender mentoring may be enhanced. First, mentoring goals must be effectively communicated to all persons involved. The mere fact that persons are not explained the role and function of the mentoring relationship may cause failure, which often leads to confusion and false expectations. Clearly written explanations, as well as verbal communication of program goals during the initial interview and orientation, can prevent later misunderstandings on the part of both the mentor and protege.

Second, cooperation from the entire agency must exist for successful mentoring to occur. If peers, managers and supervisors are not involved in the mentoring program and there is limited or no understanding of the rationale for its existence, program success is restricted and employees are less likely to cooperate. According to Kram (1983), concerns about the public image of the mentoring relationship causes both mentors and proteges to avoid interaction that has the potential to provide a wide range of career and psychosocial functions. Therefore, the rationale, goals and mechanics of mentoring must be explained early on to the entire agency through materials, group/peer discussion, and agency wide meetings. Program benefits should be clearly communicated as well as constant solicitation of suggestions regarding the operation of mentoring and foreseeable problems.

Third, the mentor-protege selection process should be as autonomous as possible. While autonomy in selection is ideal, proteges are usually limited by those who are able to serve as mentors. Most often than not, a protege or mentor may be forced into selecting someone who represents an opposite gender group due to demographics within the agency. When such a situation exists, communication between the mentor and protege, as well as peer communication, is of paramount importance. Kram (1983) indicated that female proteges tend to seek support and guidance from female peers when they are in situations where inadequate role modeling is provided by male mentors.

The fourth requisite characteristic for successful mentoring requires a commitment to the program by the mentor. Selection of mentors for the program must be as careful as choosing employees. Agencies that mandate or coerce managers/supervisors into participating are bound for failure. One way to increase the commitment by senior employees is by informing them of job and career benefits that accrue as a direct result of mentoring.

The fifth requisite characteristic for formal mentoring programs is permitting withdrawal from the program. If either party feels that the mentoring relationship is of no benefit, he or she must be permitted to withdraw if no possible solution can be reached. However, there should be a review by someone other than the mentor and protege for the rationale behind the withdrawal from the formal program. This process provides persons overseeing the program with feedback that is essential to making modifications in the program if necessary, as well as suggesting changes to either the mentor or protege that will enhance their future mentoring relationship.

Continued evaluation of the program is the sixth requisite characteristic for successful formal mentoring. Structured ongoing evaluation should be incorporated. The following four items should be involved: First, the mentor and protege should be interviewed at pre-determined times to ascertain general and specific feedback regarding satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the program. Second, a quantitatively based agency-wide survey should be done at regularly scheduled intervals. While the questionnaire need not be long and complicated, it should be comprehensive enough to monitor the attitudes of both participants and non-participants toward the program. Third, suggestions for improvement and change should always be solicited from all persons involved. And fourth, channels should exist for anonymous and confidential airing of grievances.

The seventh requisite for successful formal mentoring requires a long-term test period of the program. This procedure is essential to the development and operation of such a program. Ample time must be permitted to prove itself as an effective management training tool. Even the most rigidly developed mentoring program evolves over time.

Conclusion and Recommendations

As in most agencies/organizations, formal mentoring programs can be an invaluable training tool for new graduate degree holders or novice professionals. Although these programs may be very helpful, they are not a panacea, particularly where gender diverse mentoring relationships exist. Because difficulties sometimes arise, it is important to have mechanisms in place to help de-emphasize or completely eliminate adversities specific to cross-gender relationships. Therefore, conflict resolution begins when differences are recognized, understood and respected. Constant exchange of open and honest dialogue from the mentor and protege, regardless of gender pairing, acts as a catalyst for successful formal mentoring. Programmatic goals, criteria of participation and situations for interaction should be specifically spelled out for both the mentor and protege. This may be done through an orientation, workshops, and/or seminars. Meetings should not only facilitate communicating information about the by-laws and expectations of the program, but also serve as a vehicle to begin to break the ice between the mentor and protege.

While many organizations and corporations have conducted quasi-experimental designs to determine the effectiveness of formal mentoring programs irrespective of relationship pairing, the same cannot be said for the field of rehabilitation. Therefore, research is needed to determine the effectiveness of formal mentoring programs in rehabilitation agencies. In addition, research is needed to determine the effects that cross-gender mentoring have and ways to eliminate such problems from occurring. Furthermore, future rehabilitation research is needed regarding increasing productivity, reducing turnover rate, and enhancing communication between all levels and sectors of the agency.

Sonja Feist-Price is a 1992 graduate from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. Presently she is an Assistant Professor in the Graduate Program in Rehabilitation Counseling at University of Kentucky at Lexington.

References

Blackwell, J. E. (1989). Mentoring: An action strategy for increasing minority faculty. Academe, 15, 8-14.

Burke, R. J., McKeen, C. A., & McKenna, C. S. (1990). Sex differences and cross-sex effects on mentoring: Some preliminary data. Psychological Reports, 67, 1011-1023.

Clawson, J. G., & Kram, D. E. (1984). Managing cross-gender mentoring. Business Horizons, Social Psychology, 27, 22-32.

Collins, N. W. (1983). Professional women and their mentors. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Goh, S.C. (1991). Sex differences in perceptions of interpersonal work style, career emphasis, supervisory mentoring behavior, and job satisfaction. Sex Roles, 24(11/12), 701-710.

Hill, S. (1989). Mentoring and other communication support in the academic setting. Group and Organization Studies, 14, 355-368.

Hunt, D. M., & Michael, C. (1983). Mentorship: A career development training tool. Academy of Management Review, 8, 475-485.

Johnson, P. (1976). Women and power: Toward a theory of effectiveness. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 99-110.

Kalbfeisch, P. J., & Davies, A. B. (1991). Minorities and mentoring: Managing the multi-cultural institution. Communication Education, 40, 266-271.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York:Basic Books.

Klauss, R. (1981). Formalized mentor relationships for management and executive development programs in the federal government. Public Administration Review, 41, 489-496.

Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work. Glenview, IL Scott, Foresman and Co.

McKeen, C. A., & Burke, R. J. (1989). Mentor relationship in organizations: Issues, strategies and prospects for women. Journal of Management Development, 8, 33-42.

Missirian, A. K. (1982). The corporate connection: Why executive women need mentors to reach the top. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Noe, R. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. Personnel Psychology, 41 (3), 457-479.

Phillips-Jones, L. (1982). Mentoring and proteges. New York: Arbor House.

Ragins, B. R., & McFarlin, D. B. (1990). Perceptions of mentor roles in cross-gender mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 321-339.

Redmond, S. (1990). Mentoring and cultural diversity in academic settings. American Behavioral Scientist, 34, (2), 188-200.

Roche, G. (1979). Much ado about mentors. Harvard Business Review, 57(1), 14-28.

Schockett, M, (1985). Factor analytic support for psychosocial and vocational mentoring functions. Psychological Reports, 57, 627-630.

Spelman, D. H., & Cary, L. M. (1983). Intimacy or distance? A case on male-female relationships at work. Waltham, MA: Working Paper.

Spiezer, J. J. (1981). Role models, mentors and sponsors: The elusive concept. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 6, 692-712.

Tanner, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Men and women in conversation. New York: William Morrow & Company.

Viranyi, S., Crimando, W., Riggar, T. F., & Schmidt, M. J.(1992). Promoting mentoring relationships in rehabilitation. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 16 (2), 40-45.

Wiley, M. G., & Eskilson, A. (1982). The interaction of sex and power base on perceptions of managerial effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 671-677.

Zey, M. G. (1984). The mentor connection. Homework, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.

Sonja Feist-Price, Rh.D., CRC, Graduate Program in Rehabilitation Counseling, University of Kentucky at Lexington, 124 Taylor Education Building, Lexington, KY 40506.