1 Mentoring of Scientists and Engineers: Dyadic and Formality Effects on Career Development and Psychosocial Interactions Mike Lyon

2 Outline Background Objectives Literature Review Research Statement Methodology Analysis Conclusions

3 Background Many companies have instituted formal mentoring programs which pair promising young employees with experienced senior members. HOWEVER Formal, structured programs have been found to be less effective than informal, spontaneous mentor-protégé pairings. Not getting glowing scores for success Zey (1984); Chao, Walz and Gardner (1992) Spontaneous, informal mentoring relationships usually fare better Noe (1988); Chao, Walz and Gardner(1992); Allen and Russell (1997); Hegstad (1999); Douglas and MacCauley (1999)

4 Why Mentor? Mentoring has long been recognized as a means to pass along business “ rules of thumb ”, provide introductions to “ the right people ”, and provide a buffer layer to the new employee as he or she learns the basics of the business. The goal of mentoring is to facilitate job success for the prot é g é and for the prot é g é to become a satisfied, productive employee. Comparisons made by Zey (1984) and Ragins (1997) of mentored versus unmentored individuals indicate that mentoring can benefit three distinct entities: the prot é g é, the mentor, and the organization.

5 Mentoring “The mentor is usually a senior, experienced employee who serves as a role model, provides support, direction, and feedback to the younger employee regarding career plans and interpersonal development, and increases the visibility of the protégé to decision-makers in the organization who may influence career opportunities.” Noe (1988)

6 Effective Mentor Characteristics 1. They are higher up in the organization 2. They are an authority in their field 3. They are influential with a “voice” in the profession 4. They are close to the lines of authority and power 5. They are interested in the protégé’s growth and development 6. They are willing to commit time and emotion to the relationship Collins (1983); Noe (1988); Chao, et al (1992)

7 Program Structure Informal mentorships not constructed by the organization arise spontaneously not managed, structured, or formally recognized by the organization. Formal mentorships organizationally managed generally created by assignment or mentor selection designed to pair up employees with peers, seniors, or outside consultants

8 Mentoring Program Structure Elements of structure Is the mentoring program developed or implemented by the organization? (Initiation) Is the mentoring program coordinated or directed by the organization? (Direction) Are mentoring relationships encouraged by the organization? (Sustainment) Is the mentoring program reviewed by the organization? (Monitoring) Is progress of the mentoring relationship evaluated by the organization? (Improvement) How do the mentor and protégé meet? (Facilitization)

9 Prior Researchers

10 Career Development Mentoring (Kram, 1988) (Ragins, 1997) (Missirian, 1982 Zey, 1984 Lindbo, 1998)

11 Career Development Mentoring (Kram, 1988) (Ragins, 1997) (Missirian, 1982 Zey, 1984 Lindbo, 1998) “Main role of a mentor” (Coley, 1996) Particularly important early in protégé’s career (Missirian, 1982) Opportunities for networking, rejuvenation of career (Hegsted, 1999)

12 Psychosocial Mentoring (Kram, 1988)

13 Psychosocial Mentoring (Kram, 1988) Found to be critical for female protégés (Ragins, et al, 1998 Crampton and Mishra, 1999) “Belief in the person” (Munhall and Fitzsimmons, 1995) “Providing advice and moral support in times of stress or crisis” (Collins, 1983) “… strong, clear, visible organizational value system…” (Lindbo and Schultz, 1998)

14 Dyads Dyads are described as either Homogeneous -- mentor and protégé share similar characteristics Diverse – mentor and protégé differ Are typically categorized based on Gender Race

15 Gender is Dyad Variable What prompted this selection Women make up 46% of US labor force Women hold 10.6% of the engineering jobs. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1997) In 1999, women held 5.1% of “clout” titles (Catalyst, 1999) Mentoring barriers for women Fewer females to serve as mentors for young females Women less plugged into informal networks (fewer interactions with persons in power) Visibility resulting from affirmative action scares mentors Misinterpretation of relationships (cross-gender) (Noe, 1988; Ragins and Cotton, 1996)

16 Gender-based Perspectives Men see mentors as: Developing leadership Developing ability to take risks Giving direction Communication Women see mentors as: Giving encouragement and support Instilling confidence Providing growth opportunities Giving visibility within organization (Collins, 1983)

17 Objective of Study To study: How are mentoring activities related to structural factors ? How do these vary with dyad homogeneity?

18 Significance of Research No research to date has investigated the impact of mentoring program formality on degree of mentor role activity for a broad spectrum of knowledge workers. Prior researchers have focused on a single organization, trade, or discipline. Looks at a broad population of high technology workers in aerospace, electronics, Government and private sectors, large firms as well as small firms, and U.S. as well as international organizations.

19 Hypotheses #1. Formal (structured) programs and informal (unstructured) programs provide the same emphasis on career development factors. #2. Formal programs and informal programs provide the same emphasis on psychosocial factors. #3. Emphasis on the career development roles is the same for any make-up of the dyad. #4. Emphasis on the psychosocial roles is the same for any make-up of the dyad

20 Survey Process Pilot run with 15 S&Es 22 Organizations POC coordination in each organization Self-scoring survey Respondent anonymity 2 Formats used Paper Electronic 202 prot é g é responses

21 Scope of Research Target population: Engineers and scientists working in Government Industry High-tech sectors Aerospace Computers / electronics Tennessee Valley as well as outside Across spectrum of org. sizes and mentoring program structure.

22 22 Participating Organizations 202 protégé responses Aerojet Corporation Atlantic Research Corporation Bechtel Defence Research Establishment Valcartier (Canada) Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (UK) ERC Corporation Infinity Technology Israeli Aircraft Industry (Israel) Mevatec NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center Owens Corning Fiberglass Savannah River Site Stone Engineering Talley Industries Teledyne Solutions US Army Aviation and Missile Command US Army Research Laboratory US Army Research Organization US Missile and Space Intelligence Command US Naval Air Warfare Center / China Lake US Naval Surface Warfare Center / Indian Head US Space and Missile Defense Command

23 Current Job Title Aerospace Engineer Analyst Chemical Engineer Chemist Computer Engineer Designer Electrical Engineer Engineer Engineering Manager Environmental Engineer Mechanical Engineer Metallurgist Physicist Project Manager Research Chemist Research Engineer Scientist Systems Analyst Systems Engineer Team Leader

24 Survey Instrument (Structure portion) 1. The mentoring program was developed or implemented by my organization. Not at allTo a small degreeTo a large degreeFully 2. Our mentoring program is coordinated or directed by my organization. Not at allOnly occasionallyFrequentlyConstantly 3. Mentoring programs are encouraged by my organization. Not at allOnly occasionallyFrequentlyConstantly 4. Our mentoring program is reviewed by my organization Not at allOnly occasionallyFrequentlyConstantly 5. My mentoring progress is evaluated by my organization. (e.g. it is part of my performance appraisal process) Not at allOnly occasionallyFrequentlyConstantly 6. How I met my mentor Spontaneous. We just seemed to “hit it off” when we met One of us sought out the other based on comments of other employees We met in a meeting set up by our organization to bring together perspective mentors and proteges Our organization paired us without our input. 7. How would you describe your organization’s mentoring program? informalformal

25 Survey Instrument (Roles portion) 29-question survey created by Noe Internal consistency (  =.89 career development  =.92 psychosocial ) Used by Noe (1988) to study education protégés in assigned relationships (N=139) Dreher (1990) to study business school graduates (N=320) Chao (1992) to study mentorship formality Orpen (1995) to study effects on career success

26 Survey Instrument Roles (con’t) ItemNot at all To a small extent To some extent To a large extent To a very large extent 1. Mentor has shared history of his / her career with you. (Coaching) 2. Mentor has encouraged you to prepare for advancement. (Coaching) 3. Mentor has encouraged me to try new ways of behaving in my job. (Acceptance & Confirmation) 4. I try to imitate the work behavior of my mentor. (Role Model) Red portion did not appear on actual survey

27 Survey Instrument (Other metrics) Dyad genders, races, ages Miscellaneous demographics Org. size, years in present job, term of mentoring relationship, proximity of offices “Success” factors (subjective statement from protégé) Effectiveness of mentorship in career development Effectiveness of mentorship in non-career ways Most important mentoring role Least important mentoring role

28 Demographics of Surveyed Organizations American (88%) International (12%) Ment. Prot. MaleFemale Male74.3%2.0% Female19.3%4.4% < 1 yr1-5 yrs 6-12 yrs >12 yrs 11%31%18%40% Protégé’s Years with Organization

29 Analysis Taxonomy

30 H1 and H2 Results “Developed by Organization” Typical trend

31 H1 and H2 Results “Coordinated by Organization” Typical trend

32 H1 and H2 Results “Encouraged by Organization” Typical trend

33 H1 and H2 Results “Reviewed by Organization” Typical trend

34 H1 and H2 Results “Evaluated by Organization” Typical trend

35 H1 and H2 Results “How met Mentor” Typical trend

36 H3 and H4 Results Homogeneous or Diverse Better ? Males reported more activity in the indicated boxes

37 Statistically Significant Findings

38 Hypotheses #1. Formal (structured) programs and informal (unstructured) programs provide the same emphasis on career development factors. #2. Formal programs and informal programs provide the same emphasis on psychosocial factors. #3. Emphasis on the career development roles is the same for any make-up of the dyad. #4. Emphasis on the psychosocial roles is the same for any make-up of the dyad

39 Structure Interactions Overall Program Effectiveness H

40 Structure Interactions Overall Program Effectiveness H

41 Structure Interactions Career Development Score L

42 Structure Interactions Career Development Score HL

43 Structure Interactions Career Development Score H H L

44 Structure Interactions Psychosocial Score H L H L

45 Other Demographics Formality varies with Organization Size Typical result P=.000 P= The mentoring program was developed or implemented by my organization. 2. Our mentoring program is coordinated or directed by my organization. 3. Mentoring programs are encouraged by my organization. 4. Our mentoring program is reviewed by my organization 5. My mentoring progress is evaluated by my organization. (e.g. it is part of my performance appraisal process)

46 Other Demographics Nationality

47 Other Demographics Personnel P=.008P=.025

48 Other Demographics Typical trend Duration of Mentorship

49 Most Important Role Assigning responsibilities that increase the protégé’s contact with people in the organization who may judge the protégé’s potential for future advancement Providing support and feedback regarding the protégé’s technical performance Providing assignments that increase written and personal contact with higher levels of the organization

50 Least Important Role Interacting with the mentor socially outside work Having the mentor invite the protégé to join him/her for lunch

51 Need More Mentor suggests specific strategies for achieving protégé’s career goals

52 Findings Two activities most strongly relate to overall protégé career development: Getting assignments with high levels of visibility in the organization (r =.86) Getting assignments that are recognized as preparatory for leadership position (r =.87) Organizations over 300 employees have lower mentoring program structure Male and female protégés seem to want the same things out of a mentoring relationship US mentorships = non-US mentorships

53 Conclusions/Recommendations Program structure does influence mentoring roles. The influence is generally positive. Organizations should have a reasonably structured and monitored mentoring program. Sufficient to let the protégés know that the organization is concerned about them as employees and as individuals Should not dominate or dictate the relationship. Dyad homogeneity influences mentoring roles – homogeneous dyads result in more positive outcome Protégés should seek out mentors who can and will identify and provide the protégé with challenging assignments that have high visibility within the organization.

54 Areas for Further Study Additional research is necessary to investigate the nature of the six structural elements and their components and determine the more elemental contributions of structure to mentoring program activity. If teams rather than individuals serve the mentoring function, how would the results compare to those of the present study? At a size of approximately 300 employees, high technology organizations change from relatively hands-on participation in their mentoring programs to a more hands-off approach. Why?

55 Areas for Further Study (con’t) As mentoring relationships age, the period of time between one and five years is seen to be significant in increasing the intensity of the relationship in the measured areas. Why? There is a decrease in the intensity of the individual mentor roles in relationships longer than about 7 years. Why? Parallel surveys of mentoring roles and Herzberg motivator-hygiene assessment may produce an informative relationship.

56