‘It’s only a phase’: examining trust, identification and mentoring functions received across the mentoring phases

Abstract

Kram has proposed that mentoring relationships develop and mature over time, providing different levels of mentoring functions as they progress through a sequence of four distinct phases: initiation, cultivation, separation, and redefinition. However, the influence of these mentoring phases on the dynamics and functions of mentoring has received little research attention. This quantitative field study examined the effect of mentoring phases on protégés’ perception of trust and identification with their mentors and mentoring functions received using data from 88 working professionals from industry and education. Results of MANCOVA indicated that protégés in the redefinition phase reported higher levels of psychosocial support than other protégés, and protégés in the separation phase reported lower levels of career development and role modeling than other protégés. No significant differences across the mentoring phases were found for trust and identification among protégés towards their mentors; however, protégés from education reported lower levels of identification with their mentors than those from industry.

Notes

We choose to collect data from both high‐tech firms and K‐12 schools for several reasons. First, both of these contexts emphasize continuous learning and personal development of their members, which is consistent with the theme of mentoring (Wanberg et al., 2003). Second, including data from two different types of professional industries can potentially increase the external validity (i.e. generalizability) of the study’s results. Third, the competitive and fast‐paced high tech and generally collaborative and supportive K‐12 school contexts allow for the identification of potential boundary conditions for mentoring dynamics (Mitchell & James, 2001). Thus, we felt that our sample was appropriate for studying how mentoring phases relate to mentoring antecedents and functions.

A blocking factor is formed by assigning participants within a different homogeneous group to a different level of a factor. Such an approach controls for contextual differences among participants, reduces within‐group error, increases power and allows for assessment of possible interactions between treatment effects and blocks (Keppel, 1991).