Facilitating sporting and non-sporting career goals of elite athletes through mentoring programmes

ABSTRACT

Research question

Many elite athletes pursue higher education or professional employment alongside their sport career. Formal mentoring relationships help athletes to balance the demands of a dual career. Thus, the purpose of this study is to investigate the interrelationship between mentoring, values conveyed in mentoring, and the satisfaction with sporting and non-sporting career goals from a mentee and mentor perspective. This research contributes to the existing literature by examining how mentoring can help athletes attain their dual career goals from a holistic perspective.

Research method

Elite athletes (i.e. competing in international competitions; n = 105) and business professionals who function as mentors (n = 101) are surveyed regarding their satisfaction with the mentoring relationship and career goals. Logistic regression analyses assessed the proposed interrelationships.

Results and Findings

The career development function and conveying performance are positively associated with mentees’ multiple sporting and non-sporting career goals. Greater investment into mentees’ career development and the conveyance of performance and trust is positively associated with mentors’ satisfaction (i.e. supporting the mentee and achieving personal career benefits).

Implications

Conveying performance as value is crucial for increased positive outcomes for mentees, such as easy integration into the workplace and society. A mentor investing more time and consideration into the mentoring relationship increases the mentor and mentee’s satisfaction. A mentoring relationship founded on trust is precious for the mentor.

KEYWORDS:

• Dual career
• high-performance sport
• mentee
• mentor
• student-athlete

Introduction

The end of a professional sporting career – whether it is planned or, for instance, the result of an injury – often marks an athlete’s transition from sport to employment. Consequently, many athletes pursue higher or vocational education whilst competing on the highest international level to avoid an uncertain future after their sporting career. This is commonly referred to as a dual career (DC) and specified as balancing sport and education (Stambulova et al., 2015) and sport and vocational training/professional employment. Thus, the ideal outcome of a DC is an individual and optimal equilibrium between sport and education/employment. The value of a dual career is gaining wide acceptance and is actively promoted by the European Commission. The European Commission describes a dual career as a successful combination of education or employment with professional sport. Moreover, the dual career enables athletes to reach their full potential in life (European European Commission, 2012). Beyond this, a successful DC is not limited to an athlete’s education/employment but includes general well-being and a satisfying private life (Kadlcik & Flemr, 2008; Stambulova et al., 2015).

The benefits athletes derive from embarking on a DC pathway are numerous, such as increased employability, financial security, life satisfaction and retirement facilitation (Aquilina, 2013; Tekavc et al., 2015; Torregrosa et al., 2015). Furthermore, shifting the focus towards an intellectual challenge and taking the mind off sport can relieve pressure from professional athletes (Aquilina, 2013). Moreover, athletes pursuing a DC are better equipped to manage the transition from sport to vocation (Torregrosa et al., 2015).

However, balancing the added workload of a DC while competing on the highest international level is not a simple endeavour, and the potential consequences must be reflected. Balancing high-performance sport and education goes hand in hand with considerable time constraints and is physically and mentally exhausting (Cosh & Tully, 2014; Tekavc et al., 2015). Consequently, athletes occasionally report that they feel obligated to sacrifice their sporting or career ambitions (Ryan, 2015; Ryba et al., 2015).

Generally speaking, the DC of an athlete begins when they are in elementary education and start to pursue a sport professionally. However, balancing sport and education becomes increasingly difficult once the athlete matures in their sport (Wylleman et al., 2013). Mentoring programmes for elite athletes aim to help the transition from a sporting career to a professional career. Thus, understanding elite athletes’ mentoring needs is crucial in the development of mentoring programmes.

Mentoring is recognised as a valuable tool in guiding young professionals in a business or educational environment (Kalpazidou-Schmidt & Faber, 2016). Hence, mentoring can help athletes’ transition from elite level sports to a vocational career or higher education by supporting them in balancing sporting and non-sporting commitments. However, as the transitional period between sport and employment is not straightforward, individuals require a customised approach because different educational and vocational goals are pursued, and different sports have various obligations. Thus, it is vital to understand and improve existing mentoring programmes to better support athletes’ transitions. Hence, this study explores how elite athletes’ sporting and non-sporting career goals can be facilitated through mentoring. Therefore, we assess mentors and mentees’ overall satisfaction as it served as an indicator of mentoring programme’s success. The following two research questions focus on the mentees (i.e. elite athletes) and mentors (i.e. industry professionals). RQ1: What are the interrelationships between mentoring, values conveyed in mentoring, and the satisfaction of mentees’ sporting and non-sporting career goals? RQ2: What are the interrelationships between mentoring, values conveyed in the mentoring relationship and the satisfaction with supporting the mentee and the mentor’s career benefits for industry professionals?

Besides addressing a gap in mentoring research, this paper’s results can be utilised by athletes, managers, governmental bodies, and organisations involved in the elite sport system. Additionally, the learnings from existing mentoring programmes can benefit future athletes from athletic retirement into a professional career. It can ease their integration into the workplace and society.

Theoretical framework

Social exchange theory

The relationship between a mentor and a mentee can be described as a social exchange between two individuals. Thus, social exchange theory frames this research as it illustrates the relationship between two parties by proposing a framework in which each person maximises their benefits while reducing the interaction cost. Homans (1961) investigated social structures and social exchange by introducing propositions about the success, stimulus, and deprivation-satiation of social interactions. Following the idea of social exchange, Blau (1964) expanded the propositions and applied the theory to forms of social interaction. In general, the exchange of social resources is characteristic of interactions between individuals or groups. Moreover, it is assumed that the actors in a social exchange behave rationally. Hence, individuals engage in social exchange if the benefits outweigh the costs of the interaction (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1961).

The nature of social exchange determines which costs individuals endure and the benefits they enjoy. Foa and Foa (1974) distinguished between tangible and intangible benefits and further classified them into the following categories: love and emotional support, status, information, money and goods and services. A key characteristic of social exchange theory is the concept of reciprocity, a state in the relationship in which both parties are benefiting while expending the same costs (Foa & Foa, 1974). While this state of equilibrium is theoretically desirable, most relationships are not genuinely reciprocal. Gouldner (1960) pointed out that the state of reciprocity is not perpetual. Instead, an uneven distribution of costs and benefits characterise this relationship.

Furthermore, social exchange depends on the other party’s actions (Blau, 1964). While a reciprocal state is not likely to occur in a social exchange, it is also uncommon that only one side is burdened with the cost of the relationship while the other side receives the benefits. Hence, most exchange relations are characterised by a state in which both parties obtain benefits and accept costs (Gouldner, 1960). In academia, social exchange theory is applied to various research contexts. Commonly, the studies investigated relationships in which individuals exchange resources and pursue a reciprocal state (Takeuchi et al., 2009).

Mentoring

While there is no universal definition for mentoring within the academic literature, a range of shared characteristics can be described. Typically, a mentor is an experienced or high-ranking member of an organisation assisting the development of a less experienced mentee (Clutterbuck, 2014). The mentor forms the relationship through coaching, sponsoring and advocating the mentee (Kram, 1988; Raymond, 1988). Thus, an exchange is an inherent characteristic of a mentoring relationship, and social exchange theory can be applied to mentoring (Ensher et al., 2001; Holtbrügge & Ambrosius, 2015; Lejonberg & Christophersen, 2015; Richard et al., 2009).

Originally, Kram (1988) distinguished between two mentoring functions: career and psychosocial. The career function of mentoring relates to developing the mentee’s career through sponsorship, exposure and visibility, coaching, protection, and challenging assignments. The psychosocial function describes role modelling, acceptance and confirmation, counselling, and friendship (Kram, 1988). However, some scholars argue that role modelling can be regarded as a third mentoring function rather than an aspect of the psychosocial function (Castro et al., 2004; Scandura, 1992; Scandura & Ragins, 1993). According to Scandura and Ragins (1993), the role modelling function reflects the degree of respect and admiration between the mentor and the mentee.

Several factors determine the satisfaction within a mentoring relationship. Ensher et al. (2001) reported that role modelling, reciprocity and career support influenced overall satisfaction. A mentoring relationship’s exchange quality depends on trust (Sheppard & Tuchinsky, 1996), which, as an underlying quality, influences the mentoring outcomes (Fulk et al., 1985). Trust fosters the mentee’s self-disclosure and learning (St-Jean, 2012). Kram and Isabella (1985) suggested that interpersonal, communication and listening skills critically influenced the mentoring outcomes. Hence, mentors with higher levels of interpersonal skill are favoured (Olian et al., 1993). Mentees reported higher satisfaction levels, interest in helping others and better work performance due to the mentoring relationship (Allen et al., 2004; Eby, Allen, et al., 2008; Evertson & Smithey, 2000; Rollins et al., 2014).

A mentoring relationship is described by an information asymmetry, in which the mentor has access to more tangible and intangible assets. This, however, does not indicate that the mentor is not benefiting from the relationship with the mentee. Research showed that mentors experience increases personal development, self-worth, satisfaction, skill and reputation (Kram, 1988). Olian et al. (1993) reported that mentors are willing to invest more in relationships with high-performing mentees due to the conception that this relationship will yield greater rewards. Connecting social exchange theory and mentoring, Ragins and Scandura (1999) confirmed that mentors’ perceptions of cost and benefits are positively related to their intention to develop a relationship with their mentee. Thus, mentors are more inclined to develop a relationship with their mentee if the benefits outweigh the costs. Mentors convey values to their mentees through story-telling, leading to knowledge transfer (Swap et al., 2001). Thereby, mentors may stimulate attitudes and beliefs. Mentors also foster the mentee’s self-concept (Ryan et al., 1994), which is positively related to positive perceptions about scholastic competence (Grossman & Tierney, 1998) and behavioural outcomes (Eccles, 1983). Over time, mentors and mentees share similar feelings and values (Wilde & Schau, 1991). In a sporting environment, performance and trust are important values for athletes as they relate to various aspects of their life (Overbye & Wagner, 2014; Robins & Hetherington, 2005). Trust is very important in a working environment (Reave, 2005), leading to good performance.

To guide the research process, four hypotheses are developed. H₁ and H₃ explore the influence of trust and performance on overall satisfaction with mentoring by considering the mentor and mentee perspective. H₂ and H₄ examine the effect of the three psychosocial functions on the overall satisfaction from a mentor and mentee perspective.

H₁: The mentor will positively influence the mentee’s satisfaction with the mentoring programme (by supporting their professional development) by conveying the values performance and trust.

H₂: Mentoring relationships in which the mentor conveys a) career development, b) psychosocial support and c) role modelling will positively influence the mentee’s satisfaction with the mentoring programme (by supporting their professional development).

H₃: The mentor will positively influence their own satisfaction with the mentoring programme by conveying the values, performance and trust.

H₄: Mentoring relationships in which the mentor conveys a) career development, b) psychosocial support, and c) role modelling will positively influence the mentor’s satisfaction with the mentoring programme.

Literature review

General mentoring studies

There is no consensus about a universally valid mentoring definition (Crisp & Cruz, 2009). Yet, the value of mentoring is thoroughly established in the academic literature. In general, the mentor serves as a confidante and role model for the mentee (Kram, 1988). Beyond that, the mentor offers encouragement and emotional support to their mentee (Eby, Rhodes, et al., 2008; Hon & Shorr, 1998). Thus, high-quality mentoring relations are characterised by respect and trust between the mentor and mentee (Howe, 1995).

Clutterbuck (2014) differentiated mentoring by distinguishing between a sponsorship model and a development model. The sponsorship model involves direct one-way learning and centres the mentor’s power to influence the mentee. Additionally, the mentor, who is usually older and more senior, offers their mentee protection. The relation in the sponsorship model is founded on reciprocal loyalty. In contrast, the dyad in the development model emphasises a mutual, two-way learning relation. The development model emphasises collaborative learning opportunities, friendship and depicts the mentee as a recipient of stimulating insights. Moreover, individuals in the development model experience mutual respect and strengthen the mentoring relationship through the differences between the mentor and the mentee (Clutterbuck & Lane, 2004).

A meta-analysis investigating mentoring benefits indicated that mentored individuals displayed higher career satisfaction, are more confident about their future career prospects and are more likely to commit to their career (Allen et al., 2004). Furthermore, the study confirms that individuals in a mentoring relationship have higher job satisfaction levels and are more likely to remain within the organisation. Chao et al. (1992) show that individual mentoring is associated with higher salaries, while Fagenson (1989) reported greater career mobility and a higher promotion rate as mentoring outcomes. Conclusively, mentees exhibit higher job satisfaction when compared to non-mentored peers (Scandura, 1992). While mentoring relationships are not free of dysfunction (Scandura, 1998), high quality mentoring is transformative for mentees and mentors through life and career improvement (Ragins, 2016).

Mentoring studies with athletes

The research in the field of mentoring focuses on business, education, or the health sector. Substantially fewer studies explore mentoring in the context of sport. Bloom et al. (1998) investigated mentoring in a sport setting by interviewing coaches regarding their mentoring experience. The results indicated that most coaches rely on a mentor throughout their athletic and coaching career. Due to the mentoring relationship, the coaches improve their technical and tactical skills while adopting the mentor’s philosophies. These results were further confirmed by Reade et al. (2008), who revealed that mentoring could advance coaches’ sport science knowledge. Beyond this, Erickson et al. (2007) observed that coaches report enhanced professional development after being mentored. Hence, coaches value the mentoring relationship to prepare them for the multifaceted coaching task (Cushion et al., 2003).

Mentoring an athlete is often, by default, regarded as the duty of the coach, blurring the boundaries between coaching and mentoring. Mentoring is considered a secondary profession of coaches, which they carry out alongside traditional coaching duties (Chambers, 2018). Miller et al. (2002) indicated that coaches in an intercollegiate setting influence athletes’ academic and personal development. However, not all coaches are equipped to be mentors, implying that mentoring is a profession in itself and not secondary to coaching an athlete (Purdy, 2017). Cushion (2015) pointed out that mentoring in the sporting context requires a combination of social, cultural, and symbolic capital.

Additionally, the literature described peer-to-peer mentoring among athletes (Hoffmann & Loughead, 2016). Due to the similarities among peers, it is sensible that veterans are well equipped to serve as mentors to their less experienced team members (Petosa & Smith, 2014). Furthermore, an investigation into peer-mentored athletes’ experience showed that mentors can facilitate the sporting career and personal development of mentees (Hoffmann et al., 2017). Overall, research indicates that mentored athletes are more satisfied, confident and dedicated (Hoffmann & Loughead, 2016; Hoffmann et al., 2017).

Noticeably fewer studies evaluated mentoring as a tool facilitating the transition from an athletic to a vocational career. ‘Petitpas et al. (1992), observed a workshop assisting athletes’ transitioning to a vocational career. The authors found that most athletes were very satisfied with the workshop. Thus, the authors concluded the positive influence of the programme on athletes’ transitions. However, even though athletes are satisfied with the career assistance programme, Mateos et al. (2010) found that athletes have difficulties making career decisions.

Ultimately, it is vital to investigate career mentoring programmes for athletes to better assist in transitioning from exceptional athletic performance to a satisfying vocation. Therefore, this study investigates how aspects of a mentoring programme impact the satisfaction of mentors and mentees. Thereby, the simultaneous observation of mentors and mentees generates more profound insights into the dyad.

Methods

Measures

The ‘Mentoring Functions Questionnaire’ (MFQ-9; Scandura & Ragins, 1993) was employed to assess mentoring. The MFQ-9 is based on three constructs (i.e. career development, psychosocial support and role modelling) involving three items each. The MFQ-9 was selected for this study because the validity of the measurement scale was confirmed by previous studies (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2005). Additionally, the MFQ-9 is short and suitable for the inclusion in this study’s questionnaire. The questionnaire items were presented on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. The three constructs were employed as independent variables.

The items for satisfaction (e.g. ‘The mentoring programme supports my transition from elite sport to a new professional occupation’) were utilised as binary variables (0 = no and 1 = yes).¹ Similarly, the items ‘Performance’ (‘The mentor conveys the value of performance.’) and ‘Trust’ (‘The mentor conveys the value of trust’) were presented as a binary variable. Within this study, the performance and trust items functioned as independent variables, whereas the satisfaction items served as the outcome variables. Tables 1 and 2 present an overview of the constructs, the respective items, and their mean values. The satisfaction items were developed to fit the unique context of the athletes and industry professionals. The questionnaire was reviewed by an expert panel (including athletes and business professionals) to ensure clarity and relevance.

Table 1. Variables, their description and mean values (proportions for binary variables) for the mentee data.

Variable	Description	Mean value
Career Development*
Career1Mentees	My mentor takes a personal interest in my career.	6.06
Career2Mentees	My mentor helps me to coordinate my professional goals.	5.44
Career3Mentees	My mentor has devoted special time and consideration to my career.	5.66
Career_IndexMentees	Additive index of the three items of the Career Development function	5.72
Psychosocial support*
Psych1Mentees	I share my personal problems with my mentor.	4.00
Psych2Mentees	I exchange confidences with my mentor.	5.01
Psych3Mentees	I consider my mentor to be a friend.	4.48
Psych_IndexMentees	Additive index of the three items of the psychosocial support function.	4.58
Role modelling*
Role1Mentees	I try to model my behaviour after my mentor.	3.94
Role2Mentees	I admire my mentor’s ability to motivate others.	4.75
Role3Mentees	I respect my mentor’s ability to teach others.	4.81
Role_IndexMentees	Additive index of the three items of the role modelling function.	4.39
Satisfaction*
SATIS1Mentees	The mentoring programme supports my transition from elite sport to a new professional occupation.	0.51
SATIS2Mentees	The mentoring programme helps me to focus on my elite sport.	0.30
SATIS3Mentees	The mentoring programme increases my satisfaction with the pursuit of elite sport.	0.31
SATIS4Mentees	The mentoring programme allows me to better connect sport with a professional career.	0.42
Performance as value
PERFORMMentees	The value of performance is conveyed by the mentor. (0 = no; 1 = yes)	0.66
Trust as value
TrustMentees	The value of trust is conveyed by the mentor. (0 = no; 1 = yes)	0.35

*Note: measured from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.

Table 2. Variables, their description and mean values (proportions for binary variables) for the mentors data.

Variable	Description	Mean value
Career Development*
Career1Mentors	I am taking a personal interest in my mentee’s career.	6.40
Career2Mentors	I help my mentee to coordinate his/her professional goals.	5.67
Career3Mentors	I have devoted special time and consideration to my mentee’s career.	5.68
Career_IndexMentors	Additive index of the three items of the Career Development function.	5.92
Psychosocial support*
Psych1Mentors	My mentee shares personal problems with me.	3.97
Psych2Mentors	My mentee shares confidences with me.	4.37
Psych3Mentors	My mentee considers me to be a friend.	3.52
Psych_IndexMentors	Additive index of the three items of the psychosocial support function.	3.97
Role modelling*
Role1Mentors	My mentee tries to model his/her behaviour after me.	3.47
Role2Mentors	My mentee admires my ability to motivate others.	3.21
Role3Mentors	My mentee respects my ability to teach others.	3.45
Role_IndexMentors	My mentee tries to model his/her behaviour after me.	3.13
Satisfaction*
SATIS1Mentors	I anticipate that my professional network grows as a result of the mentoring programme.	0.27
SATIS2Mentors	I expect that my mentee successfully transitions into a professional career thanks to my help.	0.58
Performance as value
PERFORMMentors	The mentor conveys the value of performance. (0 = no; 1 = yes)	0.35
Trust as value
TRUSTMentors	The mentor conveys the value of trust. (0 = no; 1 = yes)	0.56

*Note: measured from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.

The mentoring programme

All mentors and mentees participating in this study were members of a mentoring programme. The programme was a joint undertaking of the Value Foundation (‘Werte-Stiftung’) and the German Sports Aid Foundation (‘Stiftung Deutsche Sporthilfe’). Founded in 2012, the programme helped transition from elite sport to a professional career by supporting athletes before they terminated their athletic career. The programme was directed at high potential athletes whom the German Sports Aid Foundation advocates. Both organisations jointly assessed potential mentees (who could apply to join the programme) before being admitted to the programme. The mentors were business professionals who were either recommended by an existing mentor or proposed by a foundation’s board member. Before entering a mentoring agreement, the mentor was assessed based on a standardised procedure. Generally, mentors were senior employees in a medium to a large organisation in various business fields. In addition, the mentors were matched to the mentees based on the mentee’s plan for a professional career in a specific industry by the two organisations.

The mentor and the mentee formed an athlete-mentor dyad once the athlete had matured in their respective sport. At this stage, the athletes had initial plans regarding their future employment. Moreover, the relationship could develop over some years, in which the mentor served as counsellor and advocate. Furthermore, the mentor helped the mentee gain practical experience by providing internships or, ultimately, job opportunities. However, the specific responsibilities developed out of the mentee’s needs and the qualifications of the mentor. The contact between mentee and mentor mainly was in written form (49%), followed by personal meetings (30%) and telephone calls (21%). The number of contacts varied from zero to 30 annually. Personal meetings occurred on average two to three times per year.

Data collection

An online questionnaire was distributed to all mentors and mentees participating in the programme for the data collection. Ethics approval was granted, and all respondents provided informed consent. Moreover, the respondents were also able to opt out anytime during the survey if they wished. This was emphasised in the informed consent. The questionnaire was sent to 134 mentors and 205 mentees. The final sample included 86 mentors² and 101 mentees. This equals a response rate for the mentors of 64.2% and 49.3% for the mentees. The average time for completing the survey was nine minutes for the mentors and eleven minutes for the mentees. The questionnaire was available from the 10th of July to the 8th of September 2018.

Participant characteristics

Of the 101 mentees who took part in the survey, 62.9% were male, and 37.1% were female. On average, they were 27 years old – the oldest mentee was 40, and the youngest was 20 years old. In general, the mentees were internationally successful athletes. For 35 mentees (33.3%), their most significant sporting success was a medal at an international event. Nineteen mentees have won a world championship in their respective sport, and 13 triumphed at a European Championship.

The 89 mentors who participated in this study were, on average, 50 years old. The oldest mentor was 68, and the youngest was 34. In terms of gender, most mentors were male (83 mentors, 82.2%), while only 17.8% were female. One-fifth of the mentors (24.8%) were former elite sport athletes before entering a professional career.

Data Analysis

The Mentoring Functions Questionnaire properties (MFQ-9) were not tested with confirmatory factor analysis due to the small sample sizes. Hence, a reliability test utilising McDonald’s omega (ω) was employed (Hayes & Coutts, 2020). Because the cut-off values for ω ‘should depend at least partially on the relative importance of the outcomes associated with the decisions made based on the measure’ (Green & Yang, 2015, p. 16), we presume adequate reliability for the included constructs. In the mentee sample, two of the three constructs were reliable (Career development ω  = .878; Psychosocial support ω  = .792). In the mentor sample, the construct of Career development was reliable with ω = .701. The psychosocial support construct also indicated adequate reliability (ω = .854). The role modelling construct was not included in the further calculation as the reliability was not satisfactory, and the mentor sample had too many missing values for imputation. For the two remaining constructs (i.e. career development and psychosocial support), additive indices were computed (sum of all items divided by the number of items). This allowed us to assess them as a single variable.

A set of logistic regressions evaluated career development, psychosocial support, trust and performance in relation to overall satisfaction. For the mentees, four models were calculated using the satisfaction items as dependent variables. Two models were estimated for the mentors using the two indices and performance and trust as outcome variables. All models were checked for heteroscedasticity, which did not present a problem following the information matrix test since all p-values were non-significant. As all variance inflation factors were below 10 (Hair et al., 2010), no multicollinearity was prevalent. The logistic regression results were presented with marginal effects as they are easier to comprehend than the coefficients. A marginal effect was conceptualised as ‘the effect on the conditional mean of y of a change in one of the regressors’ (Cameron & Quinn, 2011, p. 343). Hence, the marginal effects indicated the regression line’s slope in a specific point (Kohler & Kreuter, 2012), commonly the mean value. In essence, a marginal effect described how a variable’s change influences a specific outcome’s probability. Thus, the marginal effects represented the direct effect on the dependent variable, which renders them comparable (Greene, 2012). As a consequence, this research utilised the interpretation of marginal effects.

Results

SATIS1Mentees (‘The mentoring programme supports my transition from elite sport to a new professional occupation’) served as the first model’s dependent variable. The model had a significant fit of the data (χ² = 28.72, p ≤ .001). The model explained 20.52% of the variation in the outcome variable. One out of the four predictors was significantly associated with the outcome variable (see Table 3). Evaluating the marginal effects (ME), a one-unit increase in the Career_Index_Mentees resulted in a 21.3 percentage points increase for the probability that the mentees were satisfied with their transition from elite sport to a new professional occupation.

Table 3. Results of the logistic regression analysis with satisfaction as outcome variable for the mentees data.

Variable	SATIS1Mentees		SATIS2Mentees		SATIS3Mentees		SATIS4Mentees
	Coefficient	Marginal effects (z-value)	Coefficient	Marginal effects (z-value)	Coefficient	Marginal effects (z-value)	Coefficient	Marginal effects (z-value)
Career_IndexMentees	.852	.213 (2.95)**	.455	.090 (1.66)	.498	.100 (1.80)	.202	.048 (0.83)
Psych_IndexMentees	.234	.059 (1.26)	−.009	−.002 (−0.05)	−.022	−.004 (−0.12)	.209	.050 (1.17)
PERFORMMentees	.307	.077 (0.63)	1.129	.202 (2.33)*	1.203	.217 (2.50)*	1.426	.310 (3.23)***
TRUSTMentees	−.681	−.168 (−1.34)	.024	.005 (0.05)	.153	.031 (0.31)	.336	.081 (0.71)
N	101	103	103	103
χ²	28.72	11.16	12.96	17.33
LL	−55.61	−57.42	−57.34	−61.32
P	.000***	.025*	.012*	.002**
Pseudo R²	20.52%	8.86%	10.15%	12.38%

Note. *p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .01; ***p ≤ .001.

The second model for the mentees used the SATIS2_Mentees (‘The mentoring programme helps me focus on my elite sport’). The model fitted the data (χ² = 11.16, p = .025). The predictors explained 8.86% of the variation in SATIS2_Mentees. One out of the four independent variables – PERFORM_Mentees – was significantly associated with the outcome variable. Those mentees in mentoring relationships, in which performance was conveyed as value, were 20.2 percentage points more likely satisfied with the mentoring programme as aid to focus on elite sport. The third model for the mentees employed SATIS3_Mentees (‘The mentoring programme increases my satisfaction with the pursuit of elite sport’) as the outcome variable. The model had a significant fit of the data (χ²  = 12.96. p = .012) and explained 10.15% of the variation in SATIS3_Mentees. Within the third model, the variable PERFORM_Mentees indicates that a one-unit increase in the performance conveyed leads to a 21.7% increase in the satisfaction with the programme (ME = .217, p ≤ .05).

The fourth model for the mentees employed SATIS4_Mentees (‘The mentoring programme allows me to connect sport with a professional career’ better) as the dependent variable. The model had a significant fit of the data (χ² = 17.33, p = .002), and the variables explained 12.38% of the variation in SATIS3_Mentees. PERFORM_Mentees (ME = .310, p ≤ .001) were significantly and positively correlated with the outcome variable Table 4.

Table 4. Results of the logistic regression analysis with satisfaction as outcome variable for the mentors’ data.

Variable	SATIS1Mentors		SATIS2Mentors
	Coefficient	Marginal effects (z-value)	Coefficient	Marginal effects (z-value)
Career_IndexMentors	.189	.036 (0.52)	1.409	.341 (3.32)***
Psych_IndexMentors	.007	.001 (0.03)	.082	.020 (0.36)
PERFORMMentors	.180	.035 (0.31)	1.989	.411 (3.57)***
TRUSTMentors	1.152	.203 (2.26)*	.042	.010 (0.08)
n	86		86
χ²	4.87		26.79
LL	−47.50		−45.37
p	.301		< .001***
Pseudo R²	4.88%		22.79%

Note. *p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .01; ***p ≤ .001.

The first of the two models estimated for the mentors used SATIS1_Mentors (‘I anticipate that my professional network grows due to the mentoring programme’) as the dependent variable. The model fitted the data (χ² = 4.87, p = .310) and explained 4.88% (Pseudo R² = 0.049) of the variation in SATIS1_Mentors. TRUST_Mentors was significantly correlated with the dependent variable (ME = .203, p ≤ .05).

The second logistic regression calculated for the mentors used the SATIS2_Mentors (‘I expect that my mentee successfully transitions into a professional career thanks to my help’) variables outcome variable. The model had a significant fit of the data (χ²  = 26.79, p ≤ .001) with a Pseudo R² of 0.228 (22.79%). Inspecting the marginal effects, a one-unit increase in the Career_Index_Mentees (ME = .341, p ≤ .001) resulted in a 34.1 percentage points increase in the probability that the mentors were satisfied with the help they provided the mentee to transition from elite sport into a professional business career. Moreover, a one-unit increase in the PERFORM_Mentors increased the probability of being satisfied by 41.3% (ME = .411, p ≤ .001) Table 5.

Table 5. Overview of the hypotheses testing.

Mentees
	The mentoring programme supports my transition from elite sport to a new professional occupation	The mentoring programme helps me to focus on my elite sport	The mentoring programme increases my satisfaction with the pursuit of elite sport	The mentoring programme allows me to better connect sport with a professional career
Career development	X
Psychosocial support
Performance		X	X	X
Trust
Mentors
	I anticipate that my professional network grows as a result of the mentoring programme		I expect that my mentee successfully transitions into a professional career thanks to my help.
Career development			X
Psychosocial support
Performance			X
Trust	X

*Note: X marks the significant relationships with p ≤ .05.

Discussion and conclusion

This study investigated the interrelationships between mentoring, values conveyed in mentoring and the satisfaction with the mentoring programme. This was operationalised by examining the satisfaction for mentees (i.e. achieving sporting and non-sporting career goals) and mentors (i.e. supporting the mentee and achieving personal career benefits). The values conveyed in the mentoring relationship were conceptualised as performance and trust and career development, psychosocial support and role modelling.

The results demonstrate that mentors, conveying performance as a value, aid athletes in focusing on their sport, confirm their decision to pursue elite sport and allow them to better link sport and a professional career. However, conveying trust does not systematically influence athletes’ satisfaction with the mentoring programme. Hence, the findings partially confirm H₁. Looking at H₂, the results further indicate that mentors supporting career development allow athletes to better transition from elite sport to a new professional occupation. However, career development did not influence helping athletes to focus on their sport, their satisfaction with pursuing an elite sport or linking sport and a professional career. Moreover, psychosocial support does not systematically influence mentees satisfaction.

Concerning H_3, the findings further denoted that mentors’ satisfaction increases by conveying performance as a value. They anticipate that the athlete successfully transitions into a professional career due to their guidance. Similarly, the mentor’s satisfaction increases by conveying trust as they expect their professional network to grow. Reversely, conveying performance does not influence the professional network’s anticipated growth, and trust does not influence the expectations regarding the successful transition of an athlete into a professional career. Furthermore, evaluating H₄, the results imply that mentors expect the mentees to successfully transition into a professional career if they support the athlete’s career development. However, mentors do not expect their professional network to grow when supporting an athlete’s career development.

Overall, the results indicated that mentoring programmes were a valuable tool in facilitating a DC of elite athletes to promote goal attainment for mentees and mentors. In other words, mentoring programmes expedited an athlete’s transition from a sporting to a vocational career by increasing an individual’s satisfaction. These observations were congruent with the comprehensive definition of a dual career, including general well-being and a satisfying private life (Kadlcik & Flemr, 2008; Stambulova et al., 2015).

Mentoring, Values, and Satisfaction with Career Goals

A mentor conveying performance as a value expedited mentees’ satisfaction meaningfully. Hence, mentees indicated higher satisfaction regarding the mentoring programme’s ability to focus on elite sport, the decision to pursue elite sport and connecting sport and a professional career if performance was an inherent part of the mentoring relationship. Thus, individuals with a high-performance background – such as sport – responded well to mentoring programmes built on the same values. The high goal-orientation and the dedication to success were valuable assets elite athletes possess (Smismans, 2019), which translated to better employability (Torregrosa et al., 2015). Mentors who conveyed performance expected mentees to transition into a professional career successfully. This observation generated some noteworthy conclusions. First, the performance value is inherently linked to discipline and determination. Hence, a mentor conveying performance asa value towards the mentee is likely to expect elevated discipline and determination from the mentee. The mentee’s increased performance, which developed out of the mentor’s relationship, is expected to ease the sporting and professional career transition.

Additionally, the present study’s findings showed that a mentor who valued trust in the mentoring relationship anticipated a growing professional network. On the one hand, this could be explained by additional social capital accruement (Cushion, 2015). On the other hand, a mentor building a strong relationship with their mentee might consider the relationship valuable for their career. For example, the mentor could gain from the relationship by including the athlete in work-related projects, such as podium discussions or presentations. On the other hand, the mentor derived social value from knowing a professional athlete, leveraging to expand the professional network.

Mentoring Functions and Satisfaction with Career Goals

The findings indicated that career development is essential for mentors and mentees. The mentoring programme was designed to facilitate elite athletes’ career transition. Therefore, it achieved its central mission. Taking part in the mentoring programme helped athletes feel better prepared for the career transition. If the mentor took a personal interest in the mentee, it helped them coordinate their professional goals. Moreover, the results suggested that mentors expected mentees to successfully transition into a professional career if they invested more time, consideration and attention towards the mentoring relationship. Thus, mentors facilitated athletes’ personal development by aiding their transition to a vocational career (Ragins, 2016). While the mentoring relationship yielded tangible results (e.g. helping in applications or mediating internships), the findings primarily pointed toward intangible (e.g. higher satisfaction regarding the sporting career and a more positive outlook) benefits associated with the mentoring programme (Foa & Foa, 1974).

The psychosocial support did not seem relevant for the mentees or the mentors in a mentoring relationship. Considering that elite athletes and established business professionals were possibly well integrated into social structures, they might not feel the urge to connect with the mentor further. This might be amplified through the limited availability of athletes and periodic meetings. The limited day-to-day proximity of mentors and mentees might inhibit the development of friendship in this mentoring relationship.

The role modelling construct was not included in the overall computation, yet some implications can be derived. The low mean values for the role modelling construct indicated that mentors do not envision themselves as role models. Considering the literature, a mentor’s role model function seemed inherently integrated into a mentoring relationship (Kram, 1988). The findings showed, that mentors of an internationally successful athlete had great respect towards the athlete and their achievement. This might influence the roles in a mentoring relationship so far that accepting a role model function depended on the mentor’s self-perception. Mentoring an individual who has gained international recognition in a socially respected field, such as sport (Wicker et al., 2012), might reduce the mentor’s self-perceived capability of acting as a role model. This could shift the relationship from having a clear role assignment towards a more reciprocal relationship. Therefore, the mentoring relationship between athletes and business professional shared the reciprocal characteristics of social exchange (Foa & Foa, 1974).

The mentoring dyads investigated in the present study are atypical because athletes and business professionals do not have a shared career history. However, commonly, the mentor and the mentee operated in a similar context but differed in experience (Kram, 1988; Raymond, 1988). Thus, the shared context and career ambitions between the mentor and the mentees made it easier for them to form expectations and urged mentees to fulfil these prospects.

Implications

Theoretical implications

This research contributed to the existing literature by simultaneously investigating mentors and mentees in a formalised mentoring programme. Thus, the findings presented a holistic examination of mentoring relationships. This research was informed by social exchange theory. The results indicated that a reciprocal social exchange existed, as both individuals benefit from the mentoring relationship. The investigated mentoring relationship differed from mentoring programmes in the business world or mentoring relationships between coaches and athletes. Generally, a mentoring relationship was characterised by information asymmetry (Kram, 1988), with one party (the mentor) having more access to tangible and intangible assets. Even though this study’s findings supported this assumption, it must expend to fit the unique research setting. As expected, the mentor was valued and appreciated by the mentee for their superior access to the business world.

However, the mentee (i.e. a successful athlete) received high societal recognition for their sporting success, which in turn was admired by the mentor. Thus, conclusively, the relationship between an athlete and a mentor was evenly balanced, as two (in their respective field) established individuals were paired. This observation endorsed the notion of the development model, which perquisites a mutual, two-way learning relationship for both parties to benefit (Clutterbuck, 2014).

Practical implications

Mentors who devoted additional time and consideration to the mentee increased the mentors’ and mentees’ satisfaction. Therefore, the mentors should be sensitised regarding the commitment and time they must invest in the mentoring programme. By informing the mentor about the personal gains, a more substantial commitment can be fostered.

Furthermore, the conveyance of performance was associated with positive outcomes for the mentees and the mentors. Therefore, we recommend implementing a goal-oriented conversation atmosphere that can help convey the performance value. Moreover, the mentor and mentee could develop SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time-bound) objectives (Robbins et al., 2017) to facilitate the mentee’s performance. It is conceivable that measurable performance corresponds well with the quantifiable sporting performance athletes are familiar with. Hence, performance is implicitly conveyed as value. Mentors can also point to the importance of performance in the business world for career development and progress.

In the present study, trust was an essential quality for the mentoring relationship. This holds especially true for mentors, as they anticipate the growth of their professional network. Hence, the value of trust should be communicated to mentors before they enter a mentoring relationship.

Limitations and future research

The predominant limitation of this study related to the relatively small sample sizes. Yet, the population of athletes and mentors taking part in the programme is limited. A larger sample would warrant deeper insights and a more sophisticated analysis. However, this study did evaluate mentor and mentee data and had a reasonable response rate. Therefore, some generalisations are possible. Another limitation concerned the exclusion of the role modelling construct. Therefore, we were unable to evaluate its relationship with the outcome variables.

Based on this evaluation, new research avenues can be identified. Focus groups, including mentors and athletes, could yield interesting results regarding implementing dual career mentoring programmes. A longitudinal approach, tracking mentors and mentees’ satisfaction over several years, could also have interesting outcomes highlighting the fluctuating satisfaction throughout a mentoring programme. Hence, a longitudinal study design could generate more stable results compared to cross-sectional evaluations. However, the sample size is a potential shortcoming as mentors or mentees terminate the relationship prematurely. Five years after successfully transitioning from a sporting career to a professional career, a retrospective study might be valuable to overcome the sample size limitation. These data could be accumulated and evaluated after a sufficient sample size exists.

Finally, new advancements in the measurement of mentoring functions in sport offer additional future research opportunities. Hoffmann and Loughead (2019) recently developed the Athlete Mentoring Questionnaire, a tool that assesses mentoring functions more relevant to an athlete population. 9-12A questionnaire targeted at mentoring to foster elite athletes’ transition from their sporting career to professional employment could be developed based on their study. This could also include queries relating to mentoring relationships’ social impact, such as the accruement of social capital and personal networks’ creation.

Acknowledgement

This project has been funded by the Stiftung Deutsche Sporthilfe [German Sport Aid Foundation] and Werte-Stiftung [Value Foundation].

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This project has been funded by the Stiftung Deutsche Sporthilfe [German Sport Aid Foundation] and Werte-Stiftung [Value Foundation].

Notes

1 In the survey, satisfaction war queried on a seven-point Likert scale from 1=completely unsatisfied to 7=completely satisfied. The values ‘6’ and ‘7’ were re-coded into ‘Yes’ and all other values were recoded into ‘No’ to differentiate more clearly between satisfaction and non-satisfaction.

2 In fact, 79 mentors were interviewed. Since several of the mentors coached more than one elite athlete, each mentor-mentee relationship was treated separately because the mentors did answer all questions separately for their mentees.