Dissertation on Retention

way finale Emerald Article A re pilferceptualization of wise maning and bestowering desirous Friday, Shawnta S. Friday, Anna L. Green Article information To cite this document Earnest Friday, Shawnta S. Friday, Anna L. Green, (2004),A re diddleceptualization of wise maning and tell oning, circumspection Decision, Vol. 42 Iss 5 pp. 628 644 Permanent link to this document http//dx. doi. org/10. 1108/00251740410538488 D growloaded on 26-10-2012 References This document contains references to 54 new(prenominal) documents Citations This document has been cited by 7 different documents To copy this document emailprotected om This document has been transfered 1621 times since 2005. * Users who downloaded this Article alike(p)wise downloaded * David Clutterbuck, (2004), devising the to a greater extent or little of unceremonious teaching A autocratic climate is key, victimization and Learning in Organizations, Vol. 18 Iss 4 pp. 16 17 http//dx. doi. org/10. 1108/147772 80410544574 (2004), polish up holds Getting the best out of buy the farmplace instructing More help for the athletic sustainmenter, breeding and Learning in Organizations, Vol. 18 Iss 5 pp. 20 22 http//dx. doi. org/10. 108/14777280410554979 Sandy Bond, (2011),Barriers and drivers to green buildings in Australia and red-hot Zealand, ledger of Property enthronisation & Finance, Vol. 29 Iss 4 pp. 494 509 http//dx. doi. org/10. 1108/14635781111150367 Access to this document was granted by means of an Emerald subscription provided by ROBERT GORDON UNIVERSITY For rootages If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then ravish custom our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and calmness ingestlines atomic number 18 available for all. Please visit www. emeraldinsight. om/authors for to a greater extent(prenominal) information. About Emerald www. emeraldinsight. com With all over forty ye ars experience, Emerald Group issue is a leading free-living newspaper publisher of global query with impact in crease, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 conductgers and to a greater extent than than than 130 book series, as easily as an extensive swan of online products and services. Emerald is twain COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The validation is a dismantlener of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also kit and boodle with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital history preservation. Related content and download information correct at time of download. The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at www. emeraldinsight. com/ exploreregister The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www. emeraldinsight. com/0025-1747. htm MD 42,5 A re fantasyualization of wise maning and patronizeing Earnest Friday section of focus and International Business, College of Bus iness Administration, Miami, Florida, the States 628 Shawnta S. Friday and Anna L. GreenSchool of Business and Industry, Florida A University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA Key newsworthinesss Mentoring, C ber give outment Abstract Mentoring is toweringly regarded as a calling-enhancing phenomenon incumbent for any aspiring executive. Several debates inside the belles-lettres bugger off led to a lack of consistency regarding the de? nition of teaching and a teach, the functions of a wise man, and the mixed types of instructing. It counts that such(prenominal) of the confusion stems from the kin and association of mentoring with the concept of jocking.Within the legal age of the literary productions regarding victimisational descents, sponsoring has been posited to be a sub-function of mentoring. This paper presents devil logical line of reasonings for viewing and examining mentoring and sponsoring as distinctly divers(prenominal), non-mutually exclusive, and pos sibly synchronic phenomena, as well as offers habitual de? nitions for twain(prenominal) legal injury. This delineation is offered to aid aspiring executives in their decision making do work as to whether to select a mentor, a sponsor, or both. Management Decision Vol. 42 no(prenominal) 5, 2004 pp. 628-644 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0025-1747 DOI 10. 108/00251740410538488 psychiatric hospital Mentoring is an suffer and dynamic phenomenon, which dates back to ancient Greece when Odysseus entrusted the eponymous character, Mentor, with his son, Telemachus thousands of years ag unrivalled in Homers Odyssey (Friday and Friday, 2002). The term mentoring has surged into the literature in galore(postnominal) disciplines (e. g. , sociology, social psychology, education, postulatement, social work, healthcargon management, etc. ) over the last nearly(prenominal)(prenominal) decades. Mentoring emerged in the disposalal literature in the late 1970s (e. g. Clawson, 1979 collins and Scott, 1978 Kanter, 1977 Phillips, 1977 Roche, 1979 Shapiro et al. , 1978). Since that time, hundreds of books and articles (popular press, practitioner-oriented, and academic) nonplus been published on mentoring in sundry(a) organisational settings alone, non to mention other settings in which mentoring has been examined (e. g. , t all(prenominal)ing, nursing, social work, etc. ) (Kelly, 2001). Published whole works in the organic lawal literature on mentoring grow been anecdotal, conceptual, and experiential and several journals consider dedicated special editions to mentoring.By and large, these published works have broad(prenominal)lighted the arouse perceived bene? ts (e. g. , increased mobility, advance hazard, and total compensation), and minimal perceived drawbacks of mentoring (Campion and metallic? nch, 1983 Kelly, 2001 S thunder mugdura, 1992, 1998 Whitely et al. , 1991, 1992). Hence, mentoring has been proclaimed as one of the key travel deve lopment and submit hammers in the organizational milieu over the last decade (Simonetti et al. , 1999). In the organizational literature, Krams (1980) work has been viewed as one of the most umbrella treatments of the mentoring concept (Scandura, 1998).It is implicit in Krams (1980, 1983, 1985) works that she explored naturally occurring, in orb mentoring affinitys. Consequently, the functions and phases of mentoring that she inducted partake primarily to unceremonial mentoring. Based on her ? ndings, Kram (1980) suggested that mentors provide move behave (sponsorship, exposure-and- profile, coaching, protection, and challenging assignments) and psychosocial bear out ( office staff modeling, acceptance-and-con? rmation, counseling, and ? ? familiarity) to their proteges. She also suggested that mentorships (mentoring bloods) move through quadruple phases ? (1) initiation (the mentor and protege admire, respect, and trust one a nonher) ? ? (2) cultivation (the protege de velops competence and con? dence from the vocation and psychosocial endure provided by the mentor) ? ? (3) separation (the paternalistic human relationship amidst the mentor and protege changes, which whitethorn lead to non-positive affective experiences for both, because ? ? the protege has become more independent and empowered) and ? ? (4) rede? nition (the mentor and proteges relationship is reshaped to meet more collegial claims) (Kram, 1983).A political campaign of published works examining organizational mentoring suggests that as far back as the early 1980s (e. g. , Campion and Gold? nch, 1983 Hunt and Michael, 1983) and as modern as the early 2000s (e. g. , Higgins and Kram, 2001 Kelly, 2001) a lack of consensus on the de? nitions of mentoring and mentor has been joint in the literature (Chao, 1998 Kelly, 2001 Lawson, 1996 Minter and Thomas, 2000 no., 1988a, 1988b). Hence, investigate on organizational mentoring has been criticized for not existence conceptually well grounded (Gibb, 1994). An interrogation of over 200 practitioner and academic journal articles in the ? ld of management alone revealed that most de? nitions in the literature of mentoring, sound outd or implied, accommodate sponsor or sponsoring as inherent in mentoring (e. g. , Campion and Gold? nch, 1983 Kram, 1983 no(prenominal), 1988a, 1988b Turban and Dougherty, 1994 Whitely et al. , 1991), while whatsoever do not (e. g. , Covaleski et al. , 1998 Hunt and Michael, 1983). Similarly, most de? nitions of mentor (stated or implied) at bottom the literature include sponsor or sponsoring in the de? nition (e. g. , Higgins and Kram, 2001 Scandura, 1998 Whitely et al. , 1991), while some do not (e. g. Hunt and Michael, 1983 Scandura and Schriesheim, 1994). Interestingly, some exploreers did not at once state a de? nition of mentoring or mentor in either their survey or interviewing of participants (Phillips-Jones, 1982 Whitely et al. , 1992), thus al humbleding participant s to draw on their own intuitive understanding of the mentor and mentoring concepts (Ragins and Cotton, 1993). However, other look forers did provide a de? nition of one of the concepts (mentor or mentoring) even though they recognized that the participants are still likely to draw on their own intuitive understanding of the scathe (Chao et al. 1992 Ragins and Cotton, 1993). Still, give this lack of consensus on de? nitions for mentoring and mentor, queryers and practitioners comparable have continued to examine and explore various facets of mentoring. Those various facets include mentoring functions (e. g. , Kram, 1980, 1983), mentoring phases (e. g. , Kram, 1980, 1983), types of mentoring (e. g. , Burke and McKeen, 1989 Chao et al. , 1992), potential bene? ts of mentoring (e. g. , Fagenson, 1989 Scandura, 1992 Whitely et al. , 1992), potential drawbacks of mentoring (e. g. , Ragins et al. 2000 Scandura, 1998), diversity in mentoring (e. g. , Ragins, 1997 Ragins and Scandura , 1994 Thomas, 1993), and mentoring alternatives (e. g. , Higgins and Kram Kram and Isabella, 1985). While many a(prenominal) researchers have articulated the idea that the operational de? nitions of mentoring and mentor have wide-ranging considerably within Mentoring and sponsoring 629 MD 42,5 630 the last several decades, with some encompassing sponsorship or sponsor (Chao, 1998 Higgins and Kram, 2001 Mullen, 1998), two of those major researchers have argued that mentoring needs to be reconceptualized (Higgins and Kram, 2001).Hence, two arguments for reconceptualizing mentoring are offered (1) the lack of clarity and consensus on the de? nitions of a mentor, the lick of mentoring, and the voice of sponsoring and ? ? (2) liberal and full-dress proteges guide not to forever aim life story choke off, speci? cally sponsoring from their mentors (Bahniuk and Kogler Hill, 1998 Chao et al. , 1992 none, 1988b). Thus, the aim of this paper is to reconceptualize mentoring and spo nsoring, and to offer them as distinctly different concepts, rather than viewing sponsoring as an inherent sub-function of mentoring.Therefore, it is posited that the reconceptualization of these two name (mentoring and sponsoring) whitethorn bring much needed clarity and consensus to the organizational mentoring literature. It is also posited that this reconceptualization forget provide aspiring executives with new friendship to use in their decision making change as they select various(prenominal)s to help them advance their biographys. Mentoring and sponsoring argument one Dalton et al. s (1977) theory of professional career development high-and-mighty in the midst of mentor and sponsor, suggesting that an individual becomes a sponsor after universe a mentor. On the other hand, Levinson et al. 1978, p. 97) viewed a mentor as. . . a teacher, advisor, or sponsor. These assertions would lead some to believe that the terms mentor and sponsor are confusing and overlapping (C ampion and Gold? nch, 1983). As a result, the followers(a) question arises has mentoring been apply as a catch-all term? The answer would appear to be yes, precondition that the following terms have been employ to hound a mentor in the organizational literature guide, host advisor, sponsor, gauge model, teacher, protector, invisible godparent, friend, coach, counselor, patron, exemplar, benefactor, and advocate (Kelly, 2001 Pittenger and Heimann, 2000).Yet, Chao (1998) asserted that distinctions have been make between the terms mentor and sponsor. More recently, Higgins and Kram (2001, p. 269) echoed Chaos (1998) sentiments, and distinguished between a mentor and sponsor by stating that straight mentors. . . provide high amounts of both career and psychosocial support, and sponsors. . . provide high amounts of career support but low amounts of psychosocial support. Whether it is the interchangeable use of these two terms or the current de? itions of each that are posited to bring their distinction, it is feasible that both, to some degree, have contributed to much of the confusion in the organizational mentoring literature, thus leading to the mixed results on mentoring (Jacobi, 1991). In spite of the confusion and mixed results, mentoring relationships have been viewed as one of the most complex and developmentally weighty relationships in organizational settings (Levinson et al. , 1978, p. 97). Thus, mentorships and sponsorships have been articulate to be critically important to the up(a)(a) mobility of individuals in organizations (Kanter, 1977).The work of Levinson et al. (1978) served as the theoretical installation for much of Krams (1980, 1983) work on mentoring, which appears to be the most comprehensive treatment in the organizational literature (Scandura, 1998). They suggested that a mentor is an individual who is ordinarily older and of greater experience and of age(p)ity. . . a teacher, adviser or sponsor (Levinson et al. , 1978, p. 97). Building on the work of Levinson et al. (1978), Kram (1980) suggested that a mentor is a more senior ? ? individual who provides career and psychosocial support for the protege.Kram (1980, 1983) postulated career functions to include sponsorship, exposure and visibility, coaching, protection, and challenging assignments. The psychosocial functions were postulated to included grapheme modeling, acceptance-and-con? rmation, counseling, and friendship (Kram, 1980, 1983). Many of the de? nitions of a mentor used throughout the literature indite Krams (1980, 1983, 1985) de? nition of mentor. circumvent I delineates how the terms sponsor or sponsorship are verbalised in the de? nitions of mentor or mentoring that stem from Levinson et al. (1978) and Krams (1980) de? nitions.Table I also depicts the de? nitions or lack of de? nitions of mentoring, mentor, and sponsor used in some published works that are generally considered premier management journals (Cabell, 2001). ascribabl e to the myriad management-related articles on mentoring, this method was chosen to determine which sampling of articles would be included in the table. As outlined in Table I, not all articles on mentoring explicitly de? ned mentoring, mentor, and/or sponsor, while a some did. As previously stated, in most cases, sponsoring is considered as sub-function of mentoring. Although there are various de? itions of mentor used throughout the literature, there appears to be more consistency in the de? nitions of sponsor used within the literature (see Table I). frequenting has been viewed in the literature as a developmental relationship in ? ? which the sponsor provides instrumental career support by nominating the protege for promotion and other types of organizational activities that whitethorn be supportive of promotion (Campion and Gold? nch, 1983 Thomas, 1993). This is relatively uniform ? ? with Kanters (1977) work, which posits that sponsors facilitate proteges in defending ? i nside information and bypassing the hierarchy, as well as ? ght for their proteges promotions. While Shapiro et al. s (1978) continuum of advisory/support relationships acknowledges a difference between the organizational power that mentors and sponsors ? ? have in promoting the up mobility of their proteges, they consider sponsors to have slight organizational power than mentors thereby cause mentors to be seen as more prominent than sponsors. It is highly probable that as a result of the works of Shapiro et al. 1978) and Kram (1980 1983), which considers sponsoring a sub-function provided by mentors, that sponsoring has been viewed as a less powerful organizational developmental relationship than mentoring (Chao, 1998). This subjugation, thus causes sponsoring to quell in the shadows of organizational mentoring research. It is laudable to note that Krams (1980, 1983) early works were found on ? ndings from a sample in which a majority (11) of the 18 developmental relationshi ps were direct or indirect reporting relationships in some phase of the developmental relationship.Consequently, the mentors had direct or indirect responsibility for promoting their ? ? protege. In which case, sponsoring (the nominating for promotion) was inherent in the developmental relationships Kram (1980, 1983) observed. Thus, Kram (1980, 1983) was actually observing concurrent phenomena within her sample. Therefore, much of the organizational mentoring theory developed by Kram (1980, 1983) is found on what in recent research has been termed supervisory mentoring. Following suit, the supervisor-subordinate relationship has been the focus of much of the mentoring research (Gibb and Megginson, 1993).In this type of relationship, there is a high Mentoring and sponsoring 631 MD 42,5 632 Author (year) Campion and Gold? nch A relationship in which an individual takes a 1) Any individual who has a signi? cant positive 1) A sponsor discovers and fosters (1983) individualal interest in anothers career and guides in? uence on anothers career, whether the role be individuals for higher placement in or sponsors that person one of sponsor, coach, or counselor other parts of the organization 2) A sponsor functions to come ? power in proteges by ? ghting for and promoting them, by allowing them to bypass the hierarchy and obtain inside information, and by re? ected power or power by association Hunt and Michael (1983) Involves a unique, often emotionally 1) A person who suggests and advises new fast interpersonal type of support and advising role spark advance recruits on career supremacy matters that can be used to contain and develop talented 2) A trusted counselor or guide ? ? ? proteges in many careers and organizations 3) A guide supporting a proteges young adult dreams and helping in the attainment of them ? ? 4) A nonparental career role model for a protege Kram and Isabella Has a great potential to conjure the (1985) development of individuals in both e arly and middle career stages Noe (1988a) 1) An go through, prolific manager who relates well to a less-experienced employee and facilitates his/her personal development for the bene? t of the individual as well as that of the organization 2) Usually eight to 15 years older than the ? protege who frequently is a young professional with high career aspirations Noe (1988b) 1) 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 protege to decision makers in the organization who may in? uence career opportunities (continued) Table I. De? nitions of mentoring, mentor, and sponsor prone in articles in premier journals Mentor de? nition(s) given in article conferrer de? nition Mentoring/mentorship de? ition(s) given in article Author (year) Mentors actively intervene, contriving ? ? to get their proteges exposure and vis ibility through assignments that involve working with other managers ? ? and endorsing their proteges for promotions and special projects Mentoring/mentorship de? nition(s) given in article Mentor de? nition(s) given in article Sponsor de? nition Whitely et al. (1991) Whitely et al. (1992) 1) A particular interpersonal relationship that can in? uence career progress 2) Classical, or primary, mentoring is an intense developmental relationship of relatively long ? period in which proteges receive a range of career and psychosocial help merely from one senior manager 3) Secondary mentoring is a shorter, less intense, less inclusive developmental process involving multiple relationships, each offering narrow down developmental functions, which tends to focus on external, career progress-oriented functions, such as sponsorship and visibility and exposure, rather than on inner-oriented psychosocial development functions 4) A set of roles and role activities including coaching, support, and sponsorship 5) Psychosocial mentoring referring to activities like providing discuss and friendship 6) Career mentoring referring to providing sponsorship, exposure, and the like 1) Classical mentoring is where the developmental relationship is of relatively long duration, is intense, mostly exclusive, and in ? which a protege receives a range of career-oriented and psychosocial help from one senior manager 2) Career mentoring includes short duration, less intense, multiple, and less exclusive relationships that are more specialized in the physique of progress-oriented functions provided to ? ? proteges, they are more likely to focus on external, career-oriented mentoring functions, such as sponsorship or visibility/exposure, than on inner-oriented psychosocial developmental functions (continued) Mentoring and sponsoring 633 Table I. MD 42,5 634 Author (year) 1) Someone who provides high amounts of both career and psychosocial support 2) The mentor is usually several years o lder, a person of greater experience and seniority. . . a teacher, adviser or sponsor (Levinson et al. , 1978) Higgins and Kram (2001) Chao et al. (1992)Ragins and Scandura (1994) Scandura and Schriesheim (1994) Turban and Dougherty 1) A set of role activities, including coaching, (1994) support, and sponsorship, that upper-level ? ? managers provide to proteges Tepper (1995) Table I. Mentor de? nition(s) given in article Sponsor de? nition 1) A sponsor is included in one of the de? nitions of a mentor 2) Someone who provides high amounts of career support but low amounts of psychosocial support 1) Individuals with advanced experience and knowledge who are attached to providing support to and increasing the upward mobility ? ? of third-year organization members, their proteges 2) An individual in? ential in the work environment who has advanced experience and knowledge and who is move to providing upward mobility and support to careers 1) A trusted counsellor who accepts a guiding role in the development of a younger or less-experienced member of the organization 1) An in? uential individual at work who has advanced knowledge and who is connected to providing upward mobility and support to a persons career (continued) Mentoring/mentorship de? nition(s) given in article 1) The developmental helpance provided by a ? ? more senior individual within a proteges organization 2) A relationship in which a senior person ? ? working in the proteges organization assists ? with the proteges personal and professional development Mentorship is de? ned as an intense work relationship between senior (mentor) and junior ? ? (protege) organizational members. The mentor has experience and power in the organization and personally advises, counsels, coaches, and ? ? promotes the career development of the protege. ? ? Promotion of the proteges career may occur directly through actual promotions or indirectly through the mentors in? uence and power over other organizational member s Author (year) Mentoring/mentorship de? nition(s) given in article Mentor de? nition(s) given in article Sponsor de? nition Dreher and Cox (1996) ) Mentoring in organizations has been de? ned as a developmental relationship between an ? ? individual (protege) and a more senior and in? uential manager or professional (mentor) 2) Focuses specially on the career-support aspects of mentoring Ragins (1997) 1) One who serves as a role model, friend, and ? ? counsellor, who accepts and helps the protege develop a positive and secure self-image 2) An individual who holds a shoes senior to yours who takes an active interest in growth your career. While it is affirmable for your immediate supervisor to serve as a mentor, relationships of this type represent a special opportunity to interact with a senior manager.The bill subordinate/supervisor relationship is not a mentoring relationship (it is achievable to have multiple mentors) 1) Individuals with advanced experience and knowledge w ho are committed to providing ? ? upward mobility and support to their proteges careers Covaleski et al. (1998) 1) Sometimes also called coaching or counselling 2) It involves relations between senior managers and junior employees, in which the latter can become interwoven into an organizations culture by trials of the former, who, embodying the nub values that best promote desired organization culture, help framing the inculcation process as well as help educate desired norms and values 3) A technique by which junior members collect and interiorize the more subtle, tacit, and noncodi? ble aspects of an organizations goals, which are embodied in superiors and with which they develop their new identi? es as ? rm members 1) A more senior person who takes an interest in sponsorship of the career of a more junior person (Kram, 1985) (continued) Scandura (1998) Mentoring and sponsoring 635 Table I. MD 42,5 636 Author (year) 1) The mentor is traditionally de? ned as a source ? ? of i nformation for the protege and the positive outcomes, such as greater income and promotion opportunities Mullen and Noe (1999) Ragins et al. (2000) Higgins and Kram (2001) Table I. Mentor de? nition(s) given in article Sponsor de? nition 1) Generally de? ned as individuals with advanced experience and knowledge who are committed to providing upward mobility and ? career support to their proteges (Kram, 1985) 2) A higher-ranking, in? uential individual in your work environment who has advanced experience and knowledge and is committed to providing upward mobility and support to your career Mentoring/mentorship de? nition(s) given in article A mentoring relationship is a one-to-one relationship between a more experienced member (mentor) and a less experienced member ? ? (protege) of the organization or profession. The relationship is developed to promote the ? ? professional and personal growth of the protege through coaching, support, and guidance. Through individualized attention, t he mentor transfers needed information, feedback, and ? encouragement to the protege as well as providing emotional support and putting in a healthy word when mathematical ball mentoring was as follows In order to assist individuals in their development and advancement, some organizations have established dress mentoring programs, where ? ? proteges and mentors are linked in some way. This may be accomplished by assigning mentors or by just providing formal opportunities aimed at developing the relationship. To recap formal mentoring relationships are developed with organizational assistance. Informal mentoring relationships are developed spontaneously, without organizational assistance A traditional mentoring relationship is one in ? ? which a senior person working in the proteges ? ? organization assists the proteges personal and professional development probability that the mentor will provide both psychosocial and career support for the ? ? protege.This would explain why spo nsoring has surfaced as being inherent to mentoring in both qualitative research (e. g. , Kram, 1980, 1983) and quantitative research (e. g. , Noe, 1988a Scandura, 1992), thus being viewed as a sub-function of mentoring. However, if a mentor is conceptualized in its most simplest of terms those used by Websters Collegiate Dictionary a wise and trusted counselor or teacher and likewise with a sponsor a person who vouches for, is responsible for, or supports a person or makes a pledge or promise on behalf of another then from the onset, the nature of the reporting relationships in Krams study (1980, 1983) moved the examined phenomenon beyond the realm of just a mentoring relationship. Moving beyond this de? ition of mentor, there are at least two additional rationales for why a sponsor should not be viewed as inherent in mentoring, in addition to not being used interchangeably with the term mentor. First, the derivations of the terms are disparate mentor from the ? ? Latin word mentor, signification to teach and sponsor from the Latin word spondere, meaning to pledge. Second, based on Websters New World Thesaurus, mentor and sponsor are not synonyms. So, while Kram (1980, 1983) did observe the presence of the sponsoring phenomenon in her study, it is argued that it should have been considered a distinct concept rather than being considered inherent in mentoring.Since the foundation upon which the original conceptualization of organizational mentoring was developed in a somewhat dubious context, it begs the question as to the interchangeable usage of the terms mentor and sponsor. Similarly, given the emergence of the concept coaching in the literature as a distinctly different developmental concept than mentoring, it is posited that sponsoring should appear as a distinctly different developmental relationship worthy of as much examination in the organizational literature as has coaching. So, based on this ? rst argument, it is posited that sponsoring may be just as important as mentoring in the upward mobility of individuals in organizational settings (Kanter, 1977).Therefore, a range shift and new lens through which to investigate and utilize mentoring and sponsoring in organizational settings are being presented. Mentoring and sponsoring 637 Universal de? nitions Given the review of the various de? nitions of mentor, mentoring, sponsor, and sponsoring that have been presented in the literature, to date, explaining mentoring through a single, universal and prescriptive de? nition. . . has turn out to be inadequate (Gibb, 1994, p. 47). However, explaining mentoring through a single universal and descriptive de? nition is more than adequate. Such a de? nition is necessary to provide solid conceptual grounding, and a lens through which to further examine and utilize mentoring and sponsoring. Hence, this is an opportune unification to advance universal de? itions of mentoring and sponsoring to be used and operationalized in any rese arch or organizational context henceforth. The following universal de? nitions regarding the concepts of mentor, mentoring, and mentorships are offered . a mentor is a wise and trusted counselor or teacher . mentoring is the guidance process that takes place between a mentor and a ? ? protege and . ? ? a mentorship is a mentoring relationship between a mentor and a protege. MD 42,5 638 Similarly, regarding the concepts of sponsor, sponsoring, and sponsorships, the following universal de? nitions are offered . ? ? a sponsor is a person who nominates or supports another persons (protege) promotion . ? ? ponsoring is the process of a sponsor nominating or supporting a proteges promotion and . ? ? a sponsorship is a sponsoring relationship between a sponsor and a protege. It should be notable that these suggested universal de? nitions of mentor and sponsor ? ? connote that neither one has to be older than the protege, which is a deviation from the sometimes explicit and other times imp licit de? nitions for both terms in the organizational mentoring literature. It should also be noted that a mentor does not ? ? always have to be an organizational success to provide the protege with valuable guidance. Additionally, these universal de? nitions are speci? , yet general enough to be applicable irrespective of the profession in which they may be studied or the research question examined, which has been perceived to be a matter of contention (Chao, 1998). Therefore, these de? nitions of mentor and mentoring allow for many of the forms of mentoring examined in the literature to be viewed as types of mentoring. This is consistent with Higgins and Krams (2001, p. 264) assertion that they are exploring different types of mentoring in their recent article, which views mentoring as a multiple developmental relationship phenomenon. globe and liberal mentorships argument two The second argument for reconceptualizing mentoring and sponsoring requires an examination of the lit erature on formal and versed mentorships.As previously stated, original theorizing of organizational mentoring, in large part, resulted from the examination of free, intraorganizational mentorships (i. e. , Kram, 1980, 1983). These types of mentorships have been purported to be a key developmental tool in the upward mobility of individuals in organizations (Hunt and Michael, 1983 Kanter, 1977 Pittenger and Heimann, 2000 Ragins et al. , 2000). Many researchers believe that all those who succeed have mentors, usually informal mentors (Campion and Gold? nch, 1983 Collins and Scott, 1978 Kanter, 1977). It should also be noted that sponsors have been said to be important to those who succeed (Kanter, 1977 Dalton et al. 1977) although they have not been the focus of as much attention in the literature as have mentors. Unlike sponsorships, there are copious amounts of articles suggesting that both informal and formal mentorships exist within most organizations, with informal mentorships being the most prevalent (e. g. , Noe, 1998b, Phillips-Jones, 1982). Informal ? ? mentorships are mentoring relationships where the mentor and protege, on their own ? ? accord, tot that the protege will trust the mentor to counsel or teach him/her (Noe, 1988a, 1988b). Formal mentorships refer to mentoring relationships where a third party ? ? (usually the organization) sanctions an agreement between mentor and protege, ? whereby the protege should trust the mentor to counsel or teach him/her (Noe, 1988a, 1988b). Both informal and formal mentorships can be either intraorganizational or interorganizational relationships (Ragins, 1997). Intraorganizational mentorships refer ? ? to those mentoring relationships in which both the mentor and the protege are employed by the same organization. Interorganizational mentorships pertain to ? ? mentoring relationships where the mentor and protege are employed by different organizations. Similar to mentoring, based on the universal de? nitions o f sponsor and sponsoring offered in this paper, sponsoring can be formal or informal, and can occur intraorganizationally or interorganizationally.Informal mentorships tend to germinate as a result of work or non-work issues that ? ? lead the mentor and protege to garner they have shared interests, admiration, and commitment, which makes informal mentorships more in-depth and personal (Chao et al. , 1992 Lawson, 1996 Noe, 1988b). Thus, informal mentorships are likely to move beyond the discussion of career-related issues to more personal issues (Chao et al. , 1992 Noe, 1988b). The following examples given in an excerpt taken from Kalb? eisch (2000, p. 58) symbolize and embody some of the characteristics of informal mentorships ? ? At a embodied cocktail party the proud mentor shows off her protege to her colleagues. As ? she introduces her rising star, her protege follows her lead in smiling and touching through the ? ? crowd. The protege mirrors her mentors moves as she smoothly joins conversations then ? ? skilfully continues on to other interactions. At the golf course a mentor brings his protege along as a fourth to make up for a missing member of a traditional Saturday morning golf ? ? quartet. The mentor tells his pals that his protege is like a son to him and that he will ? t bloodline in to their game. Mentoring and sponsoring 639 These examples illustrate how interactions in informal mentorships tend to move away(p) the typical con? nes of the of? ce.As a result of work and non-work interactions, ? ? the mentor helps to in? uence and socialize the protege (Bahniuk and Kogler Hill, 1998 ? ? Noe, 1988a). In addition, the mentor provides the protege with support, guidance, and feedback as a result of his/her knowledge about how to get things done, whats what, and whos who (Bahniuk and Kogler Hill, 1998 Noe, 1988b Veale and Wachtel, 1996). ? ? Therefore, proteges learn from their mentors. . . not hardly how to do their jobs better, but also how to manage their organizational careers better, and how to balance and manage their lives better (Lawson, 1996, p. 6). As a consequence of the perceived bene? s of informal mentoring, formal mentoring programs began to surface in the early 1980s to provide mentoring to more than just a lucky few (Forret et al. , 1996, p. 6) in an effort to restate and capitalize on the perceived bene? ts of informal mentoring (Bahniuk and Kogler Hill, 1998 Noe, 1988b Ragins et al. , 2000). While many organizations have implemented formal mentoring programs, there has been a lack of agreement on the intent and extent to which they are formalized in organizations (Noe, 1988b). Therefore, it has been suggested that ? ? organizations should not involve proteges in formal mentorships to gain the same ? ? bene? ts as proteges in informal mentorships (Noe, 1988b).Regardless, many organizations have instituted some form of formalized mentoring in an effort to gain a competitive advantage in todays global and dynamic marketplace (Pittenger and Heimann, 2000 Veale and Wachtel, 1996). Some characteristics of formal mentoring programs are extend management support corporate mentoring strategy prudent mentor ? ? ? ? and protege natural selection and matching processes comprehensive mentor and protege ? ? orientation clearly stated expectations and responsibilities of mentor and protege and ? ? established duration and contact frequency between the mentor and protege (Friday and Friday, 2002 Noe, 1988b Scandura, 1998). Although formal mentoring programs are designed to replicate and capitalize on the bene? s of informal mentoring (Bahniuk and Kogler Hill, 1998 Noe, 1988b Ragins et al. , MD 42,5 640 2000), de? nite differences exist between them. Chao et al. (1992) suggest that the most notable differences between formal and informal mentorships begin with the initiation phase. The differences begin with the alteration of the uncoerced nature from which informal mentorships evolve (Ragins, 1997). In formal mentoring programs, mentors ? ? and proteges are depute (Chao et al. , 1992 Noe, 1988b Scandura, 1998). The literature ? ? suggests that proteges may not perceive formal mentors as bene? cial as informal mentors. Numerous factors (e. g. , required participation, personality con? icts, perceptual con? cts, limited interaction, perceived pressure, lack of commitment and motivation, differences in expectations, lack of intimacy and perceived value, and ? ? sanctioned monitoring) contribute to formal proteges considering their mentors not to ? ? be as bene? cial as informal proteges consider their mentors (Chao et al. , 1992 Kram, 1985 Lee et al. , 2000 Noe, 1988b, Ragins et al. , 2000 Tepper, 1995). This perceived decrease in bene? t is likely the case because while formal mentors have been found to provide the same amount of psychosocial support as informal mentors, they have not been found to provide the same amount of career support, which is usually an expected o utcome of mentoring (Chao et al. , 1992 Noe, 1988a).As purported by Kram (1980, 1983), in naturally occurring, informal mentorships, ? ? mentors tend to provide both career and psychosocial support to their proteges. However, research suggests that in some informal mentorships and many formal mentorships, mentors tend to have dif? culty providing both types of support to their ? ? proteges, with the majority of the dif? culty being in providing career support (Bahniuk and Kogler Hill, 1998 Chao et al. , 1992 Noe, 1988b). Given the sacrament of dif? culty formal and informal mentors tend to experience in providing career support, ? ? particularly sponsorship, to their proteges, it lends support to the argument that mentoring and sponsoring are distinct phenomena.Consistent with Krams (1985) original conceptualization of relationship constellations (in which multiple developmental relationships are not all provided by one individual) facilitating an individual in his/her upward mobil ity within the organization, mentoring and sponsoring are posited as distinct, but related, non-mutually exclusive developmental relationships. Thus, mentoring and sponsoring may be provided by the same individual, but it is not necessary or expected that they will both be provided by the ? ? same individual. Therefore, a mentor and a sponsor for a protege may be one in the same or they may be two different individuals. Krams (1985) work made the distinction . . . etween the classic mentoring relationship and other less involving, exclusive, and intricate types of relationships such as the sponsor relationship. . . (Murrell and James, 2001). This distinction is likely to have contributed to the lack of vastness given to the sponsor relationship and its potential in? uence on career advancement as compared to the attention given to the mentor relationship. Although the classic mentoring relationship, which is more psychosocial, has been found to enhance the competence and personal effectiveness of individuals trying to advance, it is the sponsor relationship that has shown to relate more closely to individuals actually advancing in organizations (Murrell and James, 2001).Thus, for aspiring executives developing career strategies it is suggested that mentors be selected when they need to enhance their competence and effectiveness on the job, and that sponsors be selected to assist them in advancing within the organization. Therefore, aspiring executives may use these two types of developmental relationships independently or concurrently at various stages of their careers based on their needs at that given point in time. Mentoring and sponsoring Conclusion Over the last terzetto decades, much of the organizational mentoring research has conceptualized mentoring as the career and psychosocial developmental support provided by a more senior individual to a more junior individual (Higgins and Kram, 2001 Kram, 1983).As outlined by Kram (1980, 1983), it has been su ggested that only a subset of possible functions is provided by most mentors. Usually, providing upward ? ? mobility for the protege is not in the subset provided (Chao et al. , 1992 Kram, 1986 Noe, 1988b). This raises a question. If the mentor is providing all the other ? ? sub-functions, but not providing upward mobility for the protege, is this a mentoring relationship? According to the existing literature the answer would be Yes, but the ? ? mentor is just not sponsoring the protege therefore, he/she is not a true mentor according to Higgins and Kram (2001). They claim that a true mentor provides high ? ? amounts of both psychosocial and career support to his/her protege.On the other hand, according to the arguments posited in this paper, the answer would be yes, and while the mentor is not a sponsor, he/she is a true mentor nonetheless. Some researchers have suggested that there is no one word that communicates what has been perceived in the literature to date as mentoring (Bur ke and McKeen, 1989 Levinson et al. , 1978). That may be the case because, to date, researchers have likely been examining at least two phenomena simultaneously, mentoring and sponsoring. The various de? nitions of mentor and mentoring, and the movement of mentoring into a formally structured arena have helped to highlight the distinction between mentoring and sponsoring as being distinct, non-mutually exclusive, and possibly non-concurrent phenomena.While scholars may have distinguished between mentors and sponsors (Kanter, 1977 it is being argued that as long as the concept of mentoring is viewed as ? ? encompassing the sponsoring of a proteges nomination for promotion, the concept and its operationalization will lack clarity, and thus remain less scienti? cally supported than would be desired. Therefore, mentoring and sponsoring should be viewed as two distinctly different developmental relationships that are not necessarily mutually exclusive in terms of being performed by the s ame individual. Consequently, the terms mentor and sponsor, and mentoring and sponsoring should not be used interchangeably.With the assertion that there is no explicit agreement on which types of developmental experiences should be classi? ed as mentoring (Whitely et al. , 1992), the changing demographics in the workforce, and the global parentage milieu of this millennium, mentoring and sponsoring need to be reconceptualized (Higgins and Kram, 2001 Ragins, 1997). This paper has done just that it has reconceptualized mentoring and sponsoring to handbill for the infusion of new dynamics that have arisen, and that are likely to arise, since the sign conceptualizing and theorizing of the terms in the organizational literature dating back at least three decades ago (e. g. Collins and Scott, 1978 Kanter, 1977 Lawson, 1996 Roche, 1979). If mentoring and sponsoring are to be considered enduring scienti? c phenomena, their de? nitions and operationalizations should not change every time environmental or organizational dynamics change or by different users of the terms (e. g. , researchers, practitioners, etc). 641 MD 42,5 642 The universal de? nitions offered in this paper are considered enduring. Regardless of the research or organizational environment and its dynamics, these universal de? nitions will not need to be changed, thereby allowing for consistency in the de? nitions and operationalizations of mentoring and sponsoring in emerging research and practice.Given the two lucid arguments presented, strong evidence exists to warrant the future use of these new lens through which to view and examine mentoring and sponsoring in organizational settings. In conclusion, aspiring executives have new information, which can help them develop a more effective career enhancement strategy that includes both mentors and sponsors. References Bahniuk, M. H. and Kogler Hill, S. (1998), Promoting career success through mentoring, criticism of Business, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 4-7 . Burke, R. J. and McKeen, C. A. (1989), Mentoring in organizations implications for women, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 9, pp. 317-32. Cabell, D. W. E. (2001), Cabells Directory of Publishing Opportunities in Management 2001-2002, Cabell Publishing Co. , Beaumont, TX. Campion, M. A. and Gold? nch, J. R. 1983), Mentoring among hospital administrators, Hospital and Heath Services Administration, Vol. 28, pp. 77-93. Chao, G. T. (1998), Challenging research in mentoring, Human resourcefulness Development Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 333-8. Chao, G. T. , Walz, P. M. and Gardner, P. D. (1992), Formal and informal mentorships a comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentored counterparts, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 619-36. Clawson, J. (1979), Superior-subordinate relationships for managerial development, doctoral dissertation, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA. Collins, E. G. and Scott, P. (1978), Everyone who makes it has a mentor, Harvard Business R eview, Vol. 56, pp. 89-101.Covaleski, M. , Dirsmith, M. , Heian, J. and Samuel, S. (1998), The calculated and the avowed techniques of discipline and struggles over identity in Big Six accounting ? rms, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 293-327. Dalton, G. W. , Thompson, P. H. and Price, R. L. (1977), The four stages of professional careers a new look at carrying out by professional, organisational Dynamics, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 19-42. Dreher, G. F. and Cox, T. H. (1996), Race, gender and opportunity a study of compensation attainment and the establishment of mentoring relationships, Journal of employ Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 297-308. ? ? Fagenson, E. A. 1989), The mentor advantage perceived career/job experiences of proteges ? ? versus non-proteges, Journal of organizational Behavior, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 309-20. Forret, M. L. , Turban, D. B. and Dougherty, T. W. (1996), Issues facing organizations when implementing formal mentoring programmes, Leadership & Organi zation Development Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 27-30. Friday, E. and Friday, S. S. (2002), Formal mentoring is there a strategic ? t? , Management Decision, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 152-7. Gibb, S. (1994), Inside corporate mentoring schemes the development of a conceptual framework, Personnel Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 47-60. Gibb, S. and Megginson, D. 1993), Inside corporate mentoring schemes a new agenda of concerns, Personnel Review, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 40-54. Higgins, M. C. and Kram, K. E. (2001), Reconceptualizing mentoring at work a developmental network perspective, academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 264-88. Hunt, D. M. and Michael, C. (1983), Mentorship a career training and development tool, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 8, pp. 475-85. Jacobi, M. (1991), Mentoring an undergraduate academic success a literature review, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 61, pp. 505-32. Kalb? eisch, P. J. (2000), Similarity and attraction in business and academic environments s ame and cross-sex mentoring relationships, Review of Business, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 58-61. Kanter, R. M. (1977), Men and Women of the Corporation, elementary Books, New York, NY. Kelly, M. J. (2001), Management mentoring in a social service organization, Administration in Social Work, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 17-33. Kram, K. E. (1980), Mentoring processes at work developing relationships in managerial careers, doctoral dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, CT. Kram, K. E. (1983), Phases of the mentor relationship, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26, pp. 608-25. Kram, K. E. (1985), Mentoring at Work Developmental Relationships in Organizational Life, Scott, Foresman, Glenview, IL. Kram, K. E. and Isabella, L. A. 1985), Mentoring alternatives the role of peer relationships in career development, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 110-32. Lawson, J. G. (1996), Mentoring in the Information age, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. p6-15. Lee, F. K. , Dougherty, T. W. and Turban, D. B. (2000), The role of personality and work values in mentoring programs, Review of Business, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 33-7. Levinson, D. J. , Darrow, C. N. , Klein, E. B. , Levinson, M. A. and McKee, B. (1978), Seasons of a Mans Life. , Knopf, New York, NY. Minter, R. L. and Thomas, E. G. (2000), Employee development through coaching, mentoring, and counseling a multidimensional approach, Review of Business, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 43-7.Mullen, E. J. (1998), Vocational and psychological mentoring functions identifying mentors who serve both, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 319-31. Mullen, E. J. and Noe, R. A. (1999), The mentoring information exchange when do mentors hear ? ? information from proteges? , Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21, pp. 233-42. Murrell, A. J. and James, E. H. (2001), Gender and diversity in organizations past, present, and future directions, Sex Roles, Vol. 45 No. 5/6, pp. 243-57. Noe, R. A. (1988a), W omen and mentoring a review and research agenda, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 65-78. Noe, R. A. 1988b), An investigation of the determinants of successfully assigned mentoring relationship, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 457-79. Pittenger, K. K. S. and Heimann, B. A. (2000), Building effective mentoring relationships, Review of Business, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 38-42. ? ? Phillips, L. L. (1977), Mentors and proteges a study of the career development of women managers and executives in business and industry, doctoral dissertation, University Micro? lms International No. 78-6517, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA. ? ? Phillips-Jones, L. L. (1982), Mentors and Proteges, Arbor House, New York, NY. Mentoring and sponsoring 643 MD 42,5 644 Ragins, B. R. (1997), Diversi? d mentoring relationships in organizations a power perspective, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22, pp. 482-521. Ragins, B. R. and Cotton, J. L. (1993), Gender and willingness to mentor in organizations, Journal of Management, Vol. 19, pp. 97-111. Ragins, B. R. and Scandura, T. A. (1994), Gender differences in expected outcomes of mentoring relationships, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 4, pp. 957-71. Ragins, B. R. , Cotton, J. L. and Miller, J. S. (2000), Marginal mentoring the effects of type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design of work and career attitudes, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 1177-201. Roche, G. R. 1979), Much ado about mentors, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 59, pp. 14-18. Scandura, T. A. (1992), Mentoring and career mobility an empirical investigation, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 169-74. Scandura, T. A. (1998), Dysfunctional mentoring relationships and outcomes, Journal of Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 449-67. Scandura, T. A. and Schriesheim, C. (1994), Leader-member exchange (LMX) & supervisor career mentoring (SCM) as complementary constructs in leadership research, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 1588-602. Shapiro, E. , Haseltine, F. and Rowe, M. (1978), Moving up role models, mentors, and the patron system. , Sloan, Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 51-8. Simonetti, J. L. , Ariss, S. and Martinez, J. (1999), Through the top with mentoring, Business Horizons, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 54-63. Tepper, B. J. (1995), Upward livelihood tactics in supervisory mentoring and nonmentoring relationships, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 1191-205. Thomas, D. A. (1993), Racial dynamics in cross-race developmental relationships, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 169-94. ? ? Turban, D. B. and Dougherty, T. (1994), Role of protege personality in receipt of mentoring and career success, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 88-702. Veale, D. J. and Wachtel, J. M. (1996), Mentoring and coaching as part of a human resource development strategy an ex at Coca-Cola Foods, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 16 -20. Whitely, W. , Dougherty, T. W. and Dreher, G. F. (1991), Relationship of career mentoring and socioeconomic origin to managers and professionals early career progress, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 331-51. Whitely, W. , Dougherty, T. W. and Dreher, G. F. (1992), Correlates of career-oriented mentoring for early career managers and professionals, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 141-54.