Sambodhi ISSN: 2249-6661

(UGC Care Journal) Vol-43 No.-04 (IV) October-December (2020)

FREQUENCY OF MENTOR- MENTEE INTERACTION FOR EFFECTIVE FORMAL
MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS – STUDENT PERSPECTIVE

Dr. Bindiya Gupta (primary author)

Assistant Professor, Marwadi University, Rajkot -360003, India
Email: bindiya.gupta@marwadieducation.edu.in

Abstract
Mentoring is seen as a process by which an experienced/wise individual invests his/her time, energy
and personal know-how in assisting another person. Although mentorship in colleges/universities is
common in the west, and it is also growing in Indian educational institutions, not much research has
been done to capture the effectiveness of mentor- mentee relationship. The sparse existing literature
highlights the significance of closeness and proximity in effective mentoring; however, there is
hardly any study which focuses on the frequency of mentor- mentee interaction. The current study
attempts to bridge this research gap and investigates the relationship between the frequency of
mentor-mentee interaction and its effectiveness. The primary data were collected from 161 students
from a reputed management university of Rajkot (Gujarat) having formal mentoring programme in
place. The mode of data collection was online structured questionnaires and informal discussions
with the students. Bi-variate cross-tabulation and statistical tests such as Chi-square and Z-test were
used to analyse the data. The results highlight that when the frequency of the mentor–mentee
interaction is within a month, formal mentoring is significantly more effective as compared to when
the frequency is beyond a month. However, when the interaction is too frequent, say within a
fortnight, it is not more productive but statistically same as when the frequency is within a month.
This suggests that the practitioners in this field should focus on a desirable frequency which is
neither too recurrent nor too distant, so as to reap the maximum benefits of this mentoring
programme.

Key words: Frequency of mentoring, Formal mentoring, Informal mentoring, Effective mentoring,
Student mentoring.

Introduction
Traditionally mentorship has had diverse versions to it across cultures and lands, with mentors being
referred to as master craftsmen, godfather or gurus, and the mentees called apprentices, protégés or
shishya. The modern mentoring has some similarities with the original traditional version, the most
striking being that it involves the passing on of skills, knowledge, and wisdom from generation to
generation. Drawing from history and mythology, mentoring has come to be seen as a process by
which an experienced and wise individual invests his/her time, energy and personal know-how in
assisting the growth and development of another person (Shea, 1997).
Scholars have roughly classified the role of a mentor in to two broad categories - psychosocial and
career-related. In psychosocial mentoring, a mentor plays a role of a counsellor or a friend while in
career-related mentoring; a mentor is more of a coach or sponsor (Ragins and McFarlin, 1990).
Mentoring is seen to be associated with favourablebehavioural, attitudinal, health-related, relational,
motivational, and career outcomes (Eby, et al. 2007).

Worldwide many organizations have come to recognize the value of mentorships and have tried to
formalize these relationships as part of the planned career development of professionals (Noe, 1988;
Wilson & Elman, 1990). Mentoring is seen as an important tool for improving the academic
performance of students (Fox et al., 2010). Over the last decade it has also gradually come to be
accepted as an effective mechanism for positively influencing undergraduate students (Eby and
Dolan, 2015).

Copyright © 2020 Authors 84

Sambodhi ISSN: 2249-6661
(UGC Care Journal) Vol-43 No.-04 (IV) October-December (2020)
The mentor and protégé are often referred to as a pair or dyad. Berk (2010) has identified five basic
ways in which mentors and mentees may come together to form a mentoring dyad: (a) matchedby the
organisation based on random criteria, (b) paired administratively based on criteria which is well
specified, (c) pairing is on basis ofmentee selection of mentor, (d) pairingis based on mentor
selecting their own mentees based on recognized potential and a desire to “take under wing,” and (e)
pair is formed based on mentor and protégé finding each other and creating their own dyad
relationship. Formal mentoring relationships tend to fall under the first three approaches for pairing
mentor and protégé. This clearly means that in case of formal mentoring programmes, the inputs
from mentor and their mentee are not taken into account in the pairing process (Bozeman and
Feeney, 2008).

In present times, mentorship can take different forms, like peer mentoring, reverse mentoring, group
mentoring etc. In peer mentoring, for example, colleagues of a similar level of experience mentor
each other, learning together and collaborating to overcome obstacles. Reverse mentoring involves
young people acting as mentors to their senior colleagues, recognizing that even people with limited
experience have valuable skills and perspectives to share. Group mentoring on the other hand, brings
people together to support each other in achieving their goals, sharing experiences, and holding each
other accountable. However, at the core, mentoring association is an interpersonal relationship
between two people, which, like several other elective interpersonal relationships, may not last
unless both parties gain some benefit. This distinguishing characteristic makes mentoring
relationships tough to create or grow artificially (Lee, Anzai, Langlotz, 2006).
The notion that a standardized mentoring system will solve ones problems is an illusion (Delong,
Gabarro & Lees, 2009). Hence along with formal mentors that are assigned by organizations and
education institutes, studies suggest offering informal mentoring in conjunction (Gupta, 2017).

LITERATURE REVIEW
Individuals tend to learn a lot through their interactions with others, especially with those having
some expertise, diverse backgrounds and seniority (Hayes & Allinson, 1998). One of the important
relationship that may serve as a medium for personal development and learning is mentoring (Kram,
1996).Bachkirova, (2011)believes that coaching and mentoring is fast moving to the eastern
countries. The same is happening not only for the practical purposes of increasing performance but
also with an interest in contributing to the development of the knowledge linking it to the wisdom of
some eastern philosophical traditions.
Traditionally, in India a ‘guru’ was considered as a mentor who guided the ‘shishya’ (protege) in his
or her journey of self-discovery and mastery by building skills, enhancing knowledge, and
understanding oneself (Neki, 1973; Raina, 2002). However, some scholars view mentoring from
objectivists’ perspective and constantly seek cause and effect justifications to support expenditure
and time on this relationship (Garvey et al., 2014). This has led to commodification of this concept
and practice.
Formal and Informal Mentoring
In Formal mentoring program, organizations and institutes tie business goals with measurable results,
and conduct periodic evaluations and coordination, offering on-going support to mentoring pairs.
Formal mentoring programs provide a structure that can enable individuals who might otherwise find
it difficult to access influence networks to overcome implicit or explicit barriers to commencing
mentoring relationships (Ragins & Cotton, 1999). Although well-intentioned, formal mentoring
relationships are often unable to duplicate the strong relationships that develop informally between
protégés and mentors since they are based on mutual attraction and respect.
Contrary to this, informal mentorships are not managed, structured, nor formally recognized by the
organizations. They are in-fact spontaneous relationships that occur without exterior involvement
from the organization. Conventionally, informal mentoring relationships develop naturally and are

Copyright © 2020 Authors 85

Sambodhi ISSN: 2249-6661
(UGC Care Journal) Vol-43 No.-04 (IV) October-December (2020)
maintained on a voluntary basis (Ragins & Cotton, 1999). Perceived competence and interpersonal
comfort are the basis of formation of Informal mentoring relationships (Eby et al., 2007).
Ragins and Cotton (1999) in their study found greater advantages of informal mentoring. For
instance, formal mentoring relationships typically last less than one year, which might be too short a
time period for the positive aspects of mentoring to become visible. Contrary to this, informal
relationships may last for a longer period and hence the positives are likely to surface. Additionally,
in formal mentoring relationship, mentor may choose to participate in the program out of sheer
dedication for the organization rather than a personal connection to the protégé.
Proximity and Closeness in Mentoring relationships
Wanberg et al. (2003) view mentoring as a powerful one-on-one progressive relationship involving
emotional involvement and close association. Closeness in mentoring relationships is seen to be
associated with improvements in mentee development (Spencer, 2007). Mutuality, trust, and
empathy in the mentoring relationship are prerequisites to the mentee's social, emotional, cognitive,
and identity development, which all contribute to positive outcomes. Studies suggest that the success
of mentoring interventions depends a great deal on the quality of relationship and closeness to the
mentor (Rhodes et al., 2006). Goldner and Mayseless (2009) conducted a study to find the
relationship between the quality of mentoring relationships and mentoring success. The study was
conducted in Israel and spanned over eight months. The sample consisted of 84 mentees ranging
between the age of 8 to 13 years. The findings of their study suggest that closeness in the mentoring
relationship serves as an important mechanism for prote´ge´ development. The study also provided
cross-cultural evidence of relation between closeness in mentoring relationships and progress in
mentees social and academic adjustment even during a short-term intervention.
Also, in context of career development it has been observed that mentoring relationships are more
effective and are best served by ties that are both numerous and rich. The mentees’ proximity to their
primary mentors serve as an important factor in making the relationship last longer and being more
effective (Higgins & Kram, 2001).

Mentoring in Academic settings

Our education system is not organic in the sense that in academic institutions students learning and
intelligence is judged on the basis of marks they score. However, it is a common understanding that
while some students are slow to grasp things, they may be great problem solvers. While some
students can remember anything they read, they might not be good problem solvers or leaders. With
proper direction and given enough time and motivation, almost all students possess the capability to
find their niche to reach their optimum potential (Masaud, 2016). Here is where a capable mentor
plays a significant role in guiding their mentees to achieve their academic and personal desired goals.
Study by Johnson (2006) suggests that for students, mentoring relationships include the provision of
career, social, and emotional support in a safe setting for self-exploration that results in constructive
academic and personal outcomes for students.
Mentoring college students is all about educating, engaging and empowering young minds.
According to Thaler & Sunstein (2008) students often need a “nudge” to finish complex tasks. In
higher education, it is normally assumed that course requirements provide that nudge or that students
are sufficiently self-motivated to not need external stimuli. College graduation rates show that this
assumption might not be true. With an open mind and willingness to learn and grow, mentoring can
be a vehicle for personal development for both the mentee and the mentor.
Ramaswami and Dreher (2010), in their exploratory study have researched about the dynamics of
mentoring in India. The participants of the study were Indian MBA students enrolled at a large mid-
western university in the U.S. The 29 participants (76% male, average age of 27.5 years) had an
average of five years of work experience in India (50% had more than five years of experience) in
both Indian and multinational organizations in various industries. Eighty percent of the respondents
indicated that they had either a formal or an informal mentor in India. While seventy percent of them
indicated that their mentors were immediate supervisors or team leaders who were either formally
Copyright © 2020 Authors 86
Sambodhi ISSN: 2249-6661
(UGC Care Journal) Vol-43 No.-04 (IV) October-December (2020)
assigned or informally chosen; forty percent indicated that their mentors were family members.
Around 33% of the respondents indicated that their close friends and peers were also their mentors.
Lunsford et al. (2017) studied the outcomes of mentoring for undergraduate and graduate students
across some developed nations like USA, Australia, Canada, UK etc. For their study the authors
synthesized findings from researches conducted on mentoring in the past ten years. The findings of
the study suggest that for undergraduate students the mentoring outcomes may be in lines of
developed leadership skills, persistence in higher education, grade point average and cognitive and
socio-emotional growth. However, for graduate level the mentoring outcomes could be socialization,
scholarly productivity and overall programme satisfaction.
In academic setting, while mentoring relationships are predominant between faculty members and
students, student relationships with their peers, university staff, seniors, friends, family members,
relatives etc. also contribute a great deal to the academic success of students (Erickson et al., 2009).
The faculty mentor may assist student protégé in their learning, sharing information, providing
academic feedback and academic goal-setting. While the peer-mentors and other informal mentors
may provide different forms of support such as listening, encouraging and befriending, advising
through personal experiences etc. (D’Abate, 2009). These varied mentoring relationships are
imperative as college students tend to experience extreme anxiety, stress conflicts between various
responsibilities along with their huge academic demands (Hadjioannou et al., 2007).

Rationale of the Study

In traditional Indian families, even today children are discouraged from challenging the view of
elders. This very much continues in school where a teacher’s (Guru) wisdom cannot be challenged.
When this child grows in to a young adult there is a lot of anxiety and unrest. Although exciting, this
transition from school to college/university may prove to be an overwhelming and daunting
experience for many students. This is where a mentor can prove to be helpful in not only reducing
their anxiety but in also assisting them to reach their potential.
Mentorship is all about Gratitude, Reciprocity and Appreciation (McKenna and Pascoe, 2015). The
key to maximizing the potential of young people is to understand their needs and what they value.
Although mentorship in colleges/universities is common in the west, extensive review of previous
literature shows that in Indian context, little data is available to understand the existence and
effectiveness of mentoring relationships in colleges/universities. Also, though researches have
highlighted the significance of closeness and proximity in mentoring relationships, there is hardly
any study which explores the relationship between the frequency of mentor- mentee interaction and
effectiveness of mentoring. The present study bridges this research gap by examining the relationship
between the frequency of mentor-mentee interaction and the effectiveness of formal mentoring
programme.A comprehensive review of literature of the previous studies on this topic was conducted
and the data collected from management students of a reputed university in Gujarat was analyzed to
bridge this research gap.

Research Objective
The primary objective of this study is to examine the relationship between the frequency of mentor-
mentee interaction and effectiveness of formal mentoring.
Conceptual Framework
Independent variable Dependent variable

Frequency of mentor- Effectiveness of

mentee meeting Formal mentoring

In mentoring relationships, it is believed that if the mentor and mentee meet more frequently and on

Copyright © 2020 Authors 87

Sambodhi ISSN: 2249-6661
(UGC Care Journal) Vol-43 No.-04 (IV) October-December (2020)
regular day to day basis, it would strengthen the relationship thereby making it more effective and
productive.
Research methodology
The descriptive study to capture the relationship between the effectiveness of formal mentoring
programme and the frequency of mentor-mentee interaction was conducted in a renowned university
of Rajkot in Gujarat (India). The said University has a formal mentoring programme in place, where
a faculty member acts as a mentor to group of students.
Data and Methods
For the study, the primary data were collected from one sixty one students from a renowned
management university of Rajkot in Gujarat (enrolled in undergraduate and post graduate courses)
which had formal mentoring programme in place. The data were collected using online structured
questionnaires and informal discussions with the students. The data were analyzed using bi-variate
cross tabulation and statistical test such as Chi square test and Z-test.
Data Analysis
To analyse the data, Chi Square and Z test was used. In all 161 students from both undergraduate
and post graduate streams of management department of a university, were the respondents of this
study. The students were administered questionnaires and few of them were also interviewed about
the prevailing formal mentoring system in their university. Majority of the respondents were post
graduate students (80.3 per cent). Since the university has a formal mentoring system in place, out of
the sample data, only six students reported that they did not have any formal mentor assigned to
them. The reason for same could be that either their mentor left the institute or they were yet to be
assigned a new mentor.
Chi square and Z test
The datawas subjected to chi square and Z test to calculate its interdependence of effectiveness of
formal mentoring relationships with the independent variable of frequency of mentor-mentee
interaction. Out of the total sample size of 161 students, 121 (75.2%) students reported that their
informal mentors (friends, parents, siblings etc.) were able to resolve their issues in a better manner.
The remaining 40 students said that their formal mentors (assigned by the university) were better
able to tackle their problems.
Chi Square TEST
Chi-square test has been used to test whether the two attributes viz. frequency of interaction with the
formal mentor and the effectiveness of formal mentoring are dependent or not. Here, the current
study intends to test the claim that the aforementioned attributes are dependent or associated.
Frequency of meeting Formal No. of students who No. of students who Total
mentors found formal found informal
mentoring effective mentoring effective
Within a fortnight 10 (31.25%) 22 32
Once a month 25 (30.1%) 58 83
More than a month 5 (10.86%) 41 46

Chi-square test statistic:

(Oi  Ei) 2
2  
Ei
Calculated  2  6.75  5.99 (tabulated  2 at 5% level)
This above calculation clearly implies that the frequency of interaction with the formal mentor and
the effectiveness of formal mentoring are dependent at 5% level of significance.
Further the study aims to compare the effectiveness of formal and informal mentoring at different
frequency of interaction (within fortnight, monthly, more than month). For the same, Z test for
proportion has been applied.

Copyright © 2020 Authors 88

Sambodhi ISSN: 2249-6661
(UGC Care Journal) Vol-43 No.-04 (IV) October-December (2020)
Z TEST
Table 1
Frequency of meeting Formal Proportion of Proportion of Sample
mentors students who found students who found size
Formal mentoring Formal mentoring
effective (p) NOT effective (q=1-
p)
Within a fortnight 0.312 (10/32) 0.688 (22/32) 32
Once a month 0.301 (25/83) 0.699 (58/83) 83
More than a month 0.108 (5/46) 0.891 (41/46) 46

Null Hypothesis: Across frequency bands (within fortnight, once a monthly) the proportion of
students who found formal mentoring effective (P) is less than or equal to those who found
itnot effective (Q) is same. (P≤0.5)

FOR FORTNIGHT FREQUENCY

Alternative Hypothesis: When the frequency of mentor- mentee interaction is within fortnight,
formal mentoring is more effective.
Ha1: P>0.5 (right-tailed test)
Z=(0.312-0.5)/SQRT (P*Q/32)= -4.24<1.645
Since -4.24<1.645, the alternativehypothesis is rejected. This implies in-case of students visiting
their mentor within 15 days, significantly large proportion of students did not find formal mentoring
more effective vis-à-vis informal mentoring.

FOR MONTHLY FREQUENCY

Alternative Hypothesis: When the frequency of mentor- mentee interaction is within a month,
formal mentoring is more effective.
Ha2: P>0.5(right-tailed test)
Z= (0.301-0.5)/SQRT (P*Q/83) = -7.24
Since -4.24<1.645, the Alternative Hypothesis is rejected. This implies in-case of students visiting
their mentor within 30 days, significantly large proportion of students did not find formal mentoring
more effective vis-à-vis informal mentoring.

FOR MORE THAN A MONTH FREQUENCY

Null Hypothesis: When the frequency of mentor- mentee interaction is beyond a month, the
proportion of students who found formal mentoring effective (P) is more than or equal to those
who found it not effective (Q) is same. (P≤0.5)
Alternative Hypothesis: When the frequency of mentor- mentee interaction is beyond a month,
formal mentoring is not effective.
Ha2: P<0.5(left-tailed test)
Z= (0.128-0.5)/SQRT (P*Q/47) = -10.21< -1.645 Null Hypothesis rejected
Since -10.21 < -1.645, this implies in-case of students visiting their mentor beyond 30 days,
significantly large proportion of students found informal mentoring more effective vis-à-vis formal
mentoring.
FINDINGS
The above tests visibly reveal that there is a significant relationship between the frequency of mentor
mentee interaction and the effectiveness of formal mentoring programmes.
Across all frequency bands(within fortnight, monthly, more than month)students found informal
mentoring more effective as compared to formal mentoring. The finding was against the proposed

Copyright © 2020 Authors 89

Sambodhi ISSN: 2249-6661
(UGC Care Journal) Vol-43 No.-04 (IV) October-December (2020)
hypothesis which stated that when the frequency of mentor- mentee interaction is within a fortnight
or month, formal mentoring is more effective.
Also, when the frequency of mentor-mentee interaction is within a fortnight or month, more
percentage (31% and 30% of students respectively) found formal mentoring to be more effective. As
compared to this, when the frequency of their interaction stretched beyond a month only 10% of
students found formal mentoring effective.
Discussion and Conclusion
The findings of the present study clearly reveal that(within fortnight, monthly, more than
month)students found informal mentoring more effective as compared to formal mentoring. This
suggests that very frequent mentor- mentee interaction, as imposed by many universities nowadays,
does not affect the quality of mentorship. Such imposed relationship might appear a routine task for
the faculties who are already overburdened with academic responsibilities. Based on the facts
brought out inthe present study, it may be proposed that quality of mentor- mentee interaction should
be given more emphasis rather than the frequency of mentor- mentee interaction.
Also, findings disclose that when the frequency of interaction between the mentor and the mentee is
more than a month, formal mentoring programme was found to be relatively less effective as
compared to when the frequency of interaction between them was within a month. This could be due
to the fact that when interaction stretches beyond a month, then somewhere there is loss of emotional
connect between the mentor and the mentee. The mentoring relationship then seems mechanical or
routine exercise and the dyad fail to reconnect from where they left during their last meeting.
Many private universities in the country stress on maintaining database of each interaction between
the mentor and their mentee. There is lot of rigour around recording each interaction in detail and
meeting the student mentee on regular basis. When a faculty mentor has eight to ten student mentee
assigned, despite the best intentions on part of the management and the mentor, somewhere this
interaction seems like a routine exercise devoid of personal touch. The current study proposes that
the academicians and practitioners in this field take a serious note of this problem. When the
interaction between the faculty mentor and student mentee is more spontaneous and they choose their
desired frequency of interaction, the relationship may be more rewarding for both parties.
Another important finding of the study reveals that students are of the opinion that informal mentors
are better able to resolve their issues. Taking cognizance of this fact, designers of this programme
need to delve deep as to what more needs to be done to ensure that for a student protégé, formal
mentors are as desirable and reliable as the informal mentors. Here, it may be suggested that in
formal mentoring relationships, the people concerned may look to carefully design the mentor-
mentee pairing. Apart from factors such as, proximity to the mentor, gender of mentor- mentee,
maturity, training of the mentor etc., frequency of mentor- mentee interaction also needs to be given
due consideration while designing such programmes.
Also, informal conversations with students revealed that they look for assistance from their mentors,
not only for career growth but also for their overall development. In few instances,student mentees
also seek advice in matters regarding personal issues. Hence, institutions looking to introduce formal
mentoring programmes, may consider training the prospective mentors for same. This suggestion of
the study is in line with a study by Cranwell et al. (2004) which suggested that mentoring
relationships are three times more likely to succeed if both mentee and mentor are trained.
Taking cue from the literature review, it may be stated that having more than one mentor is helpful
and beneficial for the student protégé (D’Abate, 2009). Hence, the practitioners in this area may look
at offering formal mentoring in conjunction to informal mentors, which students might have in their
social group. This is in line with previous studies conducted on this topic (Gupta, 2016).While the
students should have the liberty to choose their own informal mentors from amongst their own peer
group, family, role models etc., the formal mentor may be carefully assigned by the institutions.
The current study may be considered as a pilot intended as forage for a wider research covering
larger student sample size and more institutions which have formal mentoring programmes in place.

Copyright © 2020 Authors 90

Sambodhi ISSN: 2249-6661
(UGC Care Journal) Vol-43 No.-04 (IV) October-December (2020)
REFERENCES:
Bachkirova, T (2011). Coaching and Mentoring Supervision: Theory and Practice.
Berk, R. A. (2010). Where’s the chemistry in mentor-mentee academic relationships? Try speed
mentoring. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching, vol. 8, pp. 85–89, 2010
Bozeman, B., & Feeney, M. K. (2008). Mentor matching: a “goodness of fit” model. Administration
and Society, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 465–482, 2008
Gupta, B. (2016). Mentoring for Post Graduate Students – Need Assessment (Indian Perspective).
Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, Vol-2, Issue-7, ISSN: 2454-1362.
Gupta, B. (2017). Analyzing the Impact of Formal and Informal Mentoring on Job Satisfaction – A
Study on Indian Bank Employees. Advances in Theory, Research and Practice in Management.
ISBN:9781-81-93448-5-9
Higgins, MC, Kram, KE (2001). Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: a developmental network
perspective. Acad Manage Rev. 26 (2): 264–288.
D’Abate, C.P. (2009). Defining mentoring in the first-year experience: One institution’s approach to
clarifying the meaning of mentoring first-year students. Journal of the First-Year Experience and
Students in Transition, 21(1), 65–91.

Delong, T.J., Gabarro, J.J., & Lees, R.J (2008). Why Mentoring Matters in a Hypercompetitive
World. Harvard Business Review,115
Eby, L.T, Allen, T.D., Evans, S.C., Ng, T., &Dubois, D.L.(2007). Does mentoring matter? A
multidisciplinary meta-analysis comparing mentored and non-mentored individuals. Journal of
Vocational Behavior 72, 254–267.
Eby, L. T., Rhodes, J., & Allen, T. D. (2007). Definition and evolution of mentoring. In T. D. Allen
& L. Eby (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach, 7–20.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Eby, L.T., and Dolan, E.L. (2015). Mentoring in post-secondary education and organizational
settings. APA Handbook of Career Intervention, Volume 2.

Erickson, L.D., McDonald, S., and Elder, G.H. (2009). Informal mentors and education:
Complementary or compensatory resources? Sociology of Education, 82 (4), 344–67.

Fox, A., Stevenson, L., Connelly, P., Duff, A., and Dunlop, A. (2010). Peer-mentoring undergraduate
accounting students: The influence on approaches to learning and academic performance. Active
Learning in Higher Education, 11, 145–56.

Garvey, B., Stokes, P. &Megginson, D. (2014). Coaching and Mentoring (2nd edition), Theory and
Practice. ISBN 978-1- 44627-232-9.
Goldner, L. & Mayseless, O. (2009). The Quality of Mentoring Relationships and Mentoring
Success. Journal of Youth and Adolescence.38(1339–1350). DOI 10.1007/s10964-008-9345-0

Hadjioannou, X., Shelton, N.R., Fu, D., and Dhanarattigannon, J. (2007). The road to a doctoral
degree: Co-travelers through a perilous passage. College Student Journal, 41(1), 160–77.

Hayes, J., & Allinson, G. W. (1998). Cognitive style and the theory and practice of individual and
collective learning in organizations. Human Relations, 51: 847-871.
Johnson, W.B. (2006). On Being a Mentor: A Guide for Higher Education Faculty. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kram, K. E. (1996). A relational approach to career development. In D. Hall & Associates (Eds.),
The career is dead—Long live the career: 132-157. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lunsford, L., Crisp, G., Dolan, E., Wuetherick, B. (2017). Mentoring in Higher Education. The
SAGE Handbook of Mentoring. Chapter: 20.
Copyright © 2020 Authors 91
Sambodhi ISSN: 2249-6661
(UGC Care Journal) Vol-43 No.-04 (IV) October-December (2020)
Lee, J.M.,Anzai, Y, Langlotz, C.P (2006). Mentoring the Mentors: Aligning Mentor and Mentee
Expectations. Academic Radiology, 13, 5.
Masaud, S. (2016). Educationshould be Organic, Not mechanical. Education Should Be Organic, Not
Mechanical. Retrieved from http://inservice.ascd.org/education-should-be-organic-not-mechanical/
as on July 9th 2019.

McKenna, M& Pascoe, D.(2015). Mentorship is Ageless. AI Practitioner, 17 (2). ISBN 978-1-
907549-23-6. dx.doi.org/10.12781/978-1-907549-23-6-4.

Neki, J. S. (1973). Guru-chela relationship: The possibility of a therapeutic paradigm. American

Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 43(5), 755–766.
Noe RA. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring
relationships, Personnel Psychology, 41,457-479.
Ragins, B. R. & McFarlin, D. B.(1990). Perceptions of mentor roles in cross-gender mentoring
relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 321-339.
Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and
women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 529-550.
Raina, M. K. (2002). Guru-shishya relationship in Indian culture: The possibility of a creative
resilient framework. Psychology and Developing Societies, 14(1), 167–198.
Ramaswami, A. & Dreher G. F.,(2010). Dynamics of Mentoring Relationships in India: A
Qualitative, Exploratory Study, Human Resource Management, 49.
Rhodes, J. E., & DuBois, D. L. (2006). Understanding and facilitating the youth mentoring
movement. Social Policy Report, 20, 3–20.
Shea, Gordon F. (1997) Mentoring (Rev. Ed.). Menlo Park, CA: Crisp Publications.
Spencer, R. (2007). It’s not what I expected: A qualitative study of youth mentoring relationship
failures. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22, 331–354. doi:10.1177/0743558407301915.
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and
happiness. Yale Univ Pr.
Wanberg, C. R., Welsh, E. T., & Hezlett, S. A. (2003). Mentoring research: A review and dynamic
process model. In J. J. Martocchio & G. R. Ferris (Eds.). Research in personnel and human resources
management. 22, (39-124). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
Wilson JA, &Elman NS. (1990).Organizational benefits of mentoring. Academy of management
Executive, 4,88-93.

Copyright © 2020 Authors 92