JOURNAL OF VOCATIONAL BEHAVIOR 51, 70–89 (1997)

ARTICLE NO. VB971596

The Mentor’s Perspective: A Qualitative Inquiry

and Future Research Agenda

Tammy D. Allen

Department of Psychology, The University of South Florida

Mark L. Poteet

Human Resources Department, City of Clearwater

and

Susan M. Burroughs

Department of Management, The University of Tennessee

The present study employed a qualitative research strategy for examining mentoring
from the perspective of the mentor. A total of 27 mentors participated in in-depth
interviews regarding their experiences as a mentor. The research focused on investigat-
ing issues related to the decision to mentor others. To meet this objective, four major
areas of inquiry were examined: individual reasons for mentoring others, organizational
factors that influence mentoring, factors related to mentor–protégé attraction, and
outcomes associated with mentoring for the mentor. A number of interesting patterns
of results were revealed through content analysis of the interview responses. Based
on the results and an integration of other theoretical research, a series of propositions
were presented to stimulate future research efforts. q 1997 Academic Press

Although it is widely recognized that mentoring should be viewed as an

exchange relationship that offers benefits to both mentors and protégés (cf.
Hunt & Michael, 1983; Kram, 1985; Mullen, 1994), the majority of mentoring
research has focused on one member of the mentorship dyad—the protégé.
In fact, a great deal of research has established the benefits accrued to individu-

The authors thank Joyce Russell and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments and
suggestions. We also thank each of the mentors who participated in this study and express our
appreciation to Amelios Kourpouanidis, Kelli Van Stry, and Dawn Welch for assistance with
interview transcription.
Address all correspondence and reprint requests to Tammy D. Allen, The University of South
Florida, Department of Psychology, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, BEH 339, Tampa, FL 33620-
8200. FAX (813) 974-4617; E-mail: tallen@luna.cas.usf.edu.

70
0001-8791/97 $25.00
Copyright q 1997 by Academic Press
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

AID JVB 1596 / 630e$$$141 07-05-97 14:21:00 jvbal AP: JVB

 THE MENTOR’S PERSPECTIVE 71

als who have been mentored and the importance of obtaining a mentor for
fostering early-career development (cf. Dreher & Ash, 1990; Scandura, 1992;
Whitely, Dougherty, & Dreher, 1991). By contrast, considerably less research
has centered on the other member of the mentorship dyad—the mentor.
Despite recent efforts to address this gap in the mentoring literature (Allen,
Poteet, Russell, & Dobbins, 1997; Aryee, Chay, & Chew, 1996; Olian, Car-
roll, & Giannantonio, 1993; Ragins & Cotton, 1993; Ragins & Scandura,
1994), research from the mentor’s perspective is fragmented and still in its
infancy. Given the relatively sparse research in this area, there are many
theoretical, as well as empirical, issues that warrant attention. Moreover,
continued interest in the use of mentoring for employee development necessi-
tates a more systematic understanding of both the antecedents and conse-
quences of mentoring for the mentor. Hence, the purpose of the present study
was twofold. First, of key importance to understanding mentoring from the
perspective of the mentor is the discovery of factors that influence a mentor’s
decision to engage in a mentoring relationship. The present study investigated
four areas of inquiry related to the mentor’s choice to engage in a mentoring
relationship: individual reasons for mentoring others, organizational factors
that inhibit or facilitate mentoring, protégé characteristics that attract mentors,
and the outcomes associated with mentoring others. Second, in an effort to
stimulate additional inquiries in this area, an agenda for future research was
developed in which the results of the present study were integrated with
existing theory.
In pursuing these objectives, a qualitative field study was conducted
whereby individuals who had served as a mentor to others were interviewed
regarding their mentoring experiences. Since the issues under investigation
have received limited research attention, in-depth interviews with mentors
appeared to be an ideal vehicle for generating a rich database of information
that can serve as a guide for subsequent quantitative studies (King, 1994).
MENTORING RESEARCH
Given that informally mentoring others is not typically mandated within
organizations, serving as a mentor is an additional investment in time that
goes above and beyond the mentor’s formal job requirements. Consequently,
not all experienced senior employees become mentors. Hence, it is necessary
to delineate the variables that influence or motivate organizational members
to informally mentor others (Aryee et al., 1996).
One consistent finding in the literature has been that those who have en-
gaged in mentoring activities in the past report greater willingness to mentor
others. Studies indicate that all types of mentoring experience (as a protégé,
a mentor, or both) are positively related to willingness to mentor others (Allen
et al., 1997; Allen, Russell, & Maetzke, in press; Ragins & Cotton, 1993).
Recently, several studies have linked personality variables with willingness
to mentor others. For example, Allen et al. (1997) found that internal locus
of control and upward striving were positively associated with intentions to

AID JVB 1596 / 630e$$$141 07-05-97 14:21:00 jvbal AP: JVB

72 ALLEN, POTEET, AND BURROUGHS

mentor others, and Aryee et al. (1996) reported that positive affectivity, altru-
ism, and organization-based self-esteem were significantly related to motiva-
tion to mentor others.
The aforementioned studies have primarily focused on differentiating be-
tween individuals who are more or less willing to mentor others. Very little
effort has been made to ascertain the specific reasons why an individual
would choose to engage in a mentoring relationship. In order to understand
more fully the decision to engage in mentoring behavior, it is important to
explore the motivational reasons that underlie an individual’s choice to men-
tor others. Accordingly, one of the goals of the present study was to ascertain
from mentors the personal reasons or motivation underlying why they mentor
others.
As noted by Kram (1985), organizational features can inhibit or facilitate
the initiation of mentoring relationships. Features noted by Kram include
reward systems, design of work, performance management systems, and orga-
nizational culture. With the exception of Aryee et al. (1996), who found that
an organizational reward system emphasizing employee development and
opportunities to interact on the job were both positively related to motivation
to mentor, research further exploring the relationship between organizational
factors and mentoring has not been undertaken. Since Kram’s seminal work
was conducted, organizations have undergone vast changes in structure (e.g.,
organizational downsizing and restructuring) and work design (e.g., team-
based work). Hence, another goal of the present study was to identify organi-
zational factors that mentors believe enhance or interfere with their opportuni-
ties for mentoring others.
Another key to understanding the initiation of mentoring relationships is
to examine protégé characteristics that attract mentors. That is, what are the
characteristics that mentors are drawn to when selecting a protégé? As noted
by Olian et al. (1993), it seems likely that a mentor’s perception of the
expected benefits and costs and, consequently, decision to engage in the
mentoring relationship are influenced by protégé characteristics. There is some
research to indicate that performance potential is a factor in choosing a pro-
tégé. Kram’s (1985) interviews indicated that mentors were attracted to lower-
level managers with advancement potential, who wanted to learn, who were
capable, and who were enjoyable to be with. Similarly, Olian et al. (1993)
found that mentors anticipated greater rewards and were more willing to
mentor protégés who were high performers than those who were moderate
performers. Green and Bauer (1995) found that graduate students with more
potential received more supervisory mentoring from their advisors than gradu-
ate students with less potential. Another factor that has been related to mentor–
protégé attraction is interpersonal similarity. The similarity–attraction para-
digm states that individuals who perceive similarities between themselves
and another will be attracted to each other (Byrne, 1971). Burke, McKeen,
and McKenna (1993) found that mentors reported providing more mentoring
to protégés who were perceived as similar to themselves in terms of intelli-

AID JVB 1596 / 630e$$$142 07-05-97 14:21:00 jvbal AP: JVB

 THE MENTOR’S PERSPECTIVE 73

gence, approach to procedures, personality, background, ambition, education,

and activities outside of work.
Most research in this area has focused on delineating who is likely to be
a protégé and who will receive a greater degree of mentoring. Little effort
has been made to seek information directly from mentors regarding protégé
characteristics that they find most desirable. Accordingly, another goal of the
present study was to determine protégé characteristics that positively influence
a mentor’s decision to develop a mentoring relationship.
The mentor’s decision to engage in a mentoring relationship is also likely
to be influenced by the outcomes that he or she realizes by mentoring others
(Newby & Heide, 1992). The majority of research extolling the advantages
of serving as a mentor to others has been conjectural rather than empirical
in nature. For example, Zey (1984) theorized that mentoring provides four
categories of benefits to the mentor: career enhancement, intelligence/informa-
tion, advisory role, and psychic rewards. Hunt and Michael (1983) suggested
that mentors gain satisfaction, esteem among peers and superiors, and self-
confirmation by mentoring others. Mullen (1994) proposed that mentoring
primarily serves as an information exchange whereby protégés serve as a
valuable source of information for their mentors. Benefits associated with
mentoring revealed through case study or qualitative approaches include the
personal satisfaction that comes from passing knowledge and skills on to
others, exhilaration from the fresh energy provided by protégés, improved
job performance by receiving a new perspective on the organization from
protégés, loyalty and support from protégés, and organizational recognition
(Kram, 1985; Levinson, Darrow, Klein, Levinson, & McKee, 1978). The
scant quantitative data available have yielded similar findings. Specifically,
mentors report deriving personal satisfaction from helping junior employees,
gaining new perspectives on lower levels of the firm, improvement of their
own managerial skills, and being stimulated by the ideas of protégés (Klauss,
1981; Reich, 1986). It is also important to consider that mentors may experi-
ence costs or negative outcomes as a result of mentoring others. The costs
that have been associated with mentoring include employee jealousy, time
demands, the possibility that mentors may be ‘‘backstabbed’’ by a disloyal
protégé, and embarrassment if a protégé fails (Halatin & Knotts, 1982; Rag-
ins & Scandura, 1994). Although Ragins and Scandura (1994) recently devel-
oped a scale designed to measure perceived costs and benefits to mentoring,
few efforts have been made to develop discrete categories of mentoring bene-
fits or costs based on direct data from mentors. More concrete delineation of
the outcomes that mentors believe they obtain from mentoring others should
be helpful in better understanding the choice to serve as a mentor. Hence,
another goal of this study was to generate a list of outcomes associated with
mentoring others.
In summary, the purpose of this study was to extend our understanding of
mentoring from the perspective of the mentor. In today’s rapidly changing
and turbulent business environment, employees at all levels of the organization

AID JVB 1596 / 630e$$$142 07-05-97 14:21:00 jvbal AP: JVB

74 ALLEN, POTEET, AND BURROUGHS

are likely to encounter opportunities to serve as mentors. Further, as the

ability to grow, adapt, and develop becomes more essential to organizational
competitiveness, organizations are being called upon to facilitate life-long
employee learning. The results of the present research should provide a stimu-
lus for further theoretical development of the mentoring process and enable
organizations to better facilitate effective mentoring relationships among em-
ployees.

METHOD
Participants
Participants were 27 employees from five different organizations who had
mentored others. Of the 27 participants, 14 were female (51.9%), 23 were
Caucasian (85.2%), 2 were African-American (7.4%), and 2 were from other
minority groups (7.4%). Average age of the participants was 41.93 years
(SD Å 9.06), average job tenure was 4.24 years (SD Å 2.86), and average
organizational tenure was 11.48 years (SD Å 8.23). Twenty-three (85.2%)
had obtained at least a 4-year college degree, with the remaining four having
received at least some college education. The five organizations represented
a diverse range of industries, including municipal government, health care,
financial, communications, and manufacturing. Across the organizations, em-
ployees represented a relatively broad range of managerial job categories,
such as Clinical Manager, Personnel/Human Resources Manager, and Chief
Engineer.

Procedure
Human resource professionals within each participating organization were
asked to identify individuals who had served as an informal mentor (i.e., not
as part of a formal mentoring program) to others. Once mentors were identi-
fied, an interview was conducted by one of the three authors at either the
worksite of the mentor or by telephone. When permission was granted, inter-
views were audiotaped. At the outset of the interview, mentors were assured
that their responses would remain confidential and anonymous. Each interview
lasted approximately 60 min.

Semistructured Interview
Interview questions were generated based on a comprehensive review of
the mentoring literature. A standard set of questions was presented across
the interviews; however, the questions were designed to be open-ended and
interviewers had the flexibility to follow-up and probe further using additional
nonscripted questions whenever new themes or information appeared. Ques-
tions were designed to solicit information related to each of the major content
areas of the study. Demographic information was also collected at the begin-
ning of the interview. A copy of the interview form is available upon request.

AID JVB 1596 / 630e$$$142 07-05-97 14:21:00 jvbal AP: JVB

 THE MENTOR’S PERSPECTIVE 75

Data Analysis Procedure

A multistep content-analytic procedure was used to analyze the qualitative
data. First, for each content area, one of the researchers reviewed all the
applicable comments and grouped those that were similar in meaning. Once
comments were grouped, the resulting ‘‘dimensions’’ were then provided a
name to capture the meaning reflected in the group of comments (e.g., ‘‘Desire
to Help Others’’). Next, a second researcher was given the names of the
identified dimensions and recategorized each of the comments into the appro-
priate dimension. In cases where the two researchers disagreed, reasons for
classification were discussed and the researchers came to an agreement regard-
ing how most accurately to categorize the comment (e.g., move to another
dimension). In some cases a new dimension was created in order to group
comments accurately that had been previously misclassified. After the com-
ments had been categorized, the total number of dimensions was narrowed
by collapsing together dimensions with similar underlying themes. Since we
were interested in common experiences among mentors, dimensions repre-
sented by a single, stand-alone comment made by one participant were deleted
from further analyses.
Once the final list of dimensions was completed and agreement was
reached, one researcher then attempted to collapse or cluster (Hycner, 1985)
the dimensions into higher-order factors via the same process used for the
individual comments. Next, the higher-order factors were reviewed by a third
researcher, and any subsequent revisions were made via the same consensus
process described earlier. The final higher-order factors were then presented
to a doctoral-level researcher not associated with this study, who was asked
to recategorize the dimensions within the appropriate factor. After agreement
was reached regarding the higher-order factors, the content analysis process
was completed. At each stage of the analysis, Cohen’s kappa was used to
statistically assess agreement (Cohen, 1960). Finally, a quantitative analysis
was conducted where the number of times each comment was made was
calculated and recorded.

RESULTS
Mentoring Experience
Mentors were asked several background questions regarding their experi-
ences as a mentor and as a protégé. With regard to their own experiences as
a protégé, 25 participants indicated that they had been mentored by another
individual during their career, with 18 of those 25 (72%) having been ment-
ored by more than one individual. In terms of gender, 4 men reported having
one mentor and 7 men reported having more than one mentor, whereas 3
women reported having one mentor and 11 women reported having more
than one mentor (x2 Å .68, ns). When asked to indicate on a 6-point Likert
scale (0 Å ‘‘None’’ to 5 Å ‘‘Extraordinary Degree of Influence’’) the extent
to which their most recent mentor positively influenced their own professional

AID JVB 1596 / 630e$$$142 07-05-97 14:21:00 jvbal AP: JVB

76 ALLEN, POTEET, AND BURROUGHS

development, the average reported was 4.28 (SD Å .69). The degree of influ-
ence reported did not significantly vary across males (M Å 4.32) and females
(M Å 4.25) (t õ 1, df Å 23, ns).
A total of 17 participants (68%) stated that their experience as a protégé
influenced their decision to mentor others. In addition, 23 participants
(92%) believed that their experience as a protégé helped prepare them for
the role of mentor. The extent to which previous experience as a protégé
influenced the decision to mentor others or prepared participants for the
role did not differ across males and females (x2 Å .17, ns, and x2 Å .03,
ns, respectively).
Regarding participants’ experiences as a mentor, the average number of
protégés mentored was 4.86 (SD Å 2.80, Median Å 4.00). Male participants
mentored a slightly higher, yet not significantly different, number of protégés
than did female participants (M Å 5.70 and M Å 4.17, respectively) (t Å
1.22, df Å 12.45, ns). In terms of how their mentorships were initiated, three
participants (11.5%) indicated that their mentorships always began with the
protégé approaching them and 5 participants (19.2%) stated that they always
initiated the mentorship by approaching the protégé. Additionally, 18 of the
26 participants (69.2%) who responded to this question indicated that the
initiation of their mentorships varied in that there were circumstances where
they were first approached by protégés and circumstances where they first
approached protégés (‘‘mixed approach’’). There were differences between
males and females regarding initiation (x2 Å 6.10, p õ .05). Eleven of the
12 men (91.7%) described the mixed approach, compared to 7 of the 14
(50%) women. One man (8.3%) and two women (14.3%) described their
mentorships as always beginning with a protégé approaching them. Most
interesting, however, was that 5 of the 14 female participants (35.7%) indi-
cated that they always first initiated contact with the protégé. By contrast,
none of the male participants reported that they always approached their
protégé first.

Individual Reasons for Mentoring Others

Participants made a total of 84 distinct comments regarding the reasons they
mentor others. These comments were initially categorized into 17 dimensions.
Classification agreement between the researchers was very high at 94% (k Å
.93, t Å 28.08, p õ .01). After revisions, 13 dimensions based on 76 comments
were retained (complete step-by-step results regarding each stage of the di-
mension revision process are available upon request). From the 13 dimensions,
two overall higher-order factors were identified: Other-focused and Self-fo-
cused. These factors were given to an independent researcher, who recatego-
rized the 13 dimensions into one of the two factors. Agreement between the
independent researcher and the study researchers was perfect (100%, k Å 1,
t Å 3.61, p õ .01). The dimensions and higher-order factors are presented
in Table 1.

AID JVB 1596 / 630e$$$142 07-05-97 14:21:00 jvbal AP: JVB

 THE MENTOR’S PERSPECTIVE 77

TABLE 1
Results of Content Analysis for Individual Reasons for Mentoring

Number of
Factors and dimensions comments Sample comments

Other-focused
Desire to pass 13
information on to
others
Desire to build a 11
competent workforce
General desire to help 10
others
Desire to help others
succeed
To benefit the
organization
Desire to help
minorities/women
move through
organizational ranks
Self-focused
Gratification seeing 10
others succeed/grow
Free time for other
pursuits
Personal desire to
work with others
Increase personal
learning
Pride
Desire to have
influence on others
Respect from others
• ‘‘It’s just sharing past experience with people
realizing that at one time I needed such
guidance as well’’
• ‘‘. . . wanting to pass along the benefits that I
have. You don’t want to just take and let that
be short-lived and self-contained because then it
is wasted’’
• ‘‘The more information you share with others, the
more they’ll be able to perform their jobs, make
better career decisions’’
• ‘‘I’ve recognized that if you want an institution to
achieve it requires the development of their
most important resource—people’’
• ‘‘Before you exit this life, you owe it to those that
come along behind you to give them a hand’’
• ‘‘There’s that feeling I get when I talk to them
and I say I would really like to help this
person’’
6 • ‘‘There was a desire to see them succeed. . .’’
5 • ‘‘It makes the whole organization a lot better’’
2 • ‘‘To help women and minorities come through the
ranks’’
• ‘‘It just sort of feels good to have someone in that
type of relationship where they rely on your
knowledge base’’
• ‘‘I like to watch people grow in the
organization. . .’’
5 • ‘‘By helping someone develop, I can take on other
projects myself’’
5 • ‘‘I love dealing with people. I love trying to help
them with their problems. . .’’
3 • ‘‘. . . to see others grow also helps you develop
and be a better person’’
2 • ‘‘I take pride in it’’
2 • ‘‘I still believe one person can make a difference,
and I try to do that one person at a time . . . I
would like to know that I contributed to other
people’s lives’’
2 • ‘‘If we are sending out good people, then that
trust comes back to me. . .’’

Note. Higher-order factors are boldfaced.

07-05-97 14:21:00 jvbal AP: JVB

78 ALLEN, POTEET, AND BURROUGHS

Organizational Factors
In terms of the organizational factors that either facilitate or inhibit effective
mentoring relationships, multiple dimensions were identified by the partici-
pants. However, in contrast to the previous content area where these dimen-
sions were then grouped into higher-order factors, it was determined that the
organizational dimensions were fairly independent, and hence, they were not
grouped into higher-order factors.
Facilitating factors. A total of 30 comments related to organizational fac-
tors that facilitate effective mentoring relationships were identified. As pre-
sented in Table 2, after revisions, 29 comments were grouped into seven
dimensions. Agreement between the two researchers was significant (k Å .96,
t Å 12.36, p õ .01), with 96.7% of the comments appropriately reclassified.
Inhibiting factors. In terms of the organizational factors that inhibit effec-
tive mentoring relationships, a total of 24 identifiable comments were made.
After revisions, 19 comments were grouped into nine dimensions. Classifica-
tion agreement between the two researchers was 91.7% (k Å .89, t Å 9.87,
p õ .01). After subsequent discussion between the researchers, four final
factors were agreed upon. These dimensions are presented in Table 2.

Protégé Attractiveness Factors

A total of 140 distinct comments were made regarding the factors that
attracted mentors to protégés. These comments were initially grouped into 32
dimensions. Agreement between the researchers when reclassifying the com-
ments into the 32 dimensions was 89.3% (k Å .89, t Å 46.84, p õ .01).
Subsequent discussion and revisions resulted in a final total of 117 comments
grouped into 21 dimensions. Six higher-order factors were created to contain
most of the dimensions (one dimension remained on its own as a higher-order
factor, ‘‘Protégé Reflection of Self,’’ because it did not group with any of the
other dimensions). An independent researcher reclassified the dimensions into
the higher-order factors resulting in 95.2% agreement (k Å .93, t Å 7.87, p õ
.01). The dimensions and higher-order factors are presented in Table 3.

Outcomes Associated with Mentoring Others

Positive benefits. Regarding the positive benefits associated with mentoring,
participants made a total of 76 comments that were initially grouped into 21
dimensions. Agreement between the researchers on the original classification
of comments was very high (94.7%, k Å .94, t Å 24.72, p õ .01). Revisions
resulted in 76 comments classified into 11 dimensions. These 11 dimensions
were then grouped into four higher-order factors. Reclassification of the di-
mensions into their appropriate higher-order factors by an independent re-
searcher was done with 100% agreement (k Å 1, t Å 5.59, p õ .01). The
dimensions and higher-order factors are presented in Table 4.
Negative consequences. A total of 25 comments regarding negative out-
comes associated with mentoring was identified. These comments were

AID JVB 1596 / 630e$$$143 07-05-97 14:21:00 jvbal AP: JVB

 THE MENTOR’S PERSPECTIVE 79

TABLE 2
Results of Content Analysis for Organizational Factors That Facilitate or Inhibit Mentoring

Number of
Dimensions comments Sample comments

Facilitating dimensions
Organizational support for
employee learning and
development
Company training
programs
Manager/co-worker
support
Team approach to work
Mentor empowerment/
decision-making power
Comfortable work
environment
Structured environment
Inhibiting dimensions
Time and work demands
Organizational structure
Competitive/political
environment
Unclear expectations of
company
7 • ‘‘I think it is real key to have a management
development philosophy’’
• ‘‘Learning environment system where people are
encouraged to teach and learn from each other’’
6 • ‘‘In our HR and Education department we worked
hard to identify and make available materials,
seminar-related information . . . so that people
can go and learn more’’
4 • ‘‘You feel like you have support from your
superiors and from your peers . . . for the time
that mentoring relationships take’’
4 • ‘‘The way [company] is structured . . . with
coach/team leader has made it more available
for me to mentor more people’’
3 • ‘‘We decide who goes to workshops and who
doesn’t, and we have that ability to send
whoever to whatever class’’
3 • ‘‘Here we have an open-door policy . . . we try
and send a clear message that you can come by
and talk any time’’
2 • ‘‘In the past the organization was flat and
positions of authority weren’t official . . . now
I have legitimate authority . . . it is easier for
me to mentor employees’’
10 • ‘‘Deadlines make for a lot of big time
constraints’’
• ‘‘Sheer lack of time’’
5 • ‘‘Working the different shifts can inhibit some of
that (mentoring)’’
• ‘‘We have flattened our management structure so
we have few people at a level within the
organization that can truly serve as mentors’’
2 • ‘‘Mentoring . . . would be like palace intrigue-all
that scheming around the throne, maneuvering,
and political infighting’’
2 • ‘‘One that inhibits . . . is what you’re allowed to
do with people, what’s appropriate between
management and your expectations. I think
expectations sometimes get out of hand’’

grouped into eight dimensions. Agreement between the two researchers on

the original classification of comments was at 100% (k Å 1, t Å 10.04, p õ
.01). After subsequent discussion between the researchers, a final total of four

AID JVB 1596 / 630e$$$143 07-05-97 14:21:00 jvbal AP: JVB

80 ALLEN, POTEET, AND BURROUGHS

TABLE 3
Results of Content Analysis for Protégé Attractiveness Factors

Number of
Factors and dimensions comments Sample comments

Protégé reflection of self 10 • ‘‘They reminded me of myself . . . We have a

lot in common’’
• ‘‘I could see myself in their eyes early in my
career’’
• ‘‘Saw similar skills to myself’’
Personality indicators
People-oriented 7 • ‘‘People skills are very important to me’’
Honesty/integrity 6 • ‘‘. . . honesty and integrity are very important’’
Confident 5 • ‘‘I look for a lot of self confidence’’
Dependable 3 • ‘‘Dependable-when given an assignment they
get it done ahead of time’’
Patient 3 • ‘‘Someone that is patient’’
Flexible 3 • ‘‘They need to be flexible’’
Sense of humor 2 • ‘‘A little sense of humor is good too . . . they
can’t take it all dead seriously’’
Motivational factors
Strong work ethic 9 • ‘‘People who are willing to work hard’’
Initiative 8 • ‘‘Someone who is a self-starter’’
Achievement motivation 8 • ‘‘They had the drive to succeed’’
Energy 3 • ‘‘I liked her energy’’
Dedication 2 • ‘‘Very dedicated employees’’
Competency indicators
High capacity/ability 10 • ‘‘They had potential. . .’’
• ‘‘Very smart and intelligent’’
Complements mentor’s 3 • ‘‘There’s a tendency to mentor people who . . .
skills fill gaps of skills that you don’t have’’
Effective communicator 3 • ‘‘They have to have open communication’’
Common-sense 2 • ‘‘Common sense’’
Help arousal
Mentor believed he or she 6 • ‘‘They . . . looked like they could go further
could help protégé than they had if they had a little bit of help’’
Protégé sought mentor’s 2 • ‘‘The person is seeking advice or guidance’’
assistance
Learning orientation
Openness/willingness to 14 • ‘‘The most important is that they have to want
learn to learn. If they don’t want to learn, I can
talk until I am blue in the face and it won’t
matter’’
• ‘‘Open mind to learning all the different ways
of doing things’’
Openness/willingness to 8 • ‘‘Someone who can take constructive criticism
accept constructive as well as praise’’
feedback

Note. Higher-order factors are boldfaced.

AID JVB 1596 / 630e$$1596 07-05-97 14:21:00 jvbal AP: JVB

 THE MENTOR’S PERSPECTIVE 81

TABLE 4
Results of Content Analysis for Positive Benefits of Mentoring

Number of
Factors and dimensions comments Sample comments

Builds support network

Develops close relationships/
friendships
Offers potential for protégé
payback
Loyalty of protégés
Self-satisfaction
Satisfaction in seeing others
grow and succeed
General satisfaction in helping
others
Job-related: Self-focused
Helps mentor do job
Increases mentor’s own
learning/knowledge
Increases mentor’s
organizational visibility
Provides organizational
recognition to the mentor
Job-related: Other focused
Ensures the passage of
knowledge to others
Builds a competent workforce
12 • ‘‘Some of the other benefits on the personal
side would be the camaraderie, the bonding
of individuals, the friendships that are made’’
• ‘‘Mentoring also brings a closeness to the
working relationship’’
• ‘‘Developing close relationships with people
you mentor’’
4 • ‘‘My hope is that one of these days when I’m
old and flatulent, one of these people is going
to offer me a job when I’m eating dog food’’
4 • ‘‘Loyalty . . . If I need their help, they will
definitely help me out’’
14 • ‘‘The enjoyment I get is gratification in
watching these people turn into successful
managers and leaders’’
• ‘‘The gratification comes full circle in seeing
that child become self-sufficient and being
able to step away and see that they function
as well without you’’
4 • ‘‘Satisfaction that you were able to help
someone else’’
5 • ‘‘You always do something so that they can
help you’’
8 • ‘‘There’s nothing like having your tired old
eyes opened and seeing the world anew’’
• ‘‘I gain a lot from mentoring, I gain a lot of
experience in perspective’’
3 • ‘‘When you have people in the organization
that you have mentored and look good, then
it makes you look good’’
5 • ‘‘I was mentoring so many individuals . . . that
is something they definitely looked at for me
to get promoted to the next level’’
4 • ‘‘You ensure the successorship of knowledge’’
5 • ‘‘. . you have people in key positions who are
very skilled and competent in their jobs’’

Note. Higher-order factors are boldfaced.

dimensions, represented by 21 comments, was agreed upon. These dimensions

were deemed relatively independent, and hence, were not further classified
into higher-order factors. Table 5 shows these dimensions.

AID JVB 1596 / 630e$$$143 07-05-97 14:21:00 jvbal AP: JVB

82 ALLEN, POTEET, AND BURROUGHS

TABLE 5
Results of Content Analysis for Negative Consequences of Mentoring

Number of
Dimensions comments Sample comments

Time requirements 15 • ‘‘It can eat up productive time’’

Favoritism to protégé
Protégé abused
relationship
Feelings of failure
• ‘‘There’s sometimes only so much time in a day and
if you have two or three going on at the same time
that time can be eaten up . . . it pushes into your
time’’
2 • ‘‘Other people in the organization can be suspicious
and feel that you are showing favoritism’’
2 • ‘‘I found that there are some individuals who will
use the relationship for their own benefit . . . in a
destructive fashion’’
2 • ‘‘It (failed mentorship) affected me personally
because I think of it as a failure. . .’’

DISCUSSION AND AGENDA FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Based on the results of the present study, a series of research propositions
was developed with the purpose of stimulating additional inquiry regarding
mentoring from the perspective of the mentor. Rather than simply provide a
laundry list of research questions, we attempted to provide specific research
propositions grounded in existing theoretical networks, which we believe
extend natural linkages to mentorship theory. Although each of the broad
content areas addressed in the interviews is discussed, space limitations pre-
cluded proposition generation for all results. It is hoped that the results and
the presented propositions will stimulate other research ideas.

Individual Reasons for Mentoring Others

In analyzing the reasons for mentoring others reported by mentors in the
present study, two factors of behavior emerged, which were labeled ‘‘other-
focused’’ and ‘‘self-focused.’’ Other-focused reasons include the desire to
help others, the desire to pass along information to others, and the desire
build a competent workforce. Self-focused reasons include the desire to
increase personal learning and to feel gratification. The existing empirical
literature also provides some tentative support for this typology in that
willingness to mentor has been found to be related to self-reported ratings
of altruism (Aryee et al., 1996) and to upward striving (Allen et al., 1997).
Thus, mentoring others appears to be motivated by factors related to improv-
ing the welfare of others and by factors related to improving the welfare of
the self.
Additional research should be conducted to help further refine what moti-
vates or energizes an individual to mentor others. This is important, as the
specific motives may determine what mentoring functions are most likely

AID JVB 1596 / 630e$$$143 07-05-97 14:21:00 jvbal AP: JVB

 THE MENTOR’S PERSPECTIVE 83

to be provided, the type of individual who will be selected as a protégé,

and the amount of time that a mentor is willing to invest into a mentoring
relationship. For example, mentors who are motivated by a desire to build
a competent workforce may be more likely to engage in career-related
mentoring activities (e.g., sponsorship, coaching), while individuals who
mentor others based on a personal desire to work with other people may be
more likely to engage in psychosocial mentoring activities (e.g., counseling,
affirmation). Likewise, mentors who are primarily motivated by a desire to
help others may be more willing to mentor a struggling junior employee
than mentors who are motivated by a desire to increase their own personal
learning. Finally, mentors who are motivated to mentor others due to a
desire to free up their time for other pursuits may invest less time into a
mentoring relationship than an individual who mentors others because of a
desire to help others succeed.
PROPOSITION 1. Motives or reasons for mentoring others will be related to
factors such as mentoring functions provided, who will be selected as a
protégé, and the amount of time that a mentor invests in a mentoring relation-
ship.
The reasons identified for mentoring others also parallel with the motives
that have been described in the prosocial behavior literature for helping others
(Schroeder, Penner, Dovidio, & Piliavin, 1995). Simply stated, the prosocial
research indicates that helping behavior may be motivated by egoistic con-
cerns (i.e., helping will improve the welfare of the helper) and by altruistic
concerns (i.e., helping will improve the welfare of another). Indeed, the large
percentage of mentors who noted the desire to help others as a primary reason
for mentoring seems to warrant the consideration of variables that have been
associated with helping. One factor that has been found to be consistently
related with helping behavior is ‘‘other-oriented empathy,’’ which is defined
as the tendency to feel empathy and responsibility for the welfare of others
(Schroeder et al., 1995). Within the present study, mentors noted how seeing
junior employees struggle triggered salient memories of their own early-career
battles. It appears that mentors are describing a form of empathetic reaction.
In turn, this empathetic reaction produces motivation within the mentor to
reduce the other person’s (protégé’s) distress.
PROPOSITION 2. Individuals high in other-oriented empathy will be more
likely to mentor others than individuals low in other-oriented empathy.
Consistent with past research, it was noted that the majority of participating
mentors had been involved in a previous mentoring relationship as a protégé.
This finding suggests that the norm of reciprocity influences the decision to
mentor others (e.g., Gouldner, 1960). When individuals feel as though they
have been treated fairly, they are likely to want to give something in return.
In the present study, mentors who believed they had benefited from the
counseling provided by others reported feeling a sense of responsibility to

AID JVB 1596 / 630e$$$143 07-05-97 14:21:00 jvbal AP: JVB

84 ALLEN, POTEET, AND BURROUGHS

give something in return. It appears that it is not just the experience in and
of itself of being involved in a previous mentoring relationship that prompts
a willingness to mentor others; rather, it is the felt sense of responsibility to
give something in return for help received.
PROPOSITION 3. A felt sense of responsibility (norm of reciprocity) mediates
the relationship between previous experience as a protégé and willingness
to mentor others.
Organizational Factors Related to Mentoring Others
Organizational factors also influence mentors’ decisions to engage in men-
toring relationships. The two factors most often reported in the present study
to inhibit mentoring relationships were time demands and organizational struc-
ture. Embedded in both of these factors were issues related to the changes
that organizations have experienced within the last decade. Mentors specifi-
cally noted that downsizing and restructuring were factors that inhibited their
ability to mentor for several reasons. First, since individual work roles within
today’s organizations have typically expanded due to organizational downsiz-
ing, there are more constraints on a manager’s time and these constraints
make it more difficult to devote time and energy to mentoring activities.
Second, mentors noted that they are hesitant to take on a protégé in a turbulent
job environment where job security is an issue. That is, the mentor must
consider if it worthwhile to invest in a relationship when the job of the mentor
or the protégé may be in jeopardy. Third, in the flattened corporate hierarchy
there are fewer individuals available to provide mentoring within the tradi-
tional mentoring structure of seasoned senior manager and junior employee.
Although it has been advocated that mentoring can serve as a resource during
times of organizational turbulence (Kram & Hall, 1995), it is proposed that
the aforementioned organizational changes inhibit opportunities for mentor-
ships to develop.
PROPOSITION 4. Individuals who have recently experienced or are experi-
encing an organizational downsizing will be less willing to mentor others
than individuals who have not experienced an organizational downsizing.
With regard to organizational factors that facilitate a person’s ability to
mentor others, the factors that were mentioned most often were organizational
support for employee learning and development and company training pro-
grams. These findings suggest that the learning and development literature
may provide another important source of information in identifying organiza-
tional factors that influence mentoring. Consistent with the research from this
area, which indicates that support from others is a significant antecedent to
developmental activity (e.g., Maurer & Tarulli, 1994), the present results
suggest that support from organizational constituents facilitates mentoring.
Organizations that promote a culture espousing the value of developmental
activity are likely to establish norms that lead senior organizational members
to expect social and personal rewards for mentoring others.

AID JVB 1596 / 630e$$$143 07-05-97 14:21:00 jvbal AP: JVB

 THE MENTOR’S PERSPECTIVE 85

PROPOSITION 5. Individuals who perceive they have management and co-

worker support for mentoring others will be more willing to mentor others
than individuals who perceive that they have less support for mentoring from
management and co-workers.

Protégé Attractiveness Factors

As suggested by Olian et al. (1993), social exchange theory offers a frame-
work for understanding attraction to the mentoring role. Exchange theory
views an interaction between two people as an exchange where the costs of
participation in the relationship are compared to the perceived benefits (e.g.,
Homans, 1958). The results of the present study are consistent with this view
in that mentors overtly stated that they expected and received reciprocation
from protégés for their mentoring efforts.
The nature of an exchange relationship suggests that mentors will select
protégés whom they believe can bring certain desirable attributes and/or com-
petencies to the relationship, which will result in a relationship of mutual
satisfaction. The specific attributes that mentors desire have not been clearly
delineated. As the results of the present study suggest, protégé potential may
be viewed by mentors in several ways. That is, it is not only ability or
specific skills that mentors find appealing in a protégé, but indications of high
motivation and a learning orientation are also important. What is less clear
is the extent to which mentors may adhere to a compensatory or a noncompen-
satory model. For example, must protégés possess all three of the aforemen-
tioned attributes, or can a high degree of two of the three attributes compensate
for a lack of one? Social exchange theory might suggest that protégé talent/
ability would be the most compelling factor in initially attracting the attention
of a mentor. However, it seems likely that protégé motivation and willingness
to learn will be necessary to generate further development of the relationship.
As many mentors noted, if the protégé lacks drive and/or is not open to
learning, the relationship will not progress and hence is less likely to be
successful.
PROPOSITION 6a. Mentors will be more attracted to junior employees that
they perceive have more talent/ability than junior employees perceived to
have less talent/ability.
PROPOSITION 6b. Protégés perceived by mentors to have a higher degree of
motivation and willingness to learn will be involved in longer, more successful
mentoring relationships than protégés perceived by mentors to be less moti-
vated and less interested in learning.
Another attraction factor that emerged from the results was what was
termed as ‘‘help arousal.’’ Some mentoring relationships are stimulated, at
least in part, by the perception of protégé need. Hence, while mentor attraction
to a protégé may be based on the identification of protégés with high potential,
there may also be situations where struggling employees attract/win the atten-

AID JVB 1596 / 630e$$$143 07-05-97 14:21:00 jvbal AP: JVB

86 ALLEN, POTEET, AND BURROUGHS

tion of a mentor. This finding also conforms with social psychological models
of helping behavior, which suggest that acts of helping are preceded by the
perception that someone is in need (Schroeder et al., 1995). Protégé need
produces an arousal state in the mentor, and consequently, the mentor is
motivated to reduce the tension that results. Within this context, the nature
of the cost/benefits exchange differs. That is, the mentor must weigh the costs
of helping versus the costs of not helping before deciding whether to engage
in the relationship. The outcome of this decision may vary as a function of
whether the potential protégé who needs help is under the mentor’s direct
supervision. The costs of not helping will be more directly felt by the mentor
if the individual is part of the mentor’s own work group. In this case, failure
on the part of the potential protégé reflects directly on the manager and the
costs of not helping increase.
PROPOSITION 7. Mentors will perceive greater costs to not providing men-
toring to junior employees who appear in need of help and are under their
direct supervision than junior employees who appear in need of help and are
not under their direct supervision.
Similarity may be the one overriding factor that determines mentor–protégé
attraction. Mentors indicated that they were attracted to protégés who re-
minded them of themselves earlier in their career and that the factor that
drew them to their protégés was seeing something in the protégé that was
similar to themselves. This result is consistent with previous research where
mentors reported providing more mentoring to protégés who they perceived
were similar to themselves (Burke et al., 1993). The prosocial literature also
indicates that people are more likely to help others who are similar to them-
selves than those who are dissimilar. Mentoring protégés similar to the self
may bring more rewards to the mentor in that it is more enjoyable to engage
in relationships with individuals who share similar interests and values
(Schroeder et al., 1995). Moreover, positive outcomes may be easier to antici-
pate by mentoring someone similar to the self in that it is easier to predict
their behavior.
PROPOSITION 8. Mentors will perceive that there are greater rewards to
providing mentoring to protégés who are perceived to be similar to themselves
than protégés perceived to be dissimilar to themselves.

Outcomes of Mentoring Others

Overall, the results indicated that mentors reported receiving many more
benefits than costs from mentoring others. The specific categories of benefits
that emerged included the building of support networks, job-related rewards
that focused on the self, job-related rewards that focused on others, and
self-satisfaction. The results suggest that the rewards mentors associate with
mentoring others are varied. Moreover, the findings speak to the ways mentors
may be induced to engage in a mentoring relationship.

AID JVB 1596 / 630e$$$143 07-05-97 14:21:00 jvbal AP: JVB

 THE MENTOR’S PERSPECTIVE 87

One theme that emerged from the mentors’ responses is that they believed
they often learned as much from the protégé as the protégé learned from
them. This is consistent with the reconceptualization of mentoring suggested
by Kram and Hall (1995), which proposes that mentors are ‘‘co-learners’’
within the mentoring relationship. The results are also consistent with career-
stage theories that have suggested that mentoring may be used to mitigate
mid- or late-career obsolescence (cf. Feldman, 1988). Given the vast changes
in organizations and the nature of work, it has become more likely senior
employees are novices with regard to new technologies and new services.
Consequently, junior employees have a great deal to offer senior employees
in terms of sharing updated information and knowledge. Hence, mentoring
others can serve as an avenue of continual skill development for senior em-
ployees.

PROPOSITION 9. Senior employees more interested in personal growth and

development will be more likely to mentor others than senior employees less
interested in personal growth and development.

Although mentors noted that one of the benefits to mentoring others was
assistance with their own job-related duties, the major disadvantage cited was
the time that mentoring took away from other activities. While senior employ-
ees may still be willing to mentor others, the amount of energy that they
devote to these types of activities may be on the decline due to increasing
time demands within today’s downsized organizations. Hence, mentors may
analyze the amount of time mentoring takes away from completing their job
duties against the amount of time they gain by grooming others to fulfill
some of those responsibilities.

PROPOSITION 10. The amount of time that mentors devote to mentoring

activities will be directly related to the degree to which they perceive that
mentoring others also helps with their own job-related duties.

CONCLUSION
In summary, the present study extends previous mentoring research by
contributing a rich base of information regarding factors that influence an
individual’s decision to mentor others. A number of common themes
emerged from the results that should be helpful in designing future quantita-
tive research efforts. Moreover, additional theoretical perspectives and spe-
cific propositions that can be used to guide investigations from the focal
point of the mentor have been suggested. Given the extent to which men-
toring can be an effective mechanism for creating and sustaining an organi-
zation’s competitive advantage through the development of employee com-
petencies, and by facilitating employee fulfillment in their career, additional
research focusing on the mentor seems critical to expanding our understand-
ing of mentoring relationships.

AID JVB 1596 / 630e$$$144 07-05-97 14:21:00 jvbal AP: JVB

88 ALLEN, POTEET, AND BURROUGHS

REFERENCES
Allen, T. D., Poteet, M. L., Russell, J. E. A., & Dobbins, G. H. (1997). A field study of factors
related to willingness to mentor others. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 1–22.
Allen, T. D., Russell, J. E. A., & Maetzke, S. B. (in press). Formal peer mentoring: Factors
related to protégé satisfaction and willingness to mentor others. Group & Organization
Management.
Aryee, S., Chay, Y. W., & Chew, J. (1996). The motivation to mentor among managerial employ-
ees. Group & Organization Management, 21, 261–277.
Burke, R. J., McKeen, C. A., & McKenna, C. (1993). Correlates of mentoring in organizations:
The mentor’s perspective. Psychological Reports, 72, 883–896.
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 20, 37–46.
Dreher, G., & Ash, R. (1990). A comparative study of mentoring among men and women in
managerial, professional and technical positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 525–
535.
Feldman, D. C. (1988). Managing careers in organizations. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Gouldner, A. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological
Review, 25, 161–178.
Green, S. G., & Bauer, T. N. (1995). Supervisory mentoring by advisors: Relationships with
doctoral student potential, productivity, and commitment. Personnel Psychology, 48, 537–
561.
Halatin, T. J., & Knotts, R. E. (1982). Becoming a mentor: Are the risks worth the rewards?
Supervisory Management, 27(2), 27–29.
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597–
606.
Hunt, D. M., & Michael, C. (1983). Mentorship: A career training and development tool. Academy
of Management Review, 8, 475–485.
Hycner, R. H. (1985). Some guidelines for the phenomenological analysis of interview data.
Human Studies, 8, 279–303.
King, N. (1994). The qualitative research interview. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Qualitative
methods in organizational research: A practical guide. London: Sage (pp. 14–36).
Klauss, R. (1981). Formalized mentor relationships for management and development programs
in federal government. Public Administration Review, 4, 489–496.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life.
Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
Kram, K. E., & Hall, D. T. (1995). Mentoring in a context of diversity and turbulence. In E. E.
Kossek & S. Lobel (Eds.), Managing diversity: Human resource strategies for transforming
the work place. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell (pp. 108–136).
Levinson, D. J., Darrow, C. M., Klein, E. G., Levinson, M. H., & McKee, B. (1978). The seasons
of a man’s life. New York: Knopf.
Maurer, T. J., & Tarulli, B. (1994). Perceived environment, perceived outcome, and person
variables in relationship to voluntary development activity by employees. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79, 3–14.
Mullen, E. (1994). Framing the mentoring relationship in an information exchange. Human
Resource Management Review, 4, 257–281.
Newby, T. J., & Heide, A. (1992). The value of mentoring. Performance Improvement Quarterly,
5(4), 2–15.
Olian, J. D., Carroll, S. J., & Giannantonio, C. M. (1993). Mentor reactions to protégés: An
experiment with managers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43, 266–278.
Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1993). Gender and willingness to mentor in organizations. Journal
of Management, 19, 97–111.

AID JVB 1596 / 630e$$$144 07-05-97 14:21:00 jvbal AP: JVB

 THE MENTOR’S PERSPECTIVE 89

Ragins, B. R., & Scandura, T. A. (1994). Gender differences in expected outcomes of mentoring
relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 957–971.
Reich, M. H. (1986). The mentor connection. Personnel, 63, 50–56.
Scandura, T. A. (1992). Mentorship and career mobility: An empirical investigation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 13, 169–174.
Schroeder, D. A., Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., & Piliavin, J. A. (1995). The psychology of
helping and altruism: Problems and puzzles. New York: McGraw–Hill.
Whitely, W., Dougherty, T. W., & Dreher, G. F. (1991). Relationship of career mentoring and
socioeconomic origin to managers’ and professionals’ early career progress. Academy of
Management Journal, 34, 331–351.
Zey, M. G. (1984). The mentor connection. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones–Irwin.

Received: February 3, 1997

AID JVB 1596 / 630e$$$144 07-05-97 14:21:00 jvbal AP: JVB