Sex Roles (2020) 83:566–579

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01129-x

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

It’s Not You, It’s Me: An Exploration of Mentoring Experiences

for Women in STEM
Ma. Carolina Saffie-Robertson 1

Published online: 11 February 2020

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
Although the number of women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) continues to grow, men still
represent a significant majority of those employed in these industries. Mentoring programs have been identified as a useful tool to
alleviate this gap and therefore have been developed in an effort to attract and retain women in STEM. However, research
suggests that women are still being mentored less often than their male colleagues. To understand this issue in depth, 36 women
holding managerial positions in STEM organizations in the United States and Canada were interviewed and their experiences
with mentoring were discussed. The results suggest that women do have access and indeed find potential mentors but they
perceive significant barriers that prevent these initial meetings from developing into long-term mentoring relationships.
Specifically, four Barriers to the Development of Mentorship (BDM) were identified including: Need for Fit, Demonstrating
Capability, Commitment of the Mentor, and Trust in the Mentor. BDM might help researchers and practitioners understand why
women are under-mentored and consequently underrepresented in STEM workplaces. Implications of these findings are
discussed, such as how to improve formal mentoring programs to overcome BDM and better serve women in STEM.

Keywords Mentoring . STEM . Barriers to mentoring . Qualitative methods . Career development . Grounded theory

Women make up roughly 50% of the U.S. work force, yet the
representation of women in science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM) is dramatically low (Hill et al. 2010;
Miner et al. 2018). Researchers and practitioners alike have been
investigating explanations for this phenomenon as well as pro-
posing potential solutions to lessen the underrepresentation of
women in these fields (Hill et al. 2010; Miner et al. 2018).
Mentoring, the relationship between a senior employee
(mentor) and a junior colleague (protégé), has been identified
as a work association that has the potential to have a signifi-
cant influence on the personal and professional growth of
protégés (Chandler et al. 2011). Studies and meta-analyses
have found that having a mentor is associated with a number
of positive outcomes for the protégé, regardless of their
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01129-x) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.
* Ma. Carolina Saffie-Robertson
mcsaffierobertson@sjfc.edu
1
Management Department, School of Business, St. John Fisher
College, 3690 East Avenue, Rochester, NY 14618, USA
gender, including a decrease in family-work conflict and in-
tentions to quit, as well as an increase in job and career satis-
faction, among others (Allen et al. 2004; Chao 1997; Dreher
and Ash 1990; Eby et al. 2008; Kram 1983; Kram and Hall
1986; Nielson et al. 2001; Richard et al. 2009). Therefore, and
not surprisingly, mentoring has been identified as a tool that
can be used to attract and retain women in STEM careers.
However, research on mentoring has suggested that, on
average, female employees across industries are less likely
to be mentored throughout their careers when compared to
their male colleagues (Linehan and Scullion 2008; Noe
1988b; Ragins and Cotton 1991). Unfortunately, recent stud-
ies have shown that the problem persists, and female em-
ployees in a number of different industries and professions
(including city managers, accountants, and global managers)
are likely to report having limited-to-no mentoring experi-
ences at work (Fox and Schuhmann 2000; Kaplan et al.
2001; Linehan and Scullion 2008). Whereas male employees
usually report having several mentors throughout their ca-
reers, female employees typically report having no mentors
to guide and help them in the workplace. Fewer opportunities
for mentoring relationships for female employees can have
important repercussions, including a detrimental effect on
Sex Roles (2020) 83:566–579
women’s career development (Linehan and Scullion 2008;
Noe 1988b; Ragins and Cotton 1991), and they could contrib-
ute to the restricted number of women in STEM careers.
Given the significant positive consequences of mentoring,
identifying the factors that impede women from developing
these relationships at work is of significance, particularly
when mentoring could lessen the under-representation of
women in STEM. Therefore, the present study aims to answer
the call made by Allen et al. (2008) for more complex studies
in this domain by conducting an in-depth qualitative exami-
nation of women’s perceptions of mentoring in the STEM
environment. The aim of my study is to gain a more profound
understanding of the development of mentoring relationships
in the STEM workplace by attaining insight into the factors
that could allow relationships to grow from initial meetings
into an established mentorship. By understanding the percep-
tions of protégés on the factors that make or break a mentor-
ship, concrete suggestions can be made to help more women
develop these relationships at their workplace, potentially
lessening the gender gaps in both mentoring and STEM.
Development of Mentoring Relationships
Although mentorships usually extend over a long period of
time, these relationships go through four distinct phases (Chao
1997; Kram 1983), The first phase, Initiation, refers to the
initial stage of a mentorship, where the relationship between
mentor and protégé forms via the first interactions (Chao
1997). This stage of the mentorship is marked by the
protégé expressing respect and admiration toward the mentor,
while the mentor identifies the protégé as someone with po-
tential (Chao 1997). This initial phase of mutual discovery
between mentor and protégé usually lasts between 6 to
12 months (Kram 1983). The second phase, Cultivation, cor-
responds to the maturation of the relationship, where both
mentor and protégé know each other well enough to work
together and take advantage of each other’s skills and capabil-
ities. During the 2 to 5 years span of the cultivation phase, the
benefits of the mentoring relationship are maximized for both
mentor and protégé (Chao 1997; Kram 1983).
Separation corresponds to the third phase of a mentorship—
a stage in which the protégé gains independence from the men-
tor in a process that takes between 6 to 24 months (Chao 1997).
This separation is usually slow and progressive, and therefore it
lacks stress or emotional anxiety for both mentor and protégé
because it is usually a process rather than a traditional break-up.
Finally, the Redefinition phase corresponds to a transformation
of the mentoring relationship from a one-directional support
structure to a relationship of mutual support (Chao 1997). In
this phase the protégé might still consult with the mentor when
confronted with personal and professional issues, but these in-
teractions resemble peer-to-peer rather than mentor-protégé
567
exchanges. This final phase effectively constitutes the end of
the mentorship and it is of indefinite duration (Chao 1997).
Throughout these four mentoring phases, protégés, regard-
less of their gender, can obtain both objective and attitudinal
benefits. Regarding objective outcomes, on average, protégés
tend to report higher levels of positive career outcomes such as
career planning, career involvement, income, and promotions
than non-protégés (Allen et al. 2004; Chao 1997; Dreher and
Ash 1990; Eby et al. 2008). Furthermore, both male and female
employees with mentors usually experience fewer negative
work outcomes such as withdrawal intentions, turnover, and
deviance, than employees with no mentors at work (Eby et al.
2008). Having a mentor can also have an impact on a number of
attitudinal variables such as job and career satisfaction as well as
career commitment (Allen et al. 2004; Eby et al. 2008;
Kammeyer-Mueller and Judge 2008; Richard et al. 2009;
Wanberg et al. 2006). Protégés also tend to report less psycho-
logical stress and strain, a lower prevalence of substance abuse,
more prosocial behavior, less work-family conflict, and higher
self-perceptions than non-protégés (Eby et al. 2008; Kram and
Hall 1986; Nielson et al. 2001; Taylor and Curtis 2018).
The literature has suggested that although protégés can
experience multiple benefits from mentoring relationships,
the magnitude of these benefits might vary according to the
formality of such relationships. As described by Chun et al.
(2010, p. 422), “A formal mentoring program is an organiza-
tionally sanctioned and established learning relationship
where mentors and protégés are matched with the goals of
sharing organizational knowledge and advancing the
protégés’ careers.” Informal mentoring, on the other hand
“…is not managed, structured or formally recognized by the
organization. As the ‘traditional’ form of mentoring, it is a
spontaneous relationship that occurs without external involve-
ment.” (Herrbach et al. 2011, p. 1555). The formality of the
mentorship has been noted to affect the prominence of the
outcomes usually associated with this relationship, such that
formal mentorships are generally less impactful than informal
ones for protégés, regardless of their gender.
There are at least three reasons behind the lessened effect
of formal mentoring on protégés. First, formal mentoring
relationships are susceptible to personality conflicts be-
tween protégé and mentor (Noe 1988a). Second, formal
mentoring relationships need the support of third parties in
order to be successful (Noe 1988a). Third, lack of commit-
ment to the success of the relationship from either of the
involved parties has been signaled as a reason why formal
mentoring relationships often do not carry the same level of
ou tc omes as in formal men to rships (Noe 1988 a).
Organizations have been matching mentors and protégés
through formal mentoring programs in an effort to capture
the benefits of informal mentoring relationships, given that
formal mentoring is, on average, better than no mentoring at
all (Allen et al. 2006; Noe 1988a).
568
Women and Mentoring
Evidence of the under-mentoring of female employees can be
found across professions and industries. Fox and Schuhmann
(2000) used data gathered from city managers across the
United States and concluded that women are seriously under-
represented in these positions. One of the factors that the au-
thors signaled as affecting the inclusion of women in public
sector management is “…a vacuum of professional mentoring
opportunities.” (Fox and Schuhmann 2000, p. 381). Similar
evidence of the underrepresentation of women in mentor re-
lationships was found by Kaplan et al. (2001) in accounting
firms. Female accountants who participated in their study re-
ported having fewer mentoring opportunities, on average, than
the male participants. The authors suggested that the lack of
mentoring could be one of the reasons behind the absence of
women in the top echelons of accounting firms (Kaplan et al.
2001). Linehan and Scullion (2008) also found evidence of
female employees experiencing difficulties accessing mentors
as well as entering influential networks, resulting in serious
long-term effects on their career development (Linehan and
Scullion 2008).
Researchers have aimed to understand why women would
be under-mentored, providing two main plausible explana-
tions for this phenomenon. The first explanation relies on
issues that might arise from the gender composition of the
mentorship dyad (Burke and McKeen 1990; Noe 1988a;
O'Neill and Blake-Beard 2002; Ragins and Cotton 1991).
Some researchers have proposed that female employees tend
to develop mentorships mainly with female mentors, and be-
cause there are few women in the upper echelons of organi-
zations, female employees seem destined to have fewer
mentoring relationships (Noe 1988a). However, current re-
search has noted that the effects and influence of gender com-
position in the development and quality of a mentorship is
limited at best (Fowler et al. 2007), rendering this explanation
unhelpful.
The second explanation focuses on structural barriers
that female employees must overcome in order to find a
mentor. Noe (1988b) suggested that there are barriers to
access to potential mentors that are confronted by female
employees in the workplace—barriers that include lack of
access to information networks, tokenism, stereotyping,
socialization practices, norms regarding cross-gender rela-
tionships, and reliance of inappropriate power bases. These
barriers to access would impede women from meeting po-
tential mentors and therefore would end mentoring oppor-
tunities even before they have a chance to begin. However,
researchers have noticed that although barriers to access
might have been present in the 1980s, recent studies sug-
gest there are no gender differences with regard to access
to mentors (Dreher and Ash 1990; Kammeyer-Mueller and
Judge 2008; O’Brien et al. 2010).
Sex Roles (2020) 83:566–579
Therefore, both of these potential explanations do not shed
any light when trying to understand why female employees
would typically report having fewer mentors throughout their
careers when compared to their male colleagues. A gendered
organizational context, such as the one found in STEM indus-
tries, could aggravate this phenomenon.
Women and STEM
Women working in higher echelons of stereotypically male
dominated STEM organizations are a rare phenomenon.
Men have traditionally dominated these fields for several
reasons which include, but are not limited to, gender gaps
in performance in standardized tests; the persistence of
gender stereotypes about intelligence, skills and individual
preferences; and gendered workplace biases (Hill et al.
2010; Shaffer et al. 2013). Researchers, practitioners, in-
stitutions, and governments have all dedicated time, money
and resources to try to ameliorate this situation and
incentivise women to enter these fields (Hill et al. 2010;
Shaffer et al. 2013). Some of these efforts have made some
progress toward this goal. For example, “Thirty years ago
there were 13 boys for every girl who scored above 700 on
the SAT math exam at age 13; today that ratio has shrunk to
about 3:1” (Hill et al. 2010, p. xiv). However, the trend
persists and men still significantly outnumber women in
STEM (Hill et al. 2010; Miner et al. 2018; Shaffer et al.
2013). This underrepresentation of women in STEM not
only hurts women by limiting their access to jobs that are
well paid and have more job security than jobs in other
industries, but also limits the innovation, creativity, and
productivity of STEM organizations by restricting the gen-
der diversity of their workforce (Hill et al. 2010). The
women of my study are part of this reality and this industry
context. Understanding their experiences with mentoring
in STEM might help others enter these fields and be an-
other potential solution toward increasing the number of
women studying and working in STEM.
The Present Study
The question that remains unanswered by research is: What
is causing the under-mentoring of women in the work-
place? Given the compelling benefits of employee mentor-
ship for all stakeholders, more research is needed to iden-
tify the factors that could be causing this phenomenon.
Therefore the research question that guided my study
was: What are the experiences of women with mentoring
at work in STEM?
Sex Roles (2020) 83:566–579
Method
Participants
I interviewed 36 women in managerial positions in STEM for
the present study. All participants lived and worked in north-
eastern United States and Eastern Canada except for one par-
ticipant who lived and worked in California. The age of par-
ticipants ranged from their early 30s to early 60s, and the
average tenure in their current organization was 10 years
(SD = 7.00 years).
After obtaining approval from the Human Research Ethics
Committee of the researcher’s institution, an email was sent
out requesting involvement in my study to potential female
participants using the researcher’s personal contacts.
Simultaneously, some interviewees were kind enough to pro-
vide the contact information of women they believed would
be interested in participating in the current study, making the
present sample a snowball sample. Forty-five women were
invited to participate, with 36 accepting the invitation, yield-
ing an 80% response rate.
Procedure
The present study followed a grounded theory approach,
which was originally developed by Glaser and Strauss in
1967 (Chatfield 2018; Corbin and Strauss 2015). Grounded
theory is a methodology characterized by the development of
theory derived from the thorough and systematic analysis of
qualitative data (Chatfield 2018; Corbin and Strauss 2015).
According to Charmaz (2006), solid grounded theory should
be credible, original, resonate, and be useful. A grounded
theory approach usually includes simultaneous data collection
and analysis, the creation of codes for analyzing and compar-
ing data, and reliance on theoretical sampling (in other words,
a sample that will aid the development of theory and not one
that focuses on representing a specific population) (Charmaz
1996).
I collected the data analyzed in the present study through
one initial extensive interview with each participant that I
conducted. Each interview lasted approximately one hour
and was conducted in-person at the interviewees’ offices or
by phone when a face-to-face meeting was not possible.
Interviews followed a semi-structured interview protocol,
which tapped into experiences of the participating women
with their mentoring relationships. Questions asked included:
“How would you define a mentor? Do you have a mentor right
now within your workplace? Tell me about your relationship.
How did it come about?” The protocol was revised after the
fifth interview in order to ensure that the questions were ade-
quate and allowed the interview to flow properly while
gaining insight into the research question, as commonly sug-
gested when using a grounded theory approach (Boyatzis
569
1998; Charmaz 2006). (The complete and final version of
the interview protocol can be found in the online supplement.)
All interviews were recorded after obtaining the necessary
consent from the participant. The researcher also took notes
during these interviews, notes that included verbal as well as
non-verbal communicational cues. These notes were taken in
an effort to record as much information as possible in order to
gain insight into the research question. Following the advice
of Golden-Biddle and Locke (2007) memoing (writing mem-
os throughout the data collection and analysis) was used to
capture ideas, patterns, and any other information that seemed
relevant to my study.
Data Analyses
As previously mentioned, the present study included simulta-
neous data collection and analysis, inductive construction of
data codes (using the participants’ own words as often as
possible), and constant comparison between the literature
and the data, elements consistent with a grounded theory ap-
proach (Charmaz 2006). All interviews were transcribed ver-
batim, and texts were read several times to internalize the raw
data and visualize possible emergent patterns (Boyatzis 1998).
At this stage of the data analysis, preliminary notes, codes,
comparisons, and ideas were used (Charmaz 2006). Open
coding was conducted by the author by attaching codes to
segments of texts representing information related to the re-
search question of the study as well as themes that were inter-
esting and potentially relevant and that might have not been
directly linked to the research question (Berg 2001). A coding
table was created by the author with coding theme titles, def-
initions, characteristics, counts, and examples (Boyatzis
1998).
Once transcripts were fully coded, a participant matrix was
created so that codes and ideas could be compared. Notes
were made for each participant based on different themes
and ideas which allowed comparison across codes and valida-
tion of ideas with the actual data. The aggregate responses to
each of the questions were pooled together and analyzed to
identify recurring themes, categories, and patterns. As sug-
gested by Patton (2001), only those experiences mentioned
by at least 10% of the sample were retained (in the case of
this study, at least three participants). When a set of themes
was determined, the data were systematically coded and the
results tabulated (Patton 2001).
After the data gathered in the initial interviews were
analysed and the final themes were developed, interviewees
were contacted for a second interview. This second interview
lasted an average of 20 min and its purpose of was to have a
discussion regarding the initial findings and how these find-
ings represented (or failed to represent) the interviewees’ ex-
periences. Some of the questions included:
570
Thinking back to your experiences with mentoring, does
this finding describe what you have experienced? Is
there anything that comes to mind regarding this find-
ing? Perhaps examples of when you experienced it? Do
you believe that this finding might/might not be relevant
to other women working in STEM?
(The complete and final version of the second interview pro-
tocol is displayed in the online supplement.) Because the pur-
pose of this second interview was solely to discuss the find-
ings and debrief the participants, and in an effort to avoid
influencing the interviewees’ perceptions and therefore
tainting the results, the data collected in this second round of
interviews was solely used to add examples to the original
codes.
Results
Table 1 presents the main individual characteristics of the
participants, where the names listed correspond to pseudo-
nyms assigned to each interviewee in order to ensure confi-
dentiality. Although the path followed and the reasons for
pursuing a career in STEM were different for each participant,
mentoring experiences were remarkably similar. As university
students, the interviewees were able to establish a relationship
with a professor that would usually and spontaneously devel-
op into a mentorship. This was the case for 17 of the 29
interviewees that reported having had a mentor at some point
in their life. Heather discussed how mentorships would usu-
ally develop between student and professor.
I think it is very frequent. I think is the nature of, I think
is part of the nature of academia. It is sort of an appren-
ticeship kind of thing when you work really closely with
someone and although sometimes those relationships go
poorly, if you work with somebody for 5 years, chances
are they are going to have a big influence in your career,
because it is kind of embedded in the system. (Heather)
In most cases these mentoring relationships continued to grow
long after the protégés’ career developed, new posts were
obtained, and the mentor was no longer in the immediate
vicinity. Although the frequency of the contact between
protégés and mentors would decrease over time (following
the pattern described in the literature as the separation phase),
the interviewees would still reach out to their mentors when in
need of help or even an outsider’s perspective on issues oc-
curring at their workplace. Grace kept in touch with her men-
tor long after she finished her degree and accepted a position
at a STEM organization. At the time of the interview, Grace
had been in her organization for more than 10 years.
Sex Roles (2020) 83:566–579
But I’m still in touch with him. I saw him again last year
and it was really great. Like we were very happy to see
each other, but in terms of mentorship now, he doesn’t
really play a big role. But at least we still communicate a
lot, I ask him for feedback in the things I do in my job
and what he thinks and we see each other about once
every 2 years or 3 years. And I often talk to him about
the projects I’m doing and seeing what he thinks about
all of it. (Grace)
As new hires and out of the confines of their particular de-
grees, participants would focus on becoming acquainted with
the organization and their immediate coworkers while famil-
iarizing themselves with the demands and expectations of
their new job. After a couple of years had gone by, when they
felt settled and more comfortable, career advancement oppor-
tunities were considered and pursued. It is at this stage in their
careers when participants started thinking of mentoring and its
benefits. Participants would look for someone they admired
and shared similar interests. As described by Barbara when
talking about her first mentor at work:
She really is a charismatic leader actually, so you sort of
want to be around her, because she has so much energy,
and joy. Professionally she really helped me shape the
way I work. She got me involved on projects, I got also
different opportunities to meet people, to work on
things, so I really feel that she really gave me, provided
the ladder, the first ladder for my career. (Barbara)
For most of the interviewees, however, finding a mentor at this
stage was not always possible. Once in the workplace, the
interviewees had a more difficulty finding a mentor, with only
a third of the participants reporting having an informal mentor
at work (12 of the 36 participants, 33%). Participants de-
scribed a lack of compatibility with potential mentors as one
reason that impeded the relationship to develop into a mentor-
ship. In the case of Carla, she identified several people from
her workplace as influential and important for her career, but
she mentioned that there was something missing from these
relationships that did not enable her to describe any of them as
mentorships. “It’s hard sometimes to put your finger on what
makes a person a good fit or not for you. For me, there was
something missing.” For Laura, her direct supervisor did not
become a mentor because “Him and I did not see eye-to-eye
on many things. We had very different views and values.”
Participants narrated an overall lack of mentoring opportu-
nities at their place of work, which they described as an im-
portant and useful relationship of which they wished they had
more. Two of the interviewees commented that in order to
provide newly hired women with mentors, their organizations
had recently implemented formal mentoring systems, with
mixed results. Dorothy explained that she was part of a formal
Sex Roles (2020) 83:566–579 571

Table 1 Participants’ characteristics

Pseudonym Age Race/ethnicity Marital Status Years in STEM Area Informal Mentor Informal Mentor Formal mentor
Current Organiz. at Work at Worka

Anna Mid 30s Persian Single 7 Mathematics Yes Yes No

Barbara Late 30s French Canadian Married 6 Science Yes No No
Bella Early 30s Caucasian Single 3 Technology Yes Yes Yes – N
Beth Late 30s European Married 6 Technology Yes No Yes – P
Bianca Mid 30s Caucasian Partner 4 Science No No No
Carla Early 30s Asian Single 4 Science No No No
Chloe Early 30s Caucasian Married 5 Science Yes No Yes – N
Cony Early 40s Latino Married 10 Science Yes Yes No
Cristina Mid 40s European Partner 15 Science Yes No No
Diane Early 60s African American Married 27 Science Yes Yes No
Dorothy Early 30s European Single 5 Science Yes No Yes – P
Fanny Mid 30s Caucasian Married 6 Engineering Yes No Yes – N
Grace Late 40s European Married 10 Science Yes No No
Harriet Early 40s Indian Married 12 Science Yes Yes Yes – M
Heather Early 40s Middle Eastern Married 5 Science Yes No No
Karen Late 50s Greek Married 19 Science No No No
Laura Early 50s European Single 20 Science No No No
Lidia Late 30s French Canadian Single 10 Technology Yes Yes Yes – N
Lilian Late 30s Middle Eastern Single 5 Technology No No Yes – M
Lisa Early 40s Caucasian Married 3 Science Yes No Yes – N
Margaret Early 40s African American Single 11 Technology Yes No No
Maria Early 60s Caucasian Married 24 Science No No No
Mary Mid 30s Caucasian Married 9 Technology Yes Yes Yes – N
Monica Early 30s Caucasian Married 4 Mathematics Yes Yes Yes – M
Myriam Late 30s Middle Eastern Married 7 Mathematics Yes Yes Yes – N
Pamela Early 40s Middle Eastern Married 3 Science Yes No No
Paula Early 50s Caucasian Single 14 Science No No No
Rachel Late 50s Caucasian Single 25 Science Yes No No
Ruth Late 40s Indian Married 22 Science Yes Yes No
Sabrina Late 40s African American Married 16 Technology Yes No No
Sarah Early 30s Asian Single 3 Science Yes No Yes – P
Susan Early 50s Indian Married 3 Science Yes No Yes – N
Valerie Late 50s European Married 8 Science Yes Yes No
Vannesa Mid 40s African American Married 10 Technology Yes Yes No
Veronica Late 50s Caucasian Single 20 Science Yes No No
Wendy Late 30s Caucasian Married 4 Science Yes No Yes – M
a
N = negative experience; P = positive experience; M = mixed experience

mentoring system for which she is grateful. As she explained,
although she would not consider this senior colleague as a
mentor per se, she did appreciate having a system in place at
her organization that allowed her to be matched with someone
who “...is giving me not only the big picture but also kind of
more day to day advice.” Sarah, on the other hand, although
part of a formal mentoring system, explained that her experi-
ence had not been a successful one: “Formally I have a men-
tor. He isn’t very helpful. He is not really a mentor to me.”
When the interviewees were asked to think of some of the
factors that would make it difficult for them to find a mentor at
their place of work, none of the women identified access to
mentors as a problem. As explained by Carla, she has met
several potential mentors at her workplace; yet, she does not
have a mentor:
There are several people I go for advice. I haven’t really
found a person who could sort of fulfill all these
572
functions at the same time, so I sort of get these things
from different people. I can think of three or four people
I go for advice but I don’t consider them my mentors.
(Carla)
The interviewees were asked directly about Noe’s (1988b) six
barriers to access and how these had an impact (if any) in their
experiences with mentorships in the workplace. The partici-
pants described Noe’s barriers as being outdated and not re-
flective of their experiences.
When were those barriers discussed? In 1988? That
might be it… I don’t think any of those barriers are
relevant now, at least not for me. I have met people that
could have been very good mentors but it just hasn’t
happened, I’m not sure why it hasn’t happened but I
don’t think it has had anything to do with those barriers.
(Pamela)
During the initial round of interviews, I noted that there was a
factor that was repeatedly mentioned by the participants as a
key element in a mentor relationship. This factor was a con-
nection between mentor and protégé, sometimes described as
a “fit” or even a “friendship.” When describing the mentoring
relationship, women would discuss activities usually included
in the mentoring dimensions of career-related and psychoso-
cial functions. However, they would also comment on the
importance of a personal relationship to exist between mentor
and protégé. Unlike career-related and psychosocial functions,
this connection between mentor and protégé seems to cross
the workplace boundary into the personal life of both the
mentor and protégé. Further analysis of the interviews sug-
gested that there are some elements not included in the
mentoring functions that women in my study described as
an essential part of a mentorship. These elements, here named
Barriers to Development of Mentoring (BDM), would explain
why some relationships turn into mentorships, whereas others
never do. The following section describes this new construct
in detail, and Table 2 provides the codes, examples, and fre-
quency for each of the four BDM identified.
Barriers to Development of Mentoring (BDM)
Meeting potential mentors at the STEM workplace did not
seem to offer a significant hurdle for the current set of partic-
ipants. Although the data analysis did not provide support for
the existence of barriers that would impede access to mentors
based on Noe’s (1988b) taxonomy, the present data do suggest
the existence of an emergent set of barriers, namely Barriers to
the Development of Mentoring (BDM). Whereas Noe’s
(1988b) barriers to access stop the relationship prior to the
initiation phase, BDM appear to manifest themselves after
the initiation phase has begun.
Sex Roles (2020) 83:566–579
In particular, I found evidence to support the existence of
four BDM: Need for Fit, Demonstrating Capability,
Commitment of the Mentor, and Trust in the Mentor (see
Table 2). These barriers first manifest themselves early in the
careers of the interviewees, and their effect seems to dissipate
over time. During the second round of interviews, BDM were
identified as fundamental reasons why initial meetings with
potential mentors did not transform into mentoring relation-
ships at work.
Need for Fit
Need for Fit is a BDM that is defined as the protégé’s need for
a personal relationship, fit or connection to develop and exist
between protégé and mentor. The data suggest that partici-
pants consider the development of a close personal relation-
ship as an important component of a mentoring relationship.
The data analysis revealed that the women interviewed for my
study considered a fit between themselves and their mentors
as a necessary condition for an effective mentorship experi-
ence. When participants were asked to think of people who
had been influential in their careers, most participants had no
issue naming several individuals. However, when asked if
they had mentors, participants usually spent more time con-
sidering their responses and typically could only come up with
one, or at the most two, names. Participants were asked to
differentiate influential individuals from mentors, and re-
sponses would frequently include the importance of the rela-
tionship to develop and to grow into a dynamic where they felt
comfortable and authentic.
This need for a personal connection was described as a
fit that is necessary in order for a true mentoring relation-
ship to develop. As Karen commented: “Either you find
someone you click with, someone you have a relationship
with or you don’t. There needs to be a personal connection,
communalities in careers, a gravitational pull. That is why
I’m very skeptical of formal mentoring.” Monica noted that
“I think it’s important to have a very personal relationship
where you can talk anything.” Lidia, who works in tech-
nology, had a similar take on the place of friendship or fit
in a mentoring relationship:
The friendship is really important in our relationship.
We think the same. I don’t find that it’s often that people
can understand us speaking because we see the picture
the same way. So we start from the top then with the
ideas, then all of the other elements come together. We
understand each other, the way we think, so that helps.
She listens to me when I need to vent and she can give
me advice, even if it has nothing to do with work. B and
I think the same so usually we seek for each other’s
advice of work and personal stuff. (Lidia)
Sex Roles (2020) 83:566–579 573

Table 2 Themes, codes, examples and frequencies

Barrier to Development Code Example Quote Frequency

of Mentoring n (%)

Need for Fit
Demonstrating Capability
Commitment of the Mentor Caring for the mentee
Trust in the Mentor
Similar values with mentor “You can’t feel that the person is different from you in terms of values in any way, 27 (75%)
because then you censor the things that you want to say, and I think that if it’s
not sort of honest and spontaneous and that sort of thing, then you can never
feel comfortable enough or confident enough.” (Diane)
Personal connection “And for me a mentor is even a step beyond that. You know, it’s someone that you
build that emotional connection with, that you can share a life view, you
probably have similar points of view about things that are important to you.”
(Wendy)
Independence “Once a subordinate asked me to talk through advice, and they’re supposed to be 4 (11%)
at this independent stage, I would worry about why them needing someone’s
guidance.” (Laura)
Being perceived as “It’s a different perspective that we have in a very male-dominated profession.
less capable And then obviously I want them to take me seriously.” (Sabrina)
“I guess mentoring is a one on one relationship so you really have to feel that the 8 (22%)
relationship is somewhat special in a sense and like you are, not special in the
sense that ‘Oh my God this person thinks about you all the time’ but special in
the sense that the person, you know, does care for your welfare in a way.”
(Barbara)
Setting time for mentee “I mean for me, access is… was really important. So I mean just having regular
access to these people [mentors].” (Sabrina)
Trust “What makes a mentor? Trust, both ways.” (Cristina) 10 (28%)

The interviews revealed that participants would not consider a
relationship, even if it was influential or beneficial, as a men-
torship if a proper fit did not exist between the mentor and the
protégé. It is important to note, however, that fit did not ne-
cessitate having the same personality as their mentors. Rather,
fit meant having personalities that did not clash, in addition to
having similar values and approaches to work. According to
many of the participants, the level of fit between protégé and
mentor meant having similar values and cultural backgrounds,
a similar “view of the world,” a personal connection; in other
words, a relationship that would go beyond the boundaries of
the workplace to establish a personal compatibility between
mentor and protégé. For Myriam, “I think your personalities
have to mesh well. You have to be able to get along. That
doesn’t mean you have to in any ways be the same. In my
experience, friendship has been a factor on some level.” It is
noteworthy that fit did not mean the same thing to every in-
terviewee. In fact, the data suggest that there are as many types
of fit as there are mentorships because each protégé will im-
plicitly evaluate the fit in each mentorship opportunity.
Thinking on the relationship she had with her mentor, Chloe
noted, “I felt like I could really open up and share where I
wanted to go and I was much more free to really say what I
wanted because there was a level of friendship.”
“I do not consider [person X] as my mentor because there
was no personal relationship. Our relationship was strictly
professional.” Lisa’s experience illustrates how important this
fit is for the interviewees: When the personal connection be-
tween protégé and mentor was missing, this lack of fit would
act as a barrier, impeding the development of a work relation-
ship into an informal mentorship. The existence or lack of fit
would be identified in the initiation phase of the mentoring—a
stage in which both parties of the mentoring relationship have
an opportunity to get to know each other and recognize each
other’s potential and competences through a series of formal
and informal meetings and interactions (Kram 1983). The
findings of my study suggest that for many of the study par-
ticipants, the level of fit at the initiation stage is an important
component for the development of mentoring relationships. It
is during this initial phase that the personal connection or fit
can develop, allowing the relationship to grow into a mentor-
ship. If and when the personal connection or fit does not de-
velop between the protégé and the mentor, it is very likely that
this would impede the emerging relationship from advancing
to the cultivation phase of a mentoring relationship.
Demonstrating Capability
The second BDM found in my study is Demonstrating
Capability, and it is defined as the need of the employee to
be perceived by her colleagues as professionally capable and
competent at her job by remaining independent and not devel-
oping mentoring relationships at work. This BDM was man-
ifested by four of the interviewees, and although these partic-
ipants did not report issues with access to mentors, they in-
stead mentioned that they would purposefully limit their
workplace relationships to influential and beneficial relation-
ships instead of aiming to develop a stronger, longer-lasting
574
mentoring relationship with senior colleagues. The reason for
this self-imposed limitation was the need to appear to col-
leagues and senior colleagues as capable and independent.
As explained by Rachel, “I guess there’s an expectation that
you’re at a career stage and you want to be independent and
you should be independent.” Sabrina explained that she con-
sidered not having a mentor as an important way to demon-
strate that she was competent.
Early in my career it’s not like I had someone who’s
accomplished much more professionally who I can look
up to and is a female role model. Maybe it has been for
the better. I was able to prove that I’m capable of doing
this job. (Sabrina)
Demonstrating Capability as a barrier to the development of
mentoring relationships was mostly present at the beginning
of the career of young female professionals, being more sa-
lient at the initial stages of their careers and slowly decreasing
in importance once they settled into their role within the orga-
nization. Both Rachel and Laura described Demonstrating
Capability as being very important to them when they were
first hired. For Lisa, who had been recently hired in a scientific
role, Demonstrating Capability was very relevant. “I feel that
autonomy is very valued here… I have good relationships but
nobody I can say is a mentor to me, and I think that is the way
it should be.” This blueprint was followed by Sabrina, who
stayed independent at the beginning of her career and later
developed a mentorship with a senior supervisor.
It’s organic, like it just grew as we spent more time
together. And working on projects and I think it has to
do with time, at least for me. I think getting to know
myself and the core group and he offered career advice
and shared a lot of experiences. I don’t know if I can
define a particular point, but probably 6 months or a
year is when maybe that transitional shift happens and
I was open to the idea [of mentoring]. (Sabrina)
Demonstrating Capability seems to run opposite to what the
mentoring literature suggests—that is, at the early stages of an
employee’s career where having a mentor could be most ben-
eficial to the protégé. In the case of young professionals, hav-
ing a mentor to help them gain experience in their new orga-
nizations could prove extremely important for their career
development. However, the data suggest that a few young
female professionals want to give a good impression not only
to the selection committee that hired them, but also to col-
leagues and supervisors by remaining independent and de-
tached from mentors in the workplace. Having a mentor at
their workplace could be perceived as a sign that they were
not confident or competent enough to be strong professionals,
and some participants believe that this perception could
Sex Roles (2020) 83:566–579
potentially hurt them when hoping to get work that is more
challenging or attain a promotion.
There are two interesting aspects of Demonstrating
Capability as a BDM. First, this barrier seems to be active
only during a very particular career stage, basically the early
years of a STEM professional career. In Lisa’s case, she re-
ported having a mentor during her studies and she was open to
the idea of having a mentor after she achieved her first pro-
motion. Rachel’s experience is very similar; she commented
that she had had mentors throughout her career but that she
chose to remain independent in the years prior to her first
promotion.
Second, Demonstrating Capability seems to be a percep-
tion rather than a concrete and explicit practice in these work-
places. Much of this belief comes from the perception that by
seeking mentorship opportunities, female professionals may
be viewed as less capable, even if there is no indication that
her colleagues actually feel this way. In other words, the data
suggest that having a mentor is perceived by others as an
indicator that they are less capable, and study participants
wish to avoid this potential misperception by remaining inde-
pendent. Rachel talked about the importance of being inde-
pendent early in a STEM career, yet she also discussed that her
organization is developing a formal mentoring system to help
junior professionals, a system that she is helping to develop.
Our organization is interested in improving the
mentoring, particularly the female professionals and
Professionals of Colour. And so the organization came
out and said we will have mentoring. And then the de-
partment says we will have mentoring programs for ju-
nior professionals as well. And so I’m actually working
on—we’re calling it a pilot program. (Rachel)
Interestingly, the interviewees who discussed Demonstrating
Capability as a barrier did not discuss any specific reason or
experience that led them to believe than having a mentor could
hurt their career development by limiting access to opportuni-
ties such as promotions.
Commitment of the Mentor
Commitment of the Mentor, the third BDM found in my
study, is defined as the protégé’s need to perceive that the
mentor is truly and wholeheartedly invested in the develop-
ment of the mentoring relationship. This BDM was present for
eight interviewees, being described as a crucial element for the
success of a mentorship. It is important to note that commit-
ment in my study goes beyond merely setting up time to see
the protégé once a month, but it reflects a level of engagement
and investment that the mentor makes toward the protégé and
the mentoring relationship. The protégé needs to perceive that
the mentor is not just following the motions, but he/she is
Sex Roles (2020) 83:566–579
actually “all in.” This Commitment of the Mentor therefore
reflects a dedication that the protégé can sense in the mentor
and that will keep the relationship strong, particularly through
times when the mentor and protégé might not be able to meet
regularly or work on the mentorship as much as they would
like.
One way in which the mentor can show his/her commit-
ment to the developing mentorship is by being truly available
for the protégé. Several participants discussed how important
it was to know that the mentor was there for them when they
needed guidance or support. As commented by Harriet, “For a
mentorship to work, true availability is key. By that I don’t
mean just having an open door policy but actually making a
commitment to the relationship. I need the mentor to want to
mentor me.”
The commitment of the mentor appears to be particularly
relevant at the beginning of the relationship, when mentor and
protégé are getting to know each other. A committed mentor
allows the initial meetings between employee and mentor to
cement into a mentorship.
A commitment. I think she took our relationship very
seriously and we scheduled meetings way ahead of time
and even though it seemed strange that “Oh we’ll get
together in 2 months,” “Oh we’ll plan this,” and I felt
like maybe she was too structured and I wouldn’t
get along with her, but I think it’s just this routine of
getting together and generating discussion that allowed
us to find common interests and develop our relation-
ship. (Ruth)
Participants felt that given the differences in experience and
position within the hierarchy of the organization between
mentor and protégé, the commitment of the mentor toward
the development and success of the mentorship was some-
thing that the protégé could not influence or control.
Interviewees perceived that the future of the relationship in
its initial stage was left at the mercy of the mentor and his/
her level of commitment. Therefore, lack of commitment from
the mentor was mentioned as an extremely significant factor
that impeded mentorships from developing. As explained by
Ruth when describing a relationship that never grew into a
mentorship: “She kind of zoomed into her own close, personal
friends and probably wasn’t able to be available to new people
and new friends and new mentees.”
Trust in the Mentor
The fourth and final BDM found in my study was Trust in the
Mentor, which is defined as the protégé’s perception that he/
she can to trust the mentor. Trust in the mentor was found to be
an important element of a mentorship for 10 participants.
When asked which factors are essential for a mentorship to
575
work, Cony described how important it is to trust your mentor:
“They have to know their things. You have to look up to them.
You have to trust their judgement. I think that trust is number
one.”
Although trust in the mentor is a relevant BDM, more
interesting is to explore the way in which this trust is built.
For the interviewed women, trust in the mentor grows natu-
rally from the personal connection they develop with their
mentors. In other words, it appears that two of the BDM iden-
tified in my study, Need for Fit and Trust in the Mentor, are
intertwined in this sample of female protégés. The fit or con-
nection that forms between the mentor and protégé allows
trust to develop and as the trust in the dyad grows, the fit/
connection grows as well. In other words, Trust in the
Mentor appears to be an important component of the connec-
tion described by participants as Need for Fit. Mary described
this process:
I think that trust is really important, but it’s something
that happens over time. It’s not like oh, let’s have a
trusting relationship. That’s kind of something that’s
built and I don’t know how you could just have that
off the bat. And I think it starts from liking and it builds
from there. (Mary)
Furthermore, Myriam reasoned that a closer connection be-
tween mentor and protégé is integral to the development of
trust between mentor and protégé; otherwise, “how can you
trust someone’s advice when you don’t have a close personal
relationship with that person?”
Chronology of BDM
In terms of the timeline or chronology of BDM, although the
data do not allow strong conclusions regarding the order in
which barriers manifest themselves, it does provide some
hints regarding when these barriers become more salient to
the developing mentoring relationship. The data also suggest
that even though all four barriers appear during the initiation
phase of the mentorship, there seems to be an chronological
order in which BDM are more salient.
For the participants, Demonstrating Capability manifests at
the very beginning of the initiation phase, when women meet
potential mentors and have to decide if their careers are better
served by remaining independent and mentor-less. This barri-
er therefore has the potential to block any relationship from
turning into a mentorship. When this barrier is no longer sa-
lient (either because it was not present from the beginning or
because the protégé’s career has developed, allowing this bar-
rier to dissipate), Need for Fit is likely to become the next
barrier. Fit between mentor and protégé usually comes after
there have been some interactions between mentor and
protégé, interactions that provide clues into the possibility of
576
a connection to develop between parties. After there has been
some connection established between mentor and protégé,
Trust in the Mentor is likely to become more salient. Finally,
Commitment of the Mentor is slightly different from the other
three barriers because it is constantly being evaluated by the
protégé during the entire initiation phase of the mentorship.
Therefore, Commitment of the Mentor could potentially un-
dermine the developing mentorship at any point, as early as
before any other barriers have manifested themselves or as late
as after all other barriers have been overcome.
Discussion
The research question that guided the present study was: What
are the experiences of women with informal mentoring at
work in STEM? My analysis of the data collected suggests
that in order to become mentorships, work relationships
established by women in STEM may have to overcome a set
of barriers (Barriers to the Development of Mentoring; BDM)
previously unidentified in the literature. After interviewing a
sample of women operating in the STEM field, four BDM
were uncovered: Need for Fit, Demonstrating Capability,
Commitment of the Mentor, and Trust in the Mentor.
Overall, I conclude that for the women participating in my
study, mentoring at STEM workplaces is an elusive
experience.
During their educational tenure, about half the women I
interviewed were able to develop mentoring relationships with
at least one professor or lecturer. This mentorship was a re-
source that helped them not only to complete their degree, but
also to have a successful transition into industry and the be-
ginning of their professional careers. However, for these par-
ticipants, once the student enters the workplace, the number of
mentor relationships is drastically reduced. In many cases,
women know the benefit of mentorships and would appreciate
to be involved in a mentoring relationship, yet many lack the
opportunity to develop these relationships in their new work
environment.
These women in STEM seem to have a similar experience
vis-a-vis women working as city managers (Fox and
Schuhmann 2000), public accountants (Kaplan et al. 2001),
and global managers (Linehan and Scullion 2008): Women
know the benefits of having a mentor, wished they had one,
and yet often lack one in their own place of work. The findings
of my study suggest that the most significant hurdle to over-
come is not access to potential mentors as previously believed,
but the four BDM I identified, that is, barriers that limit the
ability of a potential mentorship opportunity in its origins from
growing into a full mentorship.
Research on barriers to mentoring has relied heavily on the
findings by Noe (1988b). Although many of these barriers to
access were salient at the time of Noe’s study, the work
Sex Roles (2020) 83:566–579
environment and the role of women in the workplace have
changed considerably in the past three decades. The further
inclusion of women in the workforce and the appearance of
more women in the top echelons of organizations may have
rendered many of the barriers to access identified by Noe as
outdated and less relevant for today’s female employees.
Furthermore, Noe’s study (1988b) and the barriers to access
he proposed were theoretically developed and might have
overlooked other factors that my findings could have uncov-
ered, such as the typical socialization practices of women.
The findings of my study, BDM in particular, could be a
reflection of the socialization differences between genders tra-
ditionally explored in the psychology literature. Male relation-
ships tend to be more instrumental, whereas female relation-
ships tend to be more emotional in nature (Aukett et al. 1998;
Felmlee et al. 2012). These socialization practices affect rela-
tionship development in such a way that “Women, in contrast
to men, form close one-to-one relationships with others that
involve affection, love and acceptance...and the trusting of
others with worries, joys, dreams and fears” (Aukett et al.
1998, p. 59). Furthermore, women tend to place a higher im-
portance on intimate, close, and emotional relationships,
reporting greater degrees of intimacy in their interpersonal
relationships than men (Felmlee et al. 2012). Thus, it should
not be surprising or revolutionary to note that women may
also prefer to have a level of intimacy in important work
relationships, such as mentorships. Ibarra (1992) noted that
these socialization preferences might also be present in other
relationships built in the workplace, where women tend to
establish networks that provide them with social support and
friendship while their male colleagues tend to have networks
that are more instrumental in nature. Therefore, the four BDM
found in this study seem to propose that finding a mentor for
women is almost like romantic courtship. It is not enough to
find someone; you need to find THE one.
Practice Implications
The BDM uncovered in my study suggest that issues with the
underrepresentation of women in mentoring relationships may
not be caused by lack of access to mentors per se. These
findings should have an impact on the design and manage-
ment of formal mentoring systems. Formal mentoring systems
were developed in an effort to provide access to mentors to
those employees believed to have trouble finding mentors on
their own, that is, employees such as women and racial/ethnic
minorities (Allen et al. 2006). Usually formal mentoring pro-
grams work by arbitrarily pairing senior and junior employees
often without much thought or care into any other factor than
to solve the problem of access. The findings of this study
suggest that pairing protégé and mentor without consideration
for who the female protégé and the mentor are, and therefore
not considering their fit, does not provide fertile grounds in
Sex Roles (2020) 83:566–579
which mentorships can develop and grow. Particularly, given
the BDM Need for Fit, formal mentoring systems aimed at
female employees could potentially increase their chances of
success by taking a “matchmaking” approach, forgetting
about indiscriminatingly pairing protégés and mentors to fo-
cus on matching female protégés and mentors with similar
interests and approaches to work.
The findings of my study also provide suggestions for the
development of informal mentorships in STEM workplaces.
Organizations that wish to foster and promote the develop-
ment of informal mentorships need to be explicitly supportive
toward the development of these relationships. My findings
suggest that lack of support may be one of the reasons behind
the under-mentoring of women. It might be particularly rele-
vant for organizations to openly support and bless informal
mentorships, especially among those who have recently en-
tered the workplace (this in order to eradicate the barrier
Demonstrating Capability). Organizations could also empha-
sise the importance of mentoring by actively limiting any sus-
picions that having a mentor could harm the career advance-
ment of young employees.
There are at least two ways in which organizations might
promote the development of informal mentorships. One way
is to make mentorships part of the organizational culture.
Organizations that want to foster informal mentorships should
organize instances where junior employees can meet senior
employees through social events. Organizations can also co-
ordinate workshops on mentoring for anyone interested in
developing a mentorship as a mentor or as a protégé. These
workshops would serve two purposes: To allow protégés to
meet potential mentors and to manage both protégés and men-
tor’s expectations regarding the mentorship’s outcomes. A
second way to potentially foster the development of informal
mentorships in the workplace is to allow and promote the
development of networking groups. As commented by Allen
and Finkelstein (2003), these networking groups might allow
the creation of developmental relationships. Although the sup-
port found in developmental relationships is on average more
limited when comparing these relationships to mentorships,
the members of a developmental relationship do receive sup-
port and even some of the functions traditionally associated
with mentorships (Allen and Finkelstein 2003; Chandler et al.
2011; Higgins and Kram 2001).
Limitations and Future Research
The present study should only be the first step into in-depth
research of BDM. Future research should tackle three impor-
tant issues that my study could not analyse. First, the sample
used in my study only allowed the analysis of the responses of
female employees in STEM and therefore it cannot comment
on the relevance of BDM for their male colleagues. Although
the composition of the present sample is appropriate for the
577
research question and indeed provides insight into the experi-
ences with mentoring for women in STEM, future research
should investigate if these BDM also apply to men working in
STEM. It is possible that men confront different BDM than
their female colleagues, which could explain why formal
mentoring programs tend to work for male, whereas tend to
fail for female, employees. A study with participants of both
genders would allow researchers to compare and contrast the
relevance and pervasiveness of BDM for both genders.
Furthermore, no observable patterns were found when analyz-
ing the data by various demographic variables including the
gender of the mentor as well as age, race, marital status,
STEM area, and organizational tenure of the protégé. Future
research should investigate the salience and validity of BDM
by demographics other than gender.
Second, because mine was an exploratory study and its
purpose was not specifically focused on BDM, it is possible
that there are more BDM than the four I identified. Therefore,
future work is needed to explore the existence of other poten-
tial BDM. Third, data collection took place in a single industry
context (STEM) and in a particular geographic location
(northeastern United States and Eastern Canada). Although
this is an interesting setting, further work exploring different
industries and geographic locations would allow for a discus-
sion regarding the generalizability of BDM to other work-
places and contexts. After the literature in BDM gains robust-
ness, future studies could consider developing items to mea-
sure each BDM using quantitative methods, which would al-
low testing these barriers using factor analysis and comparing
and contrasting those results with the findings of qualitative
approaches.
Conclusion
The present study contributes to the mentoring literature in
several ways. First, my research unearthed the existence of
BDM. Until now, it was widely believed that the only signif-
icant barriers that a female protégé had to overcome were
those that limited the access to potential mentors. Second,
my study suggests that not all protégés and mentors are creat-
ed equal and therefore not all mentorships are created equal
either. Mentorships should therefore be tailored to the mem-
bers involved in this relationship, because the one-size-fits-all
approach seems to be underserving female employees in
STEM. My research started with one aim: To gain deeper
understandings of the experiences of women with mentoring
in STEM. The findings described not only lead to insights
regarding these experiences but also uncovered the existence
of BDM. It is very possible that this study is only the start to an
academic and practitioner-oriented discussion on BDM and
on how both formal and informal mentoring relationships at
work can be nurtured and encouraged in order to attract and
retain more women to STEM.
578
Compliance with Ethical Standards
The author declares that there are no conflicts of interests in this research,
and that this study did not receive any funding. Furthermore, informed
consent was obtained from all individual participants and all procedures
performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of
her institution and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later
amendments.
References
Allen, T. D., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2003). Beyond mentoring: Alternative
sources and functions of developmental support. The Career
Development Quarterly, 51(4), 346–355. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.
2161-0045.2003.tb00615.x.
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004).
Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 127–136. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.127.
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., & Lentz, E. (2006). Mentorship behaviours and
mentorship quality associated with formal mentoring programs:
Closing the gap between research and practice. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(3), 567–578. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.
3.567.
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., O’Brien, K. E., & Lentz, E. (2008). The state of
mentoring research: A qualitative review of current research
methods and future research implications. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 73(3), 343–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.08.
004.
Aukett, R., Ritchie, J., & Mill, K. (1998). Gender differences in friendship
patterns. Sex Roles, 19(1/2), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF00292464.
Berg, B. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences.
Toronto: Allyn & Bacon.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative data. Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Burke, R. J., & McKeen, C. A. (1990). Mentoring in organizations:
Implications for women. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(4–5), 317–
332. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00380330.
Chandler, D. E., Kram, K. E., & Yip, J. (2011). An ecological systems
perspective on mentoring at work. The Academy of Management
Annals, 5(1), 519–570. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2011.
576087.
Chao, G. (1997). Mentoring phases and outcomes. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 51(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1997.1591.
Charmaz, K. (1996). The search for meanings – Grounded theory.
Rethinking methods in psychology. London: Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Chatfield, S. L. (2018). Considerations in qualitative research reporting:
A guide for authors preparing articles for sex roles. Sex Roles, 79(3–
4), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0930-8.
Chun, J. U., Litzky, B. E., Sosik, J. J., Bechtold, D. C., & Godshalk, V. M.
(2010). Emotional intelligence and trust in formal mentoring pro-
grams. Group & Organization Management, 35(4), 421–455.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601110378293.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research:
Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Dreher, G. F., & Ash, R. A. (1990). A comparative study of mentoring
among men and women in managerial, professional and technical
positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 539–546. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.539.
Sex Roles (2020) 83:566–579
Eby, L. T., Allen, T. D., Evans, S. C., Ng, T., & DuBois, D. L. (2008).
Does mentoring matter? A multidisciplinary meta-analysis compar-
ing mentored and non-mentored individuals. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 72(2), 254–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.04.
005.
Felmlee, D., Sweet, E., & Sinclair, H. C. (2012). Gender rules: Same- and
cross-gender friendships norms. Sex Roles, 66(7–8), 518–529.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0109-z.
Fowler, J. F., Gudmundsson, A. J., & O’Gorman, J. G. (2007). The
relationship between mentee-mentor gender combination and the
provision of distinct mentoring functions. Women in Management
R e v i e w, 2 2 ( 8 ) , 6 6 6 – 6 8 1 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 0 8 /
09649420710836335.
Fox, R. L., & Schuhmann, R. A. (2000). Mentoring experiences of wom-
en city managers. Are women disadvantaged? American Review of
Public Administration, 31(4), 381–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/
02750740122065009.
Golden-Biddle, K., & Locke, K. (2007). Composing qualitative research
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Herrbach, O., Mignonac, K., & Richebé, N. (2011). Undesired side ef-
fect? The promotion of non-commitment in formal vs. informal
mentorships. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 22(7), 1554–1569. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09585192.2011.561965.
Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. E. (2001). Reconceptualising mentoring at
work: A developmental network perspective. Academy of
Management Review, 26(2), 264–288. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.
2001.4378023.
Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St. Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington,
DC: American Association of University Women.
Ibarra, H. (1992). Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in
network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 37, 422–447. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393451.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Judge, T. A. (2008). A quantitative review
of mentoring research: Test of a model. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 72(3), 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.09.
006.
Kaplan, S. E., Keinath, A. K., & Walo, J. C. (2001). An examination of
perceived barriers to mentoring in public accounting. Behavioral
Research in Accounting, 13(1), 195–220. https://doi.org/10.2308/
bria.2001.13.1.195.
Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of
Management Journal, 26(4), 608–625. https://doi.org/10.5465/
255910.
Kram, K. E., & Hall, D. T. (1986). Mentoring as an antidote to stress
during corporate trauma. Human Resource Management, 28(4),
493–510. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.3930280405.
Linehan, M., & Scullion, H. (2008). The development of female global
managers: The role of mentoring and networking. Journal of
Business Ethics, 83(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-
9657-0.
Miner, K. N., Walker, J. M., Bergman, M. E., Jean, V. A., Carter-Sowell,
A., January, S. C., … Kaunas, C. (2018). From “her” problem to
“our” problem: Using an individual lens versus a social-structural
lens to understand gender inequity in STEM. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 11(2), 267–290. https://doi.org/10.
1017/iop.2018.7.
Nielson, T. R., Carlson, D. S., & Lankau, M. J. (2001). The supportive
mentor as a means of reducing work-family conflict. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 59(3), 364–381. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.
2001.1806.
Noe, R. A. (1988a). An investigation of the determinants of successful
assigned mentoring relationships. Personnel Psychology, 41(3),
457–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00638.x.
Sex Roles (2020) 83:566–579
Noe, R. A. (1988b). Women and mentoring: A review and research agen-
da. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/
10.5465/amr.1988.4306784.
O’Brien, K. E., Biga, A., Kessler, S. R., & Allen, T. D. (2010). A meta-
analytic investigation of gender differences in mentoring. Journal of
Management, 36(2), 537–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0149206308318619.
O'Neill, R. M., & Blake-Beard, S. D. (2002). Gender barriers to the
female mentor–male protégé relationship. Journal of Business
Ethics, 37(1), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014778017993.
Patton, M. (2001). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1991). Easier said than done: Gender
differences in perceived barriers to gaining a mentor. Academy of
Management Journal, 34(4), 939–951. https://doi.org/10.5465/
256398.
Richard, O. C., Ismail, K. M., Bhuian, S. N., & Taylor, E. C. (2009).
Mentoring in supervisor-subordinate dyads: Antecedents,
579
consequences and test of mediation model of mentorship. Journal
of Business Research, 62(11), 1110–1118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2008.09.007.
Shaffer, E. S., Marx, D. M., & Prislin, R. (2013). Mind the gap: Framing
of women’s success and representation in stem affects women’s
math performance under threat. Sex Roles, 68(7–8), 454–463.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0252-1.
Taylor, E. Z., & Curtis, M. B. (2018). Mentoring: A path to prosocial
behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 152(4), 1133–1148. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3325-1.
Wanberg, C. R., Kammeyer-Mueller, J., & Marchese, M. (2006). Mentor
and protégé predictors and outcomes of mentoring in a formal
mentoring program. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(3), 410–
423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2006.05.010.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Sex Roles is a copyright of Springer, 2020. All Rights Reserved.