Mentoring as an antidote to stress during corporate trauma

Mentoring as an Antidote to Stress During Corporate Trauma* Kathy E. Kram and Douglas T. Hall

I

This article examines mentoring as a potentially useful resource in an organization’s adaptation to global competition and the need for improved learning capabilities. We were surprised to find that mentoring relationships were perceived as more desirable under conditions of corporate stress, low job challenge, and low job involvement. We were further surprised to find that individuals in early and later career stages were as likely, or more likely than, their midcareer colleagues to embrace the mentoring role. Thus, it appears that mentoring may be more readily available as an antidote to stress than previously considered, and that it may be an important form of coping with the stressful, nonrewarding conditions that typically characterize corporate downsizing. Not only is mentoring an important form of promoting development (for self and for others), but it also may represent a valuable vehiclefor social support and learning during times of major corporate change.

This is a study of mentoring as a potentially valuable resource for learning and coping with major organizational change. In a period of global competition, restructuring, rapid technological change, and constrained resources, organizations are searching for ways to do more with less, especially in the area of human resources. These changes have been accompanied by rapidly changing customer needs and a workforce which is becoming increasingly diverse in terms of cultural and ethnic background, values, expectations, and skills (Johnston and Packer, 1987).

*Partial support for this research was provided by the Human Resources Policy Institute, Boston University; the Center for Research in Career Development, Columbia University; and the participating organization. Special thanks go to Charles Arnold and William Campbell for facilitating this project. The helpful comments of Carole Bamett, Tom DeLong, JamesHunt, Meryl Louis, Jeff Sonnenfeld, Elmer Burack, and the editors and reviewers of this journal are gratefully acknowledged.

Human Resource Management, Winter 1989, Vol. 28, Number 4, Pp. 493-510 CCC 0090-4&48/91/040493-18$04.~ 0 1991 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING Effective coping with global market changes has required a process of organizational learning. Adaptive organizations have been able to scan their environments for feedback, to be self-reflective, and to enlist and empower employees in a process of continuous improvement of quality, cost containment, and service. To date, much of the work on continuous improvement has been in the area of manufacturing processes (e.g., Hayes, Wheelwright, & Clark, 1988), but much of this work utilizes basic human resource processes to effect planned change (Tichy, 1983). This process of organizational learning requires that individuals learn not just new technical and interpersonal skills, but also new identities (Hall, 1986). To operate effectively in a newly restructured job (e.g., a manager in a flattened firm with twice the span of control) requires defining one’s self and work role in a new way (e.g., coach and helper, rather than supervisor). Thus, the new global competitiveness requires both task and personal learning for managers and other employees. In today’s resource-constrained environment, one of the few plentiful resources for learning is other people. Recent research on executive learning has shown that learning from others is one of the major sources of executive development (McCall, Lombardo, & Morrison, 1988). Other important sources of learning are job and assignment experiences and formal training and education. However, these forms are usually more costly in terms of money and organizational arrangements. Thus, we would argue that activities such as mentoring and coaching are prime untapped resources in creating the learning organizntion. We further argue that mentoring is an effective way for individuals and organizations to learn to value differences within the workforce, since it is within the context of cross-gender and cross-race relationships that stereotypes are stripped away and individuals learn to value others’ experiences that differ from their own. Emerging research is identlfying the issues involved in making mentoring readily available to nondominant groups (e.g., gender and racial groups) (Chao & OLeary, 1990; Noe, 1988b; Kram, 1988; Thomas & Alderfer, 1989; Thomas, 1986; Kanter, 1977; Clawson & Kram, 1984). It is clear that relationships which cross raaal and/or gender group boundaries (as well as ethnic or national boundaries) are complex, and difficult to initiate as well as maintain.Yet, if members of a diverse workforce are to be effective in achieving organizational objectives, they must learn how to manage these complexities. Finally, we argue that a key (and still unrecognized) way to learn to manage efectiueZy in the global arena is to learn to manage diversity at home. The key issue for the individual manager in both arenas is to manage effectively across cultural differences. Developing skills and a new identity in terms of one’s ability to operate comfortably in novel environments, where familiar words and actions have totally different meanings, requires not only

494 I

Human Resource Management, Winter 1989

learning, but learning how to learn. This is a major global challenge of the 1990s.

CONDITIONS FOR EFFECTIVE MENTORING Here we examine two kinds of conditions which may correspond to the availability of mentoring: organizational and individual. First, prior research on mentoring indicates that an organization’s reward system, culture, job design, and personnel practices can either encourage or create obstacles to mentoring (Kram, 1988).Although there may be less support and encouragement for mentoring (ie., in the form of rewards, reasonable work loads, and a trusting culture) when an organization is restructuring and responding to global competition, these may be precisely the conditions under which mentoring is most needed for emotional support and to help people share coping and learning strategies. Early studies of stress and trauma showed that affiliation with others can be a powerful means of reducing the stress arising from these situations (Schachter, 1959; Mechanic, 1962). These studies suggest that mentoring might represent an antidote to stress in a turbulent organizational environment. Second, research suggests that individuals at midcareer andlor in the decade of the 40s (from an adult development point of view) are likely to make the best mentors. We would expect this to be so because their life and career stage concerns include a desire to teach and coach (to be generative), to be experts in their chosen occupations, and to pass on wisdom accumulated during the novice stage of their careers (Erikson, 1968; Levinson et al., 1978; Kram, 1988). In turn, for individuals in midlife, passing on knowledge and wisdom to less experienced adults can enhance self-esteem by supporting a positive view of self as an effective coach and developer of young talent (Clawson, 1979; Kram, 1988). Furthermore, from a career advancement perspective, the loyal following of subordinates provides technical and psychological support that can strengthen an individual’s position, reputation, and potential for further growth in an organization (Dalton et al., 1977; Kram, 1988; Hall & Kram, 1981). Adult development and career development perspectives suggest that those in early career and early adulthood as well as those in the late career years may not be as motivated to mentor, for quite distinct reasons (Dalton & Thompson, 1986; Kram, 1988; Hall & Kram, 1981; Levinson et al., 1978). The younger and less experienced group are inclined to be primarily concerned with establishing their own competence and niche; they are likely to be focused on self and personal survival, and to experience competitive feelings in relationships with other novices. Thus, it would be very difficult for those at this stage to engage in the task of mentoring others until a certain level of self-confidence and recognition for one’s own accomplishmentsis achieved. For those in late

Kram and Hall: Mentoring During Corporate Trauma / 495

career years, anticipation of retirement, and/or the experience of becoming less central to the organization (or even discounted as a valuable resource) may diminish the motivation to support and nurture younger talent. As long as resentment about one’s own position exists, those in this stage of career are unlikely to embrace the role of mentor. Thus, the present study will examine the types of individuals and the types of organizational conditions which are associated with mentoring. The organization studied is a major corporation which was undergoing fundamental transformation as a result of global competition in its industry. In particular, we will address the following two questions: 1. What is the relationship between experienced stress and a person‘s interest in mentoring? 2. Are individuals in midcareer, or in the decade of the 40s, more positively inclined to mentor than those in other age or career stages?

METHOD Setting This was an exploratory investigation, conducted as part of a larger study of midcareer plateauing during corporate restructuring (Hall, 1985). The organization was the corporate engineering department of a large manufacturing company. The department, like the rest of the corporation, was in the process of being reorganized and downsized, as a result of fundamental changes in the world market conditions in its industry. Downsizing was accomplished primarily through redeployment, retraining, and early retirement. Some outplacement was also involved, but job security was not a major issue. The corporate engineering department was eventually cut to about one-quarter of its original size, and many of its functions were moved to the firm’s operating companies. More detail on the organization is reported in Hall (1985). Data were collected on-site through a combination of group interviews (about 15 people per group), followed by administration of individual questionnaires. In the group interviews (which lasted about one hour), it was explained that the study was primarily for research purposes, but that the data would also be fed back to management for future planning purposes. Participants were encouraged to ask questions, and there were often detailed questions and concerns expressed about the study and the future of the organization.

Participants Participants were 161 managers and engineers (all male) selected randomly from a middle level of the organization where there was a large

496

1 Human Resource Management, Winter 1989

clustering of people with little likelihood of upward mobility. Because the sample was all male, it is not clear how the results might generalize to relationships involving female mentors and proteges. People were selected so as to provide a range of ages, of career mobility (plateaued and nonplateaued), and of career specialty (engineering specialists, line managers, and project managers). Because of current concerns about plateauing, the sample was selected to include approximately equal numbers of plateaued and nonplateaued professionals within each specialty. In this organization, people were considered plateaued if they had been in the organization for at least 15years and if they had been at their current level for five years or more. However, because tenure alone does not necessarily indicate plateauing, we used the more descriptive terms “established and “nonestablished in place of ”plateaued and “nonplateaued,” respectively. It is safer to say that the 15-year veteran with five years at the same level has completed the establishment phase of a career than it is to say that further advancement has ceased.

Measures A number of questionnaire measures were used to tap various job attitudes, stress, and mentoring attitudes and activities. Perceived stress in the work environment was assessed through a scale developed by Maslach (1982). Items in the scale were examined individually as they related to mentoring attitudes and behavior. Career stage concerns were assessed with the career concerns inventory (Super, Zelkowitz, & Thompson, 1981). This instrument measures a range of career concerns associated with the following career stages: exploration, establishment, maintenance, and disengagement. Alpha coefficients ranged from .64to .86, with most in the .70s and .80s. Mentoring attitudes and activities were assessed based upon the work of Kram (1983). Four questions tapped attitudes toward mentor-

ing: 1. I would like to have received more mentoring during my career. 2. The idea of being a mentor to others is appealing to me. 3. The quality of mentoring in this organization needs a good deal of improvement. 4. In this organization, it is necessary to have a mentor in order to get ahead. Two questions described the respondent’s self-reported activities related to mentoring: 5. How many mentors have you had at (the company)? 6. How many people have you served as a mentor?

Kram and Hall: Mentoring During Corporate Trauma / 497

RESULTS Question 1: What is the relationship between experienced stress and a person's interest in mentoring? The data bearing on this question produced a surprising pattern: attitudes toward mentoring seem to be positively related to work stress (see Table I). When work is described as frustrating, the prospect of being a mentor to others is appealing, and perceptions that mentoring is both important and not of sufficient quality increase. In addition, even as perceptions of job pressures increase, attitudes toward mentoring others, the desire to receive mentoring, and the perception that the quality of mentoring needs improvement increases. To illuminate these findings, we also examined the relationships between other aspects of the work environment and mentoring, to see if positive experiences (such as job challenge, job involvement, psychologiTable I. Correlations between Attitudes toward Mentoring and Measures of Perceived Stress, n = 161. Attitude toward Mentoring

Perceived Stress Quality of my work suffers from overwork Working here is frustrating Equipment and supplies I need are available when I need them Pressure in my job keeps me from performing at my best level Working in my unit is stressful It is hard to get your work done with all the other hassles around here

In t h i s OrganizaBeing a Quality of tion It's Would Have Mentor Mentoring Necessary Liked More Appealing Needs to Have a Mentors to Me Improvement Mentor

.09

.12

.06

.24a

.23=

.27a

.34a

.04

.03

- .005

- .04

.24"

.18=

.18"

.08

.12

.09

.09

.12

.10

.20b

.21=

.19b

"p < .01. bp < .05.

498 I

Human Resource Management, Winter 1989

- .09

cal success, and recognition for strong performance) were linked to mentoring attitudes and behavior. Feelings of psychological success and recognition for strong performance were not related to mentoring experiences. However, contrary to our expectations, people with low levels of job involvement and job challenge were most inclined to become involved in mentoring alliances. Perhaps mentoring can serve as an alternative type of involvement and challenge when the job itself is lacking in these qualities. These data suggest that individuals who find themselves in stressful (and otherwise poor) working conditions may be more inclined to build mentoring and other developmental alliances than we would have anticipated. Whereas it is commonly assumed that only people who feel secure about their accomplishments and good about their future prospects are likely to embrace mentoring responsibilities, it may be instead that the motivation to build supportive alliances-as either mentor or protege-increases for those who are working in stressful and uncertain circumstances. This new perspective on the relationship between mentoring and stress calls into question the recently acknowledged paradox that mentoring is least available when it is most needed (Kram & Bragar, 1991)that is, when rapid change, severe competitive pressures, and learning demands are heightened. It appears that with sufficient encouragement and support (in the form of appropriate training, education, and rewards), mentoring might become more readily available precisely when relationships which facilitate learning are most needed. The possibility that the motivation to form mentoring alliances may increase during times of distress is encouraging, given the significant challenges posed by rapid technological change, increasing global competition, restructuring, and downsizing. For individuals, these environmental conditions necessitate regularly learning new technical and interpersonal skills, accomplishing more with less resources, and working in culturally diverse settings both at home and abroad. If, indeed, mentoring is more appealing and perceived as more important in stressful periods, the coaching, counseling, and role-modeling found in such developmental relationships may be more accessible than previously thought. The challenge for practitioners that follows from these data is how to access and nurture the desire and capacity to build mentoring alliances, particularly during periods of rapid change and uncertainty. At a minimum, systematic efforts to offer educational opportunities in which individuals can become informed about the critical role of relationships in learning and development, and sharpen their skills in self-assessment and relationship building, may be quite timely and have considerable impact. Further, if relationship building is then encouraged, recognized, and rewarded on the job, the benefits of mentoring as an antidote to stress are more likely to be realized.

Kram and Hall: Mentoring During Corporate Trauma I 499

Question 2 Are individuals in midcareer, or in the decade of the 40s, more positively inclined to mentor than those in other ages or career stages? Contrary to our expectations, the data suggest that it is the younger and older individuals-rather than those in midcareer or in the decade of the 40s-that are most positively inclined to mentor others in the organization. We found a trend which indicates that those in the nonestablished group under the age of 40, and those in the established group over the age of 50 find mentoring more appealing than those in the middle age range group (see Table 11). In addition, significant correlations between career stage concerns and the statement "Being a mentor is appealing to me," while not terribly strong, suggest that those with early career concerns and those with late career concerns are more inclined to want to mentor than those in the maintenance stage (see Table 111). It appears that those in their 40s and/or those with career concerns of the maintenance stage (i.e., holding, updating, and innovating) are not inclined to mentor others (when compared to their less experienced and more experienced colleagues). Both age-related concerns of midlife, and

Table 11. Mean Scores of Mentoring Attitudes and Behavior for Established and Nonestablished Groups in Each Age Category.=

Under 40 Mentoring Attitude and Behavior

1. I would have liked more mentoring during my career 2. Being a mentor to others is appealing to me 3. Quality of mentoring here needs a good deal of improvement 4. in this organization it is necessary to have a mentor to get ahead 5. How many mentors have you had here? 6. How many people have you served as a mentor?

Nonest.

4.05

AgeIStatus 40-49 Est.

Nonest.

Est.

3.89

3.61

3.77

4.17

Est. Nonest.

-b

50 and Over

4.25

-

3.92

3.78

3.96

4.29

-

3.92

4.33

4.00

4.15

3.76

-

3.69

4.17

3.92

3.85

1.52

-

1.34

1.28

1.27

0.87

1.86

-

1.96

2.22

1.81

1.70

'

4.02

.Five point scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = uncertain, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree. bBecausethere were so few established participants under the age of 40,no means are reported for this group.

500 1 Human Resource Munugement, Winter 1989

Table 111. Correlations between Mentoring Attitudes and Career Stage Concerns, n = 161.

Attitude toward Mentoring Quality of Being a Mentoring Necessary Would Have Mentor Needs to Have a Liked More Is Appealing Improvement Mentor

Career Stage Concern Exploration Crystallization Specification

.13 .09

.16” .06

.07 .04

.13“

.w

Establishment Stabilization Consolidation Advancement

.06

.03 -.01 .12

.06 .13a .ll

- .06

.02 .06

.16” .10

.03 .01 .ll

-.04 .01

.04 .04

.11

.18“

.08

.00 .21b .13”

.07

.06

.22b

.17 .07

Maintenance Holding Updating Innovating

- .01

- .02

Disengagement Decelerating Retirement Planning Retirement Living ap

.09 .14“ .06

.05

< .05.

bp < .01.

career-related concerns of the maintenance stage can cause considerable self-doubt and questioning of one’s accomplishments and life choices to date (Levinson et al., 1978; Hall, 1976; Osherson, 1980; Kram, 1985; Hall & Kram, 1981). For many, then, the decade of the 40s and the midcareer period can be a tumultuous and anxiety-filled time in which individuals are likely to be consumed with concerns about the future and/or mixed feelings about past accomplishments (Hall, 1985). The ambiguity, anxiety, and self-questioning that typically emerges at midlife can significantly distract attention away from investing in others’ development. In contrast, nonestablished employees still in the advancement stage and under the age of 40 are, perhaps, more optimistic about the future and see mentoring others as an effort that will be helpful to them in furthering their own advancement in the organization (Super, 1957; Hall, 1976; Dalton et al., 1977; Baird & Kram, 1983). Similarly, established employees over the age of 50 are perhaps more likely to be interested in mentoring others because they are no longer encumbered by

Kram and Hall: Mentoring During Corporate Trauma /

501

concerns about their own career advancement, or whether they have achieved something of value during their careers (Kram, 1988; Atchley, 1989; Bradford, 1978; Hall, 1976). Thus, the younger, less experienced group sees mentoring others as supportive of their own future career prospects, while those in the older, more experienced group see mentoring as a way to leave their mark as they anticipate retirement. We speculate that the kind of mentoring offered by the younger and older groups may be unique to the past experiences and current career concerns that each brings to their work relationships. For example, since the nonestablished group under 40 is primarily concerned with finding opportunities for advancement and proving one’s potential, they are likely to offer instrumental support such as coaching and challenging assignments. These efforts would directly support their own performance and reputation (Baird and Kram, 1983). Individuals under 40 would likely find such effortssupportive, rather than threatening to their prospects for the future. It is unlikely, however, that these same individuals would be sufficiently secure in themselves to achieve the level of self-awareness and intimacy with others to provide the full range of psychosocial support that is possible in mentoring alliances (Kram, 1988). As long as advancement and competence remain primary concerns, their efforts to mentor are likely to be limited to job-related coaching and support. In contrast, employees over the age of 50, both established and nonestablished, are more likely to provide psychosocial functions (Kram, 1988) that enhance self-esteem and provide emotional support, as less experienced individuals work at defining their competence and developing self-confidence. Since these functions require a greater degree of interpersonal intimacy and self-awareness than the instrumental mentoring functions, we would expect to find them offered more often by those who are no longer primarily concerned with advancement and are more comfortable with their own life’s accomplishments. Indeed, it seems that the anticipation of retirement and the gradual disengagement from work would enable and motivate those in this age group to form alliances that would allow them to leave something of value behind and to continue to have substantial impact on others. While their capacity to sponsor and promote diminishes as they become less central to the organization, their capacity to aid psychosocial development may very well increase. Although the individual correlations are not especially high, they do suggest a pattern which indicates that those in midcareer and/or the decade of the 40s may be least’availableto mentor others. However, other research suggests that only if the organizational context rewards mentoring activities and encourages relationship-building efforts, will those in the other groups embrace the task of developing others (Kram, 1988; Peters & Waterman, 1982). Thus, differences in desire to mentor are most likely to be observed in settings which provide a supportive context for

502 I

Human Resource Management, Winter 1989

the mentoring process. We did not expect to find such conditions in a company that is restructuring and downsizing.

DISCUSSION It appears that mentoring alliances may offer an antidote to stress, providing a range of support to both junior and senior employees. Therefore, such developmental relationships may become more visible-rather than less visible-during stressful periods, exactly the opposite of what we expected. Indeed, those who are under stress and need encouragement, guidance, and coaching from experienced colleagues may be more inclined to proactively seek connections with potential mentors than during calmer and more certain periods. Similarly, those in middle or late career who experience self-doubts as a result of blocked opportunities or loss of other forms of recognition from the organization may find mentoring others to be a creative endeavor that offers an alternative source of confirmation and esteem. This possible explanation for the positive correlations observed is consistent with psychological perspectives on the role of affiliation (Schacter, 1959) and interpersonal relationships (Rogers, 1961; Sullivan, 1953; Storr, 1961) in reducing anxiety and stress, and in increasing esteem and positive self-image. Relationships between juniors and seniors, or between peers, that provide mentoring functions offer the kind of support that strengthens individuals' capacities to cope and to maintain self-esteem under substantial strain. Thus, job pressures and other frustrations at work may compel individuals to build mentoring alliances, and will likely lessen as the support that characterizes developmental relationships is realized. The extent to which mentoring is available during stressful periods is likely to be influenced by the nature of the organizational context (&am & Bragar, 1991; Kram, 1988).For example, it is more likely that individuals will seek and form supportive relationships in a setting which has a history of open communication and high trust, than in one where suspicion and minimal communication across levels have been typical. Similarly, organizational cultures which have consistently valued employee development and the role of interpersonal relations in organizational effectiveness will be more conducive to drawing on the support that mentoring has to offer during difficult times. Finally, the particular career concerns and interpersonal skills that characterize the workforce will limit the potential of mentoring to serve as an antidote to stress; where needs are complementary, and individuals have the requisite skills and self-awareness, mentoring may flourish more readily. Thus, in a downsizing environment we can postulate that mentoring relationships will emerge as an antidote to stress more readily in organizations that have had a history of encouraging developmental alliances. The insecurity, turmoil and anxiety that surface during a dramatic change

Kram and Hall: Mentoring During Corporate Trauma /

503

of this kind may be more effectively managed by those who are able to maintain-or newly build-relationships that provide support, coaching, and counselling. Contrary to a prior assumption drawn from the literature, mentoring may not only be feasible in such a situation, but a much overlooked tool for managing the heightened stress that characterizes organizations as they restructure. The data reported here also suggest that individuals who are working in highly stressful conditions may be more willing to seek out mentoring, and be more open to the education and other forms of encouragement that organizations might offer. Thus, intervention strategies designed to encourage mentoring (e.g., education and training, task forces designed to bring individuals from complementary career stages together, rewards for mentoring) may have greater impact during times of duress than we previously assumed. While the inclination is to reduce such human resource development initiatives in a downsizing situation, increasing such activities may instead prove to be a far better investment than if saved for calmer and more prosperous periods. Prior to this study, the importance of relationships in supporting individuals' performance, sense of well-being, and development had already been established by a number of researchers who consistently demonstrated how relationships with colleagues at work can support the challenges predictably encountered at each stage of a career and, more generally, throughout the life course (Levinson et al., 1978; Dalton et al., 1977; Dalton & Thompson, 1986; Schein, 1978; Hall, 1976; Kram, 1988). The results of this study indicate that individuals who have been viewed as uninterested in actively supporting others' growth may, indeed, want to embrace the mentoring role. These results are consistent with recent findings by Fagenson (1989) that recipients of mentoring (prot6gCs) did not differ from nonproteges in terms of age, tenure, or advancement potential. Given the magnitude and constancy of change characterizing contemporary organizations (due to restructuring, downsizing, and increasing globalization), and the threats to well-being, performance, and development that these forces pose, it seems essential to recognize the untapped potential suggested by these findings. To remain competitive, organizations in all industries will necessarily have to become learning organizations so that they can effectively respond to key strategic challenges. Organizational members, now and in the near future, must regularly leam new skills, adapt their identities to changing demands, and work across cultural boundaries both at home and abroad. Given what we now know about the role of relationships in learning and development (Mc Call et al., 1988),the potential for mentoring, coping, and learning during times of strain is great. Contrary to prior assumptions, it appears that the desire and efforts to mentor may be most prevalent among individuals in their 30s who are

504 I Human Resource Management, Winter 1989

still advancing their careers, and among individuals over 50 who are in the latter stage of their careers. Individuals in these age and career stage groups are likely to be more readily available to mentor than those in their 40s and in midcareer because relationships with junior colleagues are likely to be perceived as enhancing, rather than threatening to, career advancement and self-esteem. In addition, it may be that developmental relationships will differ considerably when mentors are in the younger or older groups. An hypothesis that emerges from this study, in combination with previous research, is that career functions will dominate relationships with mentors who are still advancing their own careers, while psychosocial functions will dominate relationships with mentors who are nearing retirement (Kram, 1988). An important implication of this analysis is that individuals and organizations may have overlooked significant potential for mentoring alliances that involve individuals in the advancement and late career stages. At the same time, the search for those at midlife who are willing to embrace mentoring responsibilities may prove to be frustrating and a cause of disillusionment. For example, Clark and Lyness (1991), in a description of succession planning at Citicorp, report that an important challenge to effective management development is their relatively young top management team (early 40s to middle 50s) who “are not yet in a developmental stage or a career stage where they are natural mentors.” It appears that in order for effective mentoring to occur for a wide range of employees in a given organization, efforts to encourage, educate, and reward those who have been previously viewed as uninterested and/or unable to support others’ growth are essential. Concurrently, further research that differentiates the kinds of help offered by young mentors from that offered by older mentors will surface realistic expectations of mentoring activities for individuals at different career stages. On a practical level, this discussion suggests that efforts to formalize mentoring should take into account the age and career stage of potential mentors and protkges. For example, new college hires will require different kinds of mentoring than high potential managers with several years of experience behind them. Similarly, potential mentors who are still in the advancement and middle stages of their careers [e.g., the Citicorp senior management team referred to above (Clark & Lyness, 1991)] will most likely be available to provide the job related functions of coaching and sponsorship. Furthermore, those in the late stages of their careers are more likely to be available to counsel and support psychosocial development (through sharing accumulated wisdom and personal reflections on years passed). Thus, guidelines established regarding criteria for participation, expectations of mentors and protkgks, and responsibilities of both parties should be tailored to the targeted populations. Given the workforce demographics of a particular department or organi-

Kram and Hall: Mentoring During Corporate Trauma / 505

zation, a formal mentoring program might include participants with varying needs and capacities, requiring guidelines which are flexible and responsive to such differences. Efforts to encourage mentoring (without formalizing it through a matching program) should be consistent with the unexpected findings reported here. Thus, individuals in early and late career stages should be encouraged and rewarded as much-if not more so-than their midcareer colleagues. Education and training designed to inform employees about mentoring and its role in supporting development should not exclude individuals at any career stage. Rather, such opportunities should point out the complexities of mentoring and guide interested parties through a self-assessment process that will illuminate which aspects of mentoring they can realistically and enthusiastically embrace. Finally, attempts to alter the underlying assumptions and values regarding the role of relationships in a particular work setting should be aimed at making mentoring a readily discussable topic, and one that can be openly explored for its potential use in supporting individuals, perhaps especially during periods of dramatic change. Indeed, contrary to prior assumptions, this study indicates that individuals (and organizations) under stress may be quite ready and able to foster an effective mentoring process. The implications of this study for organizations experiencing the trauma of restructuring suggest some previously untapped resources for individual coping. It may be that under certain conditions, stress will compel individuals to seek support from others, and that mentoring relationships can serve to reduce stress over time through the counseling and affirmation that is offered. This study also suggests that mentoring may provide a means for individuals to enhance the challenge and involvement level in their own work. This is consistent with the recent trend in organizational career management to seek ways to empower the individual to provide his or her own in-place development (Hall et al., 1986). It may be that job redesign which creates project teams, task forces, and/or autonomous work groups, can promote the building of mentoring relationships, and in turn support ongoing, in-place development for all parties involved. Researchers and practitioners alike may have held unnecessarily high standards for the individual and organizational conditions that are necessary for mentoring to flourish. It may be that it is precisely during particularly stressful periods that organization members should be encouraged to seek out relationships that provide support, guidance, and interpersonal connection necessary to ward off the anxiety and ambiguity that is typical of those times. Further research that compares mentoring activities in organizational settings that vary in terms of degree of stability, rate of change, challenge, and stage of growth, for example, will illuminate how stress influences and is modified by developmental relationships. For example, Fagenson (1989) found that mentoring was just as beneficial for employees in disadvantaged work situations as it

506 I Human Resource Management, Winter 1989

was for those in advantaged situations. It would also be useful to evaluate the impact of educational and structural interventions designed to promote mentoring in these various contexts.

CONCLUSION This analysis has generated a substantial agenda for further research. In addition, several concrete implications for practice are indicated. First, those who are seeking mentors as well as those who are in positions to encourage an effective mentoring process in their organizations, should expand their target group to include individuals in the early and late career stages. It is unnecessarily limiting (and sometimes wrong) to assume that those in midcareer are the most readily available to serve as mentors for others. More critical than age or career stage in determining attitudes toward mentoring it seems, is whether individuals perceive junior colleagues as potential supporters of or threats to current personal and professional concerns. Second, mentoring may be an adaptive response to the strains induced by global competition and restructuring. Individual and organizational stress and work frustration do not necessarily preclude effective mentoring alliances. Indeed, this analysis suggests that it is precisely during stressful and unfulfilling periods that individuals will either seek out support from others or benefit from another’s initiative to form a supportive relationship. While there is a tendency to restrict communication when pressures in the workplace are high (Hall & Mansfield, 1971), it appears that this is a time when efforts to form mutually enhancing relationships are very likely to succeed and positively impact self-esteem, well-being, and ongoing performance. These data suggest that mentoring might be an antidote for career plateauing and trauma, such as that associated with competitive environments and corporate restructuring. Third, mentoring relationships that cross racial, gender, and/or ethnic group boundaries provide a context for learning how to work effectively in an increasingly diverse workforce. Such alliances enable individuals to strip away dysfunctional stereotypes and to collaborate effectively with those who are different. With changing demographics and increasing globalization, this capacity is essential. And, since building developmental relationships is more difficult when crossing cultural boundaries, mentoring-as a vehicle for learning how to learn in a rapidly changing environment-will have to be encouraged through education, skill training, and ongoing recognition. Finally, there are a number of creative strategies designed to enhance mentoring activities that have yet to be tested. Altering jobs so that they are structured to require collaboration between individuals at complementary career stages is likely to counteract the tendencies to operate independently without consultation with those who might be potential

Krarn and Hall: Mentoring During Corporate Trauma / 507

mentors or proteges. Task forces, team projects, and autonomous work groups offer work designs that would accomplish this objective. Similarly, conscious efforts to educate individuals about the potential benefits, limitations, and complexities of mentoring, as well as to provide forums for developing the requisite interpersonal skills, will enable individuals to build effective developmental alliances. Attempts to alter the culture of an organization so that relationship building is a priority, along with specific rewards and recognition for taking the time to mentor junior colleagues, are likely to result in an enhanced mentoring process (Kram & Bragar, 1990; Kram, 1986). Relationships at work, and mentoring relationships in particular, are a key to individual self-esteem, performance, well-being, and development (Levinson et al., 1978; Dalton & Thompson, 1986; Hall & Kram, 1981; Kram, 1988; Schein, 1978; Hall, 1976). They offer a vehicle for addressing the predictable, personal, and professional challenge of each career stage. In addition, they appear to offer an important vehicle for managing the stress created by conditions of ambiguity and environmental change. Equally important is the role that developmental relationships play in individuals' efforts to create meaning at work. Examination of previously unexamined questions clearly indicates that the potential for mentoring relationships to provide critical developmental functions and to enhance individual coping at each career stage-particularly in organizations experiencing dramatic strain has yet to be realized.

Kathy E . Kram is an associate professor in the Department of Organizational Behavior at the Boston University School of Management. She holds B.S. and M.S. degrees from the M.1.T. Sloan School of Management, and a Ph.D. from Yale University. Prior to her academic career, she was an internal organization development consultant for a large insurance company. She is the author and coauthor of articles and a book on the subject of mentoring. Her research and consulting are concerned with career development, mentoring, workforce diversity, managerial ethics, and organizational change. Douglas T. (Tim) Hall is a professor of Organizational Behavior, Associate Dean fm Faculty Development, and a core faculty member of the Human Resources Policy lnstitute and the Executive Development Roundtable in the School of Management at Boston University. He received his degreefrom the School of Engineering at Yale University and his M.S.and Ph. D. degrees from the Sloan School of Mnnagement at M.I.T. He is the author and coauthor of numerous articles and books on career development. His research and consulting are concerned with women's careers, career plateauing, workllife balance, and executive succession. REFERENCES Atchley, R. C. (1989). A continuity theory of aging. The Gerontologist, 29, 183190.

508 I

Human Resource Managenrent, Winter 1989

Baird, L., & Kram, K. (1983, Summer). Career dynamics: Managing the superior-subordinate relationship. Organizational Dynamics, 11, 46-64. Bradford, L. P. (1978). Retirement and organization development. In W. W. Burke (Ed.), The cutting edge: Current theory and practice in organization development (pp. 120-159). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Chao, G. T., & OLeary, A. M. (in press). Third-party perceptions toward mentorship: An exploration of same and cross-gender mentoring. Mentoring International. Vancouver, British Columbia: Mentoring International. Clark, L. A., & Lyness, K. S. (in press). Succession planning as a strategic activity at Citicorp. In L. W. Foster (Ed.), Research in applied strategy. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Clawson, J. (1979). Superior-subordinate relationships for manugeriul development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard Business School. Clawson, J. (1980). Mentoring in managerial careers. In C. B. Derr (Ed.), Work, family, and the career (pp. 144-165). New York: Praeger. Clawson, J., & Kram, K. (1984). Managing cross-gender mentoring. Business Horizons, 27(3), 22-32. Dalton, G., Thompson, P., & Price, R. (1977, Summer). The four stages of professional careers-A new look at performance by professionals. Organizational Dynamics, 19-42. Dalton, G., & Thompson, P. (1986). Innovations: Strategies for Career management. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth, and mkis. New York: Norton. Fagenson, E. A. (1989). The mentor advantage: Perceived joblcareer experiences of proteges vs. non-protkgbs. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 10, 309-320. Hall, D. T. (1976). Careers in organizations. Glencoe, IL: Scott, Foresman. Hall, D. T. (1985). Project work as an antidote to career plateauing in a declining engineering organization. Human Resource Management, 24, 271-292. Hall, D. T., & Kram, K. A. (1981). Development in midcareer. In D. H. Montross & C. J. Shinkman (Eds.), Career development in the 1980s: Theory and practice (pp. 406-423). Springfield, L:Charles C. Thomas. Hall, D. T., & Williams, R. (1971). Organizations and individual response to external stress. Administratiw Science Quarterly, 16, 533-547. Hall, D. T.& Associates. (1986). Careerdmlopment in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hayes, R. H., Wheelwright, S. C., & Clark, K. B. (1988). Dynumic manufacturing: Creating the learning organization. New York: Free Press. Hunt, D. M., & Michael, C. (1983). Mentorship: A career training and development tool. Academy of Management Review, 8(3), 475-495. Johnston, W. B., & Packer, A. H. (1987). Worqorce 2000: Work and workers for the 21st century. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books. Kram, K. E., & Bragar, M. C. (in press). Development through mentoring: A strategic approach for the 1990s. In D. H. Montross & C. J. Shinkman (Eds.). Career development in the 1990s: Theory and practice. Springfield, I L Charles C. Thomas. Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 608-625. Kram, K . E. (1988). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Kram, K. E., & Isabella, L. A. (1985). Alternatives to mentoring: The role of peer relationships in career development. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 110132. Kram, K. E. (1986). Mentoring in the workplace. In D. T. Hall (Ed.), Career development in organizations (pp. 160-201). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kram and Hall: Mentoring During Corporate Trauma / 509

Levinson, D. J., Darrow, D., Mein, E., Levinson, M., & McKee, B. (1978).Seasons of a man's life. New York: Knopf. McCall, M. W., Lombardo, M. M., & Momson, A. M. (1988).The lessons of experience. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Maslach, C. (1982).Burnout: The cost of caring. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. Mechanic, D. (1962).Students under stress: A study in the social psychology of adaptation. Glencoe, L:The Free Press of Glencoe. Missirian, A. K. (1982).The corporate connection: Why executive women need mentors to reach the top. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall. Noe, R. A. (1988a). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. Personnel Psychology, 41, 457-479. N w , R. A. (1988b). Women and mentoring: A review and research agenda. Academy of Management Review, 13, 65-78. Osherson, S. (1980).Holding on or letting go. New York: The Free Press. Peters, T. (1987). Thriving on chaos. New York Knopf. Rogers, C. (1961).On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Schacter, S. (1959).The psychology of affiliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Schein, E. (1978).Career dynamics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Shapiro, E., Hazeltine, F., & Rowe, M. (1978,Spring). Moving up: Role models, mentors, and the ration system. Sloan Management Review, 19(3), 51-58. Storr, A. (1961).Integrity of the personality. New York: Atheneum. Sullivan, H. S. (1953).Interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton. Super, D. E. (1957). The psychology of careers. New York: Harper. Super, D. E., Zelkowitz, R. S., & Thompson, A. S. (1981).Career development inventory: Adult Form I . New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Thomas, D. (1986). A n intra-organizational analysis of black and white patterns of sponsorship and the dynamics of cross-racial mentoring. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University. Thomas, D., & Alderfer, C. (1989).The influence of race on career dynamics: Theory and research on minority career experiences. In M. Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.). Handbook of career theory (pp. 133-158). New York: Cambridge University Press. Thompson, P. (1982).Learning from subordinates. Paper presented at the National Academy of Management, New York. Tichy, N. M. (1983).Managing strategic change: Technological, political, and cultural dynamics. New York Wiley.

510 I

Human Resource Management, Winter 1989