Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The characteristics of mentoring activity and the type of mentoring help received by nurse administrators.. 1984

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1984_A8 T39.pdf
UBC_1984_A8 T39.pdf [ 7.94MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0055860.json
JSON-LD: 1.0055860+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0055860.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0055860+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0055860+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0055860+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0055860.ris

Full Text

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MENTORING ACTIVITY AND THE TYPE OF MENTORING HELP RECEIVED BY NURSE ADMINISTRATORS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA by ALISON JOAN TAYLOR B.S.N., U n i v e r s i t y Of B r i t i s h Co lumbia , 1960 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department Of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e , Adu l t and Higher Educa t i on ) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d s tandard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1984 © A l i s o n Joan T a y l o r , 1984 In presenting t h i s thesis in p a r t i a l fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his or her representatives. It i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Administrative, Adult And Higher Education The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date: October 12, 1984 i i ABSTRACT THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MENTORING ACTIVITY AND THE TYPE OF MENTORING HELP RECEIVED BY NURSE ADMINISTRATORS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA Alison Joan Taylor University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1984 The purpose of t h i s descriptive study was to obtain information relevent to the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of mentoring a c t i v i t y and mentoring help received by nurse administrators. The research questions were: (1) To what extent do nurse administrators report the incidence of mentors in their l i v e s ? (2) Are there s i g n i f i c a n t differences in selected background c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s between subjects who are mentored and those who are not? (3) What are the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the mentor, the protege, and the mentor-protege relationship (MPR) as perceived by nurse administrators who were proteges? (4) What is the type of mentoring help received by subjects who had mentors? (5) To what extent have subjects been mentors to others? Data were obtained using a mailed s e l f report survey questionnaire. The sample consisted of 176 top administrators belonging to the Nurse Administrator's Association of B.C. There were 119 usable questionnaires (68%). The data were analysed using frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s , factor analysis, descriptive and Chi square s t a t i s t i c s . The data analysis provided a p r o f i l e of selected background c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the nurse administrators, the most i n f l u e n t i a l mentor, the protege, MPR, and mentoring help received. Using an e x p l i c i t d e f i n i t i o n of a mentor, 71 percent of the respondents indicated they had one or more mentors. Turning to s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t differences (p_<.05) between mentored and non-mentored subjects, more mentored subjects have served as mentors (67% vs. 51%), intend to serve as mentors in the future (83% vs. 48%), and believe a mentor i s helpful to a person beginning a career in nursing (96% vs. 70%). Amongst respondents who had children, mentored respondents had less children than non-mentored respondents. Further, mentored subjects indicated that they a r r i v e d at their present position through the encouragement and recommendation of another person or through taking advantage of sudden job opportunities. Non- mentored respondents indicated they arrived at their present position because they consistently worked toward t h i s goal. Conclusions. (1) The subjects are congruent with the population of B.C. nurse administrators and similar to the U.S. women business managers in P h i l l i p s ' study of mentoring (1977). They are not similar to the U.S. nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s studied by Vance (1977). (2) Proximity and career interest of the most i n f l u e n t i a l mentor i s strongly related to that of the protege. The majority of MPR's (86%) took place during the protege's work experience with immediate superiors, administrators, and more experienced colleagues. Seventy-five percent of the mentors were nurse administrators or leaders. Few of the MPR's occured during post-secondary education (11%) and few of the mentors were instructors or professors (7%). (3) Some of the findings are in contrast to the l i t e r a t u r e : (a) few of the proteges were iv novices in their f i r s t job (7%). The majority (77%) were at. early and mid-work experience stages and were advancing to a higher position (68%). (b) Thirty percent did not begin a MPR u n t i l after the age of 35. (c) Many of the MPR's grew out of a mutual rela t i o n s h i p (62%) rather than being i n i t i a t e d by the mentor (34%). (d) The average MPR lasted 10 years in contrast to three years reported in the l i t e r a t u r e . (4) By far the most important mentoring help received by the respondents was encouragement and confirmation, followed by inspiration to achieve high standards of performance. Next, in decreasing importance were p r a c t i c a l t r a i n i n g and guidance, career/educational advice and promotion, and extended personal indoctrination and d i r e c t i o n . Proteges were less inclined to receive promotional help and sponsorship such as increased v i s i b i l i t y , candid shrewd advice,, and protection. (5) Mentors took a personal interest in their protege's career development, had a l a s t i n g positive influence on career growth, but were more incli n e d to influence professional values and interests than personal ones. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i i LIST OF TABLES v i i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i x CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1 Background of the Problem 1 The Research Problem 5 Def i n i t i o n of Terms 6 Assumptions ; 8 Delimitations 8 J u s t i f i c a t i o n for the Study 9 CHAPTER I I . LITERATURE REVIEW .11 Mentor Def ined 11 The Incidence of Mentoring 18 Characteristics of the Mentor 19 Characteristics of the Survey Subjects 27 Protege Charact e r i s t i c s 45 The Mentor-Protege Relationship 47 Mentoring Help 54 The Outcomes of Mentoring 67 Re-enactment of the Mentor's Role 74 Summary 7 4 CHAPTER I I I . METHODOLOGY 79 Design 79 Sample 80 Data Collection 82 Instrument 83 vi Data Analyses 86 Summary 88 CHAPTER IV. RESULTS 89 Background Charac t e r i s t i c s of B.C. Nurse Administrators 89 Incidence of Mentoring Received 101 Differences Between Mentored and Non- Mentored Subjects 102 Character i s t i c s of the Mentor, the Protege, and the Mentor-Protege Relationship 103 Type of Mentoring Help Received 117 Mentoring A c t i v i t y Towards Others 125 CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS 129 Summary 129 Conclusions 131 Recommendations 151 BIBLIOGRAPHY 157 APPENDICES A. COVER LETTER 169 B. QUESTIONNAIRE 171 C. FOLLOW-UP REMINDER LETTER 183 D. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RANKED CATEGORIES OF MENTORING HELP AND FACTOR ANALYSIS CATEGORIES OF MENTORING HELP 185 v i i LIST OF TABLES 1. Di s t r i b u t i o n of B.C. Nurse Administrators Who Have Had Children by Number of Children 91 2. D i s t r i b u t i o n of B.C. Nurse Administrators by Position 91 3. D i s t r i b u t i o n of B.C. Nurse Administrators (1984) by Highest Level of Education Compared to the D i s t r i b u t i o n of Employed B.C. Nurses (1982) by Highest Level of Education 92 4. D i s t r i b u t i o n of B.C. Nurse Administrators by Years of Employment as a Nurse 93 5. Di s t r i b u t i o n of B.C. Nurse Administrators by Years at Present I n s t i t u t i o n 94 6. D i s t r i b u t i o n of B.C. Nurse Administrators by Total Years Holding Current Occupational Position 95 7. D i s t r i b u t i o n of B.C. Nurse Administrators by Number of Employers During Nursing Career 96 8. D i s t r i b u t i o n of B.C. Nurse Administrators by Reason for Absence from the Labor Force for One Year or More 97 9. Di s t r i b u t i o n of B.C. Nurse Administrators by F i r s t Choice Selection of Factors I n f l u e n t i a l in Career Development 98 10. Responses and D i s t r i b u t i o n of B.C. Nurse Administrators to Item, "How Did You Arrive at Your Present Nursing Position?" 99 11. Rank and Mean of B.C. Nurse Administrators and Single Nurse Administrators to Item: Extent of Support and Encouragement in Career Development by S i g n i f i c a n t Others 100 12. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Mentored Nurse Administrators by Age of the Mentor at Onset of the Mentor-Protege Relationship ..104 13. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Mentored Nurse Administrators by Age Difference Between Mentor and Protege 105 14. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Mentored Nurse Administrators by Mentor's Relationship 106 v i i i 15. Di s t r i b u t i o n of Mentored Nurse Administrators by Nurse, Non-Nurse Mentor and Mentor's Sex ..107 16. Dis t r i b u t i o n of Nurse Mentor Administrators by F i r s t Choice Selection of Predominant Career Role of Nurse Mentor 108 17. Rank and Mean of Mentored Nurse Administrator's Rating of the Occurance of Their Mentor's Behaviours: Interest, Influence, I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and Power 109 18. Di s t r i b u t i o n of Mentored Nurse Administrators by Number of Mentors 110 19. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Mentored Nurse Administrators by Age at Onset of the Mentor-Protege Relationship ...111 20. Di s t r i b u t i o n of Mentored Nurse Administrators by Developmental Stage at Onset of the Mentor-Protege Relationship 112 21. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Mentored Nurse Administrators by F i r s t Choice Selection of Protege's Needs at Onset of the Mentor-Protege Relationship 113 22. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Mentored Nurse Administrators by Length of the Mentor-Protege Relationship 115 23. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Mentored Nurse Administrators by Manner in which the Mentor-Protege Relationship Ended 116 24. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Mentored Nurse Administrators by F i r s t Choice Selection of Help Received from th e i r Mentor 118 25. Rank and Mean of Mentored Nurse Administrators's Rating of Type of Mentoring Help Received 120 26. Rank and Type of Mentoring Help Received 124 27. Chi Square Analysis of Mentoring A c t i v i t y to Others with S i g n i f i c a n t l y Different Response Patterns for Mentored and Non-Mentored Nurse Administrators 127 ix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I want to thank Drs. Tom Sork and K j e l l Rubensen who gave me great l a t i t u d e in exploring t h i s topic but at the same time were able to convey a standard of excellence to which one could aspire. Tom Sork, my advisor, in spite of many demands always found time to l i s t e n , c r i t i q u e , and offer extremely clear and in s i g h t f u l suggestions. K j e l l Rubensen provided thought- provoking questions and creative recommendations for which I am indebted. My appreciation i s extended to the special friends and colleagues who supported, shared their ideas with me, and assisted me in innumerable ways. My gratitude goes to my children, Marnie, Warren, and David who have unknowingly helped me continue my career by their tolerance, s a c r i f i c e s , and ada p t a b i l i t y . Most of a l l , I wish to acknowledge the exceptional support I received from my husband, Vernon. His p r a c t i c a l help, advice, and unwavering confidence sustained me throughout many months of this study. 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background of the Problem In recent years, the positive effect of a mentor on career success and l i f e goal attainment has been proclaimed both in the popular and research l i t e r a t u r e . The mentoring concept i s not new, i t i s an old and reputable way of a s s i s t i n g a novice into and up the ranks of a profession. Mentors act as wise, more experienced trusted guides, counselors, and role models. They introduce the protege into the occupational world and extend their guidance, encouragement, and sponsorship to the protege in the meeting of career or l i f e goals. The writer, who i s both a nurse and an educator, became intrigued with studying the mentor concept in nursing because of the p r o l i f e r a t i o n of nursing a r t i c l e s e x t o l l i n g i t s benefits, and because of the potential for a unique kind of education amongst adults. The l i t e r a t u r e describing features of mentoring and the mentor-protege relationship comes from a number of sources. It is related to such varied d i s c i p l i n e s as education, business, psychology, counselling, and sociology, and draws on concepts of s o c i a l learning, adult developmental tasks, teacher and managerial effectiveness, leadership development, supportive and work relationships, role modeling, coaching, influence, and 2 career development. Interest in mentors and the effect on the protege was revived in the late seventies as a result of Yale psychologist, Daniel Levinson's work in re l a t i o n to male developmental tasks. He pointed out that a mentor was c r u c i a l to a young man's career success but that there i s some evidence that women establish fewer mentor relationships than men (Levinson, Darrow, Klein, Levinson, & McKee, 1978, p.98). Sheehy (1977) was one of the f i r s t to write in the popular l i t e r a t u r e of women's need for mentors. The women she studied who gained recognition in the i r careers had a mentor at some stage of their development. She also pointed out that "career women who haven't had a mentor relationship miss i t , even though they don't know what to c a l l i t " (p. 190). Hennig and Jardim's c l a s s i c work (1977) on the l i f e and career h i s t o r i e s of 25 top American women executives lent further credence to the study of mentors for women. A l l of these women spoke about the tremendous influence of mentors in their l i v e s . Subsequent to these early writings, the research on women and mentoring has taken place primarily in the f i e l d s of business (Bova & P h i l l i p s , 1981; Mis s i r i a n , 1 9 8 0 ; — P h i l l i p s , 1977; Schrader, 1980), educational administration (Hepner & Faaborg, 1979; Schrader, 1980), higher education (Bova & P h i l l i p s , 1981; McNeer, 1981; Stein, 1981), and the professions 3 (Katz, 1980; Quinn, 1980). Researchers at f i r s t studied the b e n e f i c i a l outcomes of mentoring (McCallum, 1980; Queralt, 1982; McNeer, 1981; Quinn, 1980; Rawles, 1980). Now they are beginning to focus on theory building (Kram, 1980; P h i l l i p s , 1977) and the inner working or dynamics of the mentor-protege relationship (Alleman, 1982; Clawson, 1979; C o l l i n s , 1983; Hobbs, 1982; Missiriam, 1980; Schrader, 1980). One of these dynamics is the help provided by the mentor. This has been explored d i r e c t l y by Fagan and Fagan (1983), P h i l l i p s (1977), and Vance (1977), and i n d i r e c t l y by Kram (1980) and M i s s i r i a n (1980). Bova and P h i l l i p s (1982) studied a related subject area when they investigated what proteges learned from th e i r mentors and how they learned i t . The very limited data on mentoring help suggest there may be differences according to the various occupational d i s c i p l i n e s . Mentoring help provided to women executives in business (Missirian, 1980; P h i l l i p s , 1977) i s not i d e n t i c a l to mentoring help provided to nursing leaders (Vance, 1977). Vance's doctoral study (1977) of 71 American nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s and a study of 87 nurses at a midwestern hospital (Fagan & Fagan, 1983) are the only two reported investigations of mentoring help in nursing. Turning to the o v e r a l l concept of mentoring in nursing, there are three North American studies that have investigated informal mentor-protege relationships (Fagan & Fagan, 1983; Larson, 1981; Vance, 1977) and three that have investigated 4 formal or assigned relationships (Atwood, 1979; Benner & Benner, 1979; Everson, Panoc, Pratt, & King, 1981). At the same time, mentoring as a topic has become popular in the professional nursing journals. Both the novice and the experienced nurse are exhorted to get involved in a mentoring re l a t i o n s h i p as a means of promoting leadership development (Cameron, 1982; Duncan, 1980; Hamilton, 1981; P i l e t t e , 1980; Vance, 1979), fostering scholarliness (May, Meleis, & Winstead-Fry, 1982), furthering job s a t i s f a c t i o n and career progression (Fagan & Fagan, 1983; Larson, 1981; Vance, 1979, 1982), a l l e v i a t i n g r e a l i t y shock (Benner & Benner, 1979; Kramer, 1974; Schorr, 1978) preventing burnout ( P i l e t t e , 1980), providing counsel on juggling roles (May et a l . , 1982; Vance, 1982), and expediting professional s o c i a l i z a t i o n (Benner & Benner, 1979; Kelly, 1978; Vance, 1982). In addition, the authors of these papers, borrowing from the popular press and personal anecdotes, often make recommendations on how to e s t a b l i s h a mentoring relationship and how to help the novice. It i s well and good that t h i s popularized concept should receive attention in the nursing l i t e r a t u r e . However, in an eagerness to c a p i t a l i z e on the mentoring phenomenon, the danger i s that without accurate knowledge some erroneous assumptions may be made. For example, i t has been said that mentoring is one way to reduce burnout ( P i l e t t e , 1980). However, a study of 87 hospital nurses shows that subjects with several mentors were most l i k e l y to suffer from burnout (Fagan & Fagan, 1983, p.81). Further, the risks of mentoring are not highly p u b l i c i z e d . In borrowing from the 5 popular press, erroneous assumptions have been made that mentoring i s an e n t i r e l y p o s i t i v e a c t i v i t y . It i s not denied that there are d e f i n i t e benefits to mentoring or that mentors can have a profound effect upon their protege's career development. What i s of concern i s that the understanding of mentoring must be based on knowledge gleaned from research. It behooves researchers to learn more about the dynamics of the relationship, the kinds of help, and the benefits and the risks before the nursing population i s exhorted to climb on the mentoring bandwagon. This more accurate information can then be used s e n s i t i v e l y and e f f e c t i v e l y by nursing administrators and educators in fostering the newcomer's career development. This study of a unique sample of women in nursing administration was designed to generate data which w i l l contribute to an existing body of knowledge about the mentoring phenomenon. The Research Problem The study describes the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of mentoring a c t i v i t y and the type of mentoring help received by nurse administrators in B r i t i s h Columbia. More s p e c i f i c a l l y the study addressed the following questions. 1. To what extent do nurse administrators report the incidence of mentors in their l i v e s ? 6 2. Are there s i g n i f i c a n t differences in selected background c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s between subjects who are mentored and those who are not? 3. What are the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the mentor, the protege, and the mentor-protege relationship as perceived by nurse administrators who were proteges? 4. What i s the type of mentoring help received by the subjects who had mentors? 5. To what extent have subjects been mentors to others? D e f i n i t i o n of Terms The following terms are defined according to their usage in the study. A Mentor acts to a greater or lesser degree as a coach, teacher, guide; role model; counselor; and sponsor who enters into a sustained relationship with a less experienced person. The intention of the mentor i s . t o serve as a trusted, wiser, more knowledgeable individual who takes an ongoing personal interest in fostering and supporting the person's career development. The protege's perception determines whether or not an individual i s , or has been, a mentor. A Protege i s an individual who has received sustained personal interest in, and special assistance with, his or her career development from a person of greater rank or experience. 7 Mentoring is a relationship in which a person with greater t rank or experience takes a personal interest in the career development of a person with lesser rank or experience and arranges special learning experiences above and beyond ordinary expectations for that r o l e . These experiences and the rela t i o n s h i p with the senior member of the pair have a strong influence (positive or negative) on the career development of the recipient (Modified from Alleman, 1982, p.12). Si g n i f i c a n t others are "any persons (other than the individual himself or herself) considered by an individual to be important in or have, strong influence (positive or negative) over a key portion of the individual's l i f e " ( P h i l l i p s , 1977, p. 4). A Non-protege is an individual who has not (or feels he or she has not) had the benefit of another person's (mentor's) help in their career development (Modified from P h i l l i p s , 1977, p.4). A Career i s the " t o t a l i t y of work one does in his or her l i f e t i m e . This is a developmental concept beginning in the very early years and continuing well into the retirement years. Any person can have only one career" ( P h i l l i p s , 1977, p. 3). Career development i s "the l i f e l o n g process of c r y s t a l l i z i n g one's identity and f u l f i l l i n g one's needs through one's career. 'Development' connotes growth, which can include either career advancement (moving up the career ladder or acquiring other external symbols of success) or career 8 s a t i s f a c t i o n (engaging in work that i s personally f u l f i l l i n g ) , or both" ( P h i l l i p s , 1977, pp. 3-4). Assumpt ions There were three assumptions made which gave guidance to this study. Given the d e f i n i t i o n of a mentor, the protege's perception determines whether or not an individual is defined as a protege (Alleman, 1982, p. 12; P h i l l i p s , 1977, p. 63; Vanzant, 1980, p. 18). The best judges of mentor help and perceived impact are those who have.been recipients of t h i s help ( P h i l l i p s , 1977, p. 64) . Highly l i k e l y receivers of mentoring help are those in administrative and leadership positions (Hennig & Jardim, 1977; Jennings, 1971; Ranter, 1977a; Levinson, H. 1981; M i s s i r i a n , 1980; P h i l l i p s , 1977; Vance, 1977; Zaleznik, 1977). Delimitations The study was limited to administrators belonging to the Nurse Administrators' Association of B r i t i s h Columbia who responded to the survey questionnaires. The information obtained from the questionnaires i s based on the subjects' re c o l l e c t i o n s and perceptions which may have been modified by time and the desire to report postive mentoring 9 experiences. J u s t i f i c a t i o n for the Study Recently, mentoring has been promoted as a widely used concept in nursing p a r t i c u l a r l y as a means of advancing career and leadership development. Yet, there i s a dearth of research to determine whether mentor-protege relationships occur amongst nurses. Further, the nature of the relationships and the mentoring assistance received by nurses has had very limited study. This research adds to previous studies by furnishing knowledge about the incidence and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of mentor- protege relationships and the type of help received by a sample of nurse administrators. The study i s important to both adult education and nursing in that i t provides a basis for understanding the special assistance given to nurse administrators as they develop in their careers. In addition, i t provides insights into who the mentors for nurse administrators are l i k e l y to be and in what context the relationship is l i k e l y to take place. Further,it suggests the need to educate both prospective mentors and proteges about the nature of the mentor-protege rela t i o n s h i p as well as the mentoring behaviours that can promote leadership development and exert a p o s i t i v e influence upon the protege. 10 This thesis i s organized withing five chapters. Chapter I delineated the background of the problem, the research questions, and j u s t i f i c a t i o n for the study. In addition, the d e f i n i t i o n s , delimitations, and assumptions which underly the study were l i s t e d . Chapter II i s a review of the l i t e r a t u r e pertinent to the incidence of mentoring, the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the mentor, the protege, the mentor-protege relationship, the mentoring help, and outcomes of mentoring. A description of the sample involved and study method i s included in Chapter I I I . In Chapter IV, the results of the study are presented. A summary of the study, conclusions, and recommendations comprise Chapter V. 11 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter addresses concepts relevent to gaining an understanding of the overall concept of mentoring. In i t the following are discussed: mentor d e f i n i t i o n s , the incidence of mentoring, and the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the mentor, the protege, and the mentor-protege relationship. Further, mentoring help and the outcomes of mentoring--both posi t i v e and negative are outlined. In addition, in order to compare the respondents of this study with other research groups, a discussion of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the survey subjects from other studies is included. Mentor Defined The term "mentor" originates from Greek mythology. According to legend, before Odysseus started on his 10 year odyssey, he entrusted the education of his son, Telemachus, to the care of his f a i t h f u l friend, Mentor (Homer, 1967). This education included every facet of the young man's development. Mentor f i l l e d the roles of teacher, father-figure, friend, advisor, taskmaster, and protector. The rel a t i o n s h i p was close and personal, involving disagreement as well as trust and a f f e c t i o n . A review of the l i t e r a t u r e reveals variations of this f i r s t r e l a t i o n s h i p . Webster (1971) defines mentor as a "close, trusted, and experienced counselor, guide, or teacher" 1 2 (p. 1412). The Thesaurus of ERIC Descriptors (1982) i d e n t i f i e s mentors as "trusted and experienced supervisors or advisors who have personal and direct interest in the development and/or education of younger or less experienced individuals usually in professional education or professional occupations" (p. 152). The Dictionary of Occupational T i t l e s (cited in Cross, 1976, p. 204) describes mentoring as "dealing, with individuals in terms of their t o t a l personality in order to advise, counsel, and/or guide them" (p. 205). It places mentoring at the highest le v e l of interpersonal s k i l l requirements. In various d i s c i p l i n e s , before the word "mentor" became popular, a "mentor-like" quality or person was referred to by certain catch words that conveyed a common meaning within that d i s c i p l i n e . The terms sponsor (Jennings, 1971; Zaleznik, Dalton, Barnes, 1970, p. 440), coach (Levinson, H., 1981, pp. 200-202; Strauss, 1968), and role model (Levinson, H., 1981, p. 192; Zaleznik et a l . , 1970, p. 253) were commonly used in business. Tutor (Rouverol, 1955) and master (Stone, 1971; Zuckerman, 1977) were favored in academia, s c i e n t i f i c , and professional education. Patron was used in the ar t s . In nursing, the widely used term i s role model (Archer & Fleshman, 1981; Kramer, 1974; May et a l . , 1982; Schl o t f e l d t , 1969; Yura, Ozimek, & Walsh, 1976). When Vance (1977) p r o f i l e d American nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s in her doctoral study, she used the term role model but expanded i t s meaning. A mentor was defined 1 3 as "one who serves as a person's career-role model and who a c t i v e l y advises, guides, and promotes one's career and tr a i n i n g ; a form of patron-protege relationship" (p. 40). Notable authors in attempting to capture the essence of the mentor role, portray the mentor as a visionary who sees in a person the potential of which the individual i s often unaware (Schorr, 1978, p. 1873); as a person of influence who praises a person's worth, speaking on their behalf to friends in positions of influence (Ranter, 1977b); as individuals who go out of their way to successfully help proteges meet their l i f e goals ( P h i l l i p s , 1977, p. 4); and as "a prestigious, established, older person ... who guides, counsels, and c r i t i q u e s the younger, teaching him survival and advancement in a certain f i e l d or profession" (Kelly, 1978, p. 339). Shapiro, Haseltine, and Rowe (1978) depict the mentor as being at the top of a range of advisory/guiding persons functioning as patrons. They outline a continuum of these advisory/guiding patrons as peer pal, guide, sponsor, patron, and mentor. The categories are related to the degree of advising and support in the relationship. Mentors are portrayed as the most intense and p a t e r n a l i s t i c of the f i v e types of patrons. These elements of support, personal interest, and intensity of the relationship are key factors in understanding the mentor concept. 1 4 Levinson has made the chief contribution to an understanding of mentoring (Levinson et a l . , 1978). He describes the mentor as one who: may act as a teacher to enhance the young man's s k i l l s and i n t e l l e c t u a l development. Serving as sponsor, he may use his influence to f a c i l i t a t e the young man's entry and advancement. He may be host and guide, welcoming the i n i t i a t e into a new occupational and so c i a l world and acquainting him with i t s values, customs, resources and cast of characters. Through his own virtues, achievements and way of l i v i n g , the mentor may be an exemplar that the protege can admire and seek to emulate. He may provide counsel and moral support in time of stress. (p. 98) P h i l l i p s (1977, pp. 62-64) i d e n t i f i e s the degree of personal interest as being c r u c i a l to mentoring. She introduces the aspect of primary and secondary mentors. Primary mentors care personally about the well-being of their proteges; they take r i s k s and make s a c r i f i c e s for the protege. The primary mentor goes out of his or her way, does more than is expected, makes s a c r i f i c e s , takes r i s k s . "They give their proteges their personal 'blessing', not just their advice or sponsorship" (Levinson, c i t e d in P h i l l i p s , 1977, p. 63). Secondary mentors help with career development but do thi s as part of their duties or to benefit themselves. There i s less caring and r i s k taking; the rel a t i o n s h i p i s more business l i k e . They are often mistaken for primary mentors. A protege can have several secondary mentors over a l i f e t i m e or at one time f u l f i l l i n g various mentor functions. The difference with the secondary mentor is that the gesture is seen to be part of a 1 5 person's ordinary duties, or the element of caring is perceived as absent or less sincere. P h i l l i p s emphasizes that the difference between primary and secondary mentors i s e n t i r e l y a matter of the protege's perception. P h i l l i p s makes a major contribution by i d e n t i f y i n g features that d i f f e r e n t i a t e the mentor from other helping persons: depth of personal concern and belief in the protege's future make the di f ference. Clawson (1980, p. 147) in his conceptualization of the mentor, encompasses both the degree of personal interest and the number of mentoring roles. He i d e n t i f i e s two essential elements: mutual personal involvement and comprehensiveness of influence. Mutuality and comprehensiveness both must be present to have a true mentor-protege rel a t i o n s h i p . Mutuality encompasses the respect, trust, and a f f e c t i o n that individuals have for each other. Comprehensiveness includes influence over the f i n a n c i a l , technical, organizational, s o c i a l , emotional, e t h i c a l , physical, and s p i r i t u a l aspects of a protege's l i f e . Only when a mentor plays several roles of teacher, coach, sponsor, perspective enlarger, confidant, friend, or role model does the term mentor become applicable. Clawson does not specify how many roles, or which ones must be assumed in order to become a mentor. —~ Like P h i l l i p s , Clawson describes mentors as l i f e mentors or career mentors. Career mentors are c l a s s i f i e d as "quasi" mentors because the degree of mutuality and comprehensiveness i s 1 6 less than that of a l i f e mentor. The categorizing of mentors in t h i s way creates a certain amount of confusion as one's d e f i n i t i o n of career becomes a stumbling block. Clawson does not define career, but according to H a l l (1976) a career is considered to be the "sequence of attitudes and behaviours associated with work-related experiences over the span of the person's l i f e " (p. 4): a person can have only one career. Thus a career mentor at any stage in the protege's l i f e could be a f u l l mentor and not a quasi mentor. Referring back to the discussion of P h i l l i p s ' primary and secondary mentors, the writer believes that one i s , or is not, a mentor. Therefore the secondary mentor i s not considered to be a mentor. The same thinking holds true for the concept of quasi mentors. These may be very helpful people, but either because of lack of personal interest or comprehensiveness of influence, they are not mentors. Despite the dilemma about types of mentors, Clawson (1980) has made an important contribution by ide n t i f y i n g two essential features: comprehensiveness of influence and mutuality or personal i n t e r e s t . These are essential c r i t e r i a in deciding whether or not an individual i s a mentor. Upon reviewing the broad spectrum of mentor d e f i n i t i o n s , i t is remarkable that the mentor i s consistently defined in posi t i v e terms. Like any other relationship, there are bad 1 7 mentors and negative features associated with having a mentor (Levinson et a l . , 1978, p. 333; Kram, 1980; P h i l l i p s , 1977; Sheehy, 1976, p. 39; Strauss, 1968). (These w i l l be referred to later under the heading "Risks to Mentoring"). In constructing a d e f i n i t i o n of mentor, the author has attempted to allow for the negative circumstances by keeping the mentor's roles separate from the mentor's posit i v e intentions. The d e f i n i t i o n used in t h i s study i s derived from the work of Clawson (1980), Hall (1976), Levinson et a l . (1978), and P h i l l i p s (1977). It incorporates the elements of the mentor's personal interest and greater wisdom, a variety of mentor roles, and a trusting relationship developing over a period of time for the purpose of fostering career development in a less experienced person. The d e f i n i t i o n i s stated previously, but i s repeated here for ease in reading. A mentor acts to a greater or lesser degree as a coach, teacher, guide; role model; counselor; and sponsor who enters into a sustained relationship with a less experienced person. The intention of the mentor i s to serve as a trusted, wiser, more knowledgeable individual who takes an ongoing personal interest in fostering and supporting the person's career development. The protege's perception determines whether or not an individual i s , or has been, a mentor. 18 The Incidence of Mentoring It has been suggested that mentoring amongst nurses i s a lost art because of the c o n f l i c t that has arisen between diploma and degree educated nurses (Schorr, 1978). However t h i s supposition i s not borne out in the few studies of mentoring amongst nurses. While one must use caution in generalizing the re s u l t s , i t has been found that mentoring does occur amongst nurses. Fagan and Fagan (1983) surveyed 87 nurses (61 staff nurses, 25 supervisors, and one high l e v e l administrator) at a large midwestern ho s p i t a l . Fifty-two percent had a d e f i n i t e mentor, and in a l l , 84 percent received various components of mentoring, but were not participants in a true mentor-protege relationship. In a study of 116 nursing leaders (head nurses, c l i n i c a l and administrative supervisors, assistant and associate nursing administrators, and nursing administrators), Larson (1981) reports that mentor relationships were present for 61 percent. If a respondent had been a mentor there was over twice the l i k e l i h o o d that they would be a mentor to someone else in the nursing f i e l d . F i n a l l y , in. Vance's study (1977) of 71 American nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s , 87 percent reported the presence of a mentor in their l i v e s . Ninety-three percent were mentors to others. These figures compare favorably with the mentoring rates found amongst business executives. Missirian's study (1980) of 100 top U.S. businesswomen shows that 85 percent had a mentor. P h i l l i p s (1977) reports that 61 percent of the 331 American 19 women business managers she studied had a mentor. And Roche's investigation (1979) of 1250 top American, primarily male, executives reveals 64 percent were mentored. In summary, mentoring does occur amongst nurses. Further, an interpretation of the results indicates that the higher an indiv i d u a l i s in terms of rank and career achievement, the more l i k e l y one i s to report the presence of a mentor. Char a c t e r i s t i c s of the Mentor S u f f i c i e n t data exist to develop a p r o f i l e of the mentor. Following are selected c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the mentor as revealed by studies completed to date. Age Difference The mentor i s usually older than the protege by eight to 15 years (Levinson et a l . , 1978; Roche, 1979). It should be noted that these two studies were done on male populations. However, Mi s s i r i a n (1980) arrived at similar r e s u l t s . She surveyed 100 top American business women and did in depth interviews with 10 respondents. Amongst the 10, she found that the age difference was 15-18 years; one protege was older than the mentor by six years, and in another s i t u a t i o n both mentor and protege were contemporaries. Fagan and Fagan's study (1983, p. 80) showed that the age difference amongst 87 nurses varied greatly, a l l the way from three mentors who were younger, to one that was 35 years older. 20 The „ mean age difference was 9.3 years while the experience difference was 9.1 years. When compared with teachers and police o f f i c e r s , the age-experience gap was smaller for nurses (Fagan & Walter, 1972). The incidence of women attaching themselves to younger but more experienced and knowledgeable mentors could increase as women continue to re-enter the work force at a l a t e r age. The age at which proteges select mentors may also s h i f t to an older age as individuals make occupational changes at l a t e r stages in l i f e . Both career stage and the formality of the organizational setting w i l l influence age. differences between mentor and protege. Gender The mentor can be of the same or opposite sex, although in business (Hennig & Jardim, 1977; Missiriam, 1980, p. 57; P h i l l i p s , 1977) and s c i e n t i f i c (Rawles, 1980) f i e l d s , the majority of mentors for female proteges are males. In nursing, where 99 percent of the respondents were female, Vance's study (1977) showed that 21 percent of the mentors were male. One suspects that, in any f i e l d , the greater number of male mentors for females r e f l e c t s the higher number of males in i n f l u e n t i a l positions. Some believe a male mentor provides a better r e a l i t y base in the male dominated administrative world and can offer more promotions to the top corporate l e v e l s . Others contend that 21 successful women who have already proven they can reach the top, are the only mentors that can be helpful in how to manage home and work l i f e . Kram (1980, p. 294), in a biographical study of 18 mentor-protege relationships, found that cross-sex relationships made i t d i f f i c u l t for young women to identify with their male senior managers, and role modeling generally did not occur. In a small U.S. study of 20 women with master's degrees in s o c i a l work, psychology, or counseling, Quinn (1980) found that those with male mentors were more l i k e l y to be viewed as assertive, independent, and having leadership p o t e n t i a l . At the same time, the women with male mentors experienced a greater need for a more personal friendship than those who had female mentors. Relationship and Occupation of the mentor The mentor can be an immediate superior or one of higher administrative rank; a professor; teacher; friend; spouse, parent, or other family member (Hennig & Jardim, 1977; P h i l l i p s , 1977; Rawles, 1980; Roche, 1979; Vance, 1977; Vanzant, 1980). There appears to be a cor r e l a t i o n between the career interest of the protege and the mentor's occupation and proximity. Roche (1979, p. 20) reported that of the 1250 business executives in his study, few found career mentors in academic settings. The senior executives tended to be ambitious goal-oriented people who were more l i k e l y to seek guidance from l i k e minded people in their f i e l d . In keeping with t h i s 22 finding, M i s s i r i a n (1980, p. 44) reports that 80 percent of the mentor-protege relationships amongst top women executives occured on the job. Vance (1977) does not correlate occupations of proteges and mentors, but she does show that 52 percent of the mentors to U.S. nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s held positions associated with education. More than 40 percent of the nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s (who were proteges) were located in education related occupations. Developmental Stage The mentor i s often at age 40 to 60, the stage of generativity (Dalton et a l . , 1977; Erikson, 1950; Levinson et a l . , 1978, p. 29-30; 253). This i s a time when there is a need to pass on information, to guide and e s t a b l i s h the next generation. Being a mentor i s viewed as being an adult developmental process (Clawson, 1979; H a l l , 1976; Kram, 1980; Levinson et a l , 1978; Mirriam, 1980; P h i l l i p s , 1977). Experience and Influence The mentor possesses greater expertise, influence, knowledge, money, or status than the protege (Dalton et a l . , 1977; Kram, 1980; Levinson et a l . , 1978; Missiriam, 1980; P h i l l i p s , 1977). — In investigating elements which d i s t i n g u i s h mentoring relationships from other relationships, M i s s i r i a n (1980, p. 143) determined that i t i s the degree of power the mentor 23 commands in terms of access to material and personal resources that make i t d i f f e r e n t . Further, the behavioural c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the superior are of more significance in creating an ef f e c t i v e relationship than those of the subordinate (Clawson, 1980, p. 154). Mi l l e r and Dollard (1941) studied the s o c i a l learning aspects of role modeling and conditions which produce imitation. They found that people who are superior in any of the following ways are imitated by others: age-rank hierarchy, a hierarchy of so c i a l status, i n t e l l i g e n c e ranking system, and technical knowledge and a b i l i t y . It i s important to recognize that the perceived superiority and resulting influence of the mentor i s a highly persistent theme in the creation and maintenance of a mentor-protege relationship. Mentoring Roles Schein (1978) has made a considerable contribution to an understanding of mentors by catagorizing the assorted roles of the mentor. His "Varieties of Mentoring Roles" (p. 178) are the most v e r s a t i l e yet comprehensive of any yet found in the l i t e r a t u r e . They are as follows: 1. The mentor as teacher, coach, or trainer - a person about whom the younger person would say, 'That person taught me a lot about how to do things around here.' 2. The mentor as a positive role model - a person about whom the younger person would say, 'I learned a lot from watching that person in operation; that person r e a l l y set a good example 24 of how to get things done.' 3. The mentor as a developer of talent - a person about whom the younger person would say, 'That person r e a l l y gave me challenging work from which I learned a great deal; I was pushed along and forced to stretch myself'. 4. The mentor as an opener of doors - a person who makes sure that the young person i s given opportunities for challenging and growth-producing assignments, who fights 'upstairs' for the young person, whether or not the younger person is aware of i t . 5. The mentor as a protector (mother hen) - a person about whom the younger person would say, 'That person watched over me and protected me while I learned; I could make mistakes and learn without ri s k i n g my job.' 6. The mentor as a sponsor - a person who gives v i s i b i l i t y to his or her 'proteges', who makes sure that they have good 'press' and are given exposure to higher-level people so that they w i l l be remembered when new opportunities come along, with or without the awareness of the younger person. 7. The mentor as a successful leader - a person whose own success ensures that her or his supporters w i l l 'ride along on his or her c o a t t a i l s ' , who brings people along. (Schein, 1978, p. 178) Schein pointedly d i f f e r e n t i a t e s between roles that require the mentor to be in a position of power, and powerful mentoring roles that do not require high formal position or authority. The former apply to the sponsorship system in an organization which is encompassed by the mentor roles of opener of doors, protector, sponsor, and/or leader. The l a t t e r apply to the more experienced and older person who looks out for a younger 25 individual and i s encompassed by the teacher, role model, and developer mentor roles. By contrast, Phillips-Jones (1982, pp. 79-95) describes six c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of mentoring roles: those of " t r a d i t i o n a l mentors", "supportive bosses", "organizational sponsors", "-professional career mentors", "patrons", and " i n v i s i b l e godparents." An important aspect is that the roles a mentor plays can change even over short periods of time. For example, aw mentor may start as a supportive boss, become a f u l l fledged t r a d i t i o n a l mentor, and later a sponsor, as the protege branches out into new positions or occupations. While P h i l l i p s ' c l a s s i f i c a t i o n is useful, Schein's categories offer a more succinct description. It has a broader application to mentoring in any f i e l d , whether i t be the arts, cademia, the business world, or the professions. P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s The mentor's personality t r a i t s are subjectively described in a number of a r t i c l e s (Burke, 1982; George & Kummerow, 1981; Halatin, 1981; Randall, 1982; Shapiro et a l . , 1978; Thompson, *976; Woodland's Group, 1980). However only two s t u d i e s — t h o s e of Alleman (1982) and Clawson (1979)—attempt to substantiate these descriptions. 26 Clawson (1979) explored c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of superior- subordinate relationships which distinguished high learners from low learners. The e f f e c t i v e superiors were: people oriented, shown by respect and l i k i n g for the subordinate; even tempered; had a high tolerance for ambiguity; prefered abstract conceptualization; and valued working at their company (p. 8-3). Alleman (1982), studying 29 mentored and 21 non-mentored dyads, made the remakable discovery that there were no i n t r i n s i c personality t r a i t s d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g mentors from non-mentors. She concluded that mentors behave d i f f e r e n t l y toward proteges as compared to non-proteges. Therefore, the difference between mentors and non-mentors i s a difference in behaviour not personality. The study did not describe what these behaviours were. However, mentor behaviours have been i d e n t i f i e d by five researchers engaged in exploratory studies (Kram, 1980; Levinson et a l . , 1978; M i s s i r i a n , 1980; P h i l l i p s , 1977; Vance 1977). These behaviours w i l l be summarized later under the heading "Mentoring Help." In conclusion "there is no single mentoring personality p r o f i l e . . . There are just a number of d i f f e r e n t types of people who may or may not use mentoring behaviour" (Clutterbuck, 1982, p. 19). 27 Characteristics of the Survey Subjects In the research l i t e r a t u r e , the subjects surveyed to determine whether or not they had a mentor consisted of women in administrative or leadership positions (Hennig & Jardim, 1977; Mi s s i r i a n , 1980; P h i l l i p s , 1977; Vance, 1977) and men and/or women in professional, administrative, or occupationally related roles (Alleman 1982; Kram 1980; Levinson et a l , 1977; Queralt, 1982; Quinn, 1980; Rawles, 1980; Roche, 1979; Vanzant, 1980). In reviewing the l i t e r a t u r e , i t i s apparent that c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the survey subjects consist of two groupings—general c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that may be of importance when analyzing the mentor-protege relationship, and s p e c i f i c protege c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that are known to influence the rela t i o n s h i p r General c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are discussed in this section; c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the protege are included under the heading "Protege C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s " in a following section. Age Age d i s t r i b u t i o n s for women in leadership or administrative positions range from 22-91 ( P h i l l i p s , 1977, p. 40) and 38-80 (Vance, 1977, p. 104). The mean age is in the mid 50's (Missirian, 1980, p. 53; P h i l l i p s , 1977, p. 40; Vance, 1977) or late 40's (Missirian, 1980, p. 39). 28 Childhood Community One of the variables investigated by Vance in re l a t i o n to so c i a l background was the childhood community of the nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s . She found that nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s growing up in large c i t i e s and small towns showed equal percentages (32% respectively), and accounted for a majority of the sample (Vance, 1977, p. 107). A much smaller proportion grew up in medium c i t i e s and small towns. Birth Order Some of the l i t e r a t u r e (Hennig & Jardim, 1977; Rapoport & Rapoport, 1971) suggests that women in executive positions are more l i k e l y to have been only children or f i r s t born children. P h i l l i p s ' findings (1977) only partly support th i s b e l i e f : 46 percent were f i r s t born or only children while 51 percent were second or lat e r born. Vance (1977) did not investigate b i r t h order. Nationality, Ethnic, and Religious Background P h i l l i p s (1977, p. 42) reported that more than 75 percent of the business women executives and their parents were born in the United States. Ninety-five percent of subjects were Caucasians; two-thirds were raised as Protestants. In Vance's study (1977), 97 percent of the nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s were white. No s t a t i s t i c s are available from P h i l l i p s or Vance comparing 29 ethnic and r e l i g i o u s backgrounds of mentors and proteges. It has been said that the mentor relationship is not democratic (Shapiro et a l . , 1978, p. 55) and that i t maintains clear s o c i a l and i n t e l l e c t u a l status differences (Reohr, 1981). It i s surmised that because mentoring exists as an a c t i v i t y prevalent in certain professions and amongst certain levels of occupational groups to s o c i a l i z e others into the correct behaviours, then only those with the s o c i a l l y acceptable credentials w i l l be selected as proteges. On the other hand, Alleman (1982) found upon examination of the biographical d e t a i l s of mentors and proteges, that there were few s i m i l a r i t i e s . Mentors more often described their proteges as their ideal dyad opposite rather than as a person who was similar to the mentor. Family Background Hennig's notable work (cited in Vance, 1977) on the career development of 25 women executives revealed that 90 percent of the fathers were white c o l l a r workers (managerial and administrative), while 56 percent of the mothers were housewives. Comparison with Vance's study (1977) of nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s reveals that 57 percent of the fathers were white c o l l a r workers. The majority (61 percent) of the mothers were housewives, while 35 percent were white c o l l a r workers. This included 12 percent of the mothers who worked as registered nurses and 10 percent as teachers. 30 Marital Status Three of the studies on women and mentors show a variation in marital status. In Vance's study (1977), 41 percent of the nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s were married or widowed; 10 percent were divorced or separated; 49 percent never married. P h i l l i p s ' study (1977) of women managers indicates 65 percent were married or widowed; 14 percent were divorced; 29 percent never married. M i s s i r i a n (1980) studied corporate women executives and found that 45.7 percent were married. No further s t a t i s t i c s are given. In comparing the three studies, a s i m i l a r i t y in marital status is seen between Vance's and Missirian's work. Vance's sample included the most i n f l u e n t i a l leaders in American nursing. The women in Missirian's study were among the 100 top business women in the United States. One questions whether the pressures and commitment to these demanding occupations precluded many from being involved in a marital re l a t i o n s h i p . Did these women become highly achievement oriented because they did not marry, or i f they had married, would marriage have been a deterrent to career achievement in these p a r t i c u l a r occupations? It must be remembered that the mean age for these women i s the mid 50's. Thus the effect of society's changing values and the Women's Movement would have just begun to touch these populations. 31 No data exist as to whether having a mentor i s more prevalent amongst single versus married nurses or women. Children Vance (1977, p. 112) reports that 33 percent of the nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s had chi l d r e n . Respondents had from one to four children, with an average of two. The majority of children were in the 13-29 year age category. P h i l l i p s (1977, p. 44) indicates that 54 percent of the women managers had from one to four children with an average of two. There i s no data to indicate whether having a mentor i s more or less prevalent amongst those having children or amongst those having children of certain ages. Educat ion Ninety-five percent of the nursing e l i t e s in Vance's study (1977) hold master's and doctoral degrees. Of the corporate women executives in Missirian's study (1980), 57.1 percent had achieved a graduate degree or higher. Fourty-two percent of the women managers in P h i l l i p s ' study (1977) held a baccalaureate degree or higher. The average educational l e v e l was two years of college, with 69 percent having attended some college or business school. The two year college degree can be equated with Canada's two and three year nursing diploma. A l l Canadian nurses have thi s l e v e l of preparation. In B r i t i s h Columbia, as of December 32 1982, only 12.9 percent of R.N.'s practicing in the nursing f i e l d held a baccalaureate degree or higher (Health Manpower S t a t i s t i c s Section, 1982). The number of B r i t i s h Columbia nursing administrators possessing more than a diploma l e v e l of education i s unknown. But because of the advanced preparation required for their positions, one would assume the educational l e v e l is higher than that of the general nursing population. Whether a higher l e v e l of education correlates with protege a c t i v i t y amongst nurse administrators is unknown. Roche's survey (1979, p. 28) of 1250 business executives showed that respondents having a mentor are better educated than those who do not have a mentor. Whether th i s i s because the better educated attr a c t a mentor, are more able to recognize the advantage of having a sponsor, or are encouraged by the mentor to obtain further education i s unknown. Educational I n s t i t u t i o n Vance's work (1977) shows that 40 percent of the nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s received their highest degree from three U.S. u n i v e r s i t i e s : Teachers College, Columbia University; University of Chicago; and New York University. Approximately one-fourth of the 51 educators and educational administrators held positions or were r e t i r e d from the six top-ranked nursing schools. 33 Career Choice Sixty-one percent of Vance's nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s (1977, p. 132) indicated that nursing was their f i r s t career choice. Out of the remaining 27 subjects (39 percent), their f i r s t career choice was i n : teaching (6), writing/journalism (4), law (3), medicine (3), natural behavioural sciences (3), social work/physical therapy (2), other or unspecified (6). Of the t o t a l subjects, 36 percent also indicated they had additional educational preparation and/or had been involved in careers other than nursing. These areas were: natural/behavioural sciences such as biology, chemistry, anthropology, psychology, and sociology; teaching; business; administration; and others, such as law, s t a t i s t i c s , and dental hygiene. The wealth of additional education and careers for women who developed at a time when a career was not encouraged, would indeed make them stand out as e l i t e s . The women in P h i l l i p s ' (1977) and Missirian's (1980) studies were not asked to specify their f i r s t career choice, however, in P h i l l i p s ' work (p. 48), 38 percent indicated they f i r s t decided upon a career in business management after they started working. Thirty-two percent made the decision prior to entering the labor market, and 27 percent made their decision as the result of a s p e c i f i c incident such as the death of a husband, or over a long period of time. 34 Upon reviewing the biographies of American nursing leaders (Safier, 1977), some of whom are included in Vance's study, i t becomes evident that a decision to enter nursing was influenced by altruistic-humanistic feelings, the d i f f i c u l t y in gaining entrance to male dominated professions such as medicine and science, and economic reasons—"nursing was a poor women's way to get an education" (Safier, 1977, p. 385). A l t r u i s t i c - humanistic feelings would be motivators for entering nursing today, but the other motivators are l i k e l y changed. Just as external forces influenced career choices decades ago, so w i l l they serve as influencing factors today. Career Planning Of the women managers in P h i l l i p s ' study (1977, p. 48),. two-thirds said that "accidental" (versus preplanned) best described the method by which they selected a management career. P h i l l i p s does not indicate the age at which the women eventually made either accidental or planned commitments regarding a management career. Nor does Vance consider t h i s issue. Once in the career, career planning i s said to correlate p o s i t i v e l y with mentoring (Roche, 1979, p. 28). Over a period of years more executives who had a mentor followed a career plan than those who did not. P h i l l i p s and Vance do not attempt to correlate the following of a career plan with having a mentor. However both show that mentors do help proteges with the planning of career 3 5 moves. Career Patterns Levinson (1978) reports that when men are in their early 20's they make plans regarding their "Dream" of what they wish to become. He concluded that men do not have a need for mentors after age 40. Work on women's development suggests that women tend to be at least 10 years behind men in occupational achievement (Baker, 1981, p. 19). Hennig and Jardim's work (1977) on the l i f e and career of 25 women in top executive positions in nationally recognized business and industry shows that women tend to delay serious commitment to career goals u n t i l their mid-30's. For today's women, career growth and timing are contingent upon managing marriage, children, and career (Bernard, c i t e d in Baker, 1981, p. 19). The length of any occupational interruption and i t s timing w i l l have an e f f e c t on career development. When contemplating the issue of women and the acqu i s i t i o n of mentors, several considerations come to mind. Women may have to work extra hard to a t t r a c t a mentor, since i t i s observed that the mentor w i l l usually not risk a relationship with the protege unless there i s a strong indication the protege w i l l bring cr e d i t to the mentor (Missirian, 1980, p.20). Secondly, women may have need of mentors well past the age of 40 because of the 10 year career delay. Thirdly, women who are juggling 36 marriage, children, and career may have a primary need to find a mentor who can give advice and serve as a role model in managing these three roles. P h i l l i p s (1977, p. 49) makes a point of allowing for women's varied career patterns by id e n t i f y i n g four career tracks that women follow. The four designations coincide with women's patterns of continuity in the labor market over time. Career patterns are described as: Continuous (employed continuously, no combination of employment and family), Double Track (combination of employment, family, and homemaking), Interrupted (time taken off to rear children, return to uninterrupted employment), and Intermittent Reentry and Exit (frequent entering and leaving the labor market). Fourty-eight percent had Double Track career patterns (59 percent of the married women and 3 percent of the single women). A t o t a l of 35 percent had continuous employment patterns (20 percent of the married women and 96 percent of the single women). Vance did not c o l l e c t data relevent to career patterns. However in reviewing the l i v e s of 17 American Nurse leaders (Safier, 1977), i t i s evident the majority followed the continuous pattern. Career Mobility Career mobility has been reported in at least f i v e studies, but only one attempts to correlate mobility and mentoring. Roche (1979, p. 28) indicated that one in five had only one employer compared with one in seven of those who had no mentor. 37 When one views Hennig and Jardim's (1977) and Missiriam's (1980) work, i t would appear that low mobility could be linked with mentoring. Of the women who had a mentor, Hennig and Jardim report that several changed jobs ' within two years, then a l l remained with their same employer for 30 years. Miss i r i a n (1980, p. 56) reports that the average stay with the company of those with mentors is 22 years, with a spread of 9 to 36 years. The average stay for a l l subjects (those with and without a mentor) i s 15 years with a range of one to 35 years (Missirian, p. 39). Vance (1977, p. 118) looked at the number of years in the current position, rather than the number of years with the same employer. The mean number of years for nurses holding the current position was 10.5 years. Twenty-three percent held positions for fiv e years or l e s s . Figures are not correlated with those having had a mentor, nor are figures given for the length of time in an organization. A mobile pattern i s indicated by the women managers in P h i l l i p s ' study (1977, p. 50). She viewed career mobility in terms of the number of positions held rather than the number of years in a job. She found that 27 percent stayed with one firm; 61 percent had worked in at least three companies. In reviewing this range of data i t is apparent that studies showing a relationship between mentoring and reduced career mobility could be held suspect. One needs to ask whether lack of career mobility i s related more to the accepted norm of the 38 day and the accepted norm for a par t i c u l a r profession. For example, career mobility for the women in Hennig and Jardim's study would be a deterrent to advancement. These women moved into middle management during World War II and by 1970 had reached top management positions in business and industry. This is a time when the route of the "organization man" was s t i l l the rule for advancement. In 1977, when P h i l l i p s did her study, s o c i e t a l attitudes had changed and career mobility had become the norm. Salary and Position - Three studies comment on the relationship between salary and mentoring. Roche (1979, p. 38) brings to our attention the fact that salary tends to be correlated with career planning. Mentoring in i t s e l f i s not the sole reason for executives earning higher s a l a r i e s , but mentors do encourage career planning. Thus " i t seems reasonable to assume ... that the combination of mentoring and planning accounts for the higher compensation of executives who have had a mentor" (Roche, 1979, p. 28). In addition, Roche's study indicates that executives having a mentor were two years younger than those who did not have a mentor. From this data one could infer two p o s s i b i l i t i e s : executives with mentors reach higher positions e a r l i e r in their career or mentors are more i n c l i n e d to adopt younger successful candidates. 39 The second study i s relevent to the f i e l d of administration in higher education. Dickson (1983) surveyed 258 administrators in Rhode Island colleges and u n i v e r s i t i e s for a doctoral study. F i f t y - f o u r percent said they had mentors but they did not report s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher s a l a r i e s than others. Gender may have been a factor influencing s a l a r i e s , however, i t was not reported. Thirdly, Queralt (1982) studied 287 faculty members and academic administrators. She c l e a r l y established that academics with mentors r e a l i z e d higher incomes from professional a c t i v i t i e s , and had assumed more leadership roles than those without mentors. There are obviously a number of factors involved when i t comes to salary l e v e l . The f i e l d of work or d i s c i p l i n e , the academic or entrepreneurial versus bureaucratic s p i r i t of the organization, the influence of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining agreements, gender, recessionary pressures, and the nature and rank of the position are a l l factors determining wage and compensation packages. Because of the interrelatedness of salary with position and career planning, i t would be wise to view a l l three components as a unit rather than to i s o l a t e them into separate compartments. Career S a t i s f a c t i o n The data relevent to mentoring and career s a t i s f a c t i o n show varying r e s u l t s . In Roche's study (1979, p. 28), the most important difference between mentored and non-mentored groups 40 was the very high s a t i s f a c t i o n with career progress. Rawles (1980) studied 567 male and female s c i e n t i s t s from the ages of 24 to 84 and found that both proteges and mentors are more se l f actualized than those who do not experience mentoring. Missirian's investigation (1980) of 100 top female executives confirmed her general hypothesis that mentoring has been a s i g n i f i c a n t part of the career development of successful women managers. P h i l l i p s (1977, p. 50) did not d i r e c t l y measure s a t i s f a c t i o n , but did ask i f the respondent would "choose business or industry management as your f i e l d i f you could begin your career again?" Eighty-one percent answered "yes" to the question. Queralt's (1982, p. 12) exploration of 287 faculty members and academic administrators shows not only higher levels of job and career s a t i s f a c t i o n , but higher levels of productivity amongst those with mentors. She does not separate the results of -faculty members from those of academic administrators, nor does she separate gender. As a result, there i s no way of knowing whether mentoring a c t i v i t y is gender related or higher amongst faculty as compared to administrators. In contrast, Dickson's (1983) study showed that there was no greater s a t i s f a c t i o n with career progress amongst college and university administrators. The low 54 percent of administrators reporting mentors would seem to indicate that mentoring is not a high p r o f i l e a c t i v i t y amongst these people. The reduced recognition of the importance of personalized support and sponsorship or i n s u f f i c i e n t opportunities for advancement may be some of the reasons for not reporting greater s a t i s f a c t i o n with 41 career progress. Another study in the f i e l d of educational administration reveals results similar to those reported by Dickson. Vanzant (1980) studied 273 women professional in non- teaching administrative and professional support positions having a master's degree or higher. She found there was no si g n i f i c a n t difference between mentor relationships and achievement motivation. While the study may indicate a lack of sponsorship awareness on the part of the women, the study may be indicative of the high degree of influence the mentor's values and attitudes have on the protege. If the mentor i s s o c i a l i z e d into a combination of factors such as sex role stereotyping and lack of awareness of the importance of sponsorship from s i g n i f i c a n t others, this w i l l unconsciously or consciously be translated to the protege. Turning to nursing, Larson (1981) studied 181 hospital nurse administrators in the U.S. P a c i f i c Northwest and concluded that job s a t i s f a c t i o n was higher both for proteges and those who were mentors to others. Vance (1977, p. 172) did not attempt to measure career s a t i s f a c t i o n but she did ask the nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s what major advantages and disadvantages there were to belonging to a predominantly female profession. The fact that less than one-third indicated there were no p a r t i c u l a r advantages i s seen to be related more to s a t i s f a c t i o n with the profession rather than with job s a t i s f a c t i o n . 42 Two additional factors must be considered in r e l a t i o n to career s a t i s f a c t i o n and mentoring. F i r s t l y , Queralt (1982) suggests that multiple mentorships, long mentorships, and early experience with mentors might be associated with even higher levels of career development. Secondly, Alleman (1982, p. 152) established that not only do mentors behave d i f f e r e n t l y towards proteges, but proteges perceive the actions of their mentors d i f f e r e n t l y than do non-proteges perceiving their supervisor's behaviour. There is a labeling effect by the proteges. They perceive greater career benefits from the r e l a t i o n s h i p than do non-proteges. This labeling behaviour would appear to have the effect of a self f u l f i l l i n g prophecy. In summary, the whole issue of career s a t i s f a c t i o n and mentoring i s complex. Gender, sex role stereotyping, organizational and professional climate and context, career stages at which the mentor is acquired, and the protege's perception of the mentor's influence are only some of the known confounding issues. Support Systems In addition to the mentor, Vance (1977, p. 140; 185) asked to what extent the subjects had been supported and encouraged in their profession by various persons. She reported that 75 percent found nursing colleagues to be the most supportive, followed by non-nursing colleagues. In the family, the mother was considered more supportive than the father. - This finding is 43 interesting because Hennig and Jardim (1977, p. 105) described the father as more supportive and confirming to t h e i r daughters who l a t e r became top business executives. In these situations i t appears that the stronger influence of either the mother or father as a strong role model was a factor influencing the offspring to take on an occupational role encouraged by the dominant parent. Of the 29 married nurses, 86 percent indicated the spouse was greatly supportive and encouraging. Sixty percent reported children as being highly supportive. Another 22 percent reported friends and r e l a t i v e s as being supportive (Vance, 1977, p. 146). For married women who work, the assistance of an understanding spouse i s a key ingredient to the successful combining of marriage and a career. Of the 17 top U.S. nurse leaders interviewed by Safier (1977) nine were married and a l l emphasized the importance of a supportive, helping husband in successfully combining both roles (p. 386). Vance's study shows some interesting anomalies. While 75 percent of the respondents reported nursing colleagues to be the most supportive, only 21 percent perceived supportive relationships as being an advantage to belonging to a predominantly female profession. In addition, while 83 percent had had a mentor and 93 percent of these nurses were mentors to others, when asked to rate sources of influence, the presence of a mentor was placed sixth from the bottom of a l i s t of 24 items. It seems that these leaders view their personal experience quite 44 separately from experience as members of the nursing profession in general. An unfortunate by-product of the male dominance and low self esteem and power of the nursing profession i s the lack of support i t breeds. "Instead of finding s o l i d a r i t y among women in the profession, nursing leaders...met with vicious competition from female colleagues" (Safier, 1977, p. 391). This behaviour i s discussed at a later stage under the heading "Risks to Mentoring." P h i l l i p s (1977, pp. 54-60) viewed support systems in terms of the influence from s i g n i f i c a n t others. S i g n i f i c a n t others were i d e n t i f i e d by the respondents as parents, husbands, bosses, children, grandparents, female peers, and support groups. When asked to rank the three persons who most d i r e c t l y influenced their career, the women managers reported the following in order of most important to least important: male boss, husband, mother, father, male work associate, male teacher, and female teacher. The predominate theme of the male boss, work associate, and teacher as an i n f l u e n t i a l person for these female managers i s l i k e l y explained by the fact there are fewer female role models available in business and industry, thus a male model is the more l i k e l y s e l e c t i o n . The foregoing are some of the central facets that could be considered when building a p r o f i l e of mentored versus non- mentored nurse administrators. Other factors that can be added are: length of work week, geographical work location, reason for entering nursing, and wish to be in another occupation or 45 profession. Protege Charac t e r i s t i c s Specific protege c h a r a c t e r i s i t i c s are few in number but are essential to gaining an understanding of the mentor-protege connect ion. Number of mentors The protege may have two to three mentors on an average (Hennig & Jardim, 1977; Missiriam, 1980; P h i l l i p s , 1977; Rawles, 1980). M i s s i r i a n (p. 57) found that the women executives she studied had anywhere from one to four mentors. As an individual progresses through various phases of a career, his or her needs change, and these needs may be f u l f i l l e d by one or more mentors playing a variety of role s . In a woman's climb to upper management positions, i t i s f e l t she needs a mentor for at least two stages of her career. One is during the early part when the woman f i r s t sees her work as more than a job and re a l i z e s i t i s an occupation in which she may be working for much of her l i f e . The other phase is later when i t is time for the f i n a l push to the top (Halcomb, 1980, p. 15). As mentioned previously, the number of mentors seems to be significarrtr. Queralt (1982) remarked that academics with more than one mentor did better in career development than those with one mentor. V a i l l a n t (1977) studying male adult development in 268 males over 30 years of age stated, "men with r e l a t i v e l y 46 u n s u c c e s s f u l c a r e e r s e i t h e r h a d n o t d i s c o v e r e d m e n t o r s u n t i l t h e i r e a r l y f o r t i e s , o r h a d m e n t o r s who s e r v e d o n l y d u r i n g a d o l e s c e n c e " ( p . 2 1 9 ) . P r o t e g e ' s C a r e e r S t a g e The p r o t e g e i s o f t e n b e t w e e n t h e a g e s o f 17 a n d 35 ( H e n n i g & J a r d i m , 1 977 ; L e v i n s o n e t a l . , 1 978 ; M i s s i r i a n 1980) a n d i s more l i k e l y t o a d o p t a m e n t o r d u r i n g s c h o o l y e a r s ( R a w l e s , 1980) o r e a r l y i n o n e ' s c a r e e r ( D a l t o n e t a l . , 1 977 ; M i s s i r i a n , 1 9 8 0 ) . The i n f l u e n c e o f s i g n i f i c a n t o t h e r s s u c h a s p a r e n t s , p r o f e s s o r s , t e a c h e r s , e m p l o y e r s , s p o u s e s , f a m i l y membe r s , a n d f r i e n d s a t t h i s e a r l y c r u c i a l s t a g e o f a d u l t d e v e l o p m e n t h a s begun t o be r e s e a r c h e d ( A l m q u i s t , 1 9 7 1 ; B e l l , 1 9 70 ; D o u v a n , 1976 ; R o e , 1 953 ; S p e i z e r , 1 9 8 1 ; S u p e r , 1 963 , 1969 ; Z u c k e r m a n , 1 9 7 7 ) . T h i s i s a p e r i o d when t h e n o v i c e becomes s o c i a l i z e d i n t o t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l work s e t t i n g , e s t a b l i s h e s h i s o r h e r i d e n t i t y '•• i n t e r m s o f c a r e e r c h o i c e , a n d o f t e n f o r m s l a s t i n g f r i e n d s h i p s o r becomes c o m m i t t e d t o a m a t e . " I t i s a t i m e o f s e a r c h i n g f o r v a l u e s a n d r o l e m o d e l s a n d t e s t i n g v a r i o u s p o s s i b l e i d e n t i t i e s , a t i m e o f t h i n k i n g a b o u t o n e ' s own i d e o l o g y a n d p u r p o s e i n l i f e " ( H a l l , 1 976 , p . 49) I t i s n o t S u r p r i s i n g t h e n , t h a t g u i d a n c e f r o m a w i s e e x p e r i e n c e d i n d i v i d u a l who b e l i e v e s i n t h e n o v i c e ' s p o t e n t i a l i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be o f p a r a m o u n t i m p o r t a n c e a t t h i s s t a g e ( L e v i n s o n e t a l . , 1 9 7 8 ) . 47 The Mentor-Protege Relationship Because mentoring i s a highly interactive and personal transaction i t i s clear that i t cannot be defined solely in terms of a mentor d e f i n i t i o n and description of mentor and protege c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Mentoring i s best understood in terms of the character of the relat i o n s h i p and the function i t serves (Levinson et a l . , 1978, p. 98). The mentor-protege r e l a t i o n s h i p i s complex and intense, much l i k e that of a love r e l a t i o n s h i p . It i s a mixture of parent-child and peer interactions (Levinson et a l . , 1978, p. 100). Mentors and proteges have a high degree of trust, respect, and af f e c t i o n for each other (Kram, 1980; Levinson et a l . , 1978; P h i l l i p s , 1977). Some believe they share common values, attitudes, and goals (Missirian, 1980, p. 135), while others report that mentors and proteges see each other as their ideal dyad opposites (Alleman, 1982). The r e l a t i o n s h i p i s informal and unassigned, often developing out of a mutual a t t r a c t i o n and willingness to enter into a r e l a t i o n s h i p (Hennig & Jardim, 1978; Levinson et a l . , 1978). The i n v i t a t i o n to pa r t i c i p a t e i s usually issued by the mentor since the mentor i s the one with more status and power (Missirian, 1980; P h i l l i p s , 1977). Sometimes i t i s i n i t i a t e d by a motivated protege trying to at t r a c t the attention of a prospective mentor. This i s espe c i a l l y true of the s c i e n t i f i c e l i t e s in Zuckerman's study (1-977, pp. 107-113). Or, i t can be i n i t i a t e d by both persons as they experience a certain chemistry 48 and mutual a t t r a c t i o n ( P h i l l i p s , 1977). Missi r i a n (1980) sp e c i f i e s that "while i t i s the mentor who i n i t i a t e s the relationship, i t i s the protege who signals the s h i f t from one stage to the next" (p. 148). The progress of the relationship depends, however, upon the mentor's judgement as he or she accepts or rejects the protege's cues to move forward. The mentor-protege relationship passes through a series of developmental phases with each phase having a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c set of a c t i v i t i e s and tasks. Kram (1980) delineates four phases in the development of the mentor-protege rel a t i o n s h i p : I n i t i a t i o n , C u l t i v a t i o n , Separation^ and Redefinition; M i s s i r i a n (1980) distinguishes three: I n i t i a t i o n , Development, and Termination; and P h i l l i p s (1977) i d e n t i f i e s six phases: I n i t i a t i o n , Sparkle, Development, Disillusionment, Parting, and Transformation. I n i t i a t i o n s i g n i f i e s the beginning of the relationship. It i s primarily started by the mentor, but i t can grow out of mutual at t r a c t i o n . The Development phase is where most of the learning occurs. At the beginning, the interaction i s one-sided with the mentor giving most of the support as he/she teaches, coaches, assigns, and recommends the protege for promotions. As the relationship progresses and the protege becomes more confident, there i s more mutual exchange. The rela t i o n s h i p may continue this way for some time with the mentor teaching on continously higher levels and delegating more and more responsiblity. As the protege achieves his or her goals, Disillusionment begins. This is a process of disengagement for both mentor and protege. If the mentor-protege relationship is to be a success in terms 49 of a d u l t development, the protege must break away from the mentor's dominance. T h i s i s the P a r t i n g stage of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . At the Transformation stage, the r e l a t i o n s h i p u s u a l l y develops i n t o that of a peer r e l a t i o n s h i p , although a few end i n b i t t e r n e s s or with i n d i v i d u a l s d r i f t i n g t h e i r separate ways. The r e l a t i o n s h i p l a s t s on the average two to three years; 10 years at the most (Levinson et a l . , 1978; M i s s i r i a n , 1980; Roche, 1979). R e l i a n c e of the protege on the mentor must end i f the protege i s to develop f u l l y . The r e l a t i o n s h i p can terminate in a number of' ways: amicably, with some going on to develop l a s t i n g f r i e n d s h i p s (Kram, 1980; M i s s i r i a n , 1980; P h i l l i p s , 1977; Roche, 1979); when one moves, changes jobs, or g r a d u a l l y becomes l e s s i n v o l v e d (Levinson et a l . , 1978); or, with intense bad f e e l i n g and c o n f l i c t (Kram, 1980; Levinson et a l . , 1978). When the r e l a t i o n s h i p ends badly i t i s because the protege f e e l s abandoned or undermined, and/or the mentor f e e l s r e s e n t f u l of the younger person's g r e a t e r success (Kram, 1980, p. 166). The mentor-protege r e l a t i o n s h i p i s thought to be a developmental r e l a t i o n s h i p (Burton, 1977; Clawson, 1980; Levinson et a l . , 1978; Sheehy, 1977). I t occurs at key developmental stages i n the l i f e of the mentor, and protege i n p a r t i c u l a r . The timing of occurance of the mentor-protege r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to the developmental stages of ego i d e n t i t y and g e n e r a t i v i t y as d e s c r i b e d by E r i k s o n (1950) as we'll as i n Levinson's work r e g a r d i n g the novice and m i d l i f e 50 t r a n s i t i o n stages. It would seem the mentor-protege relationship not only fosters the adult development of the protege, but i t also fosters the mentor's development. The most c r i t i c a l developmental responsiblity of the mentor is to support and f a c i l i t i a t e the protege's r e a l i z a t i o n of the sense of self in the adult world, or as Levinson has expressed i t "the r e a l i z a t i o n of the Dream" (pp. 98-99). The mentor serves as a confirming adult in t h i s process of individuation. It may be that the protege's perception of good or bad mentoring i s related to the type and amount of support in achieving t h i s Dream. The influence of this confirming adult i s a key ingredient of the mentor-protege re l a t i o n s h i p . Clawson (1980) studied 38 superior-subordinate relationships- within a nation-wide insurance company. He likened the e f f e c t i v e superior- subordinate relationship to that of a mentor-protege relationship and came upon a s i g n i f i c a n t finding. He expected that the f i t between the superior's and subordinate's c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s would be the important feature of e f f e c t i v e relationships. It was not. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the superior were much more s i g n i f i c a n t (p. 154). In l i g h t of the considerable evidence regarding the influence of managers (Clawson, 1980; Livingston, 1969) and teachers (Rogers, 1969; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968) upon the i r subordinates, i t i s clear that the q u a l i t y of the r e l a t i o n s h i p and the learning that occurs is largely dependent on the superior. The influence of the mentor can be explained by the b e l i e f that the gap between 51 o n e ' s ego i d e a l and p e r c e p t i o n of s e l f i s a s t rong mot i va to r in l e a r n i n g to narrow that gap (Lev inson et a l . , 1977). The r e a l i z a t i o n tha t another person (perhaps a f i r s t s u p e r v i s o r or mentor) has the s k i l l one d e s i r e s i s the beg inn ing of the m o t i v a t i o n to become l i k e that pe r son . The mentor ' s i n f l u e n c e on the n o v i c e ' s development i s n o t a b l e in the b i o g r a p h i e s of s u c c e s s f u l people such as W i l l i e Brandt (Ke l le rman, 1978), Emi ly D i c k i n s o n (1894), Sigmund Freud (Stone, 1971), Margaret Mead (1972), and many o t h e r s . Zuckerman (1977) e x p l o r e d the e f f e c t of nobe l l a u r e a t e masters on t h e i r a p p r e n t i c e s ' development. These s e n i o r s c i e n t i s t s educated, t r a i n e d , and s o c i a l i z e d t h e i r p ro teges i n t o t h e i r s t y l e s of t h i n k i n g and va lues of e x c e l l e n c e . B iochemis t Hans Krebs r e f l e c t s : If I ask mysel f how i t came about tha t one day I found myself in Stockholm [ r e c e i v i n g the Nobel p r i z e ] I have not the s l i g h t e s t doubt that I owe t h i s good fo r tune to the c i r cumstance that I had an ou t s t and ing teacher at the c r i t i c a l s tage in my s c i e n t i f i c c a r e e r , (p. 124-125) E l eanor Lambertson, a renowned American nu r s i n g l e a d e r , speaks about the g reat i n f l u e n c e of a nurse l e a d e r , R. L o u i s e McManus, on her l i f e : She was a v i s i o n a r y and a s c h o l a r as w e l l as a g reat p e r s o n . . . She had the c a p a c i t y f o r d e v e l o p i n g peop le and p r o v i d i n g them wi th the p e r s o n a l and p r o f e s s i o n a l re sources r e q u i r e d to be c r e a t i v e and i n n o v a t i v e . ( S a f i e r , 1977, p. 143) [At one stage of my c a r e e r ] I became upset because I found peop le p u b l i s h i n g my m a t e r i a l s as t h e i r o w n . . . . Ms McManus s a i d to me, . . . 'I want you to w r i t e a manual on team n u r s i n g ' . I 'd never wr i t t en , , and I 52 j u s t assumed that s i n c e she s a i d I c o u l d do i t , I c o u l d do i t . . . [In two months] i t was f i n i s h e d and t yped . She sent i t to the e d i t o r of Teachers C o l l e g e Press and i t was p u b l i s h e d wi thout any changes, (pp. 146-147) T h i s b e l i e f in Ms Lamber t son ' s a b i l i t y was in no smal l pa r t r e s p o n s i b l e f o r l aunch ing her on a d i s t i n g u i s h e d c a r e e r that would see her author over 150 a r t i c l e s and two books, conduct many r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t s and s t u d i e s , r e c e i v e numerous awards and honors , and h o l d a number of e l e c t e d o f f i c e s and h i gh a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o s i t i o n s . The i n f l u e n c e of a c r u c i a l s i g n i f i c a n t o ther i s a l s o seen in those who have a b i l i t y but are t u r n i n g in a mediocre per formance. "The on ly sure way an i n d i v i d u a l can i n t e r r u p t r e v e r i e - l i k e p r e o c c u p a t i o n and s e l f - a b s o r p t i o n i s to form a deep attachment to a great teacher or o ther benevo lent person who understands and has the a b i l i t y to communicate w i th the g i f t e d i n d i v i d u a l " ( Z a l e z n i k , 1977, p. 75) . An example from the l i f e of Dwight Eisenhower c h a r a c t e r i z e s the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of a c a r e e r from average to o u t s t a n d i n g . Under Genera l Fox Connor Eisenhower took a " m a g n i f i c e n t t u t o r i a l on the m i l i t a r y " ( Z a l e z n i k , 1977, p. 76 ) . Eisenhower (1967) w r i t i n g about Connor s a i d : L i f e w i th Genera l Connor was a s o r t of graduate s choo l in m i l i t a r y a f f a i r s and the human i t i e s , l eavened by a man who was expe r i enced in h i s knowledge of men and t h e i r conduc t . I can never adequate l y expres s my g r a t i t u d e to t h i s one g e n t l e m a n . . . . In a l i f e t i m e of a s s o c i a t i o n with g reat and good men, he i s the one more or l e s s i n v i s i b l e f i g u r e to whom I owe an i n c a l c u l a b l e debt . (p. 187) 53 In c o n c l u s i o n , there i s a moving account from an anonymous nurse ( S chor r , 1979) who was i n s p i r e d to r i s e to h i gh l e v e l s of per fo rmance: I would have become a nurse without h e r , but never would I have sought the l e v e l of p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m , the degree of compass ion, the depth of humor, the he i ght of empathy that are set as gu idepos t s fo r me by the conduct of my mentor. (p. 65) These accounts e p i t o m i z e the i n f l u e n c e and c e r t a i n myst ique or magic sometimes spoken about by pro teges or mentors when d e s c r i b i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p ( P h i l l i p s , 1977, p. 135). M i s s i r i a n (1980, p. 143-146) sheds some l i g h t on what t h i s myst ique might be when she i d e n t i f i e s th ree f e a t u r e s which d i s t i n g u i s h the t rue mentor ing r e l a t i o n s h i p from o t h e r s k inds of s u p p o r t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . These a r e : • the power r ep re sen ted by the mentor in terms of acces s to p e r s o n a l and m a t e r i a l r e s o u r c e s , • the degree of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n deve loped between the mentor and pro tege in terms of p r o f e s s i o n a l and p e r s o n a l va lues and behav i ou r , and • the i n t e n s i t y of emot iona l invo lvement p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y j o i n i n g mentor and p r o t e g e . As the r e l a t i o n s h i p p r o g r e s s e s , f e e l i n g s go beyond mutual r e spec t and a f f e c t i o n to u n c o n d i t i o n a l l o v e . A c c o r d i n g to M i s s i r i a n (1980), "In the f i n a l s tage of the r e l a t i o n s h i p mentor and protege reach an e x q u i s i t e l e v e l of under s tand ing which enab les them to l ove one another u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y " (p. 146). It 54 i s t h i s u n c o n d i t i o n a l l ove that separa te s mentor ing from sponso r sh i p . A c c o r d i n g to P h i l l i p s (1977, pp. 114-119) th ree d imens ions c o n t r i b u t e to the success or f a i l u r e of the mentor -protege r e l a t i o n s h i p . The f i r s t i s the mentor ing r e l a t i o n s h i p which i n c l u d e s the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward themse lves , each o t h e r , and the mentor ing e x p e r i e n c e ; t h e i r needs; t h e i r p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; the l e n g t h of the r e l a t i o n s h i p ; the v o l u n t a r y or i n v o l u n t a r y nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p ; and the p r o t e g e ' s p e r c e p t i o n of the mentor ' s i n t e r e s t . The second dimension i s the mentor ing h e l p which i n c l u d e s the t y p e , a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s , and p o t e n t i a l impact . The t h i r d d imens ion i s the t im ing of the exper i ence which i n v o l v e s when i t occur s in each p a r t i c i p a n t ' s c a r e e r s tages and w i t h i n the e x t e r n a l or o r g a n i z a t i o n a l env i ronment. T h i s study does not encompass a l l of these e lements , but does i n c l u d e f a c e t s of the th ree d imens ions . Mentor ing He lp Mentor ing h e l p has been d e l i n e a t e d in s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t ways. These v i ewpo in t s a re e x p r e s s e d : as the type of h e l p r e c e i v e d from mentors (Fagan & Fagan, 1983; P h i l l i p s , 1977; Vance, 1977), as mentor behav iour s ( M i s s i r i a n , 1980), as mentor f u n c t i o n s (Kram, 1980), as s k i l l s l e a r n e d by pro teges from mentors (Bova & P h i l l i p s , 1982), and as the f a c i l i t a t i n g behav iour s of mentors (Clawson, 1980). 55 The d e s c r i p t i o n s of type of h e l p s i g n i f y that mentors a s s i s t t h e i r p ro teges in a v a r i e t y of ways. One needs to keep in mind that the c a t e g o r i e s of h e l p can o v e r l a p , and a mentor may p r o v i d e a l l or one type of h e l p . P h i l l i p s (1977, pp. 83-89) d e l i n e a t e d 10 k inds of mentor ing a s s i s t a n c e . Encouragement and r e c o g n i t i o n of p o t e n t i a l was deemed the most important and was most o f t e n r e p o r t e d . Mentors had utmost c o n f i d e n c e in t h e i r p ro tege s , and o f t e n were thought to have a f a i t h in the i n d i v i d u a l ' s a b i l i t i e s tha t the protege h e r s e l f d i d not have. Proteges were urged to take on th ing s they d i d not r e a l i z e they had the a b i l i t y to do. I n s t r u c t i o n , t r a i n i n g was the second most common a c t i v i t y . Proteges were taught s k i l l s and how to get a long in the o r g a n i z a t i o n . T h e i r e f f o r t s were rev iewed and c r i t i q u e d . Mentors urged t h e i r p ro teges to take a d d i t i o n a l educa t i on and cour ses to supplement t h e i r o n - t h e - j o b t r a i n i n g . Mentors , by encourag ing and g u i d i n g , gave t h e i r p ro teges o p p o r t u n i t i e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s to show what they c o u l d do. Adv i se and c o u n s e l was o f f e r e d through the mentor l i s t e n i n g , c l a r i f y i n g , h e l p i n g the protege form o p i n i o n s and by p r o v i d i n g p r a c t i c a l h e l p . He lp w i th c a r e e r moves was advanced in the form of a c t u a l l y h i r i n g , t r a n s f e r r i n g , promot ing , g i v i n g r a i s e s , or f a c i l i t a t i n g these s t e p s . In a d d i t i o n h e l p with c a r e e r move s t r a t e g i e s was p r o v i d e d . I n s p i r a t i o n , r o l e model ing was g i ven by many ' mentors 56 sometimes unbeknownst to the mentors themse lves . The mentors went out of t h e i r ways to p r o v i d e v i s i b i l i t y f o r t h e i r p r o t e g e s . They made a p o i n t of i n t r o d u c i n g t h e i r p ro teges to important pe r sons , i n c l u d e d them in important d i s c u s s i o n s , meet ings , and c o n f e r e n c e s , and a l l owed t h e i r p ro teges to share in key p r e s e n t a t i o n s to management. Many mentors o f f e r e d h e l p by p r o v i d i n g f r i e n d s h i p . They spent long hours t a l k i n g and going p l a c e s t o g e t h e r . Mentors exposed t h e i r p ro teges to t h e i r own power and exc i tement . Being around these v i b r a n t e n e r g i z e d mentors i n s p i r e d the p ro teges wi th renewed v i g o r . The men to r ' s v i t a l i t y encouraged the protege to do more and reach fo r new accompl i shments . These mentors p r o v i d e d two k inds of b e n e f i t s : m a t e r i a l g a i n , such as e legant o f f i c e s , expense account s , l i m o u s i n e s ; and the advantage of power by a s s o c i a t i o n wi th a power fu l mentor. P h i l l i p s conc ludes her p o r t r a y a l of mentor ing a s s i s t a n c e by i n c l u d i n g a ca tego ry of m i s c e l l a n e o u s h e l p . I nc luded are k inds of a i d tha t resemble that of p a r e n t i n g or f r i e n d s h i p such as r e s c u i n g a protege from pover ty and a l c o h o l i s m , p r o v i d i n g rent money and c l o t h i n g , and welcoming a protege i n t o the mento r ' s home fo r s e v e r a l months. D i f f e r e n t emphasis in importance as w e l l as d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s a re d e p i c t e d by Vance (1977, pp. 136-139) in her study of nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s . As in P h i l l i p s ' c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , 57 the items are ar ranged from the most important to the l e a s t impor tan t . Most s i g n i f i c a n t was c a r e e r a d v i c e , gu idance, and prompt i o n . The mentor encouraged s p e c i f i c s t r eng th s and s k i l l s , prodded, nudged, f a c i l i t a t e d , and opened p r o f e s s i o n a l doors f o r the p r o t e g e . Second ly , the mentor p r o v i d e d p r o f e s s i o n a l c a r e e r r o l e model ing by s e r v i n g as an example or a s tandard of e x c e l l e n c e f o r behav iour to be i m i t a t e d . Mentors were r o l e models f o r change, r i s k t a k i n g , s c h o l a r l y a b i l i t y , and p o l i t i c a l and d i p l o m a t i c a c t i o n . I n t e l l e c t u a l and s c h o l a r l y s t i m u l a t i o n was the t h i r d most common a c t i v i t y . Mentors taught t h e i r p ro teges how to th ink a n a l y t i c a l l y , they i n s t i l l e d i n t e l l e c t u a l s e l f c o n f i d e n c e , demonstrated what s c h o l a r s h i p was, and suppor ted and f u r t h e r e d r e s e a r c h ideas and i n t e r e s t s . The mentor served as a source of i n s p i r a t i o n and i d e a l i s m . Mentors d i s p l a y e d c o n f i d e n c e and a b e l i e f in the p r o t e g e ' s a b i l i t i e s and expected the ' p ro tege to succeed. They demonstrated h i gh e x p e c t a t i o n s , courage , and i n t e g r i t y to t h e i r p r o t e g e s . F i f t h in importance was t e a c h i n g , a d v i s i n g , t u t o r i n g . T h i s was p r o v i d e d by the mentor both in e d u c a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s and on the j o b . Mentors were c r e d i t e d with t e a c h i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e t echn iques and f i n a n c i a l management as w e l l as how to w r i t e 58 speeches , grant p r o p o s a l s , and pursue re sea r ch work. In a d d i t i o n , mentors gave emot iona l support and encouragement by i n s t i l l i n g s e l f c o n f i d e n c e and encourag ing the p r o t e g e ' s e f f o r t s . F u r t h e r , they supported v a r i o u s d e c i s i o n s taken by the protege and encouraged the p r o t e g e ' s d e s i r e to move ahead. L a s t l y , mentor ing h e l p i n the m i s c e l l a n e o u s ca tegory c o n s i s t e d of p r o v i d i n g f i n a n c i a l a d v i c e and a s s i s t a n c e , be ing a f r i e n d and gu ide , and p r o v i d i n g an a l t e r - e g o . There a re s i m i l a r i t i e s and a few d i f f e r e n c e s between P h i l l i p s ' and V a n c e ' s d e s c r i p t i o n s . The d i f f e r e n c e s are a r e f l e c t i o n of the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' d i f f e r e n t needs and va l ue s between bus ine s s and n u r s i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i o n or h i gher nu r s i n g e d u c a t i o n . They are a l s o a r e f l e c t i o n of the two con tex t s in which i n f l u e n t i a l s and women managers f u n c t i o n . Amongst the n u r s i n g i n f l u e n t i a l s , h e l p wi th c a r e e r p r o g r e s s i o n , s c h o l a r l y a t t a i n m e n t , and i n s p i r a t i o n were p e r c e i v e d as more important than emot iona l suppor t . T h i s may be because h i gher educa t i on in n u r s i n g i s i n c r e a s i n g l y important in the s o c i a l i z a t i o n of i n f l u e n t i a l l e a d e r s (Vance, 1979). It i s a l s o neces sa ry in c r e a t i n g r e s e a r c h minded nurses who w i l l add to the study of the—sc ience of n u r s i n g ( S a f i e r , 1977, p. 325). Both c a r e e r promotion and h i gher educa t i on are p e r c e i v e d as very important by nurse l e a d e r s . It i s not s u r p r i s i n g they would have r a t e d h e l p to a t t a i n these goa l s as more important than 59 emot iona l suppor t . In n u r s i n g , c a r e e r r o l e model ing i s h i g h l y va lued as a behav iour and i s r a t e d second. T h i s i s not the case amongst the women bus ines s managers where i t i s r a t e d s i x t h . The respondents in P h i l l i p s ' study r a t e d encouragement as the most f requent k ind of mentor ing h e l p . U n f o r t u n a t e l y emot iona l support and encouragement was found amongst on ly 11 percent of the nur se s , and was r a t e d second lowest . Mutual support amongst members of the p r o f e s s i o n i s not n e c e s s a r i l y a common occurance ( G r i f f i t h & Bakanauskas, 1983; S a f i e r , 1977, p. 391). Sad ly enough the power lessness tha t i s a r e s u l t of the male med ica l dominat ion of the p r o f e s s i o n a l wor ld of nu r s i n g l eads to sexism and c o m p e t i t i o n amongst the members. V i s i b i l i t y and power/exc i tement are not i d e n t i f i e d as types of mentor ing h e l p by the nu r s i n g i n f l u e n t i a l s . T h i s may be due to the f a c t tha t these are k inds of h e l p that are beyond the mentor ' s power to o f f e r , and/or they are not p e r c e i v e d as a p p r o p r i a t e f o r the protege to i d e n t i f y . F e e l i n g s of power les sness and the h i gh va lue p l a c e d on the "hand maiden" n o n - v i s i b l e nurse c o u l d be unconsc ious f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g the s u i t a b l i t y of i d e n t i f y i n g these two c a t e g o r i e s . Or, i t c o u l d be that the rou te to becoming a n u r s i n g i n f l u e n t i a l was such a s t r u g g l e tha t there was minimal p e r c e p t i o n of the mentor o f f e r i n g power and exc i tement . 60 In a survey of 87 h o s p i t a l s t a f f nurses and s u p e r v i s o r s , Fagan and Fagan (1983) asked respondents to check as many items as were a p p r o p r i a t e in r a t i n g mentor h e l p on the j ob . The q u e s t i o n n a i r e items were g leaned from the l i t e r a t u r e on mentor ing . The r a t i n g s of mentor h e l p from h i ghe s t percentage to lowest were as f o l l o w s : h e l p wi th g a i n i n g s e l f c o n f i d e n c e (87) , l i s t e n i n g to ideas and encourag ing c r e a t i v i t y (56) , h e l p to b e t t e r unders tand the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the h o s p i t a l (49) , and h e l p w i th how to work w i th peop le (31). In comparing the mentor h e l p amongst n u r s i n g i n f l u e n t i a l s to tha t of s t a f f nurses and s u p e r v i s o r s , i t must f i r s t be kept in mind that the data were o b t a i n e d by two d i f f e r e n t methods. Vance (1977) used an open-ended survey q u e s t i o n wh i le Fagan and Fagan (1983) used p r e s e l e c t e d items on a q u e s t i o n n a i r e wi th a space f o r any o ther comments about mentor h e l p . Even wi th these l i m i t a t i o n s , i t seems that the two s t u d i e s r e f l e c t the p r o t e g e ' s d i f f e r e n t needs. S e l f c o n f i d e n c e and h e l p with t e c h n i c a l s k i l l s were of pr imary importance to the h o s p i t a l n u r s e s . In the case of the nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s , these needs had been met in the past and new k inds of mentor h e l p were needed. I t becomes ev iden t that not on ly does mentor h e l p d i f f e r between v a r i o u s d i s c i p l i n e s , but i t d i f f e r s a c c o r d i n g to the p a r t i c u l a r needs and c a r e e r stage of the p r o t e g e . M i s s i r i a n (1980) d i d not study mentor ing h e l p per se, but she d i d study the mento r ' s behav iour as w e l l as the p r o t e g e ' s p e r c e p t i o n s and f e e l i n g s at each stage of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . Her 61 c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n broadens our under s tand ing of mentor ing h e l p in tha t the behav iour s of mentors are d i f f e r e n t i a t e d at each of the th ree phases of the mentor -pro tege r e l a t i o n s h i p . These behav iour s are as f o l l o w s : Phase I Recognized p r o t e g e ' s a b i l i t y / t a l e n t . Set e s p e c i a l l y h i gh s tandards of per formance. Ext remely demanding. Encouraged (seldom v e r b a l l y ) . Phase II Teaches protege the ' t r i c k s ' of the t r a d e . G ives protege a l l the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y she can handle ( p r o f e s s i o n a l as w e l l as p e r s o n a l ) . T h r u s t s p ro tege i n t o a reas fo r which she has no apparent e x p e r t i s e or e x p e r i e n c e . D i r e c t s and shapes through c r i t i c a l q u e s t i o n i n g . P u b l i c i z e s p r o t e g e ' s ach ievements . Promotes s t e a d i l y and o f t e n (or suggests that t h i s be done u s u a l l y from above) . P r o t e c t s . Phase III P rov ide s o p p o r t u n i t i e s to l e a r n by osmos is , o b s e r v a t i o n and a s s o c i a t i o n . Recommends protege to top management ( u s u a l l y of the parent company or to the board of d i r e c t o r s ) . L e t s go. (p. 99) I t i s ev i den t that there are more s i m i l a r i t i e s between the themes o f f e r e d by M i s s i r i a n (1980) and Vance (1977) than those between M i s s i r i a n and P h i l l i p s (1977). Aga in , t h i s i s p robab ly due to the s p e c i a l c on tex t s of the top o r g a n i z a t i o n a l e l i t e as compared to middle and upper c l a s s managers. M i s s i r i a n ' s 62 c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n i s h e l p f u l i n tha t i t i d e n t i f i e s some of the more i n t a n g i b l e a spec t s of the mento r ' s h e l p . Moving to a d i f f e r e n t approach, Bova and P h i l l i p s (1982) s t u d i e d what p ro teges l e a r n e d from t h e i r mentors. They surveyed 247 men and women in p r o f e s s i o n a l jobs or a t t e n d i n g graduate s c h o o l . P a r t i c i p a n t s were asked an open-ended que s t i on on a q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Responses c o u l d be grouped i n t o four c a t e g o r i e s : r i s k t a k i n g behav i ou r s , communicat ion s k i l l s , p o l i t i c a l s k i l l s , and s p e c i f i c s k i l l s r e l a t e d to the p r o f e s s i o n . Aga in , the s k i l l s l e a r n e d r e f l e c t the s p e c i a l needs of the p a r t i c i p a n t s . The respondents were c a r e e r o r i e n t e d and eager to l e a r n more about the p r a c t i c a l a spec t s of t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n s . The mentor ' s h e l p was unique in tha t i t a s s i s t e d the protege to meet s p e c i f i c c a r e e r needs not a v a i l a b l e from the e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n . As D a l t o n , Thompson, and P r i c e (1977) so g r a p h i c a l l y po in t out : [The protege works] " c l o s e l y w i th the mentor, l e a r n i n g from o b s e r v a t i o n and from t r i a l and c o r r e c t i o n the approaches, the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l savvy, the judgement that no one has yet been ab le to i n c o r p o r a t e i n t o t ex tbook s " ( p .24 ) . Kram (1980) makes a major c o n t r i b u t i o n to an unders tand ing of mentor ing h e l p by i d e n t i f y i n g the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a mentor ing r e l a t i o n s h i p , then c a t e g o r i z i n g these f e a t u r e s i n t o c a r e e r and p s y c h o s o c i a l f u n c t i o n s . The c a r e e r f u n c t i o n s can be l i k e n e d to i n s t r u m e n t a l type h e l p , wh i le p s y c h o s o c i a l f u n c t i o n s promote the p r o t e g e ' s competence and sense of s e l f worth. Career f u n c t i o n s i n c l u d e sponso r sh ip , exposure and v i s i b i l i t y , 63 c o a c h i n g , p r o t e c t i o n , and c h a l l e n g i n g work as s i gnments . Mentor h e l p in t h i s a rea i s p o s s i b l e because of the mento r ' s s upe r i o r e x p e r i e n c e , rank, and i n f l u e n c e in the o r g a n i z a t i o n . The p s y c h o s o c i a l f u n c t i o n s i n c l ude r o l e model ing , acceptance and c o n f i r m a t i o n through i n t e r a c t i o n w i th each o the r , c o u n s e l i n g , and f r i e n d s h i p . The p s y c h o s o c i a l f u n c t i o n s are p o s s i b l e because of an i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p tha t f o s t e r s t r u s t , m u t u a l i t y , and i n c r e a s i n g i n t i m a c y . The range of c a r e e r and p s y c h o s o c i a l h e l p v a r i e s . Some of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s p rov i de c a r e e r h e l p but not p s y c h o s o c i a l h e l p . " R e l a t i o n s h i p s that p r o v i d e both k inds of f u n c t i o n s are c h a r a c t e r i z e d by g rea te r i n t imacy and s t r e n g t h of i n t e r p e r s o n a l bond, and are g e n e r a l l y v iewed as more i n d i s p e n s i b l e , more c r i t i c a l to development, and more unique than other r e l a t i o n s h i p s in the manager ' s l i f e at work" (Kram, 1980, p. 70 ) . A p p l y i n g Kram's c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n , i t would appear that the broader the range of c a r e e r and p s y c h o s o c i a l h e l p , the more s a t i s f y i n g and ego c o n f i r m i n g the mentor -protege r e l a t i o n s h i p . Career and p s y c h o s o c i a l f u n c t i o n s can be used to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between pr imary and secondary mentors, or c a r e e r and l i f e mentors. Kram's c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n goes a long way to c l e a r i n g up the d i f f i c u l t y su r round ing degrees and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of mentors . \ 64 T h i s conc ludes the review of the l i t e r a t u r e r e l e v e n t to he lp that can be p r o v i d e d by a mentor. However an unders tand ing of mentor ing h e l p i s not complete wi thout c o n s i d e r i n g the way in which the h e l p i s g i v e n . F a c i l i t a t i n g Behav iours The work of C a r l Rogers (1969, 1980) p r o v i d e s an unders tand ing of q u a l i t i e s that c r e a t e a h e l p i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p and f a c i l i t a t e l e a r n i n g . Rogers (1980, pp. 271-280) advocates three a t t i t u d i n a l q u a l i t i e s of the e f f e c t i v e f a c i l i t a t o r of l e a r n i n g : r e a l n e s s or genu ines s ; p r i z i n g , a c c e p t i n g , and t r u s t i n g the l e a r n e r ; and empathet ic under s tand ing of the l e a r n e r . When the s u p e r i o r ' s behav iour s are p e r c e i v e d as open, c l a r i f y i n g , s t i m u l a t i n g , a c c e p t i n g , and f a c i l i t a t i n g , the l e a r n e r tends to be p r o d u c t i v e by d i s c o v e r i n g , e x p l o r i n g , expe r iment i ng , s y n t h e s i z i n g , and d e r i v i n g i m p l i c a t i o n s (Rogers, 1969, p. 5 ) . E x t e n s i v e r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s by Rogers and o ther s (Rogers, 1980, pp. 146-151; 276-278) document the e f f e c t i v e r e s u l t s of these th ree a t t i t u d e s on ach ievement , s e l f e x p l o r a t i o n , c r e a t i v e i n t e r e s t , and p r o d u c t i v i t y . S i m i l a r i t i e s to the behav iour s i d e n t i f i e d by Rogers (1980) are e v i d e n t in C lawson ' s study (1980) of s u p e r i o r - s u b o r d i n a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Amongst the f i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of s u p e r i o r - subord ina te r e l a t i o n s h i p s tha t r e s u l t e d in more l e a r n i n g among s u b o r d i n a t e s , were re spec t and t r u s t . The other th ree were r o l e comp lementar i t y , f requency of i n t e r a c t i o n s , and g e t t i n g a l a r g e r \ 65 p e r s p e c t i v e . These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are rev iewed b r i e f l y in an endeavour to e x t r a c t the f a c t o r s tha t app ly to mentor ing h e l p . Complementar i ty of r o l e s i s s i g n i f i c a n t to r e c e i v i n g h e l p and to e s t a b l i s h i n g the mentor -pro tege r e l a t i o n s h i p . It appears tha t i f r o l e complementar i ty i s l a c k i n g there i s p robab ly l i t t l e need f o r a mentor -pro tege r e l a t i o n s h i p . Subord ina tes who l e a r n e d more p e r c e i v e d t h e i r r o l e to be that of a l e a r n e r more o f t e n that those who l e a r n e d l e s s . Clawson (1980, p. 155) makes the p o i n t tha t i t was not c l e a r whether t h i s a t t i t u d e e x i s t e d p r i o r to the r e l a t i o n s h i p or whether i t deve loped from the re spec t and t r u s t tha t c h a r a c t e r i z e d e f f e c t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . E f f e c t i v e s u p e r v i s o r s were a c t i v e l y i n v o l v e d in d i r e c t i n g , i n s t r u c t i n g , and be ing good r o l e models . Respect was based on the s u p e r v i s o r ' s regard fo r the s u b o r d i n a t e ' s i n t e l l i g e n c e and on the s u b o r d i n a t e ' s re spec t f o r the s u p e r i o r ' s competence in the o r g a n i z a t i o n r a t h e r than on t e c h n i c a l a b i l i t y . A h i gh l e v e l of t r u s t based on the s u p e r v i s o r ' s c o n s i s t e n c y , i n f o r m a l i t y , openness w i th i n f o r m a t i o n , and an op t ima l l e v e l of in t imacy were p r e v a l e n t in e f f e c t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Frequency of i n t e r a c t i o n s was another c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of e f f e c t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . A c c o r d i n g to the p ro teges t h i s was a g r e a t e r i n d i c a t o r of the s u p e r i o r ' s i n t e r e s t than v e r b a l exp re s s i on s from the s u p e r i o r . 66 The l a s t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c was tha t of s e t t i n g h i gh s tandards f o r the subord ina te s in order to h e l p them ga in a l a r g e r p e r s p e c t i v e . The s u p e r i o r s b e l i e v e d a d i s s e r v i c e i s done to good peop le i f they a r e n ' t pushed to r e a l i z e b e t t e r r e s u l t s or en l a r ge t h e i r p e r s p e c t i v e . I t i s u s e f u l to note that wh i le both e f f e c t i v e and i n e f f e c t i v e s u p e r v i s o r s expressed a h i gh l e v e l of i n t e r e s t in d e v e l o p i n g t h e i r s u b o r d i n a t e s , i t was the e f f e c t i v e s u p e r v i s o r s that a c t u a l l y demonstrated t h i s behav iou r . T h i s i s of s i g n i f i c a n c e in the s e l e c t i o n of r e s e a r c h t o o l s . T o o l s that measure the mentor ' s behav iour , or at l e a s t the p r o t e g e ' s p e r c e p t i o n of the mentor ' s behav i ou r , w i l l p r o v i d e more a ccu ra te data than those measuring the mento r ' s p e r c e p t i o n s a l o n e . In a d d i t i o n to Clawson, M i s s i r i a m (1980) and Kram (1980) a l l u d e to the q u a l i t i e s of genuineness", p r i z i n g , and empathy. Kram, in her d i s c u s s i o n of p s y c h o s o c i a l f u n c t i o n s , emphasizes acceptance and c o n f i r m a t i o n and the f o s t e r i n g of t r u s t , m u t u a l i t y , and i n c r e a s e d i n t i m a c y . M i s s i r i a n i d e n t i f i e s " u n c o n d i t i o n a l l o v e " (p. 146) as the f e a t u r e s e p a r a t i n g mentor ing from sponso r sh i p . M i s s i r i a m and Kram i n t i m a t e that these q u a l i t i e s are pa r t of the f u l l y deve loped , deep ly s a t i s f y i n g mentor -protege r e l a t i o n s h i p . I t seems these mentor a t t i t u d e s a re present in the " b e s t " types of mentor ing h e l p . In other mentor -protege r e l a t i o n s h i p s they may become ev i den t p r i m a r i l y as the r e l a t i o n s h i p deepens, o r , on ly some of the q u a l i t i e s such as p r i z i n g or empathy may be p r e s e n t . The range 67 and depth to which mentors e x h i b i t these three q u a l i t i e s may determine how s a t i s f y i n g and h e l p f u l the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s to the p r o t e g e . In c o n c l u s i o n , mentor ing h e l p has been viewed as c o n s i s t i n g of two e lements : the type of h e l p g i ven by the mentor, and manner in which the h e l p i s g i v e n . From the l i t e r a t u r e rev iewed, i t i s ev i den t that these two elements a re very much i n t e r t w i n e d and are not d i v i d e d i n t o separate a reas of i n v e s t i g a t i o n . In the proces s of s t u d y i n g mentor ing h e l p i t i s not in tended that these two elements be i s o l a t e d . Ra the r , the purpose i s to p o i n t out tha t any study of mentor ing h e l p should a l s o i n c l u d e the manner in which the h e l p was g i v e n . The Outcomes of Mentor ing There are both b e n e f i t s and r i s k s to mentor ing . Benef i t s From the weal th of a r t i c l e s in bus iness and women's magazines, one i s l ead to b e l i e v e tha t c a r e e r and deve lopmenta l success are beyond reach un le s s a mentor can be found to pave the way. Because a mentor i s c o n s i d e r e d to be important to male c a r e e r achievement (Lev inson et a l . , 1978), i t i s t ou ted as be ing even more e s s e n t i a l f o r women wanting to ga in upward and outward i n f l u e n c e . Is a mentor important in l e a d e r s h i p and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e achievement? Are the re documented b e n e f i t s to hav ing a mentor? 68 Whi le the r e s e a r c h i s not e x t e n s i v e , and one must use c a u t i o n when a p p l y i n g the f i n d i n g s , i t i s e v i d e n t there are b e n e f i t s to the p r o t e g e , the mentor, and the o r g a n i z a t i o n . The b e n e f i t s are as f o l l o w s : • Mentor ing f o s t e r s c a r e e r and/or p e r s o n a l development .. (Hennig & J a r d i m , 1977; Kanter , 1977a; Lev inson et a l . , 1978; M i s s i r i a n , 1980; P h i l l i p s , 1977; Q u e r a l t , 1982; Qu inn, 1980; Roche, 1979; V a i l l a n t , 1977; Zuckerman, 1977) . • In the bus ines s wor ld ( M i s s i r i a n , 1980; Roche, 1979), h i gher e d u c a t i o n ( Q u e r a l t , 1982), and the s c i e n t i f i c community (Rawles, 1980), proteges earn more money sooner than non -p ro tege s . • Mentor ing f o s t e r s l e a d e r s h i p development (Kanter, 1977a; Vance, 1977; Z a l e z n i k , 1977; Zuckerman, 1977). • Mentor ing l eads to c a r e e r and p e r s o n a l s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r the protege and/or mentor (Kram, 1980; L a r s o n , 1981; M i s s i r i a n , 1980; Q u e r a l t , 1982; P h i l l i p s , 1977; Roche, 1979). • Amongst s c i e n t i s t s , mentors and pro teges are more s e l f a c t u a l i z e d than those who have not been a mentor or p ro tege (Rawles, 1980). 69 Proteges have h i gher l e v e l s of l e a r n i n g i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and t e c h n i c a l knowledge (Clawson, 1979). Those who are mentors are more p r o d u c t i v e to the o r g a n i z a t i o n (Da l ton et a l , 1977). From p e r s o n a l anecdotes , comes the ev idence that the p r o t e g e ' s d e s i r e to p lea se the mentor f o s t e r s the necessary m o t i v a t i o n and per severence in the face of d i f f i c u l t i e s that o therwi se may cause the nov i ce to q u i t ( Z a l e z n i k , 1977). For the o r g a n i z a t i o n or p r o f e s s i o n , mentors can h e l p s o c i a l i z e the nov i ce i n t o i t s norms and s tandards (Becker & S t r a u s s , 1956; Benner & Benner, 1979), grant en t ree i n t o inner c i r c l e s (Ranter , 1977a; C o l l i n s & S c o t t , 1978), and p r o v i d e c o n t i n u i t y and q u a l i t y of l e a d e r s h i p by moulding and sponsor ing those wi th l e a d e r s h i p a b i l i t y (Vance, 1979; Z a l e z n i k , 1977; Zuckerman, 1977). R i sk s to Mentor ing As in any c l o s e i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , t he re can be t en s i on s and negat ive outcomes. Mentors can be o v e r l y p r o t e c t i v e , e x p l o i t i v e , e g o c e n t r i c , and have any of the q u a l i t i e s of a poor parent (Kram, 1980; Lev inson et a l . , 1978; P h i l l i p s , 1977). The protege can be env ied and re sen ted by unchosen peers ( P h i l l i p s , 1977). There can be h i e r a r c h i a l 70 t en s i on s i f the mentor i s more s e n i o r to the p r o t e g e ' s s u p e r i o r (K l aus s , 1981). L i n e s of communicat ion may be by -pas sed or the protege may r e c e i v e c o n f l i c t i n g p i e c e s of a d v i c e . The mentor can l o s e i n f l u e n c e or a p o s i t i o n in the o r g a n i z a t i o n t a k i n g the protege w i th h im/her (Halcomb, 1980). Mentors can become p r e o c c u p i e d w i th problems in t h e i r own c a r e e r s . In t h i s i n s t ance they may g i ve i n s u f f i c i e n t t ime to t h e i r p ro teges or abandon them suddenly when the protege i s most in need of h e l p ( P h i l l i p s , 1977). The t e r m i n a t i o n can be p a i n f u l and d i s i l l u s i o n i n g to both mentor and pro tege (Kram, 1980; Lev in son et a l , 1978; P h i l l i p s , 1977). In c r o s s sex mentor ing , sexua l t en s i on s may i n t e r f e r e (Kram, 1980; M i s s i r i a n , 1980), or sexua l a t t r a c t i o n may be p e r c e i v e d by o u t s i d e r s to be a predominant f a c t o r when in f a c t i t i s not (Sheehy, 1976). There a re two p o t e n t i a l r i s k s to mentor ing that are p e c u l i a r to n u r s i n g . Nurs ing i s p lagued wi th power lessness due to i t s dominance by the p r i m a r i l y male med ica l p r o f e s s i o n (Ash ley , 1976; G l a s s , 1983, p. 14; S a f i e r , 1977, p. 391; Vance 1979). T h i s dominat ion has l e d to f e e l i n g s of low s e l f esteem and d e v a l u a t i o n of the n u r s e ' s work and t a l e n t s (Vance, 1979). In response to t h i s , there i s a concomitant competet i veness and l ack of mutual support amongst members of the p r o f e s s i o n (Cameron, 1982). Kanter (1977a) remarks that the l ack of o p p o r t u n i t y s t r u c t u r e g r e a t l y i n f l u e n c e s an i n d i v i d u a l ' s b e h a v i o u r — o n e becomes r e s e n t f u l and withdrawn. These nega t i ve 71 elements w i l l i n f l u e n c e how a manager (or nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r ) w i l l behave i f and when she assumes the r o l e of sponsor ing younger p e o p l e . The p o t e n t i a l nega t i ve consequences may be borne out in two ways. F i r s t l y , i n t h i s c o n t e x t , use of r o l e models that are u n w i l l i n g or unable to take r i s k s may a c t u a l l y i n h i b i t women's advancement because they i n f l u e n c e the nov ice to adopt the power le s s , t o k e n , low pay ing jobs of the r o l e model ( H a s e l t i n e , 1977). Behav io r s tha t keep peop le at the bottom of the l adder are modeled r a t h e r than those tha t promote the a p p r o p r i a t e r e c o g n i t i o n , advancement, remunera t ion , and l e a d e r s h i p q u a l i t i e s n u r s i n g so d e s p e r a t e l y r e q u i r e s . Even the model ing of the t r a d i t i o n a l female nur s i ng r o l e may not be in the best i n t e r e s t s of the nu r s i n g p r o f e s s i o n . In t h e i r s tudy of 87 h o s p i t a l nurses (61 of whom were s t a f f nu r se s , 25 were s u p e r v i s o r s , and one an a d m i n i s t r a t o r ) Fagan and Fagan (1983) found tha t nurses i d e n t i f i e d more i n t e n s e l y wi th t h e i r mentors than d i d t eache r s and p o l i c e o f f i c e r s . T h i s shou ld be a good omen. However the t r a i t s f r e q u e n t l y " p i c k e d up" by the p ro teges from t h e i r mentors were: a penchant f o r d i s c i p l i n e and hard work, d e d i c a t i o n to the j o b , independence, honesty , p e r s i s t e n c e , and t a c t f u l n e s s (p. 80 ) . These are a l l h i g h l y v a l u a b l e q u a l i t i e s in mairrtraining p r o f e s s i o n a l s t anda rd s . But they a re not behav iour s tha t c o n j u r e up an image of a c r e a t i v e , r i s k t a k i n g , p o l i t i c a l l y a s tu te l e a d e r . Nor are they q u a l i t i e s that w i l l h e l p the nurse dea l w i th the problems that p lague 72 nur se s : power le s snes s , a t t r i t i o n , economic i n e q u a l i t i e s , burnout s , gaps in consumer s e r v i c e s , and i n a b i l i t y to d e l i v e r s e r v i c e s d i r e c t l y to the p u b l i c (G l a s s , 1983, p. 14). S a d l y , they a re behav iour s that ma in ta in the s t a t u s quo. In Fagan and Fagan ' s s tudy i t i s d i s a p p o i n t i n g tha t c e r t a i n behav iour s such as shrewdness, becoming p o l i t i c a l l y s o p h i s t i c a t e d , and l e a r n i n g to be f rank and outspoken were t r a i t s tha t were r e p o r t e d to be modeled i n f r e q u e n t l y by the mentor. T h i s i s one of the un fo r tuna te a spec t s of i d e n t i f y i n g with w e l l meaning, hard work ing, n o n - r i s k t a k i n g models . A second nega t i ve consequence i s the p o s s i b l e presence of the "Queen Bee . " T h i s i s the t a l e n t e d i n d i v i d u a l who hav ing secured a l e a d e r s h i p p o s i t i o n , d i s p l a y s a n t i f e m i n i s t behav iour s and thwarts the upward c a r e e r m o b i l i t y of o ther nu r se s . The Queen Bee i d e n t i f i e s wi th those in p o s i t i o n s above her and a l i g n s h e r s e l f wi th the e s t a b l i s h e d way of do ing t h i n g s . She works i ndependent l y of o t h e r s , a v o i d i n g group work or group s o l u t i o n s (Ha l sey , 1978). I f she o f f e r s a mentor ing r e l a t i o n s h i p to o ther women, the r e l a t i o n s h i p f r u s t r a t e s and s t i f l e s the p r o t e g e . In a study of 140 Mas sachuse t t s ' nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , Ha l sey (1978) found that not on l y d i d the Queen Bee syndrome e x i s t amongst 28 p e r c e n t , but tha t i t became more p r e v a l e n t i n p r o g r e s s i v e l y h i gher l e v e l s of n u r s i n g management. Both Ranter (1977a, p. 230) and Yoder (1982) suggest tha t the Queen Bee syndrome i s not so much the r e s u l t of c o n s c i o u s d i s l i k e of o ther women, r a the r i t i s the r e s u l t of s i t u a t i o n a l c o n s t r a i n t s such as being in a token r o l e . D e s p i t e the f a c t the 73 nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r belongs to a p r i m a r i l y female p r o f e s s i o n , she i s c o n s i d e r e d to be a token amongst the male h e a l t h ca re management team. Ha l sey (1978) p o s t u l a t e s tha t the Queen Bee syndrome i s a s e l f p r o t e c t i v e mechanism of cop ing w i th c o n f l i c t i n g r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s and o b l i g a t i o n s . The nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r must cope w i th the dua l e x p e c t a t i o n s and norms that she behave as the n u r t u r i n g woman and at the same time be a s s e r t i v e , d e c i s i v e , and outspoken. In o rder to manage the t r a d i t i o n a l woman's r o l e , not appear t h r e a t e n i n g to her s u p e r i o r s who are o f t e n men, and s t i l l be s u c c e s s f u l , she adopts the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Queen Bee (Ha l sey , 1978, p. 238). De sp i t e the f a c t the Queen Bee can be p r o d u c t i v e , e v e n t u a l l y the o r g a n i z a t i o n and the p r o f e s s i o n s u f f e r . The Queen Bee ' s r e l u c t a n c e to f o s t e r r i s k t a k i n g behav iour s and t r a i n her subord ina te s i n h i b i t s the development of l e a d e r s and p revent s nurses from l e a r n i n g the s k i l l s necessary f o r advancement. These two e l e m e n t s - - r o l e model ing of n o n - a s s e r t i v e behav iours and r e l u c t a n c e to f o s t e r the development of s u b o r d i n a t e s — a r e behav iour s found amongst groups s u f f e r i n g from power lessness (Kanter , 1977a). Any i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the mentor- protege r e l a t i o n s h i p shou ld take i n t o account the s e t t i n g in which the r e l a t i o n s h i p occur s as i t i s e v i den t the context w i l l have an i n f l u e n c e on the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . 74 Re-enactment of the Men to r ' s Role When one c o n s i d e r s the p o s i t i v e e f f e c t s of mentor ing and the e x t r a o r d i n a r y k inds of l e a r n i n g that o c c u r , i t would be u s e f u l to know whether t h i s s p e c i a l k ind of educa t i on i s passed on to o t h e r s . Do former p ro teges become mentors? E i g h t y percent of the women e x e c u t i v e s in M i s s i r i a n ' s study (1980) became mentors. Vance (1977) r e p o r t s tha t 93 percent of the nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s became mentors to o t h e r s . P h i l l i p s (1977) d i d not gather s t a t i s t i c s but she d i d i d e n t i f y the repay ing of past f avo r s as one of the m o t i v a t i o n s to becoming a mentor. "Because of the h e l p I had, I wish to share my knowledge and concern f o r o t h e r s . . . . I can never repay except by t r y i n g to h e l p o t h e r s . . . . We r a r e l y have the o p p o r t u n i t y to h e l p those who he lped us. So we h e l p o t h e r s " (p. 79 -80 ) . The i n c i d e n c e of mentor ing would appear to be extremely h i gh amongst those who have been mentored. What i s not known i s the number of p ro teges sponsored by former p ro teges who become mentors . Summary T h i s review of the l i t e r a t u r e has focused on mentor d e f i n i t i o n s , demographic and c a r e e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of survey s u b j e c t s , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the mentor, the p r o t e g e , and mentor -pro tege r e l a t i o n s h i p , type of mentor ing h e l p r e c e i v e d , and outcomes of mentor ing . To summarize, the major f i n d i n g s from the r e s e a r c h l i t e r a t u r e r e l e v e n t to the mentor, p ro tege , 75 mentor -protege r e l a t i o n s h i p , and type of mentor ing h e l p are i t e m i z e d in the f o l l o w i n g s tatements to f a c i l i t a t e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the s a l i e n t p o i n t s . The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the mentor i n c l u d e the f o l l o w i n g : • o l d e r than the protege by e i g h t to 15 year s or even 15 to 18 year s • of the same or o p p o s i t e sex than the protege • o f t e n at the age of 40 to 6 0 - - t h e stage of g e n e r a t i v i t y • o f t e n an immediate s u p e r i o r or a person of h i gher s t a t u s or rank • pos ses ses g r e a t e r power than the pro tege in terms of e x p e r t i s e , knowledge, i n f l u e n c e , or s t a t u s • does not have i n t r i n s i c p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s but does behave d i f f e r e n t l y towards the pro tege as compared to the non-protege • c a r r i e s out a v a r i e t y of mentor ing r o l e s , the most important of which i s to serve as a c o n f i r m i n g a d u l t to the protege 76 The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the protege are as f o l l o w s : • o f t e n between the ages of 17 and 35 • more l i k e l y to adopt a mentor d u r i n g s choo l years or e a r l y in o n e ' s work • may have anywhere from one to four mentors, wi th two to th ree on an average throughout the v a r i o u s stages of a c a r e e r • more l i k e l y to be a mentor to o the r s C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the mentor -protege r e l a t i o n s h i p i n c l ude the f o l l o w i n g : • i n f o r m a l and unass i gned • the mentor u s u a l l y i n i t i a t e s the r e l a t i o n s h i p a l though i t can grow out of mutual a t t r a c t i o n and agreement or be i n i t i a t e d by the protege • passes through a s e r i e s of deve lopmenta l phases • l a s t s on the average two to th ree y e a r s ; 10 years at the most 77 must end as a mentor -pro tege type of r e l a t i o n s h i p i f the protege i s to deve lop f u l l y o f t e n deve lops i n t o a peer r e l a t i o n s h i p , but i t can end by moving, chang ing jobs , d r i f t i n g a p a r t , or in b i t t e r n e s s and c o n f l i c t the q u a l i t y of the r e l a t i o n s h i p and the l e a r n i n g that occur are l a r g e l y dependent on the mentor o f t e n p r o x i m i t y and c a r e e r i n t e r e s t of the mentor c o r r e l a t e with that of the protege Fea tu re s which d i s t i n g u i s h t rue mentor -protege r e l a t i o n s h i p s from o ther s u p p o r t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e : • the power p r e s e n t e d by the mentor in a c c e s s i n g re sources • the degree of p e r s o n a l and p r o f e s s i o n a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n between mentor and protege • the i n t e n s i t y of emot iona l involvement j o i n i n g mentor and p r o t e g e . 78 There are v a r i o u s types of mentor ing h e l p that can be c a t e g o r i z e d as f o l l o w s : • encouragement, a ccep tance , c o n f i r m a t i o n • i n s t r u c t i o n , t r a i n i n g , coach ing • c h a l l e n g e , i n s p i r a t i o n , r e s p o n s i b i l i t y • c o u n s e l l i n g , a d v i c e , and gu idance • c a r e e r a d v i c e • r o l e model ing • promot ion and sponso r sh ip • f r i e n d s h i p In c o n c l u s i o n , a search of the l i t e r a t u r e r e v e a l s tha t there are c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s tha t can be a s s i gned to both mentors and p ro teges when they assume these r o l e s in the mentor- protege r e l a t i o n s h i p . In a d d i t i o n , t h e r e are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that can be a t t r i b u t e d to the r e l a t i o n s h i p and c a t e g o r i e s tha t can be s p e c i f i e d as mentor ing h e l p . Both p o s i t i v e and nega t i ve outcomes can be i d e n t i f i e d . C o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s i s known about the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the mentor, p r o t e g e , mentor -protege r e l a t i o n s h i p and type of mentor ing h e l p , as i t a p p l i e s to nu r s i n g a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . The next chapter p r e s e n t s a d e s c r i p t i o n of the study method. I nc luded i s an e x p l a n a t i o n of the d e s i g n , sample i n v o l v e d , p rocedures f o r data c o l l e c t i o n , instrument used, and data ana l y se s s e l e c t e d . 79 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY The purpose of t h i s study was to i n v e s t i g a t e the extent to which nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s had been r e c i p i e n t s of mentor ing a c t i v i t y . In a d d i t i o n , i t determined the s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in background c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s between mentored and non-mentored a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ; e x p l o r e d the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the mentor, p r o t e g e , mentor -protege r e l a t i o n s h i p ; and d e s c r i b e d the type of mentor ing h e l p r e c e i v e d . F i n a l l y i t determined whether nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s have been mentors to o t h e r s . Des ign Because so l i t t l e i s known about the phenomenon of mentor ing f o r nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , t h i s r e s e a r c h i s d e s c r i p t i v e in n a t u r e . A c r o s s s e c t i o n a l survey study of nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s u s ing a m a i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e was implemented in o rder to o b t a i n d e t a i l e d f a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n and make some compar isons (Borg & G a l l , 1979). The l i t e r a t u r e p r o v i d e d background f o r s e l e c t i o n of the v a r i a b l e s . V a r i a b l e s i n c l u d e d : • demographic and c a r e e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s such as age, sex, m a r i t a l s t a t u s , c h i l d r e n , p o s i t i o n , e d u c a t i o n , year s employed as a nu r se , c a r e e r m o b i l i t y , c a r e e r i n f l u e n c e s and 80 p l a n n i n g , employment p a t t e r n , job s a t i s f a c t i o n , and c a r e e r support from s i g n i f i c a n t o t h e r s . • presence or absence of a mentor. • i n c i d e n c e of s e r v i n g as a mentor to o t h e r s . • c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' mentor such as sex, age, r e l a t i o n s h i p and r o l e , i n f l u e n c e , power, and presence or absence of a n u r s i n g r o l e . • c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the protege such as age, needs, number of mentors, and c a r e e r stage at which the r e l a t i o n s h i p began. • c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the mentor -protege r e l a t i o n s h i p such as age d i f f e r e n c e , env i ronmenta l s e t t i n g , l e n g t h , i n i t i a t i o n and t e r m i n a t i o n , and p e r s o n a l and p r o f e s s i o n a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . • the most h e l p f u l mentor ing behav io r s and f requency w i th which they were p r o v i d e d by the mentor. Sample The study was focused on a group of nurses who were l i k e l y to have been r e c i p i e n t s of m e n t o r i n g - - t o p l e v e l nu r s i n g a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . In B r i t i s h Columbia there a l r e a d y e x i s t e d a 81 p r e s e l e c t e d p r o v i n c e - w i d e group of these p e o p l e : The Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' A s s o c i a t i o n of B r i t i s h Columbia (NAABC). In May, 1984, t h i s group of 176 was composed of a c t i v e and r e t i r e d top l e v e l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s from h o s p i t a l s , long term ca re f a c i l i t i e s , community h e a l t h a g e n c i e s , and s choo l s of n u r s i n g ; f a c u l t y who were engaged in t e a c h i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i o n in u n i v e r s i t y s choo l s of n u r s i n g ; and c o n s u l t a n t s who were s e l f employed or c o n s u l t i n g in n u r s i n g s e r v i c e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . Out of the t o t a l m a i l i n g of 176 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , t he re were 122 responses (69.3% of the survey sample) . In o rder to ensure the r e s e a r c h s u b j e c t s met the c r i t e r i a of be ing a p resent or past a d m i n i s t r a t o r , p o s i t i o n s of the respondents were rev iewed. A l l respondents met t h i s c r i t e r i a except f o r the th ree who c l a s s i f i e d themselves as e d u c a t o r s . They were d e l e t e d from the study as i t was not known whether they had been a d m i n i s t r a t o r s at one t ime. The two respondents c l a s s i f y i n g themselves as s e l f employed c o n s u l t a n t s were r e t a i n e d because i t was known that a l l the c o n s u l t a n t s had at one time been a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . S u b t r a c t i n g the educa to r s from the sample l e f t 119 usab le q u e s t i o n n a i r e s or an a d j u s t e d response r a t e of 67.6%. D i s t r i b u t i o n of the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o s i t i o n s of the respondents i s s i m i l a r to the p o s i t i o n s of the 331 B.C. nurses in top a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o s i t i o n s d e s c r i b e d in the 1982 H e a l t h Manpower S t a t i s t i c s f o r Canada. T h i s i s one of the ways in which the survey sample of 119 i s c o n s i d e r d to be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of top nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in B r i t i s h Co lumbia . Other 82 s i m i l a r i t i e s e x i s t in age, sex, and m a r i t a l s t a t u s . These data are p r e s e n t e d more f u l l y in Chapter IV. Data C o l l e c t i o n A m a i l survey was used as i t would serve as a s imple s c r e e n i n g d e v i c e to d i s t i n g u i s h between those who had mentors and those who had no t . In a d d i t i o n , i t was most u s e f u l in o b t a i n i n g q u a n t i t a t i v e data tha t would p r o v i d e the b a s i s f o r compar i sons of demographic and c a r e e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of mentored and non-mentored nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . The m a i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e was known to be more u s e f u l in o b t a i n i n g q u a n t i t a t i v e data r a the r than the r i c h q u a l i t a t i v e data about mentor ing r e l a t i o n s h i p s that would be a v a i l a b l e from t h i s p o p u l a t i o n . In s t u d i e s of t h i s t ype , a combinat ion of the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of a q u e s t i o n n a i r e and i n t e r v i e w method are o f t en used (Borg & G a l l , 1979). However a m a i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e format was s e l e c t e d as the a p p r o p r i a t e method because i t c o u l d produce a l a r g e amount of data e f f i c i e n t l y and r e l a t i v e l y i n e x p e n s i v e l y . T h i s background data can in turn a s s i s t in d e f i n i n g the groundwork f o r f u r t h e r s t u d i e s . Some q u a l i t a t i v e data was o b t a i n e d from the open-ended q u e s t i o n s in the i n s t rument . The q u e s t i o n n a i r e was ma i l ed to the 176 members of the NAABC a f t e r o b t a i n i n g p e r m i s s i o n and the m a i l i n g l i s t from t h e i r N u r s i n g C o u n c i l . The q u e s t i o n n a i r e was d i s t r i b u t e d w i th a cover l e t t e r and stamped r e t u r n envelope (see Appendices A and B fo r c o p i e s of the cover l e t t e r and q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . 83 Survey s u b j e c t s were g iven f i v e weeks to r e p l y . A f o l l o w - u p reminder l e t t e r (Appendix C) was sent out to be r e c e i v e d by the s u b j e c t s th ree weeks i n t o the f i v e week d e a d l i n e . In o rder to f a c i l i t a t e a h i gher response r a t e , q u e s t i o n n a i r e reponses were anonymous. The q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were coded to i n d i c a t e the date r e c e i v e d and the l o c a t i o n from which they were m a i l e d . L o c a t i o n was recorded to ensure there was a r e l a t i v e l y even p o p u l a t i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n amongst the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s r e c e i v e d . A f t e r r e c e i p t , l o c a t i o n was removed to p r e s e r v e anonymity. Instrument No instrument was found to measure r e l e v e n t demographic and c a r e e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , mentor ing c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and type of mentor ing h e l p . For t h i s rea son , the instrument was deve loped by the r e s e a r c h e r . The ins t rument i s a s e l f r epo r t q u e s t i o n n a i r e (see Appendix B ) . To a i d in c o n s t r u c t i o n , sugges t ions from the l i t e r a t u r e were used and ins t ruments deve loped by other i n v e s t i g a t o r s (A l leman, 1982; Bova & P h i l l i p s , 1982; C o l l i n s , 1983; Fagan & Wa l te r , 1982; F e r r i e r o , 1982; M i s s i r i a n , 1980; P h i l l i p s , 1977; Vance, 1977; Vanzant , 1980) were expanded and/or m o d i f i e d . The q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n s i s t s of 95 items grouped i n t o four c a t e g o r i e s ; (A) demographic and c a r e e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; (B) c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the mentor, p ro tege , and mentor -pro tege r e l a t i o n s h i p ; (C) type of mentor ing h e l p r e c e i v e d , and (D) 84 mentoring a c t i v i t y towards o t h e r s . C a t e g o r i e s A and D apply to a l l s u b j e c t s while c a t e g o r i e s B and C apply only to mentored respondents. Items r e l e v e n t to demographic and career c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were s e l e c t e d a c c o r d i n g to the c r i t e r i o n that they convey a p r o f i l e of the s u b j e c t s i n d e t a i l s c o n s i d e r e d to be r e l e v e n t to the mentor-protege r e l a t i o n s h i p . T o p i c s s e l e c t e d i n Part A - - such as m a r i t a l s t a t u s ; education; job s a t i s f a c t i o n ; support systems; and c a r e e r m o b i l i t y , p l a n n i n g , p a t t e r n s , and i n f l u e n c e s — w e r e d e r i v e d from other q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and suggestions i n the l i t e r a t u r e . Items r e l e v e n t to the mentor, protege, and mentor-protege r e l a t i o n s h i p were s e l e c t e d from the l i t e r a t u r e a c c o r d i n g to the c r i t e r i o n that they convey a p r o f i l e of mentoring a c t i v i t y r e c e i v e d by the s u b j e c t s . T h i s s e c t i o n of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e (Part B) c o n t a i n s a d e s c r i p t i o n of what i s meant by a mentor. According to t h i s d e f i n i t i o n , s u b j e c t s i n d i c a t e whether or not they have had a mentor. In subsequent q u e s t i o n s , i f mentored s u b j e c t s have had more than one mentor, d i r e c t i o n s are given to respond to the items i n terms of the most i n f l u e n t i a l mentor. In r e l a t i o n to the type of mentoring help r e c e i v e d , e i g h t c a t e g o r i e s of h e l p were d e r i v e d from suggestions i n the l i t e r a t u r e . (These c a t e g o r i e s are l i s t e d l a t e r i n t h i s s e c t i o n ) . Two types of q u e s t i o n s were designed to e l i c i t i n f o r m a t i o n about the h e l p given by a mentor. One i s a m u l t i p l e response q u e s t i o n , where respondents were given a l i s t of e i g h t 85 c a t e g o r i e s of mentor ing h e l p , and were asked to r a t e the th ree most h e l p f u l behav iour s of t h e i r mentor. The second type of q u e s t i o n c o n s i s t s of 44 statements that d e s c r i b e v a r i o u s f a c e t s of mentor ing h e l p (Part C ) . Us ing an o r d i n a l r a t i n g s c a l e of one to f i v e , s u b j e c t s i n d i c a t e the f requency w i th which the d i f f e r e n t k inds of mentor ing h e l p were r e c e i v e d . Unknown to the respondents the 44 statements r e l a t e to the e i g h t c a t e g o r i e s of mentor ing h e l p . These a r e : c a r e e r a d v i c e (ques t i ons 48 to 51), encouragement, a c cep tance , c o n f i r m a t i o n (ques t i ons 52 to 57); i n s t r u c t i o n ; coach ing (ques t i ons 58 to 65) ; c h a l l e n g e , i n s p i r a t i o n , r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (ques t i ons 66 to 73) ; r o l e model ing ( ques t i on s 74 to 80) ; c o u n s e l i n g (ques t ions 81 to 83) ; p romot ion , s pon so r sh i p (ques t i ons 84 to 88 ) ; and f r i e n d s h i p (ques t i on s 89 to 92) . Mentor ing a c t i v i t y towards o the r s i s measured by three m u l t i p l e c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s (Part D ) . Mentored and non-mentored s u b j e c t s i n d i c a t e d whether or not they had been mentors to o t h e r s , the number of p ro teges sponsored, and whether they thought hav ing a mentor was h e l p f u l to a person beg inn ing a c a r e e r in n u r s i n g . The q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n s i s t s of c l o s e d , m u l t i p l e c h o i c e , arid m u l t i p l e response q u e s t i o n s as w e l l as L i k e r t - l i k e and o r d i n a l r a t i n g s c a l e s . In a d d i t i o n , two open-ended q u e s t i o n s are i n c l u d e d to e l i c i t q u a l i t a t i v e data rega rd ing the mentor ' s i n f l u e n c e upon the p r o t e g e ' s c a r e e r development and p o s s i b l e nega t i ve a spec t s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . 8 6 I n i t i a l l y the q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n s i s t e d of 134 i tems, however, the s e c t i o n s on background c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (Part A) and type of mentor ing h e l p (Part C) were reduced to a sma l l e r number of e s s e n t i a l i tems in order to decrease the l e n g t h and thus i n c r e a s e the l i k e l i h o o d of a h i gher response r a t e . The instrument was p i l o t t e s t e d tw ice wi th nurses from nur s ing s e r v i c e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and n u r s i n g e d u c a t i o n . T h i s r e s u l t e d i n r e v i s i o n s of s e v e r a l q u e s t i o n s to c l a r i f y them b e f o r e the f i n a l v e r s i o n of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e was p r e p a r e d . E s t ima ted time fo r comp le t ion i s 35 minutes . V a l i d i t y f o r the instrument used in t h i s s tudy i s based on the p i l o t t e s t i n g and face v a l i d i t y ev iden t in read ing the l i t e r a t u r e and comparing i t w i th c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and/or t r a i t s a t t r i b u t e d to p r o t e g e s , mentors , the mentor -protege r e l a t i o n s h i p , and type of mentor ing h e l p . Data Ana ly ses The data a n a l y s i s focused on the r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s posed in Chapter I. In c o n s t r u c t i n g the p r o f i l e of nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , mentors, p r o t e g e s , the mentor -pro tege r e l a t i o n s h i p , and type of mentor ing h e l p r e c e i v e d , d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s and a b s o l u t e and r e l a t i v e f requency d i s t r i b u t i o n s were used. For the m u l t i p l e response q u e s t i o n s , as w e l l as c a l c u l a t i n g f r e q u e n c i e s on the f i r s t , second, and t h i r d c h o i c e i tems, aggregate f r e q u e n c i e s were c a l c u l a t e d . However, the f i r s t c h o i c e responses were 87 s e l e c t e d f o r r e p o r t i n g purposes as they were more r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the re spondent s ' most important c h o i c e . The 44 q u e s t i o n s that were r a t e d a c c o r d i n g to type of mentor ing h e l p r e c e i v e d were ranked from h i gh to low a c c o r d i n g to the mean of each q u e s t i o n . Then the h i gh and low rank ing i tems were ana l y zed to determine themes or c a t e g o r i e s of mentor ing h e l p . Be fore e s t a b l i s h i n g these c a t e g o r i e s , f a c t o r a n a l y s i s was c a r r i e d out in order to g i ve v a l i d i t y to the group ing and naming of the c a t e g o r i e s . Chi square a n a l y s i s was c a r r i e d out to determine i f the re were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of mentored and non-mentored nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . The s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l was set at .05. The S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r the S o c i a l S c iences (SPSS) computer program was used to generate f requency d i s t r i b u t i o n s , d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s , c r o s s t a b u l a t i o n s , and f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . In r e p o r t i n g the f i n d i n g s , t a b l e s are used to i l l u s t r a t e the s t a t i s t i c a l p r o f i l e of nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , mentor ing c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and type of mentor ing h e l p r e c e i v e d . Q u a l i t a t i v e data were used to i d e n t i f y themes r e l e v e n t to the nega t i ve a spec t s of mento r i ng . It was a l s o used to p r o v i d e enr ichment data about the i n f l u e n c e of the mentor in the p r o t e g e ' s c a r e e r development. 88 Summary In t h i s chapter a d e s c r i p t i v e survey study i s d e s c r i b e d that was des i gned to i n v e s t i g a t e the r e s e a r c h que s t i on s d e l i n e a t e d in Chapter I r e ga rd ing mentor ing a c t i v i t y , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and type of mentor ing h e l p r e c e i v e d by nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . The sample p o p u l a t i o n c o n s i s t e d of the membership of the Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' A s s o c i a t i o n of B.C. Because no a v a i l a b l e in s t ruments were found to measure r e l e v e n t demographic and c a r e e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , mentor ing c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and type of mentor ing h e l p , the instrument was c o n s t r u c t e d by the r e s e a r c h e r . To a i d in c o n s t r u c t i o n , sugges t ions from the l i t e r a t u r e were used and ins t ruments deve loped by o ther r e s e a r c h e r s were expanded or m o d i f i e d . The instrument was p i l o t t e s t e d twice by nurses from n u r s i n g s e r v i c e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and nu r s i n g e d u c a t i o n . V a l i d i t y i s based on the p i l o t t e s t i n g and face v a l i d i t y . The data a n a l y s i s made use of d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s , Chi square and f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . In the next c h a p t e r , a d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of the f i n d i n g s w i l l be p re sen ted in order to answer the r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d in Chapter I. 89 CHAPTER IV RESULTS A d e s c r i p t i o n of the survey r e s u l t s are o u t l i n e d in t h i s chapter to answer the r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s c o n s t r u c t e d in Chapter I. R e s u l t s are p re sen ted i n s i x s e c t i o n s : background c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of B.C. nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ; i n c i d e n c e of mentor ing r e c e i v e d ; d i f f e r e n c e s in background c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of mentored and non-mentored s u b j e c t s , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the mentor, the p r o t e g e , and the mentor -pro tege r e l a t i o n s h i p ; type of mentor ing h e l p r e c e i v e d ; and mentor ing a c t i v i t y towards o t h e r s . Background C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of B.C. Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r s Age The nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s s t u d i e d range in age from 26 to 69 y e a r s . The mean age i s 47 y e a r s . T h i s i s comparable to the mean age of 47 f o r B.C. n u r s i n g a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in 1982 (Hea l th Manpower S t a t i s t i c s S e c t i o n , 1982). Gender Of the 119 nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s s t u d i e d , 96.6 percen t are female and 3.4 percent are male. T h i s i s almost comparable to the 93.3 percent of B.C. n u r s i n g a d m i n i s t r a t o r s who were female and the 6.6 percent of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s who were male in 1982 90 (Hea l th Manpower S t a t i s t i c s S e c t i o n , 1982). M a r i t a l S ta tus The m a j o r i t y (64.7%) of the nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s are mar r i ed or widowed, 9.2 are separa ted or d i v o r c e d , and 25.4 pe rcen t have remained s i n g l e . The sma l l e r number that are s i n g l e compares wi th the 1982 s t a t i s t i c s showing 23.8 percent of nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s are s i n g l e wh i l e 64.6 percen t are m a r r i e d . T h i s i s a l s o s i m i l a r to s t a t i s t i c s f o r the t o t a l nurse p o p u l a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Co lumbia : 26.5 percent are s i n g l e and 66.6 percent are mar r i ed (Hea l th Manpower S t a t i s t i c s S e c t i o n , 1982). C h i l d r e n The g r e a t e s t number of nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s (61.3%) have had at l e a s t one c h i l d . Of t h e s e , 78 percent have had th ree c h i l d r e n or l e s s (see Tab le 1). The mean number of c h i l d r e n f o r nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s who have been parent s i s 2.6 c h i l d r e n . No data are a v a i l a b l e r ega rd ing number of c h i l d r e n among nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s or B.C. nurses in g e n e r a l . Cur rent P o s i t i o n The c u r r e n t p o s i t i o n s h e l d by nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s range from d i r e c t o r / a s s i s t a n t d i r e c t o r of nu r s i n g s e r v i c e , d i r e c t o r of nur s ing e d u c a t i o n , f a c i l i t y a d m i n i s t r a t o r / d i r e c t o r , d i r e c t o r of p a t i e n t c a r e , c o n s u l t a n t (who has been an a d m i n i s t r a t o r ) , and r e t i r e d d i r e c t o r of n u r s i n g s e r v i c e . By f a r the g r e a t e s t number 91 Tab le 1 D i s t r i b u t i o n of B.C. Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r s Who Have Had C h i l d r e n by Number of C h i l d r e n Number of Frequency Re l a t i ve C h i l d r e n Frequency (%) 1 C h i l d 1 1 15.1 2 C h i l d r e n 31 42.5 3 C h i l d r e n 1 5 20.5 4 C h i l d r e n 9 12.3 5 C h i l d r e n 4 5.5 More than 5 3 4.1 T o t a l 73 100.0 of n u r s i n g a d m i n i s t r a t o r s are d i r e c t o r s or a s s i s t a n t d i r e c t o r s of n u r s i n g s e r v i c e (see Tab le 2 ) . The d i s t r i b u t i o n of n u r s i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o s i t i o n s i s s i m i l a r to the p o s i t i o n s a c c o r d i n g to p l a c e of employment f o r RNABC members in 1980 (Kasan j i an & Wong, 1982). Tab le 2 D i s t r i b u t i o n of B.C. Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r s by P o s i t i o n P o s i t i o n Frequency R e l a t i v e Frequency (%) D i r e c t o r or A s s i s t a n t , Nur s ing S e r v i c e 92 77.3 D i r e c t o r , Nur s ing Educa t i on 3 2.5 F a c i l i t y A d m i n i s t r a t o r , D i r e c t o r 11 9.2 D i r e c t o r P a t i e n t Care 8 6.8 Consu l t an t 2 1.7 R e t i r e d Nurs ing D i r e c t o r 3 2.5 T o t a l 119 100.0 92 Educat ion The nu r s i n g a d m i n i s t r a t o r s are d i v i d e d almost even ly between those tha t have a b a c c a l a u r e a t e degree or h i gher (50.4%) and those that have a nu r s i n g d ip loma or d ip loma p l u s a d d i t i o n a l courses (49.6%). T h i s i s in sharp c o n t r a s t to the 1982 B.C. nu r s i n g p o p u l a t i o n in gene ra l where on ly 12.1 percent of p r a c t i c i n g nurses h e l d a BA degree or h i ghe r and 43 percen t had no more than a nu r s i n g d ip loma (see Tab le 3 ) . No data are a v a i l a b l e on e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l of nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s i n - B.C. or Canada. Tab le 3 D i s t r i b u t i o n of B.C. Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r s (1984) by H ighest L e v e l of Educa t i on Compared to the D i s t r i b u t i o n of Employed B.C. Nurses (1982) by H ighes t L e v e l of Educa t i on H ighest Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r s Nurs ing Popu l a t i on L e v e l of (1984) (1982) 1 Educa t i on F req (%) F req (%) Nurs ing Diploma 5 4.2 7573 43.0 Nurs ing Diploma 54 45.4 7496 42.5 p l u s cour ses Bacca l au rea te degree 32 26.9 21 32 12.1 M a s t e r ' s degree 28 23.5 1 57 .9 or h i gher No response 0 0.0 263 1 .5 T o t a l 1 1 9 1 00.0 17,621 100.0 ' C o m p i l e d f r o m S t a t i s t i c s C a n a d a : H e a l t h Manpower S t a t i s t i c s S e c t i o n , Hea l th D i v i s i o n . Rev i sed R e g i s t e r e d Nurses Data S e r i e s . Ottawa: S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1982. 93 Years Employed as a Nurse The mean number of years f o r l e n g t h of n u r s i n g employment i s 23.5 y e a r s . The range i s n ine to 43 y e a r s . It i s no tab le tha t 73.1 pe rcen t of the respondents have 20 or more years of employment as a nurse (see Tab le 4 ) . No recent s t a t i s t i c s f o r Tab le 4 D i s t r i b u t i o n of B.C. Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r s by Years of Employment as a Nurse Years of Frequency R e l a t i v e Ad ju s ted Nur s ing Frequency (%) Frequency (%) Employment 1 - 9 2 1.7 1.7 1 0 - 1 9 29 24.4 25.2 20 - 29 55 46.2 47.9 30 or over 29 24.4 25.2 No response 4 3.3 T o t a l 119 100.0 100.0 yea r s of employment in the gene ra l p o p u l a t i o n are a v a i l a b l e . However, a 1979 survey of 1029 B.C. nurses showed tha t on ly 26 percen t had 15 or more year s of employment in n u r s i n g p o s i t i o n s and the m a j o r i t y , 51 p e r c e n t , had worked seven or l e s s year s in n u r s i n g (RNABC Employment Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , 1979). 94 Career M o b i l i t y Years at p resent i n s t i t u t i o n . The s u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d a s tay at t h e i r p re sen t i n s t i t u t i o n rang ing from l e s s than a year to 35 y e a r s . The mean number of year s i s 9.3. I t i s of i n t e r e s t that 34.2 percent of nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s as compared to 10.8 percent of 1980 B.C. gene ra l n u r s i n g p o p u l a t i o n (Kazan j i an and Wong, 1982) have been employed at t h e i r p re sen t i n s t i t u t i o n f o r more than 10 year s (see Tab le 5 ) . Tab le 5 D i s t r i b u t i o n of B.C. Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r s by Years at P resent Inst i tu t ion Years at P resent I n s t i t u t i o n Frequency Re l a t i ve Frequency (%) Less than 6 46 39.3 6 - 1 0 31 26.5 1 1 - 1 5 20 17.1 16 - 20 1 2 10.3 21 or over 8 6.8 T o t a l 1 1 7 1 1 00.0 1 The two c o n s u l t a n t s were d e l e t e d because the number of years at t h e i r l a s t i n s t i t u t i o n as a nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r i s unknown. Years h o l d i n g present p o s i t i o n . T h i r t y - n i n e s u b j e c t s (32.7%) r e p o r t e d hav ing h e l d a p o s i t i o n s i m i l a r to that of t h e i r c u r r e n t p o s i t i o n at o ther i n s t i t u t i o n s . The t o t a l year s fo r nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s h o l d i n g t h e i r c u r r e n t o c c u p a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n s ranges from l e s s than one to 26 year s w i th a mean of 95 7.4 y e a r s . No B.C. data rega rd ing l e n g t h of time in c u r r e n t p o s i t i o n are a v a i l a b l e . However comparison with Vance ' s study (1977) of top U.S. nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s c a p t u r e s d i f f e r e n c e s in l e n g t h of s e r v i c e . B.C. nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s h o l d i n g t h e i r c u r r e n t o c c u p a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n l e s s than 10 year s are in the m a j o r i t y at 67.8 percent of the t o t a l compared to 57 percent of the U.S. nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s . The B.C. s u b j e c t s h o l d i n g t h e i r c u r r e n t p o s i t i o n fo r 10 year s or more amount to 32.2 percent of the respondents in comparison to 40.6 percent of the i n f l u e n t i a l s (see Tab le 6 ) . Tab le 6 D i s t r i b u t i o n of B.C. Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r s by T o t a l Years Ho ld ing Cur ren t O c c u p a t i o n a l P o s i t i o n Years in Cur rent P o s i t i o n Frequency R e l a t i ve Frequency (%) Ad ju s ted Frequency (%) Less than 5 50 42.0 43.5 5 - 9 28 . 23.6 24.3 10 - 14 23 19.3 20.0 15 - 19 6 5.0 5.2 20 or over 8 6.7 7.0 No response 4 3.4 T o t a l 1 19 100.0 1 00.0 Number of employers du r i n g nur s i ng c a r e e r . The number of employers ranges from one to 13 with a mean of 5.3 employers . The m a j o r i t y (52.9%) of nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s i n d i c a t e d they had between three to f i v e employers wh i le 38.7 percent have worked 96 wi th s i x to more than n ine employers (see Tab le 7 ) . No data are a v a i l a b l e on number of employers fo r nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s or B.C. nurses in g e n e r a l . Tab le 7 D i s t r i b u t i o n of B.C. Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r s by Number of Employers Dur ing Nurs ing Career Number of Frequency R e l a t i v e Emloyers Frequency (%) 1 - 2 9 7.6 3 - 5 63 52.9 6 - 8 31 26. 1 9 or more 1 5 12.6 No response 1 0.8 T o t a l 119 100.0 Employment P a t t e r n A f t e r becoming employed as a nurse , 76.5 percent r e p o r t e d hav ing taken one year or more away from the l abo r f o r c e wh i l e a m i n o r i t y , 23.5 percent have not been absent f o r t h i s p e r i o d of t ime . A v a r i e t y of reasons were g iven fo r the absence from the work f o r c e . By f a r the most common reasons were e d u c a t i o n (32.9%) and r a i s i n g c h i l d r e n (32.2%), (see Tab le 8 ) . Of i n t e r e s t are the s u b j e c t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s of t h e i r employment p a t t e r n . Most (83.2%) d e s c r i b e t h e i r p a t t e r n as f u l l t ime employment on a r e g u l a r b a s i s wh i le on ly 16 percen t i n d i c a t e d they were employed f u l l or pa r t time with i n t e r r u p t i o n s . 97 Tab le 8 D i s t r i b u t i o n of B.C. Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r s by Reason f o r Absence from the Labor Force f o r One Year or More Reason f o r Frequency Percentage of Absence of Responses Responses Educat ion 51 32. ,9 R a i s i n g C h i l d r e n 50 32. ,2 Homemaking 7 4. ,6 T r a v e l l i n g 8 5, . 1 I l l n e s s 2 1 . .3 C a r i n g f o r a r e l a t i v e 2 1 . .3 Other (non n u r s i n g employment, 7 4, .5 s p o r t s , or r e l i g i o u s t r a i n i n g ) Not been absent f o r 1 year 28 18, .0 T o t a l 1 55 100, .0 Note: Sub jec t s c o u l d respond to as many i terns as a p p l i c a b l e , t h e r e f o r e , n=155 r a t h e r than 119. D e s p i t e the common occurance of B.C. nurses ab sen t i ng themselves from the work f o r c e , no data are a v a i l a b l e on the p r o p o r t i o n of those who have taken t ime away from those who have no t . o Career I n f l u e n c e s The nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s were asked to s e l e c t and rank the three f a c t o r s that were most i n f l u e n t i a l i n the development of t h e i r c a r e e r . On the f i r s t c h o i c e r a n k i n g , c l e a r l y the most consp icuous f a c t o r was be ing competent. T h i s was f o l l o w e d by hav ing s t rong d r i v e or d e t e r m i n a t i o n , and—knowledge ga ined through formal educa t i on or o ther c o u r s e s . Being a s s i s t e d or sponsored by another person came f i f t h in rank a f t e r chang ing g e o g r a p h i c a l l o c a t i o n (see Tab le 9 ) . 98 Tab le 9 D i s t r i b u t i o n of B.C. Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r s by F i r s t Cho ice S e l e c t i o n of F a c t o r s I n f l u e n t i a l in Career Development Rank : I n f l u e n t i a l Frequency Re la t i ve F a c t o r Frequency (%) 1 Being competent 40 33.6 2 Having s t r ong d r i v e or 21 17.7 de termina t ion 3 Knowledge ga ined through 19 16.0 forma l e d u c a t i o n , cour ses 4 Changing g e o g r a p h i c a l 1 1 9.2 l o c a t ion 5 Being a s s i s t e d or sponsored 9 7.6 by another person 6 Being separa ted or d i v o r c e d 5 4.2 7 Be ing a s s e r t i v e 3 2.5 8 Luck or f a t e 2 1 .7 8 Remaining s i n g l e 2 1 .7 8 G e t t i n g mar r i ed 2 1 .7 9 Not hav ing c h i l d r e n 1 0.8 9 Being a g g r e s s i v e 1 0.8 9 Being p h y s i c a l l y a t t r a c t i v e 1 0.8 No response 2 1 .7 T o t a l 1 1 9 1 00.0 Career P l ann ing Route f o r the Present P o s i t i o n When s p e c i f y i n g the manner by which the s u b j e c t s a r r i v e d at t h e i r p re sen t n u r s i n g p o s i t i o n , 36.1 percent answered that they were encouraged and recommended by another i n d i v i d u a l . Another 25.2 percen t a r r i v e d at t h e i r job through s e i z i n g upon a sudden o p p o r t u n i t y , wh i l e on ly 17.7 percent i n d i c a t e d they always knew what they wanted to do and t h e r e f o r e looked fo r and worked toward t h i s goa l (see Tab le 10). 99 Tab le 10 Responses and D i s t r i b u t i o n of B.C. Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r s to Item, "How D id You A r r i v e at Your Present Nurs ing P o s i t i o n ? " Career P l ann ing Route Frequency Re l a t i ve Frequency (%) Encouraged and recommended 43 36. , 1 by another person S e i z e d sudden o p p o r t u n i t y 30 25. ,2 Always had a goa l in mind 21 17. ,7 and worked toward t h i s T e m p o r a r i l y f i l l e d in and 10 8. .4 s t ayed in p o s i t i o n Steady advancement wi th i n c r e a s i n g 4 3. .4 competence, educa t i on P o s i t i o n a d v e r t i s e d , s u c c e s s f u l 4 3. .4 c a n d i d a t e • Responded to a l t r u i s t i c or 3 2, .5 f i n a n c i a l need Other ( p o s i t i o n r e c l a s s i f i e d , p o s i t i o n 3 2, .5 not l i t e r a l l y a n u r s i n g p o s i t i o n ) No response 1 0, .8 T o t a l 1 19 1 00, .0 S a t i s f a c t i o n with Present P o s i t i o n The respondents i n d i c a t e d t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n w i th t h e i r p resent p o s i t i o n by s e l e c t i n g items on a f i v e p o i n t s c a l e rang ing from: (1) Not at a l l , (2) Somewhat s a t i s f i e d , (3) Modera te ly s a t i s f i e d , (4) Very s a t i s f i e d , and (5) E n t i r e l y s a t i s f i e d . The m a j o r i t y (64.7%) of respondents suggested that they were very s a t i s f i e d to e n t i r e l y s a t i s f i e d w i th t h e i r p resent p o s i t i o n . None were comp le te l y u n s a t i s f i e d and on ly 3.4 percent were somewhat s a t i s f i e d . 100 Career Support from S i g n i f i c a n t Others Respondents were asked to r a t e the extent to which they were suppor ted and encouraged in t h e i r c a r e e r development by v a r i o u s s i g n i f i c a n t o t h e r s . T h e i r o p i n i o n s were e l i c i t e d through use of a f i v e p o i n t r a t i n g s c a l e (from 1 "Never Suppor ted" to 5 "Almost Always S u p p o r t e d " ) . The rank and mean fo r each ca tego ry of persons are r e p o r t e d in Tab le 11. Means fo r s i n g l e nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s as w e l l as the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n are documented. Tab le 11 Rank and Mean of B.C. Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r s and S i n g l e Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r s to Item: Ex tent of Support and Encouragement in Career Development by S i g n i f i c a n t Others S i g n i f i c a n t Other Category , A l l : Sub jec t s S i n g l e Sub jec t s Mean Rank Mean Rank Spouse/Par tner 4.35 1 3.50 7 Fa ther 3.97 2 . 4.04 1 Mother 3.93 3 3.81 2 Other Fami l y 3.91 4 3.74 4 Members Nurs ing C o l l e a g u e s 3.86 5 3.77 3 F r i e n d s 3.70 6 3.73 5 Non-Nurs ing 3 . 57 7 3.71 6 Co l l eagues 101 For the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n , spouses or p a r t n e r s (where a p p l i c a b l e ) were ranked f i r s t f o l l owed in rank by f a t h e r s , mothers , and o ther f a m i l y members, r e s p e c t i v e l y . The c a r e e r support and encouragement o f f e r e d by nu r s i n g c o l l e a g u e s ranked f i f t h — a h e a d of that o f f e r e d by f r i e n d s and non -nur s ing c o l l e a g u e s . For s i n g l e nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , the most h i g h l y ranked source of c a r e e r support was the f a t h e r f o l l owed in rank by the mother and n u r s i n g c o l l e a g u e s . Whi le the rank ing by s i n g l e nurses fo r support from the mother and nu r s i n g c o l l e a g u e s i s h i gher than the rank ing by a l l s u b j e c t s , i t shou ld be noted that the r a t i n g of support from the mother, n u r s i n g c o l l e a g u e s , and o ther f am i l y members i s a c t u a l l y lower amongst s i n g l e s u b j e c t s . I nc idence of Mentor ing Rece ived E i g h t y - f i v e (71.4%) of the nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s i n d i c a t e d that they have e x p e r i e n c e d a r e l a t i o n s h i p wi th one or more mentors in the p resent or the p a s t . A l l s u b j e c t s responded to the " y e s - n o " q u e s t i o n which l e f t 34 or 28.6% of the r e s e a r c h group not e x p e r i e n c i n g a mentor r e l a t i o n s h i p a c c o r d i n g to the d e f i n i t i o n g i ven in the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . In r e l a t i o n to gender, two of the male s u b j e c t s have had mentors wh i le two have no t . And 72.2 percen t (83) of the female nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r have had mentors whi le 27.8 percent (32) have no t . 1 02 D i f f e r e n c e s Between Mentored and Non-Mentored Sub jec t s There were two background c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d (p_<.05) a f t e r per fo rming Chi square a n a l y s i s on mentored and non-mentored s u b j e c t s . One was the number of c h i l d r e n amongst respondents who have been p a r e n t s ; the o ther was the nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' c a r e e r p l a n n i n g route f o r the present p o s i t i o n . Number of C h i l d r e n Non-mentored nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s who were pa rent s were found to have more c h i l d r e n in p r o p o r t i o n to mentored p a r e n t s , Chi square= 1 1 . 8 1 , df = 5, p_<.05. Only 17.9 pe rcen t of mentored parent s have four or more c h i l d r e n , wh i le 47.2 pe rcen t of non- mentored pa ren t s have more than three c h i l d r e n . E i gh ty - two percent of the mentored pa rent s have from one to th ree c h i l d r e n as compared to 64.7 percent of the non-mentored p a r e n t s . Career P l a n n i n g Route f o r P resent P o s i t i o n In response to the q u e s t i o n "How d i d you a r r i v e at your present p o s i t i o n ? " , the s u b j e c t s ' s e l e c t i o n from f i v e op t i ons was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d amongst mentored and non- mentored s u b j e c t s , Chi square=13.17, df=4, p<.02. By p r o p o r t i o n , more mentored s u b j e c t s chose two o p t i o n s : (1) "Another person encouraged me and recommended me fo r the p o s i t i o n , " and, (2) "The o p p o r t u n i t y suddenly p r e s e n t e d i t s e l f and I s e i z e d i t . " In c o n t r a s t , the non-mentored s u b j e c t s 1 03 focused on th ree o p t i o n s : (1) " S i n c e I became a nurse I always wanted to be a nu r s i n g a d m i n i s t r a t o r / e d u c a t o r / c o n s u l t a n t , t h e r e f o r e I looked fo r and worked toward these o p p o r t u n i t i e s ; " (2) "I f i l l e d in on a temporary shor t term b a s i s , and I 've been in t h i s type of p o s i t i o n ever s i n c e ; " and (3) " O t h e r . " The other ca tegory c o n s i s t e d o f : "S teady advancement with i n c r e a s i n g competence, e d u c a t i o n ; " " P o s i t i o n a d v e r t i s e d , s u c c e s s f u l c a n d i d a t e , " and " P o s i t i o n r e c l a s s i f i e d . " The data suggest tha t when a c q u i r i n g t h e i r c u r r e n t p o s i t i o n , by p r o p o r t i o n , mentored s u b j e c t s more f r e q u e n t l y f e l t they had an i n d i v i d u a l who encouraged and recommended them. In a d d i t i o n , i t appears they t h i n k they were more o f t en ab le to take advantage of sudden job o p p o r t u n i t i e s . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Mentor, the P ro tege , and the Mentor -P ro tege R e l a t i o n s h i p The Mentor S u b j e c t s were asked to r e p o r t about the f o l l o w i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s in terms of t h e i r most i n f l u e n t i a l mentor. Gender. S i x t y (70.6%) mentored s u b j e c t s r epo r ted hav ing female mentors as the most i n f l u e n t i a l mentor, wh i le 25 (29.4%) have had male mentors. Of the two male s u b j e c t s wi th mentors, both repo r t hav ing had female mentors . 1 04 Age of mentor at onset of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . The mentors ' ages ranged from 17 to 62 w i th a mean of 41.9 y e a r s . Almost 59 pe rcen t of the mentors were in the 40 to 63 year s age group when the r e l a t i o n s h i p s t a r t e d , and a m i n o r i t y (10.6%) were under 30 year s of age (see Tab le 12). Tab le 12 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Mentored Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r s by Age of the Mentor at Onset of the Mentor -Protege R e l a t i o n s h i p Age of Mentor Frequency R e l a t i v e Frequency (%) Less than 30 9 10.6 30 - 39 26 30.6 40 - 49 25 29.4 50 - 59 1 6 18.8 60 or over 9 10.6 T o t a l 85 100.0 Age d i f f e r e n c e between mentor and p r o t e g e . The age d i f f e r e n c e s ranged from a mentor tha t was 20 year s younger than the pro tege to one that was 30 years o l d e r . The mean was 11 y e a r s . Age d i f f e r e n c e s of n ine to 16 year s accounted f o r the l a r g e s t g roup ing (34.2%). It i s worth n o t i n g tha t 12.9 percen t of the mentors were the same age or younger than the protege (-see Tab le 13). F i v e p ro teges were o l d e r than t h e i r mentors in age gaps c o n s i s t i n g of two, t h r e e , f i v e , s i x and a remarkable 20 y e a r s . S ix were the same age as the mentor. 1 05 Tab le 13 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Mentored Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r s by Age D i f f e r e n c e Between Mentor and Protege Age D i f f e r e n c e Frequency Re l a t i ve Frequency (%) Less than 1 year 1 1 12.9 1 - 8 20 23.5 9 - 1 6 29 34.2 17 - 24 1 5 17.7 25 or over 9 10.6 No response 1 1 . 1 T o t a l 85 100.0 R e l a t i o n s h i p and r o l e of the mentor. Mentors were predominant ly employers (48.2%) or c o l l e a g u e s (27.1%) . Fami ly members such as spouse, mother, f a t h e r , and o ther r e l a t i v e s accounted f o r an a d d i t i o n a l 13 percent of the mentors . It i s worth n o t i n g that t eache r s and i n s t r u c t o r s r e p r e s e n t e d on ly 7.1 percent of the mentor r e l a t i o n s h i p s . (see Tab le 14). The most consp icuous r o l e s were that of immediate boss (29.4%), d i r e c t o r / a d m i n i s t r a t o r (28.2%), f o l l o w e d by a more e x p e r i e n c e d c o l l e a g u e (18.8%), guide and suppor te r (10.6%), and i n s t r u c t o r / t e a c h e r (8.2%). Supe rv i s o r (2.4%) and parent (2.4%) accounted f o r the most i n f r e q u e n t mentor r o l e s . Cross t a b u l a t i o n s were c a r r i e d out to determine what the r o l e s were in terms of the mento r ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p . R e s u l t s show that employers were c l a s s i f i e d in descend ing o rder of f requency as d i r e c t o r s or a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , immediate bosses (such as head n u r s e ) , and to a sma l l e x t e n t , as more e x p e r i e n c e d c o l l e a g u e s . 106 Tab le 14 • D i s t r i b u t i o n of Mentored Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r s by Re la t i o n s h i p Mento r ' s Frequency R e l a t i v e R e l a t i o n s h i p Frequency (%) Mother 1 1.2 Father 2 2.3 Spouse 7 8.2 Other R e l a t i v e 1 1.2 F r i e n d 4 4.7 Co l l eague 23 27.1 Employer 41 48.2 Teacher 6 7.1 T o t a l 85 100.0 Co l l eagues were des i gna ted a broad spectrum of r o l e s . Aga in , in descend ing o r d e r , they were l i s t e d as more e x p e r i e n c e d c o l l e a g u e s , immediate bosses , d i r e c t o r s , i n s t r u c t o r s , and gu ides and s u p p o r t e r s . Spouses were c l a s s i f i e d as gu ides and suppor te r s wh i l e f r i e n d s were r e p o r t e d to be more expe r i enced c o l l e a g u e s , s u p e r v i s o r s , or immediate bosses . Work r e l a t e d mentor r e l a t i o n s h i p s such as c o l l e a g u e and employer accounted fo r at l e a s t 75.3 percent of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s . In a d d i t i o n , work r e l a t e d r o l e s (immediate boss , d i r e c t o r or a d m i n i s t r a t o r , more exper i enced c o l l e a g u e , s u p e r v i s o r ) were a s s i gned to 78.8 percent of the mentors . Men to r ' s o ccupa t i on as a n u r s e . Mentored nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s i n d i c a t e d that 71.8 percent of t h e i r most i n f l u e n t i a l mentors were nu r se s . It i s of i n t e r e s t that a l l but th ree (95.1%) of the nurse mentors were female wh i le the 107 m a j o r i t y (91.7%) of the non-nurse mentors were male (see Tab le 15). T a b l e 15 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Mentored Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r s by Nurse, Non- Nurse Mentor and Mento r ' s Sex Mentor Frequency R e l a t i v e Frequency (%) Nurse Mentor 61 71.8 Who i s female - - 58 — 95. 1 Who i s male - - 3 - - 4. 9 Non-nurse mentor 24 28.2 Who i s female - - 2 - - 8. 3 Who i s male - - 22 - - 91 . 7 T o t a l 85 100.0 On f u r t h e r c r o s s t a b u l a t i o n s non-nurse mentors were c l a s s i f i e d , in descend ing o rder of f r equency , as employers , spouses , r e l a t i v e s , c o l l e a g u e s , and a t e a c h e r . In s i m i l a r r ank ing f a s h i o n , nurse mentors were r e p o r t e d as employers , c o l l e a g u e s , t e a c h e r s , f r i e n d s , a mother, and a spouse. Nurs ing r o l e of mentor. The 61 s u b j e c t s who had nurses as mentors were asked to s e l e c t and rank the th ree most predominant c a r e e r r o l e s of t h e i r nurse mentor. On the f i r s t c h o i c e r a n k i n g , the dominant r o l e was that of a d m i n i s t r a t o r (47.5%) f o l l o w e d by nu r s i n g l eader (27.9%) and p r o f e s s o r / i n s t r u c t o r (14.8%, see Tab le 16). The r o l e s of p o l i c y maker, r e s e a r c h e r , s c h o l a r , w r i t e r , and l o b b y i s t were not s e l e c t e d on the f i r s t 1 08 Tab le 16 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Nurse Mentor A d m i n i s t r a t o r s by F i r s t Cho ice S e l e c t i o n of Predominant Career Role of Nurse Mentor Rank Career Role of Frequency Re l a t ive Nurse Mentor Frequency (%) 1 A d m i n i s t r a t o r 29 47 .5 2 Nurs ing Leader 17 27.9 3 P r o f e s s o r / I n s t r u c t o r 9 14.8 4 Nurse c l i n i c i a n 3 4.9 5 Other ( lawyer) 1 1.6 No response 2 3.3 T o t a l 61 100.0 c h o i c e o p t i o n , but were de s i gna ted on the second and t h i r d c h o i c e s . It i s consp icuous that the r o l e s of a d m i n i s t r a t o r , nu r s i n g l e a d e r , and p o l i c y maker were chosen to a l a r ge e x t e n t , whi le the r o l e s of r e s e a r c h e r , s c h o l a r , w r i t e r , and l o b b y i s t were s p e c i f i e d i n f r e q u e n t l y . I n t e r e s t , i n f l u e n c e , i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and power of the mentor. The mentored a d m i n i s t r a t o r s were asked to r a te the extent to which c e r t a i n behav iour s occured in the mentor or themse lves . T h e i r o p i n i o n s were ob ta i ned through use of a f i v e po in t r a t i n g s c a l e from: (1) Never, (2) Seldom, (3) Sometimes, (4) F r e q u e n t l y , and (5) Almost a lways . The rank and mean of these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as the mento r ' s i n t e r e s t , i n f l u e n c e , power, and the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the protege w i th the mentor are r e p o r t e d in Tab le 17. H ighes t in rank was the mento r ' s l a s t i n g p o s i t i v e i n f l u e n c e on the p r o t e g e ' s c a r e e r development, a l t e r n a t i v e l y , i n f l u e n c e on p e r s o n a l development was ranked lowes t . Sub jec t s r epo r ted that t h e i r mentors took a p e r s o n a l 109 Tab le 17 Rank and Mean of Mentored Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s Ra t ing of the Occurance of T h e i r Mento r ' s Behav iour s : I n t e r e s t , I n f l u e n c e , I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and Power Men to r ' s Behav iour in R e l a t i o n to Protege Mean O v e r a l l Rank I n t e r e s t in p r o t e g e ' s c a r e e r development Pe r sona l I n t e r e s t P r o f e s s i o n a l i n t e r e s t 4.3 3.7 3 5 L a s t i n g p o s i t i v e i n f l u e n c e on p r o t e g e ' s Career development Pe r sona l development 4.4 3.3 1 8 P r o t e g e ' s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with mentor ' s P r o f e s s i o n a l va lue s and behav iour s Pe r sona l v a l u e s and behav iours 4.3 3.8 2 4 Power in a c c e s s i n g Pe r sona l r e l a t e d r e s o u r c e s 1 M a t e r i a l r e s o u r c e s 2 3.6 3.4 6 7 1 1 n f l u e n c e , s t a t u s , e x p e r t i s e 2 Money, T ime, i n f o r m a t i o n i n t e r e s t in t h e i r c a r e e r development. F u r t h e r , i n f l u e n c e and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n in r e l a t i o n to c a r e e r and p r o f e s s i o n a l development and va lue s was more i n c l i n e d to occur than i n f l u e n c e r e l e v e n t to p e r s o n a l development, v a l u e s , and b e h a v i o u r s . The a b i l i t i e s of the mentor to acces s p e r s o n a l and m a t e r i a l r e sou rce s were not h i gh in rank. They ranked s i x t h and seventh out of e i gh t r e s p e c t i v e l y . 1 10 The Protege Number of mentors. The mentored nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s d i s c l o s e d that they had anywhere from one to more than th ree mentors. S i x t y - o n e percent had two mentors or more wh i le 38.8 percent r e p o r t e d hav ing had one mentor (see Tab le 18). Tab le 18 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Mentored Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r s by Number of Mentors Number of Frequency R e l a t i v e Mentors Frequency (%) 1 33 3878 2 26 30.6 3 15 17.6 more than 3 11 13.0 T o t a l 85 100.0 Age of protege at onset of the mentor -protege r e l a t i o n s h i p . Mentored s u b j e c t s i n d i c a t e d they were anywhere from age two to 52 when the r e l a t i o n s h i p began, w i th a mean of 30.7 y e a r s . Apart from the one person who s p e c i f i e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p s t a r t e d at age two, other r e l a t i o n s h i p s began at 15 y e a r s . Seventy percent of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s commenced when the protrege was between the ages of 15 and 35. It i s noteworthy tha t 30 percent began over the age of 35, and of these , 14.1 pe rcen t s t a r t e d when the protege was 40 years of age or more (see T a b l e 19). 111 Tab le 19 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Mentored Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r s by Age at Onset of the Mentor -Protege R e l a t i o n s h i p Age of Protege Frequency R e l a t i v e Frequency (%) 2 - 1 9 4 4.7 20 - 29 33 38.8 30 - 39 35 41 .2 40 or over 1 2 14.1 No response 1 1 .2 T o t a l 85 100.0 P r o t e g e ' s deve lopmenta l s tage at onset of the mentor- protege r e l a t i o n s h i p . The f o c a l p e r i o d s when the mentor -pro tege r e l a t i o n s h i p began were d u r i n g the t imes of e a r l y and mid-work e x p e r i e n c e . E a r l y work e x p e r i e n c e (one to n ine year s ) accounted fo r 42.4 p e r c e n t of the re spondent s , wh i le mid-work e x p e r i e n c e s (10 to 19 y e a r s ) r ep re sen ted 34.1 p e r c e n t . A noteworthy 9.4 percent began t h e i r mentor -pro tege r e l a t i o n s h i p at the t ime of l a t e work e x p e r i e n c e (30 year s and o v e r ) . Few (10 . 6 % ) of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s began at a s tage when the protege was i n v o l v e d in p o s t - s e c o n d a r y educa t i on (see Tab le 20) . Approx imate l y 86 p e r c e n t of the mentor -pro tege r e l a t i o n s h i p s s t a r t e d du r i n g the p r o t e g e ' s work e x p e r i e n c e . In response to a q u e s t i o n rega rd ing where they were in t h e i r c a r e e r development when the mentor -protege r e l a t i o n s h i p o ccu red , 67.6 percent i n d i c a t e d they were advanc ing to a h i gher p o s i t i o n , 18.3 percent were changing to a new p o s i t i o n ; 7 pe rcen t were nov i ce s in t h e i r f i r s t j ob , and 7 pe rcen t d e s c r i b e d themselves as 1 1 2 Tab le 20 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Mentored Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r s by Developmental Stage at Onset of the Mentor -Pro tege R e l a t i o n s h i p Developmenta l Frequency R e l a t i v e Stage Frequency (%) E a r l y c h i l d h o o d 1 1 .2 S c h o o l i n g (grades 7 to 12) 2 2.3 Diploma n u r s i n g program 3 3.5 B a c c a l a u r e a t e program 4 4.8 M a s t e r ' s program 2 2.3 E a r l y work expe r i ence 36 42.4 (1 to 9 year s ) Mid-work e x p e r i e n c e 29 34. 1 (10 to 19 year s ) Late work expe r i ence 8 9.4 (20 yea r s or over) • T o t a l 85 100.0 r e q u i r i n g growth in t h e i r c u r r e n t p o s i t i o n . Secondary a n a l y s i s of the p r o t e g e ' s deve lopmenta l s tage and age at onset of the r e l a t i o n s h i p r e v e a l e d that the g r e a t e s t p r o p o r t i o n -of proteges in the 20 to 29 age group were at the stage of e a r l y work e x p e r i e n c e . Those who were 30 to 39 year s o l d were at mid-work e x p e r i e n c e , and respondents who were 40 years or over were at the s tages of l a t e and mid-work e x p e r i e n c e . However age was not s o l e l y r e l a t e d to stage of work e x p e r i e n c e . I t i s of i n t e r e s t tha t p ro teges s t a r t i n g a mentor- protege r e l a t i o n s h i p in e a r l y or mid-work expe r i ence were anywhere from 20 to more than 40 years of age. Fur thermore , p ro teges who began a r e l a t i o n s h i p d u r i n g t h e i r po s t - seconda ry educa t i on were from 19 to more than 40 year s o l d . 1 1 3 P r o t e g e ' s needs at onset of the mentor -protege r e l a t i o n s h i p . The 85 mentored s u b j e c t s were asked to s e l e c t and rank t h e i r th ree most important needs at the time the mentor -protege r e l a t i o n s h i p began. On the f i r s t c h o i c e r a n k i n g , the uppermost need was support and encouragement (31.8%), f o l l o w e d to a l e s s e r degree by a need fo r i n f o r m a t i o n and/or r e sou r ce s (15.3%), c h a l l e n g e and i n s p i r a t i o n (14.1%), and the need fo r a r o l e model (12.9%), (see Tab le 21) . In l i g h t of the Tab le 21 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Mentored Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r s by F i r s t Cho ice S e l e c t i o n of P r o t e g e ' s Needs at Onset of the Mentor -Pro tege Re la t i o n s h i p Rank P r o t e g e ' s Need Frequency Re la t i ve Frequency (%) 1 Support , encouragement, 27 31.8 c o n f i r m a t i o n 2 In fo rmat ion and/or 1 3 15.3 re source 3 C h a l l e n g e , i n s p i r a t i o n 1 2 14.1 4 Role model 1 1 12.9 5 P r o f e s s i o n a l d i r e c t i o n 7 8.2 and/or focus 6 S k i l l a c q u i s i t i o n 5 5.9 6 Job placement 5 5.9 7 Career advancement 4 4.7 8 E x p e r i e n c e s 1 1 .2 T o t a l 85 100.0 f a c t tha t 67.6 percent of the p ro teges were advanc ing to a h i gher p o s i t i o n when the mentor -protege r e l a t i o n s h i p o c c u r e d , i t i s of i n t e r e s t that a need f o r c a r e e r advancement was r e p o r t e d by on ly 4.7 p e r c e n t . 1 14 The Mentor -Pro tege R e l a t i o n s h i p I n i t i a t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . Mentored s u b j e c t s i n d i c a t e d that the m a j o r i t y (57.1%) of mentor -protege r e l a t i o n s h i p s grew out of a mutual a t t r a c t i o n or mutual work s i t u a t i o n . On the o ther hand, the mentor was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i n i t i a t i n g 34.1 percent of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s wh i le the protege o r i g i n a t e d on l y 3.6 p e r c e n t . Another 4.8 percent grew out of a s s i gned r e l a t i o n s h i p s such as p r e c e p t o r s h i p programs, work and study as s i gnments . S e t t i n g . When d e s i g n a t i n g where the mentor -protege r e l a t i o n s h i p took p l a c e , respondents d i s c l o s e d that 67.1 percent took p l a c e in a h o s p i t a l or work s e t t i n g , 15.3 percent came about in an educa t i on s e t t i n g , 11.8 percent happened in the community s e t t i n g wi th f r i e n d s . Length . Mentored nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s r epo r ted r e l a t i o n s h i p s l a s t i n g from l e s s than one year to 39 y e a r s . The mean was 9.5 y e a r s . S e v e n t y - f i v e pe rcen t of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s con t i nued f o r 10 years or l e s s . Of these , 24.7 percen t were four years or l e s s in d u r a t i o n (see Tab le 22) . Of i n t e r e s t i s the f a c t tha t 16.5 percent of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s endured fo r 17 year s or more. T h i s s t a t i s t i c may be due to the f a c t that s u b j e c t s i n t e r p r e t e d t h i s q u e s t i o n to mean the t o t a l l eng th of the i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p wi th the mentor r a t h e r than the l eng th of the mentor -pro tege r e l a t i o n s h i p . 115 Tab le 22 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Mentored Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r s by Length of the Mentor -Pro tege R e l a t i o n s h i p Length of the Re l a t i o n s h i p Frequency R e l a t i v e Frequency (%) Less than 4 yea r s 21 24.7 4 - 6 20 23.5 7 - 1 0 23 27. 1 1 1 - 1 6 7 8.2 17 or over 1 4 16.5 T o t a l 85 100.0 Ending the R e l a t i o n s h i p . From a c h o i c e of n ine o p t i o n s the respondents s e l e c t e d , any number of items that a p p l i e d to the manner in which the mentor -pro tege r e l a t i o n s h i p ended. Changing jobs (22.5%) and moving away (19.6%) were the most f r e q u e n t l y de s i gna ted rou tes of t e r m i n a t i o n . Only 2.8 percent of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s ended in d i sharmony. Whi le the respondents r e p o r t e d that 61.7 percent of the mentor -protege r e l a t i o n s h i p s had come to an end, o the r s i n d i c a t e d that 38.3 percent were s t i l l go ing on (see Tab le 23) . Aga in , t h i s f i g u r e may be the r e s u l t of the respondents not r e c o g n i z i n g when a mentor -protege r e l a t i o n s h i p has become t rans fo rmed i n t o an i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . Negat ive a s p e c t s . In the event t he re were nega t i ve a spec t s to t h e i r mentor r e l a t i o n s h i p , s u b j e c t s were asked to i n d i c a t e in an open-ended q u e s t i o n what these were. Twenty-seven (31.7%) responded. The nega t i ve e lements c o u l d be grouped i n t o the f o l l o w i n g seven c a t e g o r i e s : ( l ) The mento r ' s e x p e c t a t i o n s were 1 1 6 Tab le 23 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Mentored Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r s by Manner in which the Mentor -Protege R e l a t i o n s h i p Ended Manner in which Frequency Percentage of R e l a t i o n s h i p Ended of Responses Responses Changing jobs 24 22.5 Moving away 21 19.6 G r a d u a l l y d r i f t i n g apar t 4 3.7 Becoming f r i e n d s 4 3.7 Becoming c o l l e a g u e s 2 1 .9 G e t t i n g m a r r i e d 2 1 .9 Di sharmony 3 2.8 Mentor or protege s u f f e r e d 6 5.6 some m i s f o r t u n e R e l a t i o n s h i p s t i l l go ing on 41 38.3 T o t a l 1 07 1 00.0 Note : Sub jec t s c o u l d respond to as many items as a p p l i c a b l e , t h e r e f o r e n=107 r a t h e r than 85. u n r e a l i s t i c or too h i g h ; (2) the mentor was c o n t r o l l i n g , i n f l e x i b l e , c r i t i c a l ; (3) the mentor was p o s s e s s i v e or demanded u n q u e s t i o n i n g l o y a l t y ; (4) the mentor was unable to meet the p r o t e g e ' s e x p e c t a t i o n s in tha t the mentor gave vague i n s t r u c t i o n s , was d i s o r g a n i z e d , became d i s c o u r a g e d , became dependent upon the p r o t e g e , r e v e a l e d weaknesses that d i s enchan ted the p r o t e g e , or was unable to o f f e r work r e l a t e d a s s i s t a n c e because the mentor was not in the work s e t t i n g . In a d d i t i o n , t h e r e were: (5) d i f f e r e n c e s of o p i n i o n between mentor and p r o t e g e , (6) f e e l i n g s of g u i l t or i n s e c u r i t y on the par t of the protege that c a r e e r advancement was due to the mentor ' s r e p u t a t i o n and, (7) resentment and m i s i n t e r p r e a t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p by other s t a f f . 1 1 7 Type of Mentor ing He lp Rece ived Turn ing to the type of mentor ing h e l p r e c e i v e d , the mentored s u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d about the h e l p r e c e i v e d from t h e i r mentors in two ways. On one q u e s t i o n , they s e l e c t e d and ranked the mentor ' s th ree most h e l p f u l behav iours from a c h o i c e of e i g h t o p t i o n s . In another s e c t i o n of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , they r a t e d 45 items a c c o r d i n g to the ex tent to which v a r i o u s types of mentor ing h e l p o c c u r e d . In r e l a t i o n to the mento r ' s most h e l p f u l behav iour s the f i r s t c h o i c e rank ing i s documented. Encouragement, a ccep tance , and c o n f i r m a t i o n (38.8%) d e f i n i t e l y outweighed c h a l l e n g e , i n s p i r a t i o n , and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (22.3%). These were f o l l owed to a l e s s e r extent by i n s t r u c t i o n , coach ing (12.9%) and r o l e model ing (10.6%). Of s i g n i f i c a n c e i s the f a c t that c a r e e r a d v i c e , and promotion and sponso r sh ip accounted f o r on ly 7.1 percent of the t o t a l (see Tab le 24) . Regarding the extent to which v a r i o u s types of mentor ing h e l p o ccu red , o p i n i o n s were e l i c i t e d on 45 items through use of a f i v e po in t r a t i n g s c a l e rang ing from: (1) Never, (2) Seldom, (3) Sometimes, (4) F r e q u e n t l y , and (5) Almost a lways. In the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , the 45 items were grouped a c c o r d i n g to the e i g h t types of mentor ing h e l p : (1) c a r e e r a d v i c e ; (2) encouragement, a ccep tance , c o n f i r m a t i o n ; (3) i n s t r u c t i o n , c o a c h i n g ; (4) c o u n s e l i n g (other than c a r e e r a d v i c e ) ; (5) c h a l l e n g e , i n s p i r a t i o n , r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ; (6) r o l e mode l ing ; (7) promotion and s p o n s o r s h i p ; and (8) f r i e n d s h i p . 1 18 Tab le 24 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Mentored Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r s by F i r s t Cho ice S e l e c t i o n of Help Rece ived from t h e i r Mentor Rank Type of He lp Frequency R e l a t i v e Frequency (%) 1 Encouragement, acceptance 33 38.8 conf i rmat ion 2 C h a l l e n g e , i n s p i r a t i o n 19 22.3 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 3 I n s t r u c t i o n , coach ing 1 1 12.9 4 Role model ing 9 10.6 5 F r i e n d s h i p 5 5.9 6 Promot ion, sponso r sh ip 4 4.7 7 Career a d v i c e 2 2.4 7 Counse l i n g 2 2.4 T o t a l 85 1 00.0 A n a l y s i s of the 45 items i n d i c a t e d that i f the e i g h t o r i g i n a l c a t e g o r i e s of mentor ing h e l p ( l i s t e d in Tab le 24) were to be used as an o r g a n i z i n g framework, the items c o u l d not be grouped n e a t l y a c c o r d i n g to s i m i l a r ranks or f requency of h e l p r e c e i v e d . However, i t was found the items c o u l d be c l u s t e r e d - a c c o r d i n g to l i k e ranks , then r e c l a s s i f i e d i n t o ten new c a t e g o r i e s of mentor ing h e l p i f the content of the h e l p r e c e i v e d was used as the o r g a n i z i n g framework. Be fore the items were grouped in t h i s way, f a c t o r a n a l y s i s was c a r r i e d out to g i ve v a l i d i t y to the naming of the c a t e g o r i e s of mentor ing h e l p . (See Appendix D fo r comparison of the 10 ranked c a t e g o r i e s w i th the 14 c a t e g o r i e s r e s u l t i n g from f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . ) The o r i g i n a l e i gh t c a t e g o r i e s were renamed in the f o l l o w i n g manner. 119 Sponsor sh ip and promot ion were d i v i d e d i n t o three c a t e g o r i e s : promotion towards c a r e e r and e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s ; b e n e f i c i a l exposure and v i s i b i l i t y ; and running i n t e r f e r e n c e or p r o t e c t i n g . Career a d v i c e was r e c l a s s i f i e d i n t o two g roups : a d v i c e and promot ion r e l e v e n t to c a r e e r goa l s and e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s , and c a n d i d counse l and shrewd a d v i c e . The rank of items r e l e v e n t to the three c a t e g o r i e s : r o l e mode l ing , c h a l l e n g e , and c o u n s e l i n g , ranged ac ro s s a number of the new group ings a c c o r d i n g to the content of the h e l p . T h e r e f o r e , these three c a t e g o r i e s were subsumed under the new c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . Con t i nu ing on, t he re were seven items that c o u l d be grouped together a c c o r d i n g to s i m i l a r means, however, they ranged ac ro s s the . c a t e g o r i e s of c h a l l e n g e , i n s t r u c t i o n , r o l e mode l ing , and f r i e n d s h i p . When a n a l y s e d , these items conveyed common themes r e l e v e n t to the mentor ' s extended p e r s o n a l i n d o c t r i n a t i o n , d i r e c t i o n , and i n t e r e s t in the p r o t e g e ' s c a r e e r development. T h e r e f o r e , a new ca tego ry with t h i s name was c r e a t e d . F u r t h e r , f r i e n d s h i p was d i v i d e d i n t o two c a t e g o r i e s , those of o f f - t h e - j o b s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n and pe r sona l a s s i s t a n c e . In a d d i t i o n , there were th ree c a t e g o r i e s of he lp that r e t a i n e d t h e i r o r i g i n a l f l a v o r but d i d undergo some changes. These were: encouragement, a ccep tance , c o n f i r m a t i o n ; i n s p i r a t i o n , c h a l l e n g e , r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ; and i n s t r u c t i o n , c o a c h i n g . The rank and mean, toge ther w i th the r e l e v e n t c a t e g o r i e s of mentor ing h e l p are t a b u l a t e d in Tab le 25. 120 Tab le 25 Rank and Mean of Mentored Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' s Ra t ing of Type of Mentor ing Help Rece ived Item P e r t a i n i n g to Type of He lp Mean Rank Category of Help B e l i e v e d in my a b i l i t y even though I was at t imes unable to r ecogn i ze my potent i a l . 4.55 1 Was someone I c o u l d r e l y on fo r 4.52 support d u r i n g c r i s i s and u n c e r t a i n t i e s . V e r b a l l y expres sed c o n f i d e n c e in me. 4.49 3 Encouragement, conf i rmat ion Encouragement, conf i rmat i on Encouragement, conf i rma t i on Cons ide red my knowledge and exper i ence an a s s e t . 4.34 Encouragement, conf i rmat ion Served as a r o l e model f o r a s tandard 4.23 of e x c e l l e n c e to be i m i t a t e d . Shared and t r u s t e d me w i th i n f o r m a t i o n 4.21 that was c o n f i d e n t i a l . I n s p i r a t i o n : h i gh s tandards Encouragement, conf i rmat ion Served as a r o l e model in l e a d e r s h i p 4.20 a b i l i t y . Encouraged me to take r i s k s and e x p e r - 4.17 iment wi th new ways of do ing t h i n g s . I n s p i r e d me to take the i n i t i a t i v e and 4.13 seek g r e a t e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . 8 9 Set e s p e c i a l l y h igh s tandards of p e r - 4.12 10 formance f o r me. Encouraged me to d i s a g ree on i s sue s 4.08 11 wi thout f ea r of r e t a l i a t i o n . P rov i ded me wi th feedback, 4.07 12 c o n s t r u c t i v e c r i t i c i s m . Insp i ra t i o n : h i gh s tandards Encouragement, conf i rmat ion I n s p i r a t i o n : h igh s tandards I nspi.rat i o n : h i gh s tandards Encouragement, c o n f i r m a t i o n P r a c t i c a l t r a i n i n g 121 Tab le 25 Type of Mentor ing Help Rece i ved (Cont inued) Item P e r t a i n i n g to Type of He lp Mean Rank Category of He lp A l lowed me to share p e r s o n a l doubts 4.00 13 and concerns wi thout r i s k of exposure . Served as a r o l e model in how to com- 3.92 14 municate e f f e c t i v e l y w i th o t h e r s . I nc luded me in p o l i c y making and/or 3.86 15 a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p l a n n i n g s e s s i o n s . Served as a r o l e model in how to dea l 3.81 16 w i th the p o l i t i c s of the u n i t , o r g a n i z a t i o n , or r e a l wo r l d . C rea ted a s t i m u l a t i n g atmosphere of 3.80 17 e x p e c t a t i o n and exc i t ement . Coached me in ways to get around 3.75 18 o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and p e r s o n a l o b s t a c l e s . P rov ided exposure to and e x p l a i n e d h i s 3.71 19 / h e r method of h a n d l i n g c l i e n t , work r e l a t e d , and/or r e a l wor ld prob lems. D i s cu s sed with me my short and long 3.66 20 range c a r e e r g o a l s . I n s t r u c t e d me in h i gher l e v e l and/or 3.65 21 r e a l wor ld s t r a t e g i e s , t a c t i c s , p o l i t i c s , and e x p e c t a t i o n s . Recommended me f o r an e d u c a t i o n a l 3.55 22 o p p o r t u n i t y , advantageous j o b , p r o - mot ion, and/or key committee. Adv i sed me on e d u c a t i o n a l oppor - 3.49 23 t u n i t i e s . P rov ided more c h a l l e n g e and oppor - 3.48 24 t u n i t y fo r me than f o r o t h e r s . Cand id l y d i s c u s s e d the reasons f o r 3.47 25 the behaviour of o ther members of the o r g a n i z a t i o n . Encouragement, conf irmat ion P r a c t i c a l t r a i n i n g P r a c t i c a l t r a i n i n g P r a c t i c a l t r a i n i n g Encouragement, conf i rmat ion P r a c t i c a l t r a i n i n g P rac t i c a l t r a i n i n g Career promotion P r a c t i c a l t r a i n i n g Career promot ion Career promot ion Pe r sona l i n d o c t r i n a t i o n Pe r sona l I n d o c t r i n a t i o n 122 Tab le 25 Type of Mentor ing He lp Rece ived (Cont inued) Item P e r t a i n i n g to Type of He lp Mean Rank Category of He lp Served as a r o l e model in c r e a t i v e 3.45 26 b e h a v i o u r . Took a genuine i n t e r e s t in my f a m i l y , 3.38 27 hobb ie s , and p e r s o n a l i n t e r e s t s . D i s c u s s e d wi th me a p p r o p r i a t e answers 3.35 28 to w r i t t e n or v e r b a l communicat ions. De lega ted problems to me and a l l owed 3.31 29 me to work out s o l u t i o n s . He lped me modify my formal l e a r n i n g so 3.21 30 tha t i t would f i t i n the p r a c t i c a l working wor ld . Had me make p r e s e n t a t i o n s to 3.18 31 c o l l e a g u e s , f r i e n d s , c l i e n t s , or a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . Was ext remely demanding of me. 3.13 32 Adv i sed on where and how to seek 3.11 33 c a r e e r advancement o p p o r t u n i t i e s . I n t roduced my ideas and/or me to 3.08 34 o t h e r s who c o u l d h e l p me ach ieve my c a r e e r g o a l s . Endor sed , in p u b l i c , o p i n i o n s I had 3.01 35 e x p r e s s e d . Cau t i oned me to a v o i d behav iour tha t 2.95 36 might be d e t r i m e n t a l to my c a r e e r . A d v i s e d me on what to a v o i d when 2.87 37 seek ing c a r e e r and/or p e r s o n a l r e s p o n - s i b i l i t i e s . Served as a r o l e model in how to 2.86 38 i n c o r p o r a t e work, f am i l y and/or p e r s o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Pe r sona l i n d o c t r i n a t i o n P e r s o n a l i n d o c t r i n a t i o n P e r s o n a l i n d o c t r i n a t i o n P e r s o n a l i n d o c t r i n a t i o n P e r s o n a l i n d o c t r i n a t i o n Exposure, v i s i b i l i t y Exposure, v i s i b i l i t y Candid counse l Exposure, v i s i b i l i t y Exposure, v i s i b i l i t y Cand id c o u n s e l Cand id c o u n s e l Soc i a l i n t e r a c t ion 123 Tab le 25 Type of Mentor ing He lp Rece ived (Cont inued) Item P e r t a i n i n g to Type of He lp Mean Rank Category of He lp Had me f i l l i n f o r h im/her at meet ings or in h i s / h e r job when away. 2 .78 39 Exposure, v i s i b i l i t y Had o c c a s i o n a l l u n c h , d i n n e r , c o f f e e , or d r i n k s w i th j u s t me. 2 .68 40 Soc i a l i n t e r a c t ion Took p e r s o n a l r i s k s to p r o t e c t or defend me. 2 .66 41 P r o t e c t i o n I n v i t e d me to h i s / h e r home. Served in a r o l e model in how to use f r i e n d s h i p , f avor swapping, and i n f o r m a l s o c i a l c o n t a c t s f o r c a r e e r advancement. 2 2 .62 .49 42 43 Soc i a l i n t e r a c t ion Candid counse l Dev i a ted from p o l i c y or bent the r u l e s fo r me. 1 .58 44 P r o t e c t ion A s s i s t e d me w i th p e r s o n a l needs such as l o c a t i n g hou s i ng , l o a n i n g money, e tc 1 • .50 45 Pe r sona l a s s i s tance The ten new c a t e g o r i e s are l i s t e d below. They are p l a c e d in order of the mentor ing h e l p most f r e q u e n t l y to l e a s t f r e q u e n t l y r e c e i v e d . F i r s t in rank i s encouragement, suppor t , a ccep tance , c o n f i r m a t i o n (see items ranked 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 17). Second, i s i n s p i r a t i o n to a c h i e v e h igh s tandards of performance (see items ranked 5 , 7 , 9 , 1 0 ) . T h i r d , i s p r a c t i c a l t r a i n i n g and guidance in how to d e a l w i th the p o l i t i c s , s t r a t e g i e s , o b s t a c l e s of the r e a l wor l d , o r g a n i z a t i o n , or u n i t (see items ranked 12 ,14 ,15 ,16 ,18 ,19 ,21 ) . C a r e e r / e d u c a t i o n a l a d v i c e and promot ion i s f o u r t h (see items ranked .20,22,23) . 1 24 F i f t h , i s extended p e r s o n a l i n d o c t r i n a t i o n , d i r e c t i o n , and i n t e r e s t (see items ranked 24 ,25 ,26 ,27 ,28 ,29 ,30 ) . S i x t h , i s b e n e f i c i a l exposure and v i s i b i l i t y (see items ranked 31 ,32 ,34 ,35 ,39 ) . Seventh, i s c and id counse l and adv i ce (see items ranked 33 ,36 ,37 ,43 ) . E i g h t h , i s o f f - t h e - j o b s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n (see items ranked 38 ,40 ,42 ) . N i n t h , i s p r o t e c t i o n , runn ing i n t e r f e r e n c e (see items ranked 41,44) . And l a s t , i s a s s i s t a n c e wi th p e r s o n a l needs (see i tem 45 ) . The new c a t e g o r i e s of mentor ing h e l p are ranked and documented in Tab le 26. Tab le 26 Rank and Type of Mentor ing He lp Rece i ved Rank Category P e r t a i n i n g to Type of Mentor ing Help 1 Encouragement, suppor t , a ccep tance , c o n f i r m a t i o n 2 I n s p i r a t i o n to ach ieve h igh s tandards of per formance 3 P r a c t i c a l t r a i n i n g and guidance 4 C a r e e r / e d u c a t i o n a l a d v i c e and promot ion 5 Extended p e r s o n a l i n d o c t r i n a t i o n , i n t e r e s t , and d i r e c t i o n 6 B e n e f i c i a l exposure and v i s i b i l i t y 7 Candid counse l and shrewd adv i ce 8 O f f - t h e - j o b s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n 9 P r o t e c t i o n , runn ing i n t e r f e r e n c e 10 A s s i s t a n c e w i th p e r s o n a l needs Note: C a t e g o r i e s are ranked a c c o r d i n g to mentor ing h e l p most f r e q u e n t l y r e c e i v e d (rank 1) to l e a s t f r e q u e n t l y r e c e i v e d (rank 10). The r a t i n g of s e v e r a l items i s of i n t e r e s t . Ro le model ing of c r e a t i v e behav iour (rank 26) ; i n c o r p o r a t i o n of work, f a m i l y , p e r s o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s (rank 38) ; and use of f r i e n d s h i p , 1 25 f avor swapping, and i n f o r m a l s o c i a l c o n t a c t s f o r advancement (rank 43) have lower ranks than a n t i c i p a t e d . These w i l l be d i s c u s s e d in the next c h a p t e r . Secondary a n a l y s i s of s e l e c t e d items of 'mentor ing h e l p showed that in some i n s t a n c e s there was a s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e between the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the mentor and type of h e l p r e c e i v e d . In a d d i t i o n there was a tendency f o r non-nurse mentors to be r a t e d h i gher on the h e l p r e c e i v e d than nurse mentors . Most of the non-nurse mentors are male. These were i n c i d e n t a l f i n d i n g s and were not pa r t of the main t h r u s t of t h i s s tudy , but they do s i g n i f y the need f o r f u r t h e r e x p l o r a t i o n . Mentor ing A c t i v i t y Towards Others Both mentored and non-mentored nurses r e p o r t e d be ing mentors to o the r s in the past and i n t e n d i n g to be mentors in the f u t u r e . However, Chi square a n a l y s i s showed there was a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between past mentor ing a c t i v i t y and mentored and non-mentored nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , Chi square = 9.99, df = 3, p_<.02. There was a l s o a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the i n t e n t i o n to mentor in the f u t u r e and mentored and non-mentored nur se s , Chi square= 14.77, df = 3, p_<.0l. In r e l a t i o n to past mentor ing a c t i v i t y , 67.1 percent of the mentored s u b j e c t s i n d i c a t e d they have been mentors as compared to 51.5 pe rcen t of the non-mentored s u b j e c t s . Only 3.5 pe rcen t of mentored a d m i n i s t r a t o r s have never been mentors in c o n t r a s t to 21.2 percent of the non-mentored nur ses . Of i n t e r e s t i s the 1 26 f a c t that a lmost 29 percent of both mentored and non-mentored nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s do not know whether they have ac ted as a mentor (see Tab le 27, Pa r t A ) . When d e c l a r i n g t h e i r i n t e n t i o n to serve as mentors in the f u t u r e , 83.4 percent of the mentored nurses wish to be- mentors as opposed to 48.5 percen t of the non-mentored nur se s . Only 10.6 percen t of the mentored a d m i n i s t r a t o r s are undec ided about f u t u r e mentor ing a c t i v i t y compared to 33.3 percent of the non- mentored a d m i n i s t r a t o r s (see Tab le 27, Par t B ) . As a means of summarizing the gene ra l f e e l i n g towards the u s e f u l n e s s of mentor ing , s u b j e c t s responded to a f i n a l q u e s t i o n , "Having one or more mentors i s h e l p f u l to a person beg inn ing a c a r e e r in n u r s i n g . " The a d m i n i s t r a t o r s i n d i c a t e d t h e i r o p i n i o n by s e l e c t i n g items on a f i v e p o i n t s c a l e rang ing f rom: (SD) S t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e , (D) D i s a g r e e , (U) Undec ided, (A) Agree, to (SA) S t r o n g l y ag ree . Chi square a n a l y s i s showed there was a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between response to t h i s q u e s t i o n and mentored and non-mentored respondent s , Ch i square=28.04, df=4, p< .00 l . Amongst the mentored a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , 96.4 percen t agreed or s t r o n g l y agreed wh i l e 2.4 percent were undec ided . In c o n t r a s t , 69.7 percent of the non- mentored s u b j e c t s agreed or s t r o n g l y agreed wh i le 21.2 percen t were undec ided . The s a l i e n t po in t i s tha t amongst both the mentored and non-mentored nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , more than two- 127 Tab le 27 Ch i Square A n a l y s i s of Mentor ing A c t i v i t y to Others wi th S i g n i f i c a n t l y D i f f e r e n t Response P a t t e r n s f o r Mentored and Non- Mentored Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r s A. Mentor ing A c t i v i t y in the Past by Mentored and Non-Mentored Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r s Mentored Non-Mentored Category F r e q . (%) F r e q . (.%) Mentor to 1 person 40 11.8* 4 12.1 Mentor to >1 person 47 55.3 13 39.4 Not a c t e d as mentor 3 3.5 7 21.2 Don ' t know 25 29.4 9 27.3 T o t a l 85 72.0 33 27.9 X z =14.77, df=3 * p<.02. B. Mentor ing A c t i v i t y in the Future by Mentored and Non-Mentored Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r s Category Mentored Non- Mentored F r e q . (%) F req (%) Mentor to 1 person 26 31 .0 * * 6 18.2 Mentor to >1 person 44 52.4 1 0 30.3 W i l l not ac t as mentor 5 6.0 6 18.2 Undec ided at present 9 10.6 1 1 33.3 T o t a l 84 71.7 33 28.2 X z =14.77, df=3 * * p_<.0l . 1 28 t h i r d s are of the o p i n i o n that a mentor i s h e l p f u l to a person who i s beg inn ing a stage of t h e i r c a r e e r in n u r s i n g . A summary of the study and c o n c l u s i o n s about how these r e s u l t s r e l a t e d to the l i t e r a t u r e in Chapter II i s i n c l u d e d in Chapter V. 129 CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS T h i s chapter p r e s e n t s a summary of the s tudy, the c o n c l u s i o n s reached based upon the f i n d i n g s and l i t e r a t u r e rev iew, and recommendations f o r e d u c a t i o n , n u r s i n g , and f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h . Summary The purpose of t h i s survey study was to d e s c r i b e the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of mentor ing a c t i v i t y and the type of h e l p r e c e i v e d by nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in B r i t i s h Co lumbia . It was des i gned to answer the r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s posed in Chapter I r e g a r d i n g : the i n c i d e n c e of mentor ing r e c e i v e d ; the presence of s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between mentored and non-mentored s u b j e c t s ; c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the mentor, the p r o t e g e , and the mentor -protege r e l a t i o n s h i p ; the type of mentor ing h e l p r e c e i v e d ; and the extent to which s u b j e c t s have been mentors to o t h e r s . The r e s e a r c h group c o n s i s t e d of 119 top B.C. n u r s i n g a d m i n i s t r a t o r s who responded to a q u e s t i o n n a i r e ma i l ed to the 176 members of the B.C. Nurse A d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' A s s o c i a t i o n . The S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r the S o c i a l S c i ence s (SPSS) computer program was used to generate f requency d i s t r i b u t i o n s . Cross t a b u l a t i o n s were a l s o made to p re sen t some of the f i n d i n g s and determine the Chi square s t a t i s t i c s fo r showing r e l a t i o n s h i p s 1 30 between v a r i a b l e s . F a c t o r a n a l y s i s was c a r r i e d out to g i ve v a l i d i t y to the grouping and naming of c a t e g o r i e s of mentor ing h e l p . Conc lu s i on s r e l e v e n t to the f i n d i n g s f o l l o w d i s c u s s i o n of the s t u d y ' s l i m i t a t i o n s . L i m i t a t i o n s There are l i m i t a t i o n s to t h i s s tudy which shou ld be kept in mind when i n t e r p r e t i n g the r e s u l t s . The q u e s t i o n n a i r e was deve loped by the r e s e a r c h e r and p i l o t t e s t e d tw ice fo r t h i s s tudy . V a l i d i t y was based on g e n e r a l agreement of the p i l o t t e s t e r s as to whether the items r e p r e s e n t e d the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of mentor ing a c t i v i t y and type of mentor ing h e l p . R e l i a b i l i t y e s t ima te s were not deve loped . One par t of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e may have been m i s i n t e r p r e t e d . Whi le the d e f i n i t i o n of a mentor was g i ven in the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , a d e f i n i t i o n of the mentor -protege r e l a t i o n s h i p was not g i v e n . I t i s b e l i e v e d that some of the respondents d i d not i d e n t i f y the f a c t tha t t h e i r mentor -pro tege r e l a t i o n s h i p had changed to an i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p when respond ing to the two q u e s t i o n s about the l e n g t h of the r e l a t i o n s h i p and the way in which the r e l a t i o n s h i p ended. Background c h a r a c t e r i s t i e s of nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s s e l e c t e d fo r the q u e s t i o n n a i r e were chosen on the b a s i s of l i m i t e d sugges t ions in the l i t e r a t u r e and may not r e f l e c t the background c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on which d i f f e r e n c e s between mentored and non- 131 mentored nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s are based. C o n c l u s i o n s The main purpose of t h i s study was to determine whether nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s had been the r e c i p i e n t s of mentor ing and i f they had, what were the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h i s a c t i v i t y . Before p r o g r e s s i n g to a d i s c u s s i o n of these e lements , and because few s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found between mentored and non-mentored s u b j e c t s , some comments are in o rder rega rd ing the study p o p u l a t i o n . The nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in the study were found to be s i m i l a r to B.C. nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in genera l i n r e l a t i o n to age, sex, m a r i t a l s t a t u s , and p o s i t i o n . However they are an e x c e p t i o n a l group in comparison to the B.C. nu r s i n g p o p u l a t i o n in terms of hav ing a h i gher l e v e l of e d u c a t i o n , more years of nu r s i n g e x p e r i e n c e , and a longer p e r i o d of employment wi th t h e i r p resent agency. When compared to o ther s t u d i e s of mentor ing a c t i v e l y amongst a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and e x e c u t i v e women, these top B.C. n u r s i n g a d m i n i s t r a t o r s are more congruent to the middle and upper management women of P h i l l i p s ' study (1977) than they are to the top e x e c u t i v e s d e s c r i b e d by M i s s i r i a n (1980) or the e l i t e U.S. nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s p o r t r a y e d by Vance (1977). They are s i m i l a r to the middle management women by be ing m a r r i e d , hav ing had c h i l d r e n , and by a c q u i r i n g a b a c c a l a u r e a t e l e v e l of educa t ion or lower . They are not comparable to the top e x e c u t i v e s or the nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s by reason of the f a c t that l e s s than h a l f of the top e x e c u t i v e s and nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s were 1 32 m a r r i e d , o n e - t h i r d had c h i l d r e n and 60 percent ( M i s s i r i a n , 1980) to 95 percent (Vance, 1977) h e l d m a s t e r ' s or d o c t o r a l degrees . Whi le some comparisons can be made between the U.S. nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s and B.C. nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , one must use c a u t i o n due to the d i f f e r e n c e s in c a r e e r and e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s between Canadian and American n u r s e s . Tu rn ing to c a r e e r m o b i l i t y , i t i s d i f f i c u l t to compare nur s i ng a d m i n i s t r a t o r s wi th those o u t s i d e the h e a l t h ca re p r o f e s s i o n s . Due to the ease of o b t a i n i n g employment as a nurse almost anywhere in the wor ld and the p o r t a b i l i t y of the b e n e f i t s w i t h i n B r i t i s h Co lumbia, nurses have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been a mobi le group. However comparison wi th the U.S. nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s shows that B.C. nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s have from th ree to f i v e years l e s s e x p e r i e n c e in t h e i r c u r r e n t o c c u p a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n s . It i s hard to draw c o n c l u s i o n s between these two groups rega rd ing the l eng th of expe r i ence in an o c c u p a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n other than to say that the g r e a t e r e x p e r i e n c e of the nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s may be one v a r i a b l e to be c o n s i d e r e d in the achievement of t h e i r h i gher p o s i t i o n s . I t i s c o n c e i v a b l e that o ther f a c t o r s such as a b i l i t y , e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l , and c a r e e r o p p o r t u n i t i e s are e q u a l l y i f not more important in the at ta inment of advanced p o s i t i o n s . Employment p a t t e r n s are somewhat s i m i l a r to those of the women managers in P h i l l i p ' s study (1977). The m a j o r i t y of the women managers and nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s have been i n v o l v e d in double t r a c k c a r e e r s where employment and f am i l y 1 33 r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s are managed s i m u l t a n e o u s l y , or in i n t e r r u p t e d c a r e e r s where time i s taken out to r a i s e c h i l d r e n and/or ob ta in an e d u c a t i o n . The m i n o r i t y were i n v o l v e d in con t inuous c a r e e r s where no t ime was taken away from the l abor f o r c e . In c o n t r a s t , the o r a l h i s t o r i e s of American nurse l e a d e r s ( S a f i e r , 1977) would i n d i c a t e the m a j o r i t y have f o l l owed a cont inuous employment p a t t e r n . There a re c l o s e s i m i l a r i t i e s aga in w i th the middle management women of the P h i l l i p s ' study and the nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in r e l a t i o n to i n f l u e n t i a l f a c t o r s in c a r e e r development. Both groups ranked competency, hav ing s t rong d r i v e , the g a i n i n g of knowledge, and sponso r sh ip by another person as the f i r s t , second, t h i r d , and f i f t h f a c t o r s , r e s p e c t i v e l y . T u r n i n g to support by s i g n i f i c a n t o t h e r s , both the women managers and the nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s i d e n t i f i e d f a m i l y members as the g r e a t e s t source of suppor t . D i f f e r e n c e s and s i m i l a r i t i e s are seen when comparing the nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s to the nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s . In both groups, amongst the mar r i ed nu r se s , the spouse was g r e a t l y s u p p o r t i v e . However, d i f f e r e n c e s l i e in the f a c t tha t f o r both s i n g l e and mar r i ed nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , f a t h e r s were seen as more s u p p o r t i v e than mothers . T h i s i s in c o n t r a s t to the mothers who were more s u p p o r t i v e in the study of nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s (Vance, 1977). In a d d i t i o n , the nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s were more a b l e to r e l y on t h e i r nu r s i n g c o l l e a g u e s for support and encouragement than were the nurse 1 34 administrators. In a profession that has suffered from low self esteem and power due in part to the male dominance by the medical profession, i t i s not surprising that lesser support amongst nursing colleagues in the less i n f l u e n t i a l positions is more common. Competition, rather than a t r a d i t i o n of sharing knowledge and supporting each other as colleagues (Safier, 1977) has been the order of the day but i s beginning to change as nursing leaders r e a l i z e the advantages of c o l l e g i a l support. What conclusions can be drawn about the study group of nurse administrators? F i r s t in terms of demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s they are very similar to the t o t a l population of B.C. nurse administrators. Secondly, the nurse administrators show more s i m i l a r i t i e s to U.S. middle management women in marital status, number of children, educational l e v e l , employment patterns, and source of support than they do to the U.S. nursing e l i t e . T hirdly, they are an exceptional group when compared to the B.C. nursing population in general, but are not exceptional when compared in educational l e v e l and experience to the U.S. nursing i n f l u e n t i a l s or top women executives (Missirian, 1980). However in a di f f e r e n t vein, the nurse administrators are remarkable when their accomplishments are viewed within the context of when they were achieved. These are women whose average age is 47, for the most part they married, raised children, achieved a post-college education and reached top administrative positions at a time when working women were in the minority and there were few community supports by way of material resources or encouraging s o c i e t a l a t t i t udes. 135 Turn ing to the key que s t i on about the presence of a mentor, 71 percent of the nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s r e p o r t e d that they had one or more mentors that met the f o l l o w i n g d e s c r i p t i o n . A mentor a c t s to a g rea te r or l e s s e r degree as a coach , t e a c h e r , g u i d e ; r o l e model ; c o u n s e l o r ; and sponsor who e n t e r s i n t o a s u s t a i n e d r e l a t i o n s h i p with a l e s s expe r i enced p e r s o n . The i n t e n t i o n of the mentor i s to serve as a t r u s t e d , w i s e r , more knowledgeable i n d i v i d u a l who takes an ongoing i n t e r e s t in f o s t e r i n g and suppo r t i n g the p e r s o n ' s c a r e e r development. When comparing the i n c i d e n c e of mentor ing in t h i s study with that of o ther s t u d i e s in n u r s i n g and b u s i n e s s , the data are h i g h l y sugges t i ve that the h i ghe r the p o s i t i o n and c a r e e r achievement of the i n d i v i d u a l , the more l i k e l y they are to repo r t the presence of a mentor. I t does not i n d i c a t e that one must have a mentor to reach h i gh a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o s i t i o n s . For example, amongst the top nu r s i n g i n f l u e n t i a l s (Vance, 1977) and top women e x e c u t i v e s ( M i s s i r i a n , 1980), more than 80 percent of the s u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d the presence of a mentor, but not a l l had mentors. However, as the e x e c u t i v e or a d m i n i s t r a t i v e rank of the i n d i v i d u a l d e c r e a s e s , so does the r e p o r t e d mentor ing a c t i v i t y . T h i s can be seen in the d e c r e a s i n g mentor ing a c t i v i t y amongst nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s (71%); to the 61 pe rcen t r e p o r t e d amongst head nur se s , s u p e r v i s o r s , and some a d m i n i s t r a t o r s (Lar son, 1981); and the 52 percent r e p o r t e d by s t a f f nurses and s u p e r v i s o r s (Fagan & Fagan, 1983). 1 36 The two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s found in the study to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to the presence or absence of a mentor have been suggested in other s t u d i e s but have not been s t a t i s t i c a l l y i n v e s t i g a t e d . In a n a l y s i n g the data r ega rd ing the number of c h i l d r e n i t i s u n f o r t u n a t e , but not s u r p r i s i n g that amongst nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s who have had c h i l d r e n , the p a r e n t i n g of more than three c h i l d r e n i s n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d to f i n d i n g a mentor. T h i s can be i n t e r p r e t e d in s e v e r a l ways. Perhaps nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s who have l a r ge f a m i l i e s are more f am i l y o r i e n t e d , l e s s job achievement o r i e n t e d , and thus are l e s s i n c l i n e d to even i d e n t i f y the presence of a mentor to a s s i s t w i th c a r e e r development. Or , the more p l a u s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n seems to be that those appear ing l e s s committed and hav ing l e s s t ime to devote to work r e l a t e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s (due to the presence of c h i l d r e n or o ther f a c t o r s ) are l e s s i n c l i n e d to a t t r a c t the mentor ' s investment in t h e i r development. It i s consp icuous that the s u b j e c t s ' o p i n i o n s r e g a r d i n g the c a r e e r p l a n n i n g route to ach ieve t h e i r p resent p o s i t i o n s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to the presence or absence of a mentor. Two of the c a r e e r rou tes c o u l d be expected but one was u n a n t i c i p a t e d . Whi le those wi th mentors f e l t they were encouraged and recommended by another or were in a p o s i t i o n to take advantage of sudden o p p o r t u n i t i e s , i t i s s u r p r i s i n g that the absence of a mentor was h i gher amongst those who were g o a l - o r i e n t e d and c o n t i n u a l l y worked toward t h e i r g o a l . The l i t e r a t u r e g i v e s minimal guidance in i n t e r p r e t i n g these r e s u l t s . Two - th i rd s of the women managers s t u d i e d by P h i l l i p s (1977) 1 37 d e s c r i b e d the method by which they s e l e c t e d a management c a r e e r as a c c i d e n t a l i n s t e a d of p rep l anned . And Roche ' s s tudy (1979) of male e x e c u t i v e s i n d i c a t e d that once in the c a r e e r , c a r e e r p l a n n i n g c o r r e l a t e d wi th hav ing a mentor. In r e l a t i o n to the nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' route to t h e i r p re sen t p o s i t i o n there a re s e v e r a l e x p l a n a t i o n s . One i s that the g o a l - o r i e n t e d people d i d not p e r c e i v e the need fo r the a s s i s t a n c e of a mentor and ach ieved t h e i r p o s i t i o n s because of t h e i r i n t e r e s t in a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . In n u r s i n g , i t must be remembered that a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and l e a d e r s h i p p o s i t i o n s have not been h i gh p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n s and nurses have been more i n t e r e s t e d in s t a y i n g at the b e d s i d e . T h e r e f o r e , those few tha t were i n t e r e s t e d in a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t e n were q u i c k l y p l a c e d in these p o s i t i o n s . The other c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s tha t these g o a l - o r i e n t e d peop le may have been unaware of the sponso r sh ip a c t i v i t i e s of o t h e r s , wh i le the nurses wi th mentors were more c o n s c i o u s of the a c t i v e r o l e of an i n f l u e n t i a l pe r son . The key q u e s t i o n that remains unanswered i s whether those who were recommended and those .who took advantage of a sudden o p p o r t u n i t y would have c o n s i d e r e d and a p p l i e d f o r t h e i r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o s i t i o n s wi thout the encouragement of a mentor. In r e l a t i o n to s i g n i f i c a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r e p o r t e d by o ther r e s e a r c h e r s such as job s a t i s f a c t i o n , h i gher e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l , and l e s s c a r e e r m o b i l i t y , these were not found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to the presence or absence of a mentor. 1 38 Turn ing to the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the mentor ing r e l a t i o n s h i p and the p l a y e r s i n v o l v e d , there are some s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s when compared w i th the l i t e r a t u r e p re sen ted i n Chapter II. F i r s t the s i m i l a r i t i e s : the mentors were g e n e r a l l y o l d e r than the protege by 11 y e a r s , though not in a l l i n s t a n c e s . (As noted in Chapter II, the s e n i o r i t y i s more l i k e l y to be that of knowledge, e x p e r t i s e , and i n f l u e n c e . ) In a d d i t i o n , the mentors were of the same or o p p o s i t e sex and g e n e r a l l y between the ages of 40 to 63. They were e i t h e r of h i gher s t a t u s or rank as in the case of employers , or possessed g r e a t e r e x p e r t i s e , knowledge, and i n f l u e n c e as ev idenced by the presence of more e x p e r i e n c e d c o l l e a g u e s , more s e n i o r f am i l y members, or e d u c a t o r s . Mentors c a r r i e d out a v a r i e t y of mentor ing r o l e s , the most important be ing the b e l i e f in the p r o t e g e ' s a b i l i t y . Mentors took a p e r s o n a l i n t e r e s t in the c a r e e r development of t h e i r p r o t e g e s , Irad a l a s t i n g p o s i t i v e i n f l u e n c e on c a r e e r growth, but were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c a r e e r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and i n f l u e n c e more than p e r s o n a l i n f l u e n c e . Moving on to the s i m i l a r i t i e s amongst the p ro tege s , the pro teges had from one to more than four mentors wi th the m a j o r i t y hav ing two or more. Whi le most of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s s t a r t e d between the ages of 17 and 35 the re a re some v a r i a t i o n s to t h i s which w i l l be d i s c u s s e d under " D i f f e r e n c e s . " In a r e - enactment of the mento r ' s r o l e , the m a j o r i t y of p ro teges became mentors to o t h e r s . 1 39 Turn ing to s i m i l a r i t i e s in the mentor -protege r e l a t i o n s h i p , a lmost a l l of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s were i n fo rma l and unas s i gned. In accordance w i th the f i n d i n g s of women's mentor -protege r e l a t i o n s h i p s , most of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s were te rmina ted by moving away, changing j o b s , or deve l op ing i n t o peer r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Few ended in the disharmony and c o n f l i c t d e s c r i b e d by Lev in son et a l . (1978) in r e l a t i o n to male r e l a t i o n s h i p s . One s i m i l a r i t y was s t r o n g l y borne out in the s t u d y - - t h e p r o x i m i t y and c a r e e r i n t e r e s t of the mentor was h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d w i th that of the p r o t e g e . More than t w o - t h i r d s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s took p l a c e on the job with employers who were a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , immediate bosses such as head nur se s , and more e x p e r i e n c e d c o l l e a g u e s . In a d d i t i o n more than t w o - t h i r d s of the mentors were nurses who f u n c t i o n e d as nu r s i n g l e a d e r s , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , and p o l i c y makers r a ther than e d u c a t o r s , r e s e a r c h e r s , or s c h o l a r s . At a time when nu r s i n g l e a d e r s h i p d e s p e r a t e l y needs nu r s i n g a d m i n i s t r a t o r s who have po s t - g r adua te e d u c a t i o n , i t i s un fo r tuna te that the f i n d i n g s of t h i s study are in keeping w i th o the r s showing tha t few c a r e e r mentors a re found in academic s e t t i n g s ( M i s s i r i a n , 1980; Roche, 1979). Only seven percent of the- mentors were educa to r s d e s p i t e the f a c t a lmost o n e - h a l f of the pro teges had a b a c c a l a u r e a t e degree or h i g h e r . In the study of top n u r s i n g i n f l u e n t i a l s (Vance, 1977), the p r o x i m i t y and c a r e e r i n t e r e s t of the mentor proved to be b e n e f i c i a l - - h a l f of the mentors h e l d p o s i t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i th educa t i on which was in keeping w i th 40 percent of t h e i r p ro teges 1 40 h o l d i n g top e d u c a t i o n r e l a t e d p o s i t i o n s . Of importance in i d e n t i f y i n g f u t u r e s i g n i f i c a n t c a r e e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s i s the f a c t tha t the employers tha t were des i gna ted as mentors occup ied r o l e s where the re was the o p p o r t u n i t y f o r c l o s e i n t e r a c t i o n and i n f l u e n c e w i th the p ro tege . Those occupy ing s u p e r v i s o r y r o l e s where the o p p o r t u n i t y f o r r e g u l a r communication and r e p u t a t i o n a l i n f l u e n c e was l e s s , were s e l e c t e d l e s s f r e q u e n t l y as mentors . Now fo r the d i f f e r e n c e s : Lev in son et a l . (1978) r e p o r t e d that few r e l a t i o n s h i p s s t a r t e d when the protege was past the age of 40. T h i s s tudy i n d i c a t e s that 14 percen t s t a r t e d when the protege was 40 or more y e a r s . In c o n t r a s t to the l i t e r a t u r e , on ly 2.5 pe rcen t of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s s t a r t e d du r i n g s choo l y e a r s , but a lmost o n e - t h i r d began when the protege was beyond the age of 35. In a d d i t i o n , few of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s s t a r t e d when the protege was a nov i ce in a beg inn ing p o s i t i o n . I n s tead , t w o - t h i r d s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s occured at the stage of e a r l y and mid-work e x p e r i e n c e when the pro tege was advanc ing to a h i gher p o s i t i o n . T h i s f i n d i n g i s in keeping w i th the a n e c d o t a l accounts tha t suggest mentor ing r e l a t i o n s h i p s occur at two p e r i o d s : f i r s t , at the time of be ing a nov i ce in a new j o b , and second l y , as the protege advances up the c a r e e r l adder to a h igher p o s i t i o n . However, the nov i ce stage i s c o n s i d e r e d to be the important p e r i o d when most mentor r e l a t i o n s h i p s beg in (Dal ton et a l . , 1977; Lev inson et a l . , 1978; M i s s i r i a n , 1980). Accord ing to the n u r s i n g l i t e r a t u r e (Kramer 1974), the nov i ce 141 stage i s a c r u c i a l time of development in tha t new nurses r e q u i r e h e l p w i th mod i fy ing s k i l l s and knowledge and a s s i s t a n c e w i th becoming s o c i a l i z e d i n t o the p r o f e s s i o n . One needs to ask at t h i s po in t where was the suppor t , encouragement, and sponso r sh ip needed to prevent r e a l i t y shock and a s s i s t these nov i ce nurses in t h e i r f i r s t job? Or were they a s s i s t e d but t h e i r s uppo r te r s not i d e n t i f i e d amongst the most i n f l u e n t i a l mentors? T h i s i s a q u e s t i o n f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a c h . F o l l o w i n g Kramer ' s i n v e s t i g a t i o n (1974) and wide p u b l i c a t i o n of f i n d i n g s about r e a l i t y shock amongst nov i ce nur se s , one would hope that support and sponso r sh ip of nov i ce nurses i s now more ev iden t than i t was when these nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s were beg inn ing t h e i r nu r s i n g c a r e e r . Other d i f f e r e n c e s c e n t r e around how the r e l a t i o n s h i p got s t a r t e d and the l eng th of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . T h i s study d i f f e r s from the l i t e r a t u r e in that the m a j o r i t y of the nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' r e l a t i o n s h i p s were i d e n t i f i e d as growing out of a mutual r e l a t i o n s h i p r a t h e r than be ing i n i t i a t e d by the mentor. The f a c t tha t on ly o n e - t h i r d were i n i t i a t e d by the mentor and a scant number were i n i t i a t e d by the protege leads one to surmise that t h i s may be an i n d i c a t i o n of n u r s i n g ' s p a s s i v i t y , p o l i t i c a l t i m i d i t y , and l ack of awareness about the importance of promot ing and c o n s c i o u s l y i n i t i a t i n g h e l p i n g c o n n e c t i o n s and p r o f e s s i o n a l s pon so r sh i p . Tu rn ing to the o ther d i f f e r e n c e in the mentor -protege r e l a t i o n s h i p , the nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' r e l a t i o n s h i p s have l a s t e d much longer (9.5 year s ) i n comparison to the average of two to th ree year s and maximum of 10 r e p o r t e d .142 in the l i t e r a t u r e . As mentioned e a r l i e r , the f i n d i n g s of t h i s study show that at l e a s t o n e - q u a r t e r of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s have endured f o r 10 year s or more. T h i s longer r e l a t i o n s h i p p a t t e r n evokes s e v e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . The r e l a t i o n s h i p s may a c t u a l l y have come to an end as mentor -protege r e l a t i o n s h i p s and are now c o l l e a g i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s but the protege i s unable to i d e n t i f y t h i s s imply because of l ack of knowledge of what at t rue mentor- protege r e l a t i o n s h i p i s . Or , the r e l a t i o n s h i p s may indeed be mentor -pro tege r e l a t i o n s h i p but have c o n t i n u e d because of the p r o t e g e s ' dependency needs and the mentors ' needs to n u r t u r e . Tu rn ing to the h e l p r e c e i v e d from the mentor, there was a h i gh degree of s i m i l a r i t y between the top ranked h e l p in t h i s study and the most important h e l p s p e c i f i e d by the women managers ( P h i l l i p s , 1977) and the h o s p i t a l s t a f f nurses and s u p e r v i s o r s (Fagan & Fagan, 1983). Encouragement, suppor t , a c cep tance , and c o n f i r m a t i o n were c o n s p i c u o u s l y a f f i r m e d as the most predominant types of h e l p . Con t ra ry to the low f requency of the mento r ' s emot iona l support r e p o r t e d by the nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s (Vance, 1977), t h i s s tudy shows tha t encouragement, a c c e p t a n c e , and c o n f i r m a t i o n were uppermost themes not on ly in the r a t i n g of mentor ing h e l p but i n the remarks rega rd ing the mento r ' s i n f l u e n c e upon the p r o t e g e ' s c a r e e r development. Respondents commented: She was very proud of me, encourag ing and s u p p o r t i v e . She encouraged me to deve lop by g i v i n g me freedom, and suppor ted me in going a f t e r more e d u c a t i o n . She suppor ted my c h o i c e of c a r e e r and encouraged me to move up and ou t . 1 43 She generated a t t i t u d e s to i n s p i r e c o n f i d e n c e . She encouraged me in c o n t i n u i n g my e d u c a t i o n . She r e c o g n i z e d my a b i l i t y to be a l e a d e r . She encouraged me to c l i m b the c a r e e r l adder and showed me ways to do t h i s even though I had a young f am i l y and d i d n ' t t h i nk i t was p o s s i b l e f o r me. In a d d i t i o n , the most important r o l e of the m e n t o r - - t h a t of s e r v i n g as a c o n f i r m i n g a d u l t or a b e l i e v e r in the p r o t e g e ' s p o t e n t i a l - - w a s not on ly found to be most f r e q u e n t l y r e c e i v e d by the protege but was aga in s t a t e d in more s p e c i f i c terms by the s u b j e c t s . Respondents remarked: She p o i n t e d out my p o t e n t i a l and gave me c o n f i d e n c e to s t r i v e fo r a h i gher p o s i t i o n . She expressed c o n f i d e n c e in my a b i l i t y to per form the f u n c t i o n s necessary f o r my j o b . She p e r c e i v e d t a l e n t s in me I had not r e c o g n i z e d . She he lped me to deve lop them by b e l i e v i n g in me and suppor t i ng me. She recogn i zed and t a l k e d to me about my c h a r a c t e r s t reng th s and v a l u e s to the p r o f e s s i o n If i t h adn ' t been f o r h i s b e l i e f in me I may s t i l l be working as g e n e r a l duty R.N. She i n c r e a s e d my sense of s e l f esteem and i n s t i l l e d the b e l i e f i t was p o s s i b l e fo r me to become a l e a d e r . Desp i te the f a c t mutual support and encouragement amongst members of the n u r s i n g p r o f e s s i o n has not n e c e s s a r i l y been a common occurence , these f i n d i n g s do show that they were h i g h l y prominent behav iour s amongst the mentors. Kram (1980) i n d i c a t e s 144 tha t t h i s p s y c h o s o c i a l h e l p i s more c r i t i c a l and s a t i s f y i n g to the development of the protege than i n s t r u m e n t a l type h e l p . In a d d i t i o n , both Rogers (1980) and Clawson (1980) have c l e a r l y shown that these s u p p o r t i v e , encourag ing a t t i t u d e s are the behav iour s tha t f a c i l i t a t e e f f e c t i v e l e a r n i n g and development of s a t i s f i e d mot iva ted i n d i v i d u a l s . Because i t i s known that p ro tege s are more i n c l i n e d to mentor than non -p ro tege s , i t i s hoped these p o s i t i v e behav iour s tha t were d i spensed and r o l e modeled towards the nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s w i l l be adopted and r o l e modeled to t h e i r p ro teges and s t a f f . The r a t i n g of I n s p i r a t i o n to ach ieve h i gh s tandards of performance was s t r i k i n g l y s i m i l a r to the top U.S. nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s ' second ranked ca tegory of p r o f e s s i o n a l c a r e e r r o l e mode l ing . The mentors to the nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s served as r o l e models and examples of a s tandard of e x c e l l e n c e to be i m i t a t e d . Because the nu r s i n g p r o f e s s i o n p l a c e s emphasis on meeting h igh s tandards of per formance, i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g that t h i s type of mentor ing h e l p would r e c e i v e a h i gh r a t i n g . The mentored nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in t h i s study t a l k e d of be ing " i n s p i r e d by example to s t r i v e f o r p e r f e c t i o n " ; "pushed to a c h i e v e " , " i n s p i r e d to t r y new ideas and never be s a t i s f i e d w i th l e s s than my b e s t " , "pushed to take c h a l l e n g e s and move beyond the usua l e x p e c t a t i o n s . " T h i s i s s i m i l a r to one of the behav iour s found in e f f e c t i v e managers - - the s e t t i n g of h i gh s tandards fo r s ubo rd ina te s in order to h e l p them ga in a l a r g e r p e r s p e c t i v e (Clawson, 1980). In a d d i t i o n , the g a i n i n g of a broader p e r s p e c t i v e i s p e r c e i v e d by Z a l e z n i k (1977) to be one of the 1 45 behav iour s tha t se t s l e a d e r s apar t from managers. One note of c a u t i o n i s i n o r d e r , nu r se s , in s t r i v i n g fo r e x c e l l e n c e , have at t imes con fused t h e i r e f f o r t s wi th p e r f e c t i o n i s m . In t h i s r e s p e c t , p e r f e c t i o n i s t mentor ing h e l p can prove to be a r e s t r i c t i n g f a c t o r in tha t i t i n h i b i t s c r e a t i v i t y and f l e x i b i l i t y . I t i s noteworthy that the r a t i n g by the nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s on the two items r e l e v e n t to c r e a t i v i t y and f l e x i b i l i t y were r a t e d much lower than expec ted . Se rv ing as a r o l e model in c r e a t i v e behav i ou r , and d e l e g a t i n g problems then a l l o w i n g the protege to work out s o l u t i o n s were r a t e d in the lower h a l f of the mentor ing h e l p r e c e i v e d . P r a c t i c a l t r a i n i n g and guidance in how to d e a l w i th the p o l i t i c s , s t r a t e g i e s , o b s t a c l e s of the r e a l wor ld was t h i r d in terms of mentor ing h e l p r e c e i v e d . I t was not r a t e d as h i gh as the h e l p r e c e i v e d by the women managers but i t was r a t e d h i gher than that of the top nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s . It c o u l d be surmised that wh i le the top nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s had need of these b e h a v i o u r s , because they were at a h i gher o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l e v e l they may have a l r e a d y mastered them. Or because t h e i r p u r s u i t s were more s c h o l a r l y in n a t u r e , i n t e l l e c t u a l s t i m u l a t i o n and i n s p i r a t i o n took p r i o r i t y . I t i s reward ing that in a p r o f e s s i o n where there are s i z e a b l e numbers of p o l i t i c a l l y t i m i d and p o l i t i c a l l y i l l i t e r a t e nurses (Baumgart, 1978, p.12) tha t i n s t r u c t i o n in the inner maneuverings of the o r g a n i z a t i o n has been passed on by mentors to those who now occupy l e a d e r s h i p p o s i t i o n s . On the other 1 46 hand, i t w i l l be noted tha t when i t came to the more a g g r e s s i v e , v i s i b l e , and shrewd behav iour s common to the bus ines s wor ld and male mentor r e l a t i o n s h i p s (Hennig & J a r d i m , 1977), these were two types of h e l p l e s s f r e q u e n t l y r e c e i v e d by the proteges in t h i s s tudy. In c o n t r a s t to the nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s tha t de s i gna ted c a r e e r a d v i c e , gu idance, and promotion of g r e a t e s t importance, the mentored nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s r a t e d C a r e e r / e d u c a t i o n a l a d v i c e and promotion f o u r t h in rank. T h i s i s a key p r i o r i t y that se t s the nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s apar t from the nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . Seve ra l f a c t o r s are at work h e r e . F i r s t , c a r e e r p l a n n i n g , as mentioned in Chapter II and i d e n t i f i e d in the r e s u l t s of t h i s s tudy, has g e n e r a l l y been a c c i d e n t a l r a t h e r than prep lanned among the nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . As a r e s u l t , h e l p with c a r e e r p l ann ing has n e i t h e r been expected by pro teges nor emphasized by mentors. Second ly , nurses as yet have not b u i l t up a t r a d i t i o n of knowledge and h i gher educa t i on (Baumgart, 1983). Th i s i s ev idenced in t h i s s tudy where one- h a l f of the nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s do not have a b a c c a l a u r e a t e l e v e l of educa t i on and on l y 12 percent of the genera l B.C. nu r s i n g p o p u l a t i o n have a B.S.N. In c o n t r a s t , t w o - t h i r d s of the top nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s r a t e d academic c r e d e n t i a l s as h i g h l y important as a source of i n f l u e n c e (Vance, 1977, p. 128) and 95 percent h e l d m a s t e r ' s or d o c t o r a l degrees . The l e s s e r emphasis on educa t ion among those in n u r s i n g s e r v i c e has the p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t of l ower ing the p r o t e g e s ' and mentors ' e x p e c t a t i o n s in terms of l e v e l of e d u c a t i o n a l p r e p a r a t i o n . 1 47 A t h i r d f a c t o r at work i s the j e a l o u s y , c o m p e t i t i v e n e s s , and l ack of support seen in those who may be in a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o s i t i o n s but s u f f e r from power lessness (Ranter , 1977a). T h i s was d i s c u s s e d in Chapter II in r e l a t i o n to nega t i ve a spec t s to mentor ing . A mentor s u f f e r i n g from p r o f e s s i o n a l low s e l f esteem w i l l o f t e n be w i l l i n g to i n s t r u c t and o f f e r encouragement to the protege as long as the protege remains in a dependent s i t u a t i o n and does not a s p i r e to a c q u i r e more educa t i on or advance in a c a r e e r beyond the men to r ' s p o s i t i o n . However, as r epo r ted in the nega t i ve a spec t s of mentor ing , p ro teges d i d o c c a s i o n a l l y encounter the i n h i b i t i n g behav iour s of a t h rea tened or j e a l o u s mentor. In c o n c l u s i o n , what can be s a i d about the h e l p g iven by the mentors in r e l a t i o n to ca reer - a d v i c e and e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s ? Because h i gher educa t i on i s p e r c e i v e d to be one of the keys to h e l p i n g the nu r s i n g p r o f e s s i o n ach ieve more v i s i b i l i t y and i n f l u e n c e upon h e a l t h care ( S a f i e r , 1977; Vance, 1979), mentors need to p l a c e g r e a t e r emphasis on encourag ing c a r e e r and e d u c a t i o n a l p l a n n i n g and p ro teges must become more g o a l - o r i e n t e d in a sk ing f o r t h i s h e l p . Moving on to Sponsor sh ip and promot ion , aga in t h i s was r a t e d f i r s t by the n u r s i n g i n f l u e n t i a l s , but low by the nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s depending on the type of s pon so r sh i p r e c e i v e d . As d i s c u s s e d in Chapter II the h e l p of a sponsor and promotor was f e l t to be i n v a l u a b l e by those in b u s i n e s s , the a r t s , the s c i e n t i f i c community, and those advanc ing up the c o r p o r a t e 1 48 l a d d e r . However, in a n a l y s i n g the spon so r sh i p h e l p r e c e i v e d by nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , c e r t a i n k inds of sponso r sh ip and p romot iona l h e l p were r a t e d lower than o t h e r s . As the sponso r sh ip h e l p p rog re s sed from that of recommending the protege f o r advantageous jobs and e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s ; to i n c r e a s i n g the p r o t e g e ' s v i s i b i l i t y ; to shrewd, c a n d i d , f rank adv i ce from the mentor; to tha t of runn ing i n t e r f e r e n c e f o r the p ro tege , the l e s s l i k e l y i t was to be r e c e i v e d from the mentor. A s i m i l a r p a t t e r n of these i n f r e q u e n t l y modeled behav iour s was d e s c r i b e d in the study of s t a f f nurses and s u p e r v i s o r s : shrewdness, becoming p o l i t i c a l l y s o p h i s t i c a t e d , and l e a r n i n g to be frank and outspoken were s c a r c e l y observed behav iour s (Fagan & Fagan, 1983). The r e l u c t a n c e to o f f e r and take advantage of sponso r sh ip and p romot iona l h e l p i s p a r t l y the r e s u l t of the s o c i a l i z a t i o n of nur se s . T r a d i t i o n a l l y nurses have been s o c i a l i z e d to b e l i e v e that they n e i t h e r d e s i r e d nor were ab le to c o n t r o l power (Baumgart, 1978) and thus they have f a i l e d to take the i n i t i a t i v e or o f f e r the k inds of mentor ing h e l p that would h e l p members of the p r o f e s s i o n become more p o l i t i c a l l y a s t u t e in g a i n i n g power. The l a s t types of mentor ing h e l p , those of Of f - t h e - j o b s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n and A s s i s t a n c e w i th p e r s o n a l needs were ranked low in importance by both the nurse i n f l u e n t i a l s and women managers. Among nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g tha t o f f - t h e - j o b a c t i v i t i e s are r a t e d low. S o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n 1 49 a f t e r working hours has not t r a d i t i o n a l l y been a common a c t i v i t y p a r t l y because of the r i g i d h i e r a r c h i a l system of h o s p i t a l s and p a r t l y because of the i r r e g u l a r hours caused by s h i f t work. One aspect of t h i s mentor ing h e l p shou ld be commented upon. The s u b j e c t s gave a low rank to the mento r ' s h e l p as a r o l e model in how to i n c o r p o r a t e work, f a m i l y , and/or p e r s o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . T h i s low rank i s incongruent wi th the f a c t tha t female mentors are o f t e n recommended to o ther women because of t h e i r a b i l i t y to r o l e model the management of dua l and o f t e n t r i p l e r o l e s . However, in nu r s i n g the t r a d i t i o n of minimal peer support and the r i g i d s t r a t i f i c a t i o n of the h o s p i t a l system has served to min imize t h i s type of i n t e r c h a n g e . In c o n c l u s i o n , what can be s a i d about mentor ing r e c e i v e d by nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ? In many ways, the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the mentors, p r o t e g e s , mentor -protege r e l a t i o n s h i p s and mentor ing h e l p were s i m i l a r to those r e p o r t e d in the r e s e a r c h l i t e r a t u r e . However there were d i f f e r e n c e s and h i g h l y prominent themes that have i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r mentor -pro tege r e l a t i o n s h i p s in f u t u r e . The m a j o r i t y of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s took p l a c e in the work s e t t i n g wi th employers such as immediate bosses (head n u r s e s ) , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , and more e x p e r i e n c e d c o l l e a g u e s as mentors . D e s p i t e the f a c t o n e - h a l f of the proteges have b a c c a l a u r e a t e degrees or h i g h e r , few of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s took p l a c e in e d u c a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s and few of the mentors were t e a c h e r s , i n s t r u c t o r s , or p r o f e s s o r s . 1 50 There i s a h i gh c o r r e l a t i o n between the p r o x i m i t y and c a r e e r i n t e r e s t of the mentor and that of the p r o t e g e . Of the t w o - t h i r d s of the mentors tha t were nur ses , the m a j o r i t y were a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , nu r s i ng l e a d e r s , and p o l i c y makers r a the r than e d u c a t o r s , r e s e a r c h e r s and s c h o l a r s . The m a j o r i t y of the p ro teges were at the stage of e a r l y and m i d - c a r e e r exper ience advanc ing to a h i gher p o s i t i o n or changing to a new p o s i t i o n . Few were nov i ce s in t h e i r f i r s t j o b . At l e a s t o n e - t h i r d of the nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s d i d not s t a r t t h e i r mentor -protege r e l a t i o n s h i p u n t i l a f t e r the age of 35. The m a j o r i t y of mentor -pro tege r e l a t i o n s h i p s grew out of a mutual r e l a t i o n s h i p r a t h e r than being i n i t i a t e d by the mentor. In a d d i t i o n , the r e l a t i o n s h i p s l a s t e d longer than those r e p o r t e d in the l i t e r a t u r e and a h i ghe r number are s t i l l go ing on. To the r e s e a r c h e r t h i s suggests a l ack of knowledge about what a mentor r e l a t i o n s h i p i s or a c e r t a i n p a s s i v i t y and dependency in i n i t i a t i n g and t e r m i n a t i n g mentor r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The mentors took a p e r s o n a l i n t e r e s t in the p r o t e g e s ' c a r e e r s and had a l a s t i n g p o s i t i v e i n f l u e n c e on c a r e e r growth. However, they were more i n c l i n e d to i n f l u e n c e p r o f e s s i o n a l va lue s and i n t e r e s t s than p e r s o n a l ones. In terms of mentor ing h e l p , the mentors most f r e q u e n t l y p r o v i d e d the type of he lp c o n s i d e r e d to be h i g h l y important in the development of the p r o t e g e - - t h a t of encouragement, suppor t , and c o n f i r m a t i o n . They 151 i n s p i r e d t h e i r proteges to a ch ieve h i gh s tandards of per formance, next they r o l e modeled, coached, and i n s t r u c t e d t h e i r p ro teges in how to dea l wi th the p o l i t i c s and o b s t a c l e s in t h e i r env i ronments . However, s ponso r sh ip and a d v i c e on c a r e e r goa l s and e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s were l e s s fo r thcoming and r a ted f o u r t h . Promotion of the p r o t e g e ' s v i s i b i l i t y , c and id shrewd a d v i c e , and p r o t e c t i o n of the protege were mentor behav iour s i n f r e q u e n t l y g i v e n . The study found that at l e a s t t w o - t h i r d s of the p ro teges have become mentors to o t h e r s , more than t h i s number i n t e n d to serve as. mentors in the f u t u r e , and that a lmost a l l of the mentored a d m i n i s t r a t o r s f e e l tha t hav ing a mentor i s h e l p f u l in n u r s i n g . In view of the f a c t tha t these mentored a d m i n i s t r a t o r s are l i k e l y to r o l e model and promote some of t h e i r men to r ' s b e h a v i o u r s , i t behooves the r e s e a r c h e r to make recommendations that w i l l a s s i s t in maximiz ing the p o s i t i v e a spec t s of mentor ing and min imize the nega t i ve e lements . Recommendat ions 1. In r e c o g n i z i n g that n u r s i n g i s a t r a d i t i o n a l , p redominent l y female p r o f e s s i o n that has unique prob lems, o f t e n n e g a t i v e l y a f f e c t i n g the development of s t rong l e a d e r s h i p and f u l l p r o f e s s i o n a l development (Baumgart, 1978; S a f i e r , 1977; Vance, 1977), more needs to be done in n u r s i n g e d u c a t i o n and s e r v i c e to i n c r e a s e the awareness of the importance of s u p p o r t i v e and p r o f e s s i o n a l connec t i on s such as mentor ing . Both n u r s i n g s e r v i c e and educa t i on need to j o i n toge ther in 1 52 d e v e l o p i n g t r a i n i n g programs that w i l l c o u n t e r a c t the pa s s i ve subord ina te r o l e so long s o c i a l i z e d in n u r s i n g and promote l e a d e r s h i p a b i l i t y , f o s t e r c r e a t i v i t y , r i s k t a k i n g , a s s e r t i v e n e s s , and p r o f e s s i o n a l support amongst c o l l e a g u e s . 2. In c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the f a c t that h i ghe r educa t i on i s one of the keys to a p r o f e s s i o n ' s power (Vance, 1979; S a f i e r , 1977), both n u r s i n g educa t i on and s e r v i c e must coopera te in i n s i s t i n g that h i gher educa t i on be a requirement f o r nurses in a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and l e a d e r s h i p p o s i t i o n s . 3. In view of the f a c t tha t a m a j o r i t y of nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s d i d have a mentor, and the m a j o r i t y of these mentors were c o l l e a g u e s or manager ia l peop le in the work f o r c e of both lower and h i gher rank, those in a l l l e v e l s of the s e r v i c e s e t t i n g must be made more aware of t h e i r p o t e n t i a l i n f l u e n c e as mentors in the development of n u r s i n g a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and l e a d e r s (Cameron, 1982; Duncan, 1980; Ham i l t on , 1981; P i l e t t e , 1980; Vance, 1982). They shou ld a l s o be made aware of the p o s i t i v e encourag ing behav iour s they can o f f e r as w e l l as the p a s s i v e more dependent p o l i t i c a l l y na i ve and c o n t r o l l i n g behav iour s they shou ld a v o i d ( H a s e l t i n e , 1977). To i n c r e a s e the awareness of the mentor ing p o t e n t i a l , workshops in how to be a mentor shou ld be deve loped and h e l d in both n u r s i n g s e r v i c e and nu r s i n g educa t i on o r g a n i z a t i o n s . 4. Workshops shou ld a l s o be h e l d to educate nurses in the p o s i t i v e a spec t s of hav ing a mentor. P o t e n t i a l p ro teges shou ld be encouraged to look d e l i b e r a t e l y f o r the q u a l i t i e s in a mentor 153 that they would l i k e to emulate r a ther than a l l o w i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p to occur with any k ind of mentor ( P h i l l i p s , 1977; S c h e i n , 1978). In a d d i t i o n , they should be encouraged to be more a s s e r t i v e in promoting a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i th a p o t e n t i a l mentor. F u r t h e r , nurses shou ld be educated in how to make themselves more a t t r a c t i v e and v i s i b l e to a mentor (Baumgart, 1983; C o l l i n s , 1983; Harragan, 1977). 5. Because few mentor -protege r e l a t i o n s h i p s took p l a c e in e d u c a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s , dua l appointments in n u r s i n g s e r v i c e and nur s i ng e d u c a t i o n (Vance, 1977) shou ld be c r e a t e d in order to f o s t e r the i n f l u e n c e of those with h i gher e d u c a t i o n a l p r e p a r a t i o n in nu r s i n g s e r v i c e and v i c e v e r s a . 6. With many women r e e n t e r i n g the work f o r c e or g a i n i n g h i gher e d u c a t i o n at an o l d e r age (Baker, 1981), p o t e n t i a l mentors in educa t i on and n u r s i n g s e r v i c e need to be made aware of the o l d e r woman's p o s s i b l e need f o r a mentor. In a d d i t i o n , the mentors must be cogn izan t of the f a c t that these women o f t e n f u n c t i o n in dua l and t r i p l e r o l e s (Baumgart, 1983) and t h e r e f o r e have s p e c i a l a b i l i t i e s and needs not seen in the nov i ce nur se . F u r t h e r , i t must be brought to the p o t e n t i a l mento r ' s a t t e n t i o n that they need not be o l d e r than the p ro tege , but they must possess more i n f l u e n c e by way of a c c e s s i n g person or m a t e r i a l r e l a t e d re sou rce s ( M i s s i r i a n , 1980). 7. Whi le t h i s study demonstrates that the p a r t i c u l a r s tage at which a mentor was needed was p r i m a r i l y when the protege was advanc ing to a h igher p o s i t i o n , mentors, e d u c a t o r s , and 1 54 a d m i n i s t r a t o r s should a l s o be aware that the nov i ce in a f i r s t job (Da l ton et a l , 1977; Kramer, 1974), those in new p o s i t i o n s , and those s e a r c h i n g f o r growth in t h e i r c u r r e n t p o s i t i o n are t a r g e t s f o r a mentor ing r e l a t i o n s h i p . 8. In l i g h t of the f a c t tha t much of the c a r e e r p l a n n i n g amongst nurses seems to be a c c i d e n t a l i n s t e a d of p rep l anned , more focus shou ld be p l a c e d on c a r e e r p l ann ing both in n u r s i n g educa t ion programs and w i t h i n g nu r s i n g s e r v i c e . 9. More needs to be done to r e c o g n i z e and reward those who act as mentors in promot ing , encourag ing , and d e v e l o p i n g o t h e r s . In some o r g a n i z a t i o n s managers are rewarded f i n a n c i a l l y , o the r s have some of the mentor ing components b u i l t i n t o t h e i r job d e s c r i p t i o n ( C o l l i n s & S c o t t , 1978; L e v i n s o n , H., 1981). 10. Because the r i g i d s t r a t i f i c a t i o n of h e a l t h ca re o r g a n i z a t i o n s i s o f t en r e s p o n s i b l e fo r reduced communication and support amongst workers (Baumgart, 1981; Kanter , 1977a), nurses need to look at how the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e can be improved to promote c o l l e a g i a l s uppo r t . 11. In s p i t e of the need f o r mentors to f o s t e r more a s s e r t i v e behav iour s and p o l i t i c a l a s tu tene s s amonst nur se s , one should not l oo se s i gh t of the f a c t that encouragement, suppor t , and c o n f i r m a t i o n are s t i l l the pr imary r o l e s of the mentor (Kram, 1980; Lev in son et a l , 1978; M i s s i r i a n , 1980; P h i l l i p s , 1977) and tha t t h i s i s o f t e n where they can be ou t s t and ing h e l p . 155 Recommendations f o r Fu ture Research 1. T h i s study shou ld be r e p l i c a t e d w i th l a r g e r samples of Canadian nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s to determine whether the f i n d i n g s a re s i m i l a r . 2. The study shou ld be repeated amongst n u r s i n g educator s and lower a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l e v e l s in nu r s i n g s e r v i c e to determine whether mentor ing a c t i v i t y o c c u r s , and i f i t does--who are the mentors and what type of h e l p do they p r o v i d e . 3. More i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s needed to determine how pro teges are s e l e c t e d , are the re q u a l i t i e s tha t cause them to be chosen in p r e f e r e n c e to o ther s ? 4. More needs to be known about the s tages of the mentor- protege r e l a t i o n s h i p amongst nurses and the type of he lp g i ven at these d i f f e r e n t s t a ge s . In a d d i t i o n are nurses more i n c l i n e d to remain as p ro teges in the r e l a t i o n s h i p beyond the time when the r e l a t i o n s h i p shou ld be te rminated? 5. More r e s e a r c h i s needed i n t o the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s tha t separa te mentored from non-mentored nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . 6. The nurse a d m i n i s t r a t o r s r e p o r t e d the presence of o ther mentors in t h e i r l i v e s . Who were these mentors , at what s tages in the p r o t e g e ' s development d i d they appear, were any of them e d u c a t o r s , how were they i n f l u e n t i a l ? 1 56 7. S e c o n d a r y a n a l y s i s o f t h e d a t a f r o m t h i s s t u d y s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e r e i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e m e n t o r ' s r o l e a n d t y p e o f h e l p r e c e i v e d . I n a d d i t i o n t h e r e was a t e n d e n c y f o r n o n - n u r s e m e n t o r s ( t h e m a j o r i t y o f w h i c h we re m a l e ) t o be more h e l p f u l t h a n n u r s e m e n t o r s . M o r e i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s n e e d e d r e g a r d i n g t h e s e e f f e c t s . 8. R e s e a r c h i s n e e d e d t o d e t e r m i n e who n u r s e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s m e n t o r . What i s t h e n u r s e a d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s i n f l u e n c e a n d what h e l p do t h e y g i v e ? Any s t u d y i n v o l v i n g t h e n u r s e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' p r o t e g e s s h o u l d i n c l u d e t h e p r o t e g e s , a s i t i s l a r g e l y t h e p r o t e g e ' s p e r c e p t i o n t h a t d e t e r m i n e s w h e t h e r t h e p e r s o n h a s b e e n a m e n t o r a n d how h e l p f u l t h e m e n t o r w a s . 9. And f i n a l l y , what i s t h e i m p a c t o f m e n t o r i n g h e l p among s t n u r s e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ? W o u l d t h e s e n u r s e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s h a v e become a d m i n i s t r a t o r s w i t h o u t t h e i r m e n t o r ' s s u p p o r t a n d s p o n s o r s h i p ? Do i n d i v i d u a l s a d o p t t h e o c c u p a t i o n o f t h e i r m e n t o r s o r do m e n t o r s s e l e c t p r o t e g e s w i t h s i m i l a r i n t e r e s t s ? M o r e r e s e a r c h i s n e e d e d t o e x p l o r e t h e s e e l e m e n t s . 1 57 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ade l son , J . The teacher as a model. In W. G. Benn i s , E. H. S c h e i n , F . I . S t e e l e , & D. E. Berlew ( E d s . ) , I n t e r p e r s o n a l dynamics: essays and read ings on human i n t e r a c t i o n . Homewood, 111. : Dorsey P re s s , 1968. A l f r e d P. S loan Schoo l of Management. Men to r i ng : the mentor ' s p e r s p e c t i v e (N00014-80-C-0905). Cambridge, MA., September 1982. (NTIS No. TR-ONR-9; WP-1350-82) A l leman, E. Mentor ing r e l a t i o n s h i p s in o r g a n i z a t i o n s : b e h a v i o r s , p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and i n t e r p e r s o n a l p e r c e p t i o n s . Unpub l i shed d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Akron, 1982. A lmqu i s t , E. M., & A n g r i s t , S.S. Role model i n f l u e n c e s on c o l l e g e women's c a r e e r a s p i r a t i o n s . M e r r i l l - P a l m e r Q u a r t e r l y , 1971, J_7(3), 263-279. A r c h e r , S. E . , & F leshman, R. P. F a c u l t y r o l e mode l ing . Nurs ing Out look , 1981, 29, 586-589. A sh ley , J . A. H o s p i t a l s , p a t e r n a l i s m , and the r o l e of the nur se . New York: Teachers C o l l e g e P r e s s , 1976. Atwood, A. H. The mentor in c l i n i c a l p r a c t i c e . Nur s ing Out look , 1979, 27, 714-717. Baker, C. E. S e l f renewal and the l i f e c y c l e : i m p l i c a t i o n s fo r men and women in a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . Annual Meet ing of the N a t i o n a l Conference of P r o f e s s o r s of E d u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , S e a t t l e , August 16-21, 1981. (ERIC Document Reproduc t ion S e r v i c e No. ED 212 058) Bandura, A. S o c i a l l e a r n i n g t h e o r y . Englewood C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1977. Baumgart, A. J . Sexism ' d e v a l u e s ' n u r s i n g ' s o u t p u t . RNABC News, 1978, 1 0 ( 4 ) , 12-13. Baumgart, A. J . P r o f e s s i o n a l o b l i g a t i o n s and n u r s i n g work loads : who speaks f o r the s t a f f nurse? AARN N e w s l e t t e r , 1981, 37(1 ) , 3-5. Baumgart, A. J . P r o f e s s i o n a l network ing . Annual Meet ing of the Canadian Lung A s s o c i a t i o n , H a l i f a x , June 6, 1983. Becker , H. S., & S t r a u s s , A. C a r e e r s , p e r s o n a l i t y , and a d u l t s o c i a l i z a t i o n . American J o u r n a l of S o c i o l o g y , 1956, 62, 253-264. 1 58 B e l l , A. P. Role models in young a d u l t h o o d : t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to o c c u p a t i o n a l b e h a v i o r s . V o c a t i o n a l Guidance Q u a r t e r l y , 1 970, J_8(4) , 280-285. Benner, P., & Benner, R. V. The new n u r s e ' s work e n t r y : a t r o u b l e d s p o n s o r s h i p . New York : T i r e s i a s P r e s s , 1979. B e r s c h i e d , E . , & Wa l s t e r , E. H. I n t e r p e r s o n a l a t t r a c t i o n (2nd e d . ) . Read ing, MA.: Add i son -Wes ley , 1978. B l ackburn , R. T . , Chapman, D. W., & Cameron, S. M. " C l o n i n g " in academe; mentorsh ip and academic c a r e e r s . Research in Higher E d u c a t i o n , 1981, J_5(4), 31 5-327. B o l t o n , E. B. A c o n c e p t u a l a n a l y s i s of the mentor r e l a t i o n s h i p in the c a r e e r development of women. Adu l t E d u c a t i o n , 1980, 30 (4 ) , 195-207. Borg, W.R. & G a l l , M.D. E d u c a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h : and i n t r o d u c t i o n • (3rd e d . ) . New York: Longman, 1979. Bova, B. M., & P h i l l i p s , R. R. The mentor r e l a t i o n s h i p . A s tudy of mentors and p ro teges in bus ines s and academia. New Mex ico, 1981. (ERIC Document Reproduct ion S e r v i c e No. ED 208 233) Bova, B. M., & P h i l l i p s , R. R. The mentor ing r e l a t i o n s h i p as an e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e . N a t i o n a l Conference of the Adu l t Educa t i on A s s o c i a t i o n of the USA, San A n t o n i o , TX . , November 1982. (ERIC Document Reproduct ion S e r v i c e No. ED ^- 224 944) Bucher, R., & S t e l l i n g , J . G. Becoming p r o f e s s i o n a l . Beve r l y H i l l s : Sage, 1977. Burke, R. J . The r o l e of mentors and sponsors in management development. CTM: The Human E lement, December 1982, pp. 10-13. Bur ton , A. The mentor ing dynamic in the t h e r a p e u t i c t r a n s f o r m a t i o n . American J o u r n a l of P s y c h o a n a l y s i s , 1977, 37(2 ) , 115-122. Cameron, R. K. Wanted: mentor r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h i n n u r s i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . Nur s ing L e a d e r s h i p , 1982, 5_( 1 ) , 18-22. Champion, D. J . Ba s i c s t a t i s t i c s f o r s o c i a l r e s e a r c h . S c ran ton : Chand le r , 1970. Clawson, J . G. S u p e r i o r - s u b o r d i n a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s in manager ia l development. Unpub l i shed d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Harvard U n i v e r s i t y , 1979. 159 Clawson, J . G. Mentor ing in manager ia l c a r e e r s . In C. B. Derr ( E d . ) , Work, f a m i l y , and the c a r e e r . New York: P raeger , 1980. C l u t t e r b u c k , D. ( E d . ) . How much does c a r e e r success depend upon a h e l p i n g hand from above? I n t e r n a t i o n a l Management, 1982, 37(4) , 17-19. Cohen, H. A. The n u r s e ' s quest f o r a p r o f e s s i o n a l i d e n t i t y . Menlo Park: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1981. C o l l i n s , N. W. P r o f e s s i o n a l women and t h e i r mentors . Englewood C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1983. C o l l i n s , E . , & S c o t t , P. Everyone who makes i t has a mentor. Harvard Bus iness Review, 1978, 56(4) , 89-101. Cook, M. F. Is the mentor r e l a t i o n s h i p p r i m a r i l y a male exper i ence? Per sonne l A d m i n i s t r a t o r , 1979, 2_4( 1 1 ) , 82-86. C r o s s , P. K. Accent on l e a r n i n g . San F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s , 1 976. D a l t o n , G. W., Thompson, P. H., & P r i c e , R. L. The four s tages of p r o f e s s i o n a l c a r e e r s — A new look at performance by p r o f e s s i o n a l s . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Dynamics, 1977, 6 (1 ) , 19- 42. Denn i s , W. Fo l l ow the l e a d e r . C i t y Woman, Summer 1983, pp. 20-22; 24; 26; 56. Diamond, H. P a t t e r n s of l e a d e r s h i p : symposium. Educat i o n a l H o r i z o n s , Winter 1978-79, pp. 58-102. D i c k i n s o n , E. L e t t e r s (M. L. Todd, E d . ) . Bos ton : Roberts B r o s . , 1894. D i ck son , A. M. [Mentors and c o l l e g e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . ] The C h r o n i c l e of Higher E d u c a t i o n , August 3, 1983, p. 19. ( A b s t r a c t ) D o n n e l l y , G. F . , Mengal, A . , & S u t t e r l e y , D. C. The n u r s i n g system: i s s u e s , e t h i c s , and p o l i t i c s . New York : John Wi ley & Sons, 1980. Douvan, E. The r o l e of models in women's p r o f e s s i o n a l development. Psychology of Women Q u a r t e r l y , 1976, j_( 1 ) , 5- 21 . Duck, S., & G i lmour , R. ( E d s . ) . Pe r sona l r e l a t i o n s h i p s 2: d e v e l o p i n g pe r sona l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . London: Academic P r e s s , 1 981 . 160 Duncan, J . , & P a r t r i d g e , R. Peer p a l s : overcoming o b s t a c l e s to l e a d e r s h i p development. Nurs ing L e a d e r s h i p , 1980, 3 (2 ) , 18-21. E isenhower, D. D. At ease : s t o r i e s I t e l l to f r i e n d s . New York: Doubleday, 1967. E l l s o n , D. G. T u t o r i n g . In N. L. Gage ( E d . ) , The psychology of t each ing methods. S e v e n t y - f i f t h Yearbook of the N a t i o n a l S o c i e t y f o r the Study of E d u c a t i o n . Ch icago : U n i v e r s i t y of Ch icago P re s s , 1976. E p s t e i n , C. F. B r i n g i n g women i n : rewards, punishments, and the s t r u c t u r e of ach ievement. In R. B. Kuds in ( Ed . ) , Women and succes s . New York: Wm. Morrow & C o . , 1974. E r i k s o n , E. Ch i l dhood & S o c i e t y . New York: Nor ton , 1950. Ever son , S., Panoc, K., P r a t t , K. et a l . P r e c e p t i n g as an en t r y method fo r newly h i r e d nu r se s . J o u r n a l of C o n t i n u i n g Educa t i on in N u r s i n g , 1981, ^ 2 ( 5 ) , 22-26. Fagan, M. M., & Fagan, P. D. Mentor ing among nu r se s . Nur s ing and H e a l t h Ca re , February 1983, pp. 77-82. Fagan, M. M., & Wa l te r , G. Mentor ing among t e a c h e r s . The J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Research, 1982, 76(2 ) , 113-118. F e r r i e r o , D. S. ARL D i r e c t o r s as p ro teges and mentors. The J o u r n a l of Academic L i b r a r i a n s h i p , 1982, 7 (6 ) , 358-365. F o r i s h a , B. L . , & Goldman, B. H. ( E d s . ) . O u t s i d e r s on the i n s i d e d : women and o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Englewood C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1981. F rench , J . R., & Raven, B. The bases of s o c i a l power. In D. Ca r twr i gh t ( Ed . ) , S t u d i e s in s o c i a l power. Ann A rbor : U n i v e r s i t y of M i c h i g a n , 1959. Gabarro , J . J . The development of t r u s t , i n f l u e n c e , and e x p e c t a t i o n s . In A. G. Athos & J . J . Gabarro ( E d s . ) , I n t e r p e r s o n a l behav i ou r . Englewood C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1 978. George, P., & Kummerow, J . Mentor ing f o r c a r e e r women. T r a i n i n g , 1981, 18(2), 44-49. G l a s s , G. V. & S t a n l e y , J . C. S t a t i s t i c a l methods in educa t i on and p sycho logy . Englewood C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1970. 161 G l a s s , H. CNA C o n n e c t i o n : Diamond a n n i v e r s a r y time fo r c e l e b r a t i o n and r e s o l u t i o n . Canadian Nurse, 1983, 79(6) , 12-14; 16; 18. G o t t l e i b , B. ( E d . ) . S o c i a l networks and s o c i a l support ( V o l . 4 ) . B e v e r l y H i l l s : Sage, 1981. G r i f f i t h , J . W. , & Bakanauskas, A. J . S t u d e n t - i n s t r u c t o r r e l a t i o n s h i p s in nu r s i ng e d u c a t i o n . J o u r n a l of Nurs ing E d u c a t i o n , 1983, 22(3) , 104-107. Gr i s sum, M., & Speng le r , C. Woman power and h e a l t h c a r e . Bos ton: L i t t l e , Brown & Co . , 1976. H a l a t i n , T . J . Why be a mentor? S u p e r v i s o r y Management, February 1981, pp. 36-99. Halcomb, R. Mentors and the s u c c e s s f u l woman. Acros s the Board, 1980, J_7(7), 13-18. H a l l , D. T . Ca reer s in o r g a n i z a t i o n s . P a c i f i c P a l i s a d e s : . Goodyear, 1976. Ha l sey , S. The Queen Bee syndrome: one s o l u t i o n to r o l e c o n f l i c t f o r nurse managers. In M. E. Hardy & M. E. Conway ( E d s . ) , Role t h e o r y - p e r s p e c t i v e s f o r h e a l t h p r o f e s s i o n a l s . New York: App le ton Century C r o f t s , 1978. Hami l t on , M. S. Mentorhood: a key to nu r s i n g l e a d e r s h i p . Nur s ing L e a d e r s h i p , 1981, 4 (1 ) , 4 -13. Hardy, M. E . , & Conway, M. E. ( E d s . ) . Role t h e o r y - - p e r s p e c t i v e s fo r h e a l t h p r o f e s s i o n a l s . New York: Appleton Century C r o f t s , 1978. Harragan, B. L. Games mother never taught you. New York: Rawson A s s o c i a t e s , 1977. H a s e l t i n e , F. P. Why be a r o l e model when you can be a mentor? P roceed ing s of a Conference on Women's L e a d e r s h i p and A u t h o r i t y in the H e a l t h P r o f e s s i o n s . U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , Santa C ruz , June 19-21, 1977, pp. 43-45. (ERIC Document Reproduct ion S e r v i c e No. ED 180 293) Hea l th Manpower S t a t i s t i c s S e c t i o n , H e a l t h D i v i s i o n . Rev i sed R e g i s t e r e d Nurses Data S e r v i c e s . Ottawa: S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1982. Hennig , M., & J a r d i m , A. The manger i a l woman. Garden C i t y : Anchor P res s /Doub leday , 1977. 1 62 Hepner, M. M., & Faaborg, L. M. Women a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , c a r e e r s , s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n s , and mentors . Oh io , March 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduct ion S e r v i c e No. ED 193 782) Hobbs, S. J . Male mentor r e l a t i o n s h i p s : a study of p s y c h o s o c i a l development in e a r l y adu l thood ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , C a l i f o r n i a Schoo l of P r o f e s s i o n a l P sycho logy , B e r k e l y , 1982). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1982, 43, 2016B. (Ab s t r ac t ) Homer. [The Odyssey] (A. Cook, Ed . and t r a n s . ) . New York: Norton, 1967. House, J . S. Work s t r e s s and s o c i a l suppor t . Read ing , MA.: Add i son-Wes ley , 1981. J a b l i n , F. M. S u p e r i o r - s u b o r d i n a t e communicat ion: the s t a t e of the a r t . P s y c h o s o c i a l B u l l e t i n g , 1979, 86(6 ) , 1201-1222. Jenn ing s , E. E. Routes to the e x e c u t i v e s u i t e . New York: M c G r a w - H i l l , 1971. Ranter , R. M. Men and women of the c o r p o r a t i o n . New York: Bas ic Books'^ 1 977. Tal Kante r , R. M. Power games in the c o r p o r a t i o n . Psycho logy Today, 1977, 92(11), 48-53. (b) Ka t z , E. A. Women in p r o f e s s i o n a l t r a i n i n g : a study of the i n f l u e n c e of mentors and sex r a t i o (Doc to ra l d i s s e r t a t i o n , C a l i f o r n i a Schoo l of P r o f e s s i o n a l P sycho logy , Los Ange le s , 1980), D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1980, 41, 2387B ( A b s t r a c t ) K a z a n j i a n , A. & Wong, G. R e g i s t e r e d nurses in B r i t i s h Co lumbia. A r e p o r t of the c u r r e n t supply s i t u a t i o n (Report S: 11, D i v i s i o n of Hea l th S e r v i c e s Resarch and Development) . Vancouver: U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Co lumbia , A p r i l , 1982. Ke l l e rman , B. Mentor ing in p o l i t i c a l l i f e : the case of W i l l y Brandt . The American P o l i t i c a l S c ience Review, 1978, 72 (2) , 422-433. K e l l y , L. Y. Power g u i d e - - t h e mentor r e l a t i o n s h i p . Nur s ing Out look, 1978, 26(5) , 339. K l au s s , R. F o r m a l i z e d mentor r e l a t i o n s h i p s f o r management execu t i ve programs in the f e d e r a l government. P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Review, J u l y / A u g u s t 1981, pp. 489-496. 163 Kram, K. E. Mentor ing p roces se s at work: deve lopmenta l r e l a t i o n s h i p s in manager ia l c a r e e r s . Unpub l i shed d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Ya le U n i v e r s i t y , 1980. Kramer, M. R e a l i t y shock: why nurses l eave n u r s i n g . S t . L o u i s : Mosby, 1974. Kramer, M., & Baker, C. The exodus: can we prevent i t ? In M. J . L e v i n e , S. R. Zacur, & L. A. Horton ( E d s . ) , P r o f e s s i o n a l i s sue s in n u r s i n g . New J e r s e y : Thomas Horton & Daughters , 1980. Krueger , J . C. Women in management: an assessment. Nur s ing Out look , 1980, 28, 374-378. La r son , B. A. An e x p l o r a t o r y study of the r e l a t i o n s h i p of job s a t i s f a c t i o n of n u r s i n g l e a d e r s in h o s p i t a l s e t t i n g s who have had a mentor r e l a t i o n s h i p and those who have not (Ma s te r ' s t h e s i s . U n i v e r s i t y of Washington, 1980). Advances in Nurs ing S c i e n c e , J u l y 1981, pp. 71-72. ( A b s t r a c t ) Le Roux, R. S. S e x - r o l e s t e r e o t y p i n g and l e a d e r s h i p . Nur s ing A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Q u a r t e r l y , 1976, 1(1), 21-29. L e v i n s o n , D. J . , Darrow, C. M., K l e i n , E. B., L e v i n s o n , M., & McKee, B. Pe r i od s in the a d u l t development of men: ages 18 to 45. In A. M. Sargent ( E d . ) , Beyond sex r o l e s . S t . P a u l : West P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 1977. L e v i n s o n , D. J . et a l . The seasons of a man's l i f e . New York: A l f r e d A. Knopf, 1978. L e v i n s o n , H. E x e c u t i v e . Cambridge, MA.: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1981. L i v i n g s t o n , J . S. Pygmalion in management. Harvard Bus iness Review: on human r e l a t i o n s . New York: Harper & Row, 1979. McCal lum, C. J . The r e l a t i o n s h i p of p e r c e i v e d i n s t r u c t i o n a l mentor i n f l u e n c e to s tudent e d u c a t i o n a l development ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of T u l s a , 1980). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1980, 41, 599A. ( A b s t r a c t ) McNeer, E. J . The r o l e of mentor ing in the c a r e e r development of women a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in h i gher e d u c a t i o n (Doc to ra l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Ohio S ta te U n i v e r s i t y , 1981). , D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1982, 42, 2954A. ( A b s t r a c t ) 1 64 May, K. M., M e l e i s , A. I., W inds tead -F ry , P. Mentor sh ip f o r s c h o l a r l i n e s s : o p p o r t u n i t i e s and d i l emnas . Nurs ing Out look , 1982, 30, 22-28. Mead, M. B l a c k b e r r y w i n t e r : my e a r l i e r y e a r s . New York: Morrow, 1972. Merr iam, S. Mentors and p r o t e g e s : a c r i t i c a l review of the l i t e r a t u r e . Adu l t Educa t i on Q u a r t e r l y , 1983, 33(3) , 161- 173. M i l l e r , N. E . , & D o l l a r d , J . S o c i a l l e a r n i n g and i m i t a t i o n . New Haven: Ya le U n i v e r s i t y P re s s , 1941. M i s s i r i a n , A. K. The p roces s of mentor ing in the c a r e e r development of female managers. Unpub l i shed d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Mas sachuse t t s , 1980. P h i l l i p s , L. L. Mentors and p ro tege s : a study of the c a r e e r development of women managers and e x e c u t i v e s in bus ines s and i n d u s t r y . Unpub l i shed d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f . C a l i f o r n i a , Los Ange les , 1977. P h i l l i p s - J o n e s , L. L. Mentors and p r o t e g e s . New York: Arbor House, 1982. P i l e t t e , P. C. Mento r ing : an encounter of the l e a d e r s h i p k i n d . Nurs ing L e a d e r s h i p , 1980, 3 (2 ) , 22-26. P i n c h , W. J . Feminine a t t r i b u t e s in a mascu l ine wor l d . Nur s ing Out look , 1981, 29, 596-599. <— Q u e r a l t , M. The r o l e of the mentor in the c a r e e r development of u n i v e r s i t y f a c u l t y members and academic a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . Paper p re sen ted at the Annual Meet ing of the N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Women Deans, A d m i n i s t r a t o r s , and C o u n s e l o r s , I n d i a n a p o l i s , A p r i l 3, 1982. (ERIC Document Reproduct ion S e r v i c e No. ED 216 614) Qu inn, B. J . The i n f l u e n c e of same sex and c r o s s sex mentors on the p r o f e s s i o n a l develpment and p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of women in human s e r v i c e s . Unpub l i shed d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Western Mich igan U n i v e r s i t y , 1980. R a n d a l l , W. C. R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the mentor to h i s Ph.D. s tudent in p h y s i o l o g y . The P h y s i o l o g i s t , 1982, ^ 5 ( 3 ) , 124- 1 26. Rapoport , R., & Rapoport , R. N. E a r l y and l a t e expe r i ence s as de terminant s of adu l t behav iou r : mar r ied women's f a m i l y and c a r e e r p a t t e r n s . B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of S o c i o l o g y , 1971, 22, 16-30. 1 65 Rawles, B. A. The i n f l u e n c e of a mentor on the l e v e l of s e l f a c t u a l i z a t i o n of American s c i e n t i s t s . Unpub l i shed d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Ohio S ta te U n i v e r s i t y , 1980. R e i f , W. E . , Newstrom, J . W. , & Monczka, R. M. E x p l o d i n g some myths about women managers. C a l i f o r n i a Management Review, 1975, _T7(4), 72-79. Reohr, J . R. Mentor and c o l l e a g u e r e l a t i o n s h i p s in academia. Paper p r e s e n t e d at the Annual Meet ing of the American E d u c a t i o n a l S tud ie s A s s o c i a t i o n , Boston, November, 1981. (ERIC Document Reproduct ion S e r v i c e No. ED 215 640) RNABC employment q u e s t i o n n a i r e : a r e p o r t on i n i t i a l f i n d i n g s . Vancouver: RNABC, August , 1979. Roche, G. R. Much ado about mentors. Harvard Bus iness Review, 1979, 57 (1 ) , 14-16; 24; 26-28. Roe, A. The making of a s c i e n t i s t . New York: Dodd and Mead, 1953. Rogers, C. R. Freedom to l e a r n . Columbus: Chase M e r r i l l , 1969. Rogers, C. R. A way of b e i n g . Bos ton: Houghton M i f f l i n , 1980. Rogers, J . C. Sponsor sh ip : d e v e l o p i n g l e a d e r s f o r o c c u p a t i o n a l therapy . American J o u r n a l of O c c u p a t i o n a l Therapy, 1982, 36(5) , 309-313. Ro sen tha l , R., & Jacobson, L. Pygmalion in the c l a s s room. New York: H o l t , R inehar t and Winston, 1968. R o s s i , A. S. L i f e - s p a n t h e o r i e s and women's l i v e s . S i g n s : J o u r n a l of Women in C u l t u r e and S o c i e t y , 1980, 6 (1 ) , 4 -32. Rouve ro l , W. S. The t u t o r i a l system. J o u r n a l of H igher E d u c a t i o n , 1955, 26(1) , 1-9; 55-56. S a f i e r , G. Contemporary American l e a d e r s in n u r s i n g : an o r a l h i s t o r y . New York: M c G r a w - H i l l , 1977. S c h e i n , E. H. Career dynamics: matching i n d i v i d u a l and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l needs. Reading, MA.: Add i son-Wes ley , 1978. S c h l o t f e l d t , R. M., & M a c P h a i l , J . An exper iment in n u r i n g , i n t r o d u c i n g p lanned change. American J o u r n a l of N u r s i n g , 1969, 69 (6 ) , 1247-1251. 1 66 S c h o r r , T. M. ( E d . ) . The l o s t a r t of mentor sh ip . American J o u r n a l of N u r s i n g , 1978, 78(11) , 1873. S c h o r r , T . M. ( E d . ) . Mentor remembered. American J o u r n a l of N u r s i n g , 1978, 79(1 ) , 65. S ch rader , E. M. P e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the woman-to- woman mentor in the c a r e e r arena (Doc to ra l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Co lo rado at Bou lde r , 1980). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1981, 42!, 404B. (Ab s t r ac t ) S h a p i r o , E. C , H a s e l t i n e , R. P., & Rowe, M. P. Moving up: r o l e models, mentors, and the "pa t ron sy s tem" . S loan Management Review, 1978, J_9(3), 51-58. Sheehy, G. The mentor c o n n e c t i o n . New York, A p r i l 5, 1976, pp. 33-39. Sheehy, G. Passages. New York: Bantam, 1977. S p e i z e r , J . J . Ro le models , mentors, and sponsor s : the e l u s i v e c o n c e p t s . S i gn s : J o u r n a l of Women in C u l t u r e and S o c i e t y , 1981, 6 (4 ) , 692-712. S t e i n , S. L. F a c u l t y e x p e c t a t i o n s of d o c t o r a l and c a r e e r mentors . Paper p re sen ted at the Annual Meet ing of the Ea s te rn E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n , P h i l a d e l p h i a , March, 1981. (ERIC Document Reproduct ion S e r v i c e No. ED 204 273) Stone, I. The pa s s i on s of the mind. New York: S i g n e t , 1971. S t r a u s s , A. R e g u l a r i z e d s t a t u s passage. In W. G. Bennis et a l . ( E d s . ) , I n t e r p e r s o n a l Dynamics: essays and read ings on human i n t e r a c t i o n . Homewood, 111. : Dorsey P r e s s , 1968. Sudman, S., & Broadburn, N. M. A sk ing q u e s t i o n s . San F r a n c i s c o : Jos sey Bass, 1983. Super, C. E. ( E d . ) . Career development: s e l f concept t h e o r y . New York: C o l l e g e En t rance Examinat ion Board, Research Monograph No. 4, 1963. Super, D. E. V o c a t i o n a l development t h e o r y : pe r sons , p o s i t i o n s , and p r o c e s s e s . Counse l i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1969, J_ (1 ) , 2-9. Tabachn i ck , B. G . , & F i d e l l , L.S. Us ing m u l t i v a r i a t e S t a t i s t i c s . New York : Harper & Row, 1983. 1 67 T a y l o r , A. J . Men to r i ng . In J . F r a s e r & E. Hendry ( E d s . ) , Women's networks in Canada. Vancouver: The Centre f o r C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n , 1982. Thesaurus of ERIC d e s c r i p t o r s (9th e d . ) . Phoenix: Oryx P r e s s , 1982. • Thompson, J . Pa t rons , r a b b i s , mentors — whatever you c a l l them, women need them, t o o . MBA, February 1976, pp. 26- 27; 30; 35-36. V a i l l a n t , G. E. Adap ta t i on to l i f e . Boston: L i t t l e , Brown & C o . , 1977. Vance, C. N. A group p r o f i l e of contemporary i n f l u e n t i a l s in American n u r s i n g . Unpub l i shed d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Teachers C o l l e g e , Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1977. Vance, C. N. Women l e a d e r s : modern day he ro ine s or s o c i e t a l d e v i a n t s ? Image, 1979, J_l_(2), 37-41. Vance, C. N. The mentor c o n n e c t i o n . J o u r n a l of Nurs ing . A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , 1982, j_2(4), 7-13. Vanzant , L. R. Achievement m o t i v a t i o n , s e x - r o l e , s e l f - a c c e p t a n c e , and mentor r e l a t i o n s h i p of p r o f e s s i o n a l f ema les . Unpub l i shed d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , East Texas S t a te U n i v e r s i t y , 1980. Webs te r ' s t h i r d new i n t e r n a t i o n a l d i c t i o n a r y (2nd e d . ) . S p r i n g f i e l d , MA.: G. & C. Merr iam, 1971. White, M. S. Androgynous m a t u r i t y and the nurse p r a c t i t i o n e r . P roceed ings of a Conference on Women's L e a d e r s h i p and A u t h o r i t y in the Hea l th P r o f e s s i o n s . U n i v e r i s t y of C a l i f o r n i a , Santa C r u z , June 19-21, 1977, pp. 269-278. (ERIC Document Reproduct ion S e r v i c e No. ED 180 293) Wol f , Z. R. Mento r sh ip in n u r s i n g - - a path to s e l f d i r e c t e d l e a r n i n g . T o p i c s in C l i n i c a l Nur s i ng , 1982, 4 (3 ) , 68-74. The Woodlands Group. Management development r o l e s : coach , sponsor , and mentor. Pe r sonne l J o u r n a l , 1980, 59(11), 918- 921 . Wrightsman, L. S. Research methodo log ies f o r a s s e s s i n g mentor i n g . Paper p re sen ted at the Annual Meet ing of the American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , Los Ange le s , August 1981. (ERIC Document Reproduct ion S e r v i c e No. ED 209 339) 168 Yoder , J . D . Mentors : a debt due from present to f u t u r e generat i o n s . Paper p re sen ted at the Annual Convent ion of the American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , Washington, D C , August 23-27, 1982. (ERIC Document Reproduct ion S e r v i c e No. ED 223 944) Yura , H., Ozimek, D., & Walsh, M. B. Nur s ing l e a d e r s h i p : theory & p r o c e s s . New York: A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y - C r o f t s , 1976. Z a l e z n i k , A. Managers and l e a d e r s : are they d i f f e r e n t ? Harvard Bus iness Review, 1977, 55(3), 67-68; 70-78. Z a l e z n i k , A . , D a l t o n , G. W., & Barnes , L. B. O r i e n t a t i o n and c o n f l i c t in c a r e e r . Boston: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Graduate School of Bus iness A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , 1970. Z a l e z n i k , A . , & Kets de V r i e s , M. F. Power and the c o r p o r a t e mind. Bos ton : Houghton M i f f l i n , 1975. Zuckerman, H. S c i e n t i f i c e l i t e . New York: The Free P re s s , 1 977. APPENDIX A COVER LETTER APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE As a member of the Nurse Administrators' Association of B r i t i s h Columbia," you are being approached to be a participant i n a research study of mentor relationships and how they may have affected the career development of nurse administrators. Your opinions w i l l be particularly helpful i n gaining insights relevent to the ways signif icant persons influence career development amongst nursing leaders. DIRECTIONS 1. Please follow the instructions at the beginning of each section. -2. Please return the completed questionnaire by June 18, 1984 i n the stamped; addressed envelope provided. INSTRUCTIONS: PART A 1. For the following questions please c i r c l e the l e t ter or number which represents your answer. C irc l e only one le t ter or number i n each question unless otherwise advised. 2. Where indicated, write i n your answer in the space provided. 1. What i s your age? 2. What i s your sex? A. Female B. Male 3. What i s your current marital status? A. Single D. Separated B. Married E . Divorced C Widowed F. Other 4 . Have you had any children? A. Yes B. No 173 2 5. If you have had chi ldren, how many have you had? A. One D. Four B. Two E . Five C. Three F . More than five 6 . Vfrvat i s your current position? A. Directcar/administrator, nursing service B. Direcrtor/administrator, education C. Educator D. Consultant E . Retired F. Other, please specify 7 . If you are re t ired , what was your last position? A. Dixector/administrator, nursing service B. Director/adrruLnistrator, education C. Educator 0. Consultant E . Other, please specify 8. How long have you held your current position? (If ret ired , please answer in terms of your last position.) years 9 . Have you held a similar position in other institutions? A. Yes B. No 10. If so, how long? years 11. How long have you been employed at your present institution? (If re t ired , please answer in terms of your last inst i tut ion.) years 12. Since starting your nursing career, how many employers have you had? employers 13- Hew many years have you been employed as a nurse? years 14. What i s your highest level of education? A. rlursirig diploma B. nursing diploma plus other courses C. Baccalaureate degree D. Master's degree E . Doctoral degree 15. Hew sat isf ied are you with your present position? (If re t ired , please answer in terms of last position.) 1 2 3 4 5 Hot at Somewhat Moderately Very Entirely all sat isf ied satisf ied satisf ied sat isf ied 1 74 3 16. How did you arrive at your present nursing position? A. Since I became a nurse I always wanted to be a nursing adnujiistrator/educator/ccrisultant, therefore I looked for and worked toward these opportunities. B. ' The opportunity suddenly presented i t s e l f and I seized i t . C. Another person encouraged me and r e c a i T n e n d e d me for the posit ion. D. I f i l l e d in on a temporary/short term basis, and I've been in this type of position ever since. E . Other, please specify 17. Which of the following seems to describe your employment pattern best? A. Employed f u l l time on a regular basis. B. Employed part time on a regular basis. C. Employed on a casual basis. D. Employed f u l l time or part time with interruptions. E . Other, please specify 18. After you were employed as a nurse did you take one year or more away from the labor force for any of the following? (Circle as many letters as are applicable.) A. Education • F. B. Raising children G. C Hanemaking D. Travel l ing H. E. I l lness Caring for a relative Other, please specify I have not been away from the labor force for a year or more. 19. Rank order the letters of three factors from the following l i s t that were the most inf luent ia l in the development of your career. A. Reinaining single I. Being assisted or sponsored by B. Getting married another person c. Being separated and/or J . Knowing the right people divorced K. Changing geographical location D. Having children L. Luck or fate E. Not having children M. Having a charming personality F . Being aggressive N. Being competent G. Being assertive 0. Having strong drive or determination H. Being physically P. Knowledge gained through formal attractive education or other courses Most influential Second most inf luent ia l Third most inf luent ia l 1 7 5 4 20. For each person l i s ted below use the scale to indicate the extent to which they have supported aixl encouraged you in your career development. (Please c i r c l e the correct number.) Abroet Doesn't Never Seldcni Soretums Frequently Always / V p l y Supported Supported Sn^ortcd Supported Suportad Nursing colleagues 0 1 2 3 4 5 Non nursing colleagues 0 1 2 3 4 5 Mother 0 1 2 3 4 5 Father 0 1 2 3 4 5 Spouse/partner 0 1 2 3 4 5 Other family members 0 1 2 3 4 5 Friends 0 1 2 3 4 5 INSTRUCTIONS: PART B The following section seeks to determine the occurance and character- i s t i c s of the mentor relationship amongst nursing-administrators. Think about your cwn career development. You may presently have or have had one or more persons who stand out in your mind as being in f luent ia l in helping you acquire the s k i l l s and capabi l i t ies required to advance in your career perhaps a supervisor, instructor, parent, spouse, teacher, etc. Please read the def init ion of a mentor stated belcw, then complete the questions that follow. DEFINITION A mentor acts to a greater or lesser degree as a coach, teacher, guide; role model; counselor; and sponsor who enters into a sustained relationship with a less experienced person. The intention of the mentor i s to -serve as a trusted, wiser, more knowledgeable individual who takes an ongoing personal interest in fostering and supporting the person's career development. 21. According to the above def init ion have you at the present time or in the past had such a relationship with one or more persons? A . Yes B. If you answered "Yes" to this question, please go to the next question. No If you answered "No" to this question, please go to Part D, question 1, page 11. 176 22. Hew many mentors have you had? A. One mentor C. Three mentors B. Two mentors D. More than three mentors If more than one key person has been instrumental in encouraging or sponsoring your career progress, please answer the following questions with respect to your most influential mentor. 23. What sex was your mentor? A. Female B. Male 24. What was your mentor's relationship to you? (Circle one) A. Mother B. Father C. Spouse D. Other relative E. Friend F. Colleague G. Employer H. Teacher I. Other, please specify 25. What was your mentor's predeminent role in relation to you? 26. A. Ins tructor/teacher E. A more experienced colleague B. Immediate boss F. Parent (Head Nurse, etc.) G. Guide/coach C. Supervisor, Dept. Head H. Other, please specify D. Director During what period did the relationship with your mentor begin? A. Schooling (grades 1 to 6) G. B. Schooling (grades 7 to 12) H. C. Diplcma nursing program I. D. Baccalaureate program J. E. Master's program F. Doctoral program Early work experience (1 to 9 years) Mid work experience (10 to 19 years) Late work experience (20 years & over) Other, please specify 27. What were your needs at this time? Rank order the letters of three factors from the following l i s t that were the most important needs. Support/encouragement/ confirmation Challenge and inspiration Professional direction &/or focus S k i l l acquisition &/or development Other, please specify A. Information &/or resource F. B. Experiences G. C. Role model H. D. Job placement I. E. Career advancement J. Most important need Second most important need Third most important need 177 6 28. In what setting did the mentor relationship take place? A. Family unit setting D. Educational setting B. Community setting E . Other, please specify C . Hospital setting 29. I f the mentor relationship occured during your work experience indicate where you were i n terms of your career development. A. Novice in your f i r s t job D. C>ther, please specify B. Changing to a new position C. Advancing to a higher E . Did not occur during work experience position 30. What age were you at the time the relationship started? years 31. Approximately what age was your mentor at the time the relationship started? years 32. Was the relationship in i t ia ted by: A. You . C. Mutual attraction B. Your mentor D. Other, please specify 33. In relation to the help you received from your mentor, rank order the letters of the three most helpful behaviours from the following l i s t . A. Career advice E. Challenge, inspirat ion, responsibility B. Encouragement, acceptance, F. Bole modeling confirmation G. Promotion and sponsorship C. Instruction, coaching H. Friendship D. Counseling (other than career advice) Most helpful Second most helpful Third most helpful 34. Flow do you feel your mentor influenced your career development? (If you require more space, please use the blank page at the end of the questionnaire.) 35. If there were negative aspects to your relationship with your mentor, please indicate what these were. 36. 37. What was the length of the Was your mentor a nurse? A. Yes relationship? B. No years If you answered "Yes"-to this question, please go to the next question. If you answered "No" to this question, please go to question 39. 38. Please answer this question only i f your mentor was a nurse. In relation to the roles your mentor was active in within his/her own career, rank order the let ters of the three most predominant roles from the following l i s t . A. Nurse c l i n i c i a n F. Researcher B. Nursing leader G. Scholar C. Administrator H. Writer D. Policy maker I. Lobbyist, ac t iv i s t E . Professor/instructor J . Other, please specify Most predeminent role Second most predoninent role Third most predeminent role 39. How did the mentor protege relationship end? (Circle more than one le t ter , i f applicable.) A. By changing jobs B. By moving away C. By gradually dr i f t ing apart D. By beccming friends E . By beccming colleagues F. By getting married G. By disharmony and bad feeling H. Mentor or yourself suffered some misfortune I. Relationship s t i l l going on INSTRUCTIONS: PART C The following items pertain to questions about your most inf luent ia l mentor and your most inf luent ia l mentor's help. Use the scale to indicate the extent to which the following statements occured. (Circle the number of your choice.) KEY: 1 Never 4 Frequently 2 Seldom 5 Almost always • 3 Sometimes • 40. I highly identified with my mentor in terms of professional values and behaviours. 1 2 3 4 5 41. I highly identif ied with my mentor in terms of personal values and behaviours. 1 2 3 4 5 1 79 KEY: 1 Never 4 Frequently 2 Seldom 5 Almost always 3 Sometimes My mentor: 42. Took a close personal interest in my career development. 1 2 3 4 5 43. Kept the relationship on a professional rather than a personal basis. 1 2 3 4 5 44. Had a last ing positive influence on my career development. 1 2 3 4 5 45. Had a lasting positive influence on my personal development. 1 2 3 4 5 46. Had power in accessing person related resources, i . e . influence, status, expertise. 1 2 3 4 5 47. Had power i n accessing material resources, i . e . money, time, inforrration. 1 2 3 4 5 48. Discussed with me my long and short range career goals. 1 2 3 4 5 49. Advised me on educational opportunities. 1 2 3 4 5 50. Advised me on where and how to seek career advancement opportunities. 1 2 3 4 5 51. Advised me on what to avoid when seeking career and/or educational opportunities. 1 2 3 4 5 52. Considered my knowledge and experience an asset. 1 2 3 4 5 53. Believed in my a b i l i t y even though I was at times unable to recognize my potential . • 1 2 3 4 5 54. Verbally expressed confidence in me. 1 2 3 4 5 55. Encouraged me to take risks and experiment with new ways of doing things. 1 2 3 4 5 56. ESxr>/raged me to disagree on issues without fear of re ta l ia t ion . 1 2 3 4 5 57. Shared and trusted me with information that was confidential . 1 2 3 4 5 53. Included me in policy making and/or administrative planning sessions. 1 2 3 4 5 180 KEY: 1 Never 4 Frequently 2 Seldom 5 Almost always 3 Seme times 59. Candidly discussed the reasons for tte behaviour of other merrtoers of the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 60. Instructed me in higher level and/or real world strategies, tact ics , p o l i t i c s , and expectations. 1 2 3 4 5 61. Provided me with feedback, constructive cr i t i c i sm. 1 2 3 4 5 62. Coached me in ways to get around organizational and personal obstacles. 1 2 3 4 5 63. Discussed with me appropriate answers to written or verbal comiunications. 1 2 3 4 5 64. Helped me modify my formal learning so that i t would f i t in the pract ical working world. 1 2 3 4 5 65. Provided exposure to and explained his/her method of handling c l i ent , work related, and/or real world problems. 1 2 3 4 5 66. Provided more challenge and opportunity for me than for others. 1 2 3 4 5 67. Had me make presentations to colleagues, friends, c l i ents , or administration. 1 2 3 4 5 68. Had me f i l l in for him/her at meetings or in his/her job when away. 1 2 3 4 5 69. Delegated problems to me and allowed me to work out solutions. 1 2 3 4 5 70. Inspired me to take the i n i t i a t i v e and seek greater responsibi l i ty . 1 2 3 4 5 71. Set especially high standards of performance for me. 1 2 3 4 5 72. Was extremely demanding of me. 1 2 3 4 5 73. Created a stimulating atmosphere of exportation and excitement. 1 2 3 4 5 74. Served as a role model in how to ccprivinicate effectively with others. 1 2 3 4 5 181 10 KEY: 1 Never 4 Frequently 2 Seldom 5 Almost Always 3 Sometimes 75. Served as a role model in how to deal with the po l i t i c s of the unit , organization, or real world. 1 2 3 4 5 76. Served as a role model in how to use friendship, favor swapping, and informal social contacts for career advancement. 1 2 3 4 5 77. Served as a role model in creative behaviour. 1 2 3 4 5 78. Served as a role model in how to incorporate work, family and/or personal responsibi l i t ies . 1 2 3 4 5 79. Served as a role model in leadership a b i l i t y . 1 2 3 4 5 80. Served as a role model for a standard of excellence to be imitated. 1 2 3 4 5 81. Was someone I could re ly on for support during crises and uncertainties. 1 2 3 4 5 82. Cautioned me to avoid behaviour which might be . detrimental to my career. 1 2 3 4 5 83. Allowed me to share personal doubts and concerns without the r i sk of exposure. 1 2 3 4 5 84. Recaxrnended me for an educational opportunity, advantageous job, promotion, and/or key carmittee. 1 2 3 4 5 85. Introduced my ideas and/or me to others who could help me achieve my career goals. 1 2 3 4 5 86. Took personal r isks to defend me or protect me. 1 2 3 4 5 87. Deviated from policy or bent the rules for me. 1 2 3 4 5 88. Endorsed in public, opinions I had expressed. 1 2 3 4 5 89. Invited me to his/her home. 1 2 3 4 5 90. Had occasional lunch, dinner, coffee, or drinks with just me. " 1 2 3 4 5 91. Took a genuine interest in my family, hobbies, and personal interests. 1 2 3 4 5 92. Assisted me with personal needs such as locating housing, loaning money, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 11 INSTRUCTIONS: PART D For the following questions, c i r c l e the letter which represents your answer. 1. I: A. Have acted as a mentor for one person in his/her career. B. Have acted as a mentor for more than one person. C. Have not acted as a mentor for another person. D. Don't know whether I've acted as a mentor. 2. In the future i t i s l ike ly I: A. W i l l act as a mentor for at least one person in his/her career. B. 'Will act as a mentor for more than one person. C. W i l l not act as a mentor for another person. D. Am undecided at present. 3. Having one or more mentors i s helpful to a person begijuiing a career in nursing. . SD D U A SA Strongly Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly disagree agree Your time and effort in coTpleting this questionnaire i s very much appreciated. Please return i t by June 18, 1984. I f the enclosed addressed envelope has become mislaid, please send your questionnaire to: Alison Taylor, 7561 Angus Drive, Vancouver, B . C . , V6P 5K1. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Please feel free to add any additional comments regarding your mentor or aspects of the mentor protege relationship on page 11 or 12. APPENDIX C FOLLOW-UP REMINDER LETTER APPENDIX D RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RANKED CATEGORIES OF MENTORING HELP AND FACTOR ANALYSIS CATEGORIES OF MENTORING HELP 186 APPENDIX D R e l a t i o n s h i p Between Ranked C a t e g o r i e s of Mentor ing He lp and F a c t o r A n a l y s i s C a t e g o r i e s of Mentor ing He lp Rank No. Ranked Category F a c t o r Number F a c t o r A n a l y s i s Category Encouragement, suppor t , acceptance , c o n f i r m a t i o n I n s p i r a t i o n to a c h i e v e h i gh s tandards of performance P r a c t i c a l t r a i n i n g and guidance Ca reer /educa t i o n a l adv i ce and promot ion Extended p e r s o n a l i n d o c t r i n a t i o n , i n t e r e s t , d i r e c t i o n 10 Encouragement, c o n f i r - mat ion , acceptance 6 Cha l l enge and h i gh s tandards 7 I n s p i r a t i o n 11 L e a d e r s h i p r o l e model ing 1 P r a c t i c a l t r a i n i n g and guidance 8 Candid i n s t r u c t i o n 4 C a r e e r / e d u c a t i o n a l a d v i c e and promot ion 3 Pe r sona l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and i n f l u e n c e 8 Cand id i n s t r u c t i o n 14 Extended p e r s o n a l i n t e r e s t and d i r e c t i o n B e n e f i c i a l exposure and v i s i b i l i t y Candid counse l and shrewd adv i ce 9 Promotion 5 P r o t e c t i o n and sponso r sh ip 4 C a r e e r / e d u c a t i o n a l a d v i c e and promotion 8 Candid i n s t r u c t i o n 13 S h e l t e r i n g , runn ing i n t e r f e r e n c e 8 O f f - t h e - j o b s o c i a l i n t e r a c t ion 9 P r o t e c t i o n , runn ing i n t e r f e r e n c e F r i e n d s h i p 5 P r o t e c t i o n and sponso r sh ip 13 S h e l t e r i n g , runn ing i n t e r f e r e n c e 10 A s s i s t a n c e with p e r s o n a l needs 12 A s s i s t a n c e wi th p e r s o n a l needs

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 6 0
Canada 2 0
Japan 2 0
Philippines 1 0
China 1 16
City Views Downloads
Unknown 4 3
Tokyo 2 0
Sunnyvale 1 0
Paranaque City 1 0
Edmonton 1 0
Beijing 1 0
Montreal 1 0
Ashburn 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items