National Differences in Effects of Perceived Workplace Discrimination on the Mentoring Relationships of Gay and Lesbian Protégés
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT The objective of this paper was to the mentoring relationships of gay and lesbian proteges and the effects workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (hereafter perceived workplace discrimination) may have on the relationships. Perceived workplace discrimination was found to be an obstacle to obtaining a mentor in the United States but not in Canada. The amount of psychosocial support received by proteges was found to be affected by an interaction of perceived discrimination and nationality. Mentors in the United States were reported to provide less psychosocial support and Canadian mentors more. INTRODUCTION Gay men and lesbians, at 4 -17 percent of the workforce, are a larger group than many other minorities (Gonsiorek & Weinrich, 1991) yet there is very little research on gay and lesbian issues in the workplace. This study examines the effects of perceived workplace discrimination on the likelihood of the formation of informal mentoring relationships of gay and lesbian proteges and on the amount of psychosocial support reported by those in mentoring relationships. It is hypothesized that perceived workplace discrimination acts as a barrier to gaining informal mentoring relationships for gay and lesbian employees. It is also hypothesized that perceived workplace discrimination will be associated with a decrease in the amount of psychosocial support in mentoring relationships heterogeneous with respect to sexual orientation and that it will be associated with an increase the psychosocial support in mentoring relationships homogeneous with respect to sexual orientation. Mentoring Mentoring is defined as a senior person guiding a junior person in an organization and aiding in the junior person's development. Mentors usually have more advanced experience and knowledge (Kram, 1985) and occupy higher power positions (Ragins, 1997) than their proteges. The value of mentoring experiences for proteges has been widely studied since Kram' s seminal work two decades ago (e.g. Kram, 1983; 1985). Mentoring relationships serve two functions: career functions and psychosocial functions (Kram, 1983). The career functions are elements of the mentoring relationship that assist the protege in preparation for career advancement. These functions include providing sponsorship, coaching, protection, exposure, and challenging work to the protege. The psychosocial functions assist in the protege's development of a sense of competence, sense of identity, and work-role effectiveness through role modeling, counseling, acceptance and confirmation, and friendship. A heterogeneous mentoring relationship involves a mentor and a protege who do not share the same group memberships associated with power differences in organizations (Ragins, 1995). Largely because of sex and race stratification within organizations, majority members are more likely to be in homogeneous mentoring relationships with other majority members and minorities in heterogeneous mentoring relationships (Dreher & Cox, 1996; Thomas, 1990). Dreher and Cox (1996) and Thomas (1990) examined mentoring relationships that are heterogeneous with respect to sex and/or race. Empirical research indicates that perceived or actual mentor-protege similarity is positively related to the amount of mentoring received (Burke, McKeen & McKenna, 1993; Dreher & Dougherty, 1997; Ensher & Murphy, 1997; Ragins & Cotton, 1999; Thomas, 1990). This phenomenon is explained by the similarity-attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971), which suggests that perceived and actual similarity influences the perceptions of shared identity and liking between two individuals. Although Byrne's (1971) original research referred to similarity in attitudes, more recent research has extended these findings to include similarity in demographic characteristics (Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989). Liking, perceived similarity, and psychosocial and career support each contributed significantly to proteges' satisfaction with their mentor; each is an important contributor to a successful mentoring relationship, contributing significant amounts of variance in protege satisfaction (Ensher & Murphy, 1997). …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».