Fostering trust in mentoring relationships: an exploratory study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose Mentoring has been identified as a key strategy to career development and has been argued to be indispensable for women to advance to positions of power. For mentoring to succeed, it is imperative that mentors trust their protégés. However, recent research has suggested that male mentors trust their male protégés more so than their female protégés. Since women are frequently mentored by men, it is imperative that they gain the same level of trust as their male peers enjoy. According to an established model of trust, trust is shaped by the mentor's perceptions of protégé ability, benevolence and integrity, as well as perceptions of the risk inherent to mentoring. This exploratory research aims to examine what influences these perceptions to shed light on how protégés can gain the trust of their mentors. Design/methodology/approach Because little research has been conducted in this area, an exploratory qualitative design was chosen. Mayer, Davis and Schoorman's model of organizational trust is used as the theoretical framework. Findings This research sheds light on what predicts how trust is formed, fostered and lost in a mentoring context by examining factors that may influence perceptions of ability, benevolence, integrity and risk. Several protégé behaviors were identified that influenced perceptions of ability. Perceptions of benevolence were described as “feelings”. Perceptions of integrity were influenced by keeping confidences. Finally contextual factors, such as gender, were also identified as influencing the level of trust. Research limitations/implications The sample size was based on only 24 mentors; as a consequence, the findings are exploratory in nature and not generalizable. Practical implications Trust has been identified as a critical component of an effective mentoring relationship. As a consequence, mentoring programs must include activities that assist in establishing and fostering trust between mentor and protégé. Social implications Women are still under‐represented in positions of power. Mentoring has been widely adopted as a mechanism to help women climb the corporate ladder. The lack of female mentors frequently means that female protégés have to be mentored by men. If women are to break the “glass ceiling,” it is imperative that male mentors trust their female protégés to the same extent as their male protégés and provide them with the same career advancing opportunities. Originality/value Very little research has examined the role of trust in mentoring, although trust has been identified as a critical element in other organizational activities, such as leadership, performance appraisal, labor‐management relations, interpersonal cooperation, e‐commerce transactions and self‐managing work teams.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,023 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».