Understanding the Impact of Mentee’s Gender in the Development of Informal Mentoring Relationships in the Workplace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research regarding gender and mentoring suggests that women are mentored less often than their male colleagues, which could have a detrimental effect on women’s career development and growth. Although researchers have proposed different explanations and solutions to ease this phenomenon, women continue to report being under-mentored. In an effort to understand this issue in depth, two exploratory qualitative study were conducted. In the first study, twenty women holding tenure track academic positions in seven different business schools in Canada and the United States were interviewed to understand their experiences with mentoring. Through content analysis of the data, the existence of a type of barrier previously unidentified in the literature was unearthed, namely barriers to the development of the mentoring relationship. Two barriers to the development of a mentoring relationship, Need for Fit and Demonstrating Capability, are described and discussed in this study. Given these findings, a second study was designed in order to gain in-depth knowledge on barriers to the development of mentorships. Thirty three men and women from different organizations, industries and professions were invited to participate. The data from this second study supports the existence of barriers to the development of mentorship. The data signal the existence of the two barriers identified in Study 1, Need for Fit and Demonstrating Capability, while it also suggests the existence of four other barriers, Commitment of the Mentor, Trust in the Mentor, Need to Share a Goal/Vision and Admiration towards the Mentor. The relevance of these barriers seems to vary by gender and organizational context which would explain why women would be under-mentored when compared to their male colleagues. Implications of these findings for researchers and practitioners are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".