Mentor-mentee relationships in a large Indian manufacturing organization.

Srivastava, Sushmita ; Raj, Isf

Introduction

Mentoring relationship is an intense reciprocal interpersonal exchange between a senior experienced individual (the mentor) and a less experienced individual (the protege), characterized by guidance, advice, counsel, feedback, and support provided by the mentor for the protege's personal and professional development (Eby, Rhodes & Allen, 2007; Kram, 1985; Fletcher & Ragins, 2007; Kram, 1996). Mentoring enhances employee skills, aids their socialization to a new work setting and improves career outcomes for mentees. Perceived and actual benefits of mentoring for mentors include visibility, sense of fulfillment, and having a loyal support base (Eby, Durley, Evans & Ragins, 2006; Ragins & Scandura, 1999).

Need for the Paper

Although more than 500 articles on mentoring have been published in management and education literature worldwide during the last 20 years, (Noe, Greenberger & Wang, 2002; Wanberg, Welsh & Hezlett, 2003), there have been limited studies of mentoring relationship in the Indian context. Not many researchers have classified the pairs based on the nature of relationship on a favorable--unfavorable continuum. (fig. 1).

As Russell and Adams (1997) note, critics of mentoring research have lamented the absence of theory-driven research.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Despite the increase in Indian management research since liberalization in the early 1990s, studies on Indian mentoring are still perceived to be lacking (Bhawuk, 2008b; Budhwar & Bhatnagar, 2009; Pio, 2007). With a large number of global companies entering the Indian market, the "war for talent" has significantly intensified among Indians, who now have a plethora of organizational challenges, leading to a problem of employee motivation, commitment, and retention. It is therefore vital for managers and employers to focus on career and talent management strategies such as mentoring (Bhatnagar, 2007). There appears only three studies (Baruch & Budhwar, 2006; Budhwar & Baruch, 2003; Gentry, Weber & Sadri, 2008) that referred to workplace mentoring in India. We found no systematic examination of the dynamics of work-based mentoring among Indians.

Methodology

The study was conducted in a large manufacturing organization, noted for its legacy of developing several generations of leaders through an on-going process of informal mentoring, over decades. On account of the changing competitive landscape and its ambitious growth and globalization plans, the company realized the need to focus on mentoring its young breed of technical hands, recruited in large numbers from the best engineering colleges in the country and encourage the talent to develop roots in the organization. It is believed, that to a large extent, the relationship of the juniors with their seniors, through programs such as mentoring, would considerably influence the progress of human resource development in the organization. Moreover, it is the only organization which gives mentoring in a formally structured manner. Special permission has been taken from the respondents to use this data for research purpose. Both the researchers discussed the transcripts. This helped in making a more objective analysis to increase the validity of the study.

The current research was primarily a qualitative study spread across 3 months. However, in order to classify the pairs based on the nature of relationship on a favorable--unfavorable continuum, the quantitative study was done in the first stage. Both the mentors and mentees were administered same set of questions to check the consistency of the response given by both on similar questions for a fair assessment of the relationship. This was done to increase the credibility of the study. The quantitative assessment resulted in 4 kinds of pairs as shown in Table 1.

In order to identify pairs where both mentors and mentees perceived their relationship to be favorable / unfavorable, 14-item coded questionnaires (Ragins, Cotton & Miller, 2000) was distributed separately to all the 88 mentees and their 44 assigned mentors (ratio 2:1). The mentors and mentees were invited for an informal feedback session by the researchers. The items measured the extent of acknowledgement of the relationship (e.g. how well does the mentor/mentee know you / how well do you know the mentor/mentee), satisfaction with the matching process (e.g. did you find mentor/mentee of your choice), evaluation of the program (e.g. To what extent could you freely talk to your mentor/mentee about anything) and frequency of meetings (e.g. on how many occasions in the last one year have you met your mentor/mentee). The above mentor & mentee satisfaction scale had a reliability of 9.54 and 8.5 respectively.

The questions in the qualitative interviews were designed to assess the mentoring relationship. (Appendix 2). The questions probed the mentors on issues such as their awareness about the developmental needs of the mentee, the motivation of the mentor and the steps taken to address them (Appendix 1). Interview was also conducted with mentees. It should be noted that a semi structured interview format was followed in-order to facilitate further probing to facilitate an in-depth analysis of the relationship.

Sample

44 mentors who were senior executives of the organization with over 20 years of work experience (35 male mentors and 9 female mentors). 88 mentees (engineers selected through rigorous selection procedures from the most premier and prestigious engineering institutes of India; 65 male mentors and 23 female mentees). Age Range: MENTORS--35 years--45 year, MENTEES--22 years--26 years.

The qualitative study was inductive in inquiry, which began with close reading of text and attempting to uncover the less obvious contextual or latent content. The researchers attempted to understand the participants' experience and understanding of the phenomena. The interview transcripts were analyzed for content related to themes coming from the complete experience of their relationship so far, including the positives and the negatives. For example the varying connotations associated with particular words used by participants in Hindi and the degree of interaction and enthusiasm was subjected to content analysis. Even the body language of the participants was interpreted.

The coding of data identified the frequent occurring themes (Table 2). This study did not use software packages like Nvivo/MaxQDA because the tools only help in recording and organizing and could not substitute for the intellectual effort in coding the data.

Propositions

Based on the responses of the participants propositions have been framed. Some of the responses along with interpretation are listed here to elucidate the nature of exercise undergone.

Human needs as defined by Maslow are the basis of one's existence which can be understood as personal objectives and/or goals, which eventually shape the entire existence of an individual. The Eriksonian polarity at the life stage of mentor, "generativity versus stagnation," suggests the potential value of a mentor relationship. Through enabling others, the midlife individual satisfies important generative needs (Erikson, 1963; 1968; 1978) and also has the opportunity to review and reappraise the past by participating in a younger adult's attempts to face the challenges of early adulthood.

Theme Analysis process suggested that there were three main goals of the mentor:--Sense of Duty, Personal Learning and Visibility & Recognition. One of the mentors said that "It is a part of our duty to look after them ... build long term relations ... they are the managers for tomorrow". The analysis further revealed that for around 89% of the mentors in the favorable pairs goals were more linked to Sense of Duty and Personal Learning. On the other hand for around 72% of mentors in the unfavorable pair the goal was more linked to Visibility and Recognition. Another mentor said that "I want to be recognized for being a good mentor. I would have felt better if I would have been given a letter for mentoring". Thus, it could be concluded that the means adopted to achieve these goals eventually shape the mentoring relationship.

Proposition 1: The goals of the mentor affect the quality and nature of mentoring relationship.

As to the identification of the dominant leadership style used by mentors in their relationship with mentees, the results indicate predominance of nurturant task leadership style. A nurturant leader "cares for his subordinates, shows affection, takes personal interest in their wellbeing, and above all is committed to their growth." In the process, there develops a relationship of understanding, warmth, and interdependence, leading to higher productivity and better growth. An autocratic leader demands complete loyalty, unconditional submissiveness and full compliance from his subordinates. The participative leader is essentially fraternal in his interactions. He treats his subordinates as equals though unique in potential contributions to the group. (Sinha, 1980).

Theme Analysis process suggested that there were three main styles adopted by the mentor:--Autocratic, Participative and Nurturant. One of the mentees said "He has been like a father to us ... he gives us even pocket money to spend, we are like his daughters". For around 70 % of the mentors in the favorable pairs predominant leadership style was Nurturant. On the other hand for around 78% of mentors in the unfavorable pair the predominant leadership style was autocratic. One of the autocratic mentors said "I want my mentee to meet me every day...".

Proposition 2: There is a significant relationship between favorable mentoring and mentor's leadership style.

Mentors who were motivated to fulfill the needs and expectations of their mentees by using resources within their reach have experienced a better quality of mentoring relationship. Their mentees reflected a high degree of affiliation; commitment and adoration for the mentor. The mentors having seen such developments in the relation were further motivated to devote more attention to the relationship.

Patrick et al (2007) also confirm the link between need fulfillment and quality of relationship. They recognize 3 basic psychological needs: autonomy (feeling not coerced in to one's actions), competence (feeling capable), and relatedness (feeling connected to others). In one of their studies the authors used a diary recording procedure and tested a model in which the association between need fulfillment and relationship quality was mediated by relationship motivation. Those who experienced greater need fulfillment enjoyed better relationship quality primarily because of their tendency to have more intrinsic or autonomous reasons for being in their relationship. The analysis revealed that for around 89% of the mentees in the favorable pairs need fulfillment was moderate to high. On the other hand for around 72 % of the mentees in the unfavorable pairs need fulfillment was low. One of the mentees expressed his satisfaction in the following words: "Wo samjhte hai humari saari baatien kyonki who bhi UP se hai... (He understands all my feelings, as he is also from state of Uttar Pradesh)...".

Proposition 3: The extent of fulfillment of the needs of the mentee impacted the quality of the relationship.

Attitudes represent an individual's degree of like or dislike for something. They are generally positive or negative views of a person, place, thing, or event. They are tendencies or orientations, especially of mind. Attitudes are representations of one's evaluations, preferences towards a wide variety of objects. Attitudes are based on information (Morgan & King, 2001). Attitudes of mentor and mentee play crucial roles in building their relationship. Thus a positively oriented relation is most likely to stand a better chance of survival primarily, and secondly the learning from the relationship also expands. Our analysis revealed that the mentor's relationship with a positive attitude mentee is more favorable than that with a negative attitude mentee. A mentor who was allocated two mentees with different attitudes said the following about his positive attitude mentee "I am always there with my mentee when he needs me the most". On the other hand he did not have the same level of commitment for his negative attitude mentee. The quote indicates that even when a similar situation was faced by two mentees the difference in their attitude created a difference in their relationship with the mentor. The mentor commitment to mentoring relationship was more when the mentee attitude was positive. Table 2 shows that in favorable relationships 78% mentors have positive attitude while 85% mentees have positive attitude. In unfavorable relationship 83% mentors have negative attitude while 78% mentees have negative attitude.

Proposition 4: The attitudinal disposition contributes to the quality of the mentoring relationship such that a positively disposed attitude results in more favorable outcome in the mentoring relationship.

The focus of the current study is not so much on what healthy mentoring relationship is. It is more about what meaning did people as individuals make of what a healthy mentoring relationship means to them, their attitudes, preparation and factors (both intrinsic and extrinsic) which enable effective and/or healthy mentoring relationships. A mentor's prior experience of mentoring in any relation as a guide or a counselor may affect the present relationship. Frequency of interaction among the mentors and mentees has been found to significantly affect and/or impact the mentoring relationship. Majority of the mentors expressed lack of time hindering their relationship. The number of interaction and/ or meeting with the mentor helps one trace the growth of a mentoring relationship. A patterned growth in the mentoring relationship has been found among all frequently interacting research participants. In their words, they have described their relationships, as growing from formal interactions that can be explained as the introductory interactions, initial rapport building and/or ice-breaking sessions followed by informal interactions- discussions about work; how to enhance ones career; different career prospects; helping the mentees familiarize with the organization and also help the mentee develop his/her convoy system within the organization; advice and/ or suggestions on projects to do or not to do; how to maximize on the period of training. Gradually informal interactions becomes their comfort zone, in which one is able to openly and freely express about family, friends and sometimes discuss areas at a more personal and intimate level.

However, our analysis has revealed a rather interesting facet related to frequency of interaction. Even in the favorable pairs some mentors and mentees were satisfied with less number of interactions also if the intensity of interactions was high.

Proposition 5: The quality of mentoring relationship is dependent on the frequency of interaction between the mentor and the mentee. However if the need fulfillment of mentee can happen with less meetings as well then frequency is not a major factor.

Frequency of interaction does not play a significant role if need fulfillment of mentee can be achieved through less meetings also.

Findings & Conclusion

In this research study, we discovered that the goals of mentoring could be numerous. These can vary from contributing back to the company to interacting with the younger generation for challenging, new thoughts, ideas and/or bridging their empty nest syndrome.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

It was noted that the personal needs, goals and objectives of the mentor as well as the developmental needs of the protege were pivotal in shaping the quality of mentoring relationship. Thus, man being a social animal has to operate in the society in co-ordination with the others, which is similar to structure functionalist theories of sociology, but in an organization, man satisfies his personal objectives through the collective objectives of the organization. In layman's terms he fulfils his personal desires and needs such as recognition, visibility in the organization as a mentor etc. through organizational goals.

Fulfillment of the mentee's developmental needs, contributes towards the growth in the relationship thereby the quality of mentoring relationship. Frequency of interaction was found to be a key enabler towards understanding of developmental needs of the protege. However, if the need fulfillment can happen through less meetings also then frequency does not play a major role. Mentors, who attributed paucity of time as hindrance to mentoring relationships, also stated that they were unclear on their roles as mentors, leading us to conclude that unfavorable mentoring relationships may be more an outcome of lack of clarity on roles of a mentor and the mentoring process, than lack of time. This highlights the need for more focused training interventions on mentoring.

Each mentor-mentee relationship is unique. However a unique pattern evolved across the pairs interviewed. With "India on growth track in next 15 years and people across the spectrum participating in the growth process and deriving benefits from it, mentoring research has to align with the needs of the current generation by focusing on factors that lead to exponential growth in relationship building rather than causing mere satisfaction.

Some More Findings

The mentor's position and career stage in the organization seems to influence his mentoring relationship, wherein mentors in more influential position seemed to conceptualize the mentoring concept from his/her own world view, than mentors in relatively less influential positions. One can therefore conclude that mentoring cannot be isolated from organizational systems and processes. Therefore, there appears a need to view mentoring from an HR systems perspective. Mentors might also value the relationship just because the mentee/protege is from similar socio cultural context as him/her. We also conclude that one of the indicators for success of formal mentoring relationships is the extent of prior experiences in informal mentoring relationships. This could become one of the inputs for future selection of mentors.

Limitations

Mentoring relationship has a wide range of variables, continuously progressing and changing across organizations, companies and institutes; however this study could focus only on a 'single' company.

Purposive sampling limited the scope of conducting an exhaustive study and delivering a rich and varied data. The study was based on mentoring relationship at time 1 (eight months) after being assigned the mentors. However, since there was no data collected at time 0, that is, at the start of the relationship, the exact progress/growth trajectory of the relationship could not be traced. This inhibited a more thorough understanding of factors contributing towards mentoring relationship. A longitudinal study would have helped us to validate the factors that contribute to growth in mentoring relationship with time, although the present cross sectional study is significant as it examines both the perspective of the mentor and the mentee.

Future Directions

The research being cross-sectional, traced the growth of eight month long relationship, however, factors impacting mentoring relationship should be studied through a longitudinal method. This study was a qualitative narrative exploratory study; thus, the researchers have attempted to quote verbatim. There is a need now to formulate testable hypotheses, based on the phenomena studied to arrive at a theoretical understanding. Each of the variables identified, impacting mentoring relationship need to be taken forward for further investigations.

Appendix 1

Interview Schedule for Mentor

* Please recall the last interaction with your mentee. What do you generally discuss with your mentee?

* Are you aware about your mentee's developmental needs at this point of time?

* How have you looked upon your role as a mentor?

* Please rate yourself in the scale of 1-10 based on the quality of your relationship. Why have you given yourself this rating? (justify) What is an ideal rating and how do you think you can achieve it?

* What has been some of your personal as well as professional benefits derived from this relationship?

Interview Schedule of Mentees:

Name: Sex: Age:

Educational Qualifications: College/Institute:

* Please elaborate on one of your (positive) interactions with your mentor?

* Describe your mentor-mentee relationship?

* Why according to you is your relationship; positive and/or negative and/or healthy and/or not so healthy?

* What are your personal and professional expectations from this relationship?

* In your future plans, how does your mentor help you achieve and/or affect it?

* Any experiences (not so good/good experiences) so far, which you would want to reflect upon?

* What is you unique role as a mentee/protege that you were playing in the relationship?

Appendix 2 Mentorship Feedback Form (For Mentors)

Dear Mentors,

Kindly fill up this brief survey questionnaire by choosing the most suitable option based on your perception of the MTTs mentoring program

Your responses will be kept confidential &will be used entirely for bringing about improvements in the ongoing mentoring process/program.

You may tick "(by dragging the tick) or color the appropriate boxes /save the survey form & mail it back to me please. On a 4 point rating scale mark 4 if you agree to a very great extent, 3 if you agree to a great extent, 2 if you agree to some extent and 1 if you do not agree at all.

1. How well do you know your mentee?

2. How well does your mentee know you?

3. How well do you feel that your mentee understands you as a mentor and your expectations from the relationship?

4. To what extent do you feel the mentee recognizes your potential to serve as a mentor to him?

5. Are you happy with the mentee selection process?

6. Did you find a mentee of your choice?

7. What are the chances you feel your mentees assigned to you were personally inclined to be guided and mentored by you personally & professionally?

8. Are you happy with the quality of interaction that has taken place so far between you & your mentee?

9. How would you characterize your relationship with your mentee?

10. Were you able to focus on personal development of your mentee & yourself in the mentoring relationship, so far?

In the next 3 questions kindly comment on the quality of your mentoring interactions

11. "I felt that I could freely talk/relate to my mentee about anything"?

12. "I completely trust my mentee"

13. "There was a great deal of open communication between my mentee and me"

14. On how many occasions in the past one year have you met your mentee?

15. Could you state two benefits you felt arising out of this relationship?

16. How could we make the mentorship process more effective?

17. Your general comments on the mentoring initiatives.

Appendix 3 Mentorship Feedback Form (For Mentees)

Dear Mentees. Please fill up this survey questionnaire by choosing the most suitable option based on your perception of the mentoring program

You may tick or color the appropriate boxes /save the survey form & mail it back to me (sushmita@tatasteel.com) please. Your responses will be kept confidential & be used entirely for bringing about improvements in the mentoring process. On a 4 point rating scale mark 4 if you agree to a very great extent, 3 if you agree to a great extent, 2 if you agree to some extent and 1 if you do not agree at all.

1. How well do you know your mentor?

2. How well do you feel that your mentor understands your problem and needs?

3. How well does your mentor know you?

4. How well do you feel that your mentor recognizes your potential?

5. Are you happy with the mentor selection process?

6. Did you find a mentor of your choice?

7. What are the chances you feel your mentor was personally inclined to guide you solve problem at your work?

8. Are you happy with the quality of interaction that are taking place between you & your mentor?

9. How would you characterize your relationship with your mentor?

10. Were you able to focus on your personal development in the mentoring relationship?

11. To what extent would you agree to the following three statements?

12. I felt that I could freely talk to my mentor about anything?

13. I completely trusted my mentor

14. There was great deal of open communication between my mentor and me

15. On how many occasions in the past one year have you met your mentor?

16. Could you state two benefits you felt arising out of this relationship?

17. How could we make the mentorship process more effective?

18. Your general comments on the mentoring initiatives.

References

Allen, T. A. & Eby, L. T. (2007), The Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring: A Multiple Perspectives Approach. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Allen, T. D. & Poteet, M. L. (1999), "Developing Effective Mentoring Relationships: Strategies from the Mentor's Viewpoint", Career Development Quarterly, 48:59-73.

Allen, T. D., Poteet, M. L. & Burroughs, S. M. (1997), "The Mentor's Perspective: A Qualitative Inquiry and Future Research Agenda", Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51: 70-89.

Baruch, Y. & Budhwar, P. S. (2006), "A Comparative Study of Career Practices for Management Staff in Britain and India". International Business Review, 15: 84-101.

Bhatnagar, J. (2007), "Talent Management Strategy of Employee Engagement in Indian

ITES Employees: Key to Retention", Employee Relations, 29(6): 640-63.

Bhawuk, D. P. S. (2008), "Globalization and Indigenous Cultures: Homogenization or Differentiation?" International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(4): 305-17.

Clutterbuck, D. (2007), "An International Perspective on Mentoring", in B. R. Ragins and K. E. Kram (Eds.), The Handbook of Mentoring at Work: Theory, Research and Practice, Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Eby, L. T. & Lockwood, A. (2005), "Proteges' and Mentors' Reactions to Participating in Formal Mentoring Programs: A Qualitative Investigation", Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67: 441-58.

Erikson, E. (Ed.) (1978), Adulthood. New York: Norton.

Glaser, B. (1992), Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis, Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Chicago: Aldine.

Higgins, M. C. (2000), "The More the Merrier? Multiple Developmental Relationships and Work Satisfaction", Journal of Management Development, 19(4):277-96.

Higgins, M. C. & Thomas, D. A. (2001), "Constellations and Careers: Towards Understanding the Effects of Multiple Developmental Relationships", Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22:223-47.

Kram, K. E. (1985), Mentoring at Work. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman & Company.

Kram, K.E. (1996), "A Relational Approach to Career Development", in D.T. Hall (ed.), The Career Is Dead: Long Live the Career. pp. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Krippendorf, K. (2004), Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Noe, R. A., Greenberger, D. B. & Wang, S. (2002), "Mentoring: What We Know and Where We Might Go", Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 21, 129-73.

Patrick, H., & C. R. Knee (2007), "The Role of Need Fulfillment in Relationship Functioning & Well-being: a Self-determination Theory Perspective." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92(3): 434-57.

Ragins, B. R. & Kram, K. E. (2007), Handbook of Mentoring: Theory, Research, and Practice, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Ragins, B. R. & Scandura, T. A. (1999), "Burden or blessing? Expected Costs and Benefits of Being a Mentor", Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(4):493-509

Ramaswami, A. & Dreher, G. F. (2007), "The Benefits Associated with Workplace Mentoring Relationships", in Allen, Tammy D.; Eby, Lillian T., The Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring: A Multiple Perspectives Approach: Malden, MA, US: Blackwell Publishing.

Sinha, J. B. P (1980), The Nurturant Task Leader, New Delhi: Concept.

Sinha, J. B. P. (1990), "The Salient Indian Values and Their Socio-economic Roots", Indian Journal of Social Science, 3: 477-88.

Suar, D., Tewari, H.R. & Chaturbedi, K. R. (2006), "Subordinates' Perception of Leadership Styles and Their Work Behavior", Psychology and Developing Societies, 18(1): 95-114.

Wanberg, C. R., Welsh, E. T. & Hezlett, S. A.(2003), "Mentoring Research: A Review and Dynamic Process Model", Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 22: 39-124.

Weber, R. P. (1990), Basic Content Analysis. (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sushmita Srivastava (e-mail : sushmita.srivastava. j sr@gmail.com) & ISF Raj (e-mail : isfraj @xlri. ac. in) are from the School of Business & Human Resources, XLRI, Jamshedpur 831001

Table 1 Classification of Mentor Mentee Pairs (Response-Relationship
Matrix)

Mentor Response/      Favorable              Unfavorable
Mentee Relationship

Favorable             Used for qualitative   X
                        analysis (27)
Unfavorable           X                      Used for qualitative
                                               analysis (18)

Table 2 Frequency Analysis of Themes in the Structured Interview
Transcript

                                         Favorable Pairs
Dimensions          Aspects              Frequency   Percentage

Goals of the        Sense of Duty              15        55.55
Mentor              Personal Learning           9        33.33
                    Visibility &                1         3.70
                    Recognition Others          2         7.40
Mentors             Autocratic                  4        14.81
Leadership          Participative               3        11.11
Styles              Nurturant                  19        70.37
                    Others                      1         3.70
Mentee              High                       16        59.25
Development         Moderate                    8        29.62
                    Low                         3        11.11
Attitudinal         Positive                   21        77.77
Factors of          Negative                    6        22.22
  Mentor
Attitudinal         Positive                   23        85.18
Factors of          Negative                    4        14.81
  Mentee            0-2                         2         7.40
Frequency of
  Interaction       3-7                        10        37.03
  (within a year)   7-12                       15        55.55

                                         Unfavorable Pairs
Dimensions          Aspects              Frequency   Percentage

Goals of the        Sense of Duty               3        16.66
Mentor              Personal Learning           2        22.22
                    Visibility &               13        72.22
                    Recognition Others          1         5.55
Mentors             Autocratic                 14        77.77
Leadership          Participative               1         5.55
Styles              Nurturant                   1         5.55
                    Others                      2        11.11
Mentee              High                        0            0
Development         Moderate                    5         27.7
                    Low                        13        72.22
Attitudinal         Positive                    3        16.66
Factors of          Negative                   15        83.33
  Mentor
Attitudinal         Positive                    4        22.22
Factors of          Negative                   14        77.77
  Mentee            0-2                        13        72.22
Frequency of
  Interaction       3-7                         2        11.11
  (within a year)   7-12                        3        16.66