Is more truly merrier?: mentoring and the practice of law.
Kay, Fiona M. ; Wallace, Jean E.
MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS ARE WIDELY APPLAUDED FOR their success at
socializing and integrating junior professionals into their new
organizational environment and professional roles and responsibilities.
In recent years, a flurry of research activity, including several
meta-analyses (Allen et al. 2004; Eby et al. 2008; Underhill 2006), has
documented the benefits of mentoring relationships. The benefits of
productive mentorship include: greater earnings (Murrell and Tangri
1999; Smith, Smith, and Markham 2000), career advancement (Scandura
1992), enhanced job satisfaction (Wallace 2001), and increased
organizational commitment (Ashford and Saks 1996) together with reduced
employee turnover (Laband and Lentz 1995; Viator and Scandura 1991). In
addition to career rewards, proteges enjoy personal benefits through
enhanced self-esteem (Fagenson 1994; Johnson 2007), positive work
attitudes (Lankau and Scandura 2002), and increased motivation to seek
out new experiences (Spencer 2007) and achievable goals (Ramaswami and
Dreher 2007). Mentors stand to gain through the assistance on projects
provided by proteges, reputational status for developing new talent
within firms, and personal benefits of friendship, respect, and
recognition for their senior status and expertise (Allen et al. 2004;
Higgins and Thomas 2001; Kram 1985; Parise and Forret 2008).
Much of the research literature targets the benefits of mentoring,
yet substantial gaps remain in our understanding about who receives
mentorship and the different ways they may benefit from such
relationships. We set out to address several gaps in the literature.
First, past work tends to overlook individual and contextual variables
that may be relevant in understanding who becomes mentored (Burke and
McKeen 1997; Ragins and McFarlin 1990). We examine whether
career-oriented attitudes and personality characteristics of individuals
attract potential mentors, as well as how specific organizational
contexts facilitate mentoring relationships. Our analysis contributes to
the mentor literature through an examination of the personality
antecedents of mentoring and the moderating influence of organizational
context-related variables on career outcomes. Understanding the
differential receipt of mentoring and the conditions under which
mentoring leads to its demonstrated outcomes constitute important
avenues for extending our understanding of mentoring as a career
development tool. Second, the majority of studies focus on a narrow set
of extrinsic outcomes as indicators of the benefits of mentoring,
typically earnings and promotions. We consider a broader scope of career
outcomes, including both extrinsic and intrinsic rewards. This more
inclusive range of career benefits represents the larger
"package" of attributes highly prized by professionals
(Koberg, Boss, and Goodman 1998; Ragins and Cotton 1999). Third, recent
research suggests that having more than one mentor may be significantly
more beneficial than having a sole mentor during one's career (de
Janasz and Sullivan 2004; Higgins 2000; Higgins, Dobrow, and Chandler
2008). We empirically investigate whether there are in fact enhanced and
diverse career benefits derived from having a constellation of mentors.
Our paper seeks to address these gaps in the literature by
answering two research questions using data collected from practicing
lawyers. First, we ask: Who is most likely to receive mentorship over
the course of their career? We answer this question by examining how
certain individual characteristics and organizational contexts predict
the probability of being mentored and of having single versus multiple
mentors. Senior employees usually have considerable discretion in
deciding whether they will mentor someone and who they will mentor
(Allen, Poteet, and Russell 2000). In addition, not everyone who wants a
mentor may obtain one (Allen 2004). It is important then to determine
which individual characteristics are most attractive to potential
mentors. In addition, many junior professionals will not have access to
a senior person with whom to form a mentoring relationship because of
the pyramid shape of many organizations. Therefore, the organizational
size and context of the employment setting may also influence one's
chances of developing a mentoring relationship. This study employs a
longitudinal panel survey that offers a unique opportunity to evaluate
the relative impact of early career aspirations and organizational
setting on the likelihood of receiving mentorship.
Second, we ask: How does mentorship make a difference to the
careers of professionals? In addressing this question, we assess the
potential benefits of mentorship across a set of intrinsic (e.g., social
value of work and job satisfaction) and extrinsic (e.g., earnings and
perceived career success) career rewards. Based on previous studies, we
expect that having a mentor will translate into elevated earnings and
greater satisfaction with one's career progress (Laband and Lentz
1995; Scandura 1992; Wallace 2001). In addition, we expect that lawyers
who are mentored will feel that their work has more social value in that
it is important or meaningful to society. Many lawyers report that they
entered the practice of lawyer with the hopes of making a difference in
society and with socialization by senior colleagues they internalize
norms of altruism and belief in community service (Granfield and Koenig
1992; Wallace 1997). Professionals who are mentored are also more likely
to feel capable performing daily work tasks and more satisfied with
their job as they are continuously learning and advancing to accomplish
objectives with a higher level of competence than their non-mentored
colleagues (Wallace 2001). We examine how being mentored impacts on a
diverse set of intrinsic and extrinsic career outcomes. We add a further
layer, comparing developmental dynamics across single and multiple
mentor relationships.
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The Mentor-Protege Relationship and the Benefits of Mentoring
The term mentorship describes "relationships between a younger
adult and an older, more experienced adult [who] helps the younger
individual learn to navigate the adult world and the world of work"
(Kram 1985:2). Mentors are generally more experienced individuals who
have attained positions of hierarchical success within an organization
and provide support and direction to less experienced individuals
(Baugh, Lankau, and Scandura 1996). Mentoring in organizations is often
referred to as a developmental relationship between a protege and a more
senior and influential manager or professional (mentor) (Dreher and Cox
1996). Mentors share knowledge from their advanced experience and
prepare, even groom, junior-level colleagues for demanding work
assignments and career progress. Pivotal to the idea of mentorship is
the claim that mentors are committed to providing channels for upward
mobility and support to their proteges' careers (Ragins 1997:484).
A landmark study of the mentoring process was conducted by Kram
(1983, 1985; Kram and Isabella 1985) who interviewed 25 middle managers
and their mentors in a large public utility company. Kram (1985)
described two types of behaviors imported through the mentoring
relationship. The first is career-related support and includes those
aspects of mentoring that prepare the protege for career advancement.
These functions refer to the sponsorship, coaching, protection, exposure
and visibility, and challenging work assignments that are provided to
proteges. Career functions should positively affect proteges'
careers as evidenced by higher compensation and career advancement
(Ragins 1997). The career mentor function is possible because of the
senior individual's status, experience, and organizational
influence and serves the career goals of the protege by helping him or
her to "learn the ropes" of the organization, providing
opportunities for professional growth and achievement, and building
pathways to promotion (Allen et al. 2004; Ragins 1989). The second type
of support is psychosocial. This type of support addresses interpersonal
aspects of the relationship and enhances the protege's sense of
competence, self-image, and work-role effectiveness (Allen and Eby 2004;
Kram 1985). The psychosocial functions include role modeling,
counseling, and friendship that primarily serve to enhance
proteges' sense of competence, clarity, and sense of identity (Kram
1983:613-14). Through organizational and career socialization,
psychosocial mentoring positively impacts on proteges by helping them
form more realistic career expectations that contribute to enhanced job
satisfaction and career commitment (Ragins 1997; Wallace 2001). The two
mentor functions offer a stable foundation for the career development of
proteges and illuminate the process through which mentoring enhances
careers.
Hypothesis 1a: Lawyers who are mentored will receive greater career
rewards (earnings, perceived career success, social value of work, and
job satisfaction) than those who do not receive mentorship.
Single versus Multiple Mentors and the Benefits of Mentoring
Traditional definitions of the mentoring relationship usually refer
to a single master-apprentice mentor model that may no longer be
sufficient with recent changes in the workplace (de Janasz and Sullivan
2004; Higgins 2000). Rather, individuals may develop not one but
multiple, diverse mentoring relationships over the course of their
career to help them succeed professionally (Higgins 2000; Kram 1985). As
the mentor and protege grow and mature through their working
relationship, it may become necessary for one or both members to move on
to other developmental relationships (Baugh and Scandura 1999; Kram
1983). Mentors may take on new proteges as their early proteges move on
to either full independence or to develop new relationships with
different mentors. Over the course of one's career, an individual
may have several mentors who are beneficial in terms of organizational
assimilation and professional development at different career stages.
Having several mentors can provide proteges with different perspectives,
knowledge, and skills, as well as serve different mentoring functions
that may further contribute to a protege's career success (Baugh
and Scandura 1999; de Janasz and Sullivan 2004; Higgins et al. 2008).
Although the literature has recognized the existence of multiple
mentors, few studies have empirically investigated why some individuals
may have only one mentor whereas others have multiple mentors or the
career outcomes for individuals with multiple mentors in comparison with
those with a single mentor or norte at all (Baugh and Scandura 1999; de
Janasz and Sullivan 2004; Higgins and Thomas 2001).
Hypothesis 1b: Lawyers who are mentored by multiple mentors will
receive greater career rewards (earnings, perceived career success,
social value of work, and job satisfaction) than those who are mentored
by a single mentor or do not receive mentorship at all.
Mentorship in the Context of Legal Settings and the Likelihood of
Being Mentored
As Ragins notes "mentoring relationships do not occur in a
vacuum" (1997:487) and we must take into account the contextual
elements of the organizations where mentoring relationships may be
formed. There is, however, a notable lack of research on the
organizational contexts and cultures that may promote or deter the
formation of mentoring relationships (Ragins 1997; Young, Cady, and
Foxon 2006). We expect that the number of potential mentors in a
professional's workplace is related to the chances of becoming a
protege. That is, large firms are likely to have more available mentors
than smaller firms. A larger pool of potential mentors should also
increase the likelihood of a successful match between an eligible
protege and an interested mentor. In the case of law, large law firms
will have more lawyers compared to nonfirm settings (e.g., government,
private corporations) where a variety of other professional workers may
predominate or there are simply a very small number of lawyers employed
(Laband and Lentz 1995; Wallace 1995).
We also examine the extent to which the professional's first
job setting affects the likelihood of being mentored. Because mentorship
relationships are typically initiated early on in a person's
career, we expect that their first work setting is most influential in
determining access to potential mentors. Research suggests that in the
legal profession, of all the different possible employment settings, law
firms in particular emphasize apprentice-type relationships and
therefore should be most conducive to the early development of mentoring
relationships (Higgins 2000; Krakauer and Chen 2003; Ragins 1989). Law
firms are expected to endorse the mentoring model more so than other
settings because mentoring is consistent with the law firm's
cultural ethos. The staffing of law firms is fundamentally based on the
"Cravath System" (Dezalay and Garth 2004; Spangler 1986) where
the first tenet is in-house, on-the-job training of younger lawyers by
their senior colleagues. These associates train for a period of four to
eight years under the close supervision of senior lawyers or partners of
the firm. This extended probationary of employment leads to invitation
to join the partnership circle (or being punted from the firm or stalled
at mid-level as permanent associates or salaried partners) (Noonan and
Corcoran 2004). This scenario suggests that law firms offer work
arrangements highly conducive to fostering mentoring relationships.
Hypothesis 2: Lawyers whose first job was working in a law firm,
particularly a large law firm, are more likely to receive mentorship
than lawyers whose first job was in a smaller firm or a nonfirm setting
(e.g., government, private industry, solo practice).
Individual Characteristics and the Likelihood of Being Mentored
Potential mentors size up the opportunities (Gentry, Weber, and
Sadri 2008) and associated liabilities (Parise and Forret 2008) when
taking on new proteges. Social exchange theory offers a theoretical
footing for understanding the selection of proteges by mentors (Olian,
Carroll, and Giannantonio 1993). Social exchange theory suggests that
the formation of new relationships is rooted in an assessment of
perceived costs of participating in the relationship compared with the
perceived benefits (Thibault and Kelley 1959). If a relationship is
believed to provide more benefits than costs, the individual is more
likely to enter into a relationship. Thus, mentors are more likely to
select individuals as proteges whom they believe are most likely to be
highly successful (Allen et al. 2000). For example, if an individual
appears to have high potential, is ah above average performer and highly
motivated, he or she will be more attractive as a prospective protege
(Kram 1985; Noe 1988a; Olian et al. 1993). Mentors will choose
individuals as proteges whom they believe possess aptitudes and
competencies that increase the chances of the relationship being a
mutually satisfying experience with potential rewards for mentors (Allen
et al. 2000; Parise and Forret 2008). We aim to identify several of
these attributes that indicate to possible mentors the potential of
junior professionals as worthy proteges.
We examine three career-related variables and two personality
characteristics that may signal potential proteges' aptitude. These
characteristics may attract mentors because they identify individuals
who appear eager to learn, enjoyable to work with, and
achievement-oriented (Kram 1985). They may also reflect potential
proteges' drive to invest in their human capital and to initiate
mentoring with the goal of enhancing their career success (Turban and
Dougherty 1994; Wallace 2001). The three career-related variables
examined in this study include elite education, status achievement
goals, and career salience and are based on measures collected early in
the career history of each lawyer. (1) Two personality dimensions
include locus of control and depression. These variables are discussed
in greater detail below.
An individual's performance potential is a factor that may
influence their attractiveness to prospective mentors (Allen, Poteet,
and Burroughs 1997) and educational background may operate as a proxy
for potential when making training allocation decisions (Whitely,
Dougherty, and Dreher 1991). Educational background is often used to tap
workers' investments in their general human capital (Becker 1964),
but because lawyers have the same amount of education (e.g., a Bachelor
of Laws or J.D. degree) their academic background is often examined in
terms of whether they possess an elite education. Graduates from elite
law schools are well-known commodities in the legal labor market and
this information is likely available to and used by prospective mentors
in their selection decisions (Dinovitzer and Garth 2007; Laband and
Lentz 1995).
Individuals who have set goals for their careers are typically more
aware of their own work-related abilities and interests and are more
likely to seek additional job-related information and skills to ensure
success in achieving those goals (Noe 1988a). We examine the importance
the individual attaches to obtaining a position of traditional high
status within the legal profession (e.g., as a bencher, partner, leader
in a corporation, or through financial rewards). Lawyers who have set
out status achievement goals are likely to expend greater effort in
networking as a means to advancing their careers (Wayne et al. 1999). In
doing so, they are more likely to seek out mentoring relationships with
senior lawyers to accelerate their career progress and they are more
likely to be viewed as attractive potential proteges by senior
colleagues.
Career salience is the degree to which an individual identifies
psychologically with their career as a focal point of their self-image
(Lodahl and Kejner 1965) and a central endeavor in life (Bielby and
Bielby 1984). Those who are more committed to and enthusiastic about
their career are more likely to invest in learning and acquiring skills
to succeed in their career thereby enhancing their self-image. The
career mentoring functions of gaining exposure and visibility and taking
on challenging assignments are likely to be attractive to individuals
who are highly committed to their careers. Potential proteges will be
motivated to seek and obtain a mentor because being successful in their
careers is so directly tied to their self-image (Noe 1988a). Similarly,
senior individuals are more likely to view such individuals as
attractive potential proteges as evidenced by their dedication and
enthusiasm for hard work.
Personal empowerment, a sense of confidence and self-belief, offers
an important element in individuals' abilities to create mentoring
opportunities and to take advantage of resources offered through
mentoring relationships. Self-empowerment likely consists of a duality
between strong inner drive and a positive, enthusiastic approach to
one's professional work. This inner drive is commonly termed locus
of control, which is a stable personality trait that may motivate
individuals to invest in developmental activities, such as mentoring
relationships (Noe 1988a). Locus of control reflects the extent to which
individuals feel that rewards and outcomes are controlled by their own
actions rather than by external forces in their environment (Spector
1982). individuals with an internal locus of control tend to believe
that their job performance and career success are the result of their
own behavior and skills and under their own personal control (Rotter
1966). As a result, they are more likely to exert effort toward learning
and acquiring more skills and information by participating in
developmental activities, such as mentoring, which they anticipate will
lead to tangible career rewards (Spector 1982; Turban and Dougherty
1994). In contrast, individuals with an external locus of control tend
to believe that their personal success is beyond their control and
instead due largely to luck, fate, or the actions of others (Noe 1988a,
1988b). It is individuals who possess a strong internal locus of control
who will likely express a greater willingness to learn and acquire new
skills and will be more attractive to potential mentors (Allen 2004).
We also describe a positive, enthusiastic attitude toward
one's professional work as integral to self-empowerment. Research
generally focuses on the inverse of this optimism--negative affectivity,
or depression, which likely poses a barrier against the initiation of
mentoring relationships. Depressed individuals are recognized as less
productive, less confident, less motivated to seek challenging
assignments, and less enjoyable individuals with whom to work (Stewart
et al. 2003; Turban and Dougherty 1994). A negative outlook on life in
general, and one's legal career more specifically, may deter
potential mentors from selecting depressed individuals as proteges. As
well, depressed individuals perceive situations with cynicism and often
despair and are thus less motivated to actively further their careers by
seeking out potential mentors.
Hypothesis 3: individuals who are initially more career-oriented
and possess a strong sense of self-empowerment are more likely to
receive mentorship than lawyers who are less career-oriented and less
self-empowered.
Gender and Ethnicity and the Likelihood of Being Mentored
In the model predicting the likelihood of being mentored, potential
proteges' gender and ethnicity are also included. The mentoring
literature suggests that in professional or managerial occupations,
because mentors are more likely to be white men, women and ethnic
minorities encounter more barriers or difficulties in obtaining a mentor
compared with their white male counterparts (Dreher and Cox 1996).
Cross-gender and cross-racial mentoring relationships tend to be more
complicated, which may act as a deterrent for both potential proteges
and prospective mentors (Ensher and Murphy 1997; Noe 1988b; Ragins and
McFarlin 1990). Even if women and minorities recognize the importance of
having a mentor, they may not have the knowledge, skills, or networks
necessary to obtain a mentor and they may feel they have less access to
mentoring relationships than white men (Noe 1988b; Ragins and Cotton
1991). As a result, women and minorities may be excluded from the
informal networks where potential proteges meet mentors and be less
likely to obtain a mentor (Koberg et al. 1998). As well, white male
mentors may not consider women and minorities as suitable candidates for
proteges as they may be perceived to have less in common with, or to
pose a greater risk of failure, than their white male counterparts
(Blake-Beard 2001; Ragins and Cotton 1991).
Hypothesis 4: Women and ethnic minorities are less likely to
receive mentorship than lawyers who are majority group members.
DATA AND METHODS
The Sample
The data for this paper are drawn from a longitudinal panel survey
of Ontario lawyers collected in January 1990 and again in October 2002.
(2) In 1990, we selected a disproportionately stratified random sample
of Ontario lawyers from the membership records of the Law Society of
Upper Canada. The sample was stratified by gender to include equal
numbers of men and women called to the Ontario Bar between 1975 and
1990, a period in which the first sizable number of women entered law
practice. Ontario is an ideal setting in which to study broader legal
careers because the province is home to 41 percent of Canada's
lawyers, with the largest concentration working in the Greater Toronto
Area (GTA) (Kay and Hagan 2005). The GTA is arguably Canada's legal
capital with 48 percent of the province's lawyers (Kay, Masuch, and
Curry 2004:22) and one-quarter of the nation's lawyers (Kay and
Hagan 2005) based in this urban hub. Questionnaires were sent to a total
of 2,358 randomly selected lawyers from the Law Society's
membership records. The surveys received very favorable response rates.
The 1990 survey yielded a 68 percent response rate and the 2002 survey
received a response rate of 73 percent. (3) The total number of cases
included in the analysis (N = 741) is based on lawyers who responded to
both waves (1990 and 2002) of the survey and continue to practice law.
The lawyers in our sample are 12 to 27 years into their careers. These
data allow us a unique opportunity to examine mentorship among lawyers
through their work histories and retrospective reports on mentoring
across their careers.
Analytic Strategy
The measurement of mentorship deserves special attention. The
survey was designed to capture a broad range of mentoring experiences.
Therefore, instructions directed lawyers to consider informal mentoring
as well as formal mentoring programs and to consider mentoring (as help,
assistance, or guidance) that they received at any point during their
career (refer to Table 1 for the survey question). Our analyses consider
three possible experiences: singular mentor, multiple mentors, and none
whatsoever. The measurement of all concepts and variables included in
this analysis are detailed in Table 1.
It should also be noted that the measures of mentoring were
reasonably independent. The correlation between single and multiple
mentors was moderate (r = .45). As well, the zero-order correlations
among all of the other variables included in the analysis (available
from authors) indicate that there are no multicollinearity problems, as
none of the independent and control variables display unacceptably high
correlations.
We use logistic regression (Table 2) to predict the likelihood of
being mentored as well as the odds of obtaining a single versus multiple
mentors (Hypotheses 2-4). Logistic regression is appropriate because of
the dichotomous nature of the dependent variable tapping protege status.
In Model 1, we predict whether (coded 1) or not (coded 0) the lawyer
received mentoring during the course of his or her career. In Model 2,
we predict whether proteges had multiple mentors (coded 1) or a single
mentor (coded 0) in their mentoring experience in law.
It should be noted that particular exogenous variables were
measured in the first wave (1990) of the survey, whereas the outcome
variables (e.g., receiving mentorship in Table 2 and career rewards in
Table 3) were measured in the later wave (2002) of the survey. This
allows for stronger causal arguments, particularly in predicting who is
more likely to be mentored during their career. In predicting the
likelihood of being mentored, we rely on the first survey wave for
lawyers' gender and ethnicity, characteristics of first jobs, elite
legal education, status achievement goals, and career salience
variables. These variables are expected to be most relevant at early
career stages in shaping one's chances of receiving mentoring.
We use ordinary least squares (OLS) regression (Table 3) to examine
the impact of having any mentors (Hypothesis la) or multiple mentors
(Hypothesis lb) on the four career rewards. Each outcome variable is
regressed on two indicators of protege status, single mentor and
multiple mentors, as well as the variables included in Table 2 that tap
organizational context, career-related attitudes, gender, and ethnicity.
In addition, six control variables were included so that the models for
the career outcomes are properly specified. All variables were entered
into the regression equations simultaneously. In the OLS results
presented in Table 3, the variable single mentor is coded 1 for lawyers
who had a single mentor and 0 for lawyers who were not mentored and the
variable multiple mentors is coded 1 for lawyers who had multiple
mentors and 0 for those who were not mentored (the omitted comparison
category is lawyers without mentors).
Both unstandardized (b) and standardized ([beta]) regression
coefficients are presented in Table 3. The unstandardized coefficients
measure the influence of an independent variable on the outcome variable
in the actual untransformed metric units of the variables involved. This
is particularly useful for the results for earnings thereby allowing us
to assess the influence of the independent variables on the actual
annual salaries of lawyers in dollar amounts. For example, lawyers who
have had a mentor earn CDN$6,887 more than lawyers who have been without
a mentor, while lawyers with multiple mentors gained ah impressive
CDN$34,690 more than lawyers without mentors. The standardized
coefficients help us to compare the effects of different independent
variables, which are measured in different units, on the outcome
variables. This allows us to assess the relative influence of having one
mentor ([beta] = .024) or multiple mentors ([beta] = .141) on earnings,
for example, where multiple mentors have a considerably greater
beneficial effect.
RESULTS
Who Is Most Likely to Receive Mentorship?
Table 2 presents the results of multivariate logistic regression
that was used to estimate the probability that lawyers will receive any
mentorship during their professional career (Model 1) and the
probability of having multiple mentors versus a single mentor for those
who received mentorship (Model 2). Table 2 also includes odds ratios to
aid interpretation. We simultaneously regressed organizational context
of first job, individual characteristics, gender, and ethnicity on the
probability of receiving mentorship.
According to Model 1, organizational context makes a difference as
to who is more likely to be mentored, consistent with Hypothesis 2. The
odds of having had a mentor are better for lawyers whose first job was
in a law firm of over 20 lawyers (b = .778, [e.sup.b] = 2.177;
p<.05), and even more so if they started their career in a large law
firm with over 50 lawyers (b = 1.026, [e.sup.b] = 2.791;p < .001).
For both settings, the odds of having a mentor are more than double
those of lawyers who began their careers in small firms of less than 10
lawyers. This suggests that large law firms may best reflect an
organizational culture that supports the mentoring model through their
associate-to-partner tournaments and that firms with many lawyers have
more potential mentors available to assist junior lawyers.
Turning next to the individual characteristics, two variables have
statistically significant effects. Individuals who attach more salience
to their professional careers, specifically with the idea of having law
as a full-time and central occupation in their life, are significantly
advantaged in their opportunities to have a mentor (b = .258, [e.sup.b]
= 1.294; p <.05). Professionals possessing a strong internal sense of
control are more likely to receive mentoring (b = .261, [e.sup.b] =
1.298; p <.05) as hypothesized (Hypothesis 3). This pattern of
findings may indicate that individuals who demonstrate strong commitment
to their chosen profession as a central focus in their life and exhibit
determination and drive are more desirable to potential mentors.
Individuals with these qualities at the start of their careers may also
be more likely to seek out and enlist the support of mentors to further
their professional careers.
Last, and counter to Hypothesis 4, the odds that a male lawyer will
have a mentor are 41 percent less than that of a female lawyer (b =
-.534, [e.sup.b] = .586; p <.001). Interestingly, women are more
successful than men in obtaining mentorship in law. The results also
indicate that minority status has no statistically significant impact on
the likelihood of being mentored.
Model 2 shows the extent to which the organizational context and
individual characteristics differentiate between proteges who had
multiple mentors in contrast to those who had a single mentor. Only one
variable has a statistically significant effect at the .05 level and
that is whether or not the protege's first job was in a law firm of
more than 50 lawyers (b = .592, [e.sup.b] = 1.808;p <.05). Lawyers
working in these large law firms are 81 percent more likely than lawyers
in small firms (of less than 10 lawyers) to have experienced multiple
mentors across the course of their careers. Given that this
organizational context likely employs the largest number of lawyers in
any legal work setting, it offers the largest network of potential
lawyer-mentors. Moreover, these settings are more likely to have formal
mentoring programs. However, overall, individual and organizational
context characteristics that affect the likelihood of mentorship do not
appear relevant to predicting the number of mentors proteges secure over
the course of their careers.
Does Mentorship Make a Difference to the Careers of Professionals?
We examine the determinants of four career outcomes in Table 3 to
assess the impact of mentorship for lawyers in their mid- to later
career stages. Recall that lawyers in our study are all 12 to 27 years
along in their careers. We examine two extrinsic rewards (earnings and
perceived career success) and two intrinsic rewards (social value of
work and job satisfaction). Having a single mentor during one's
career significantly improves overall job satisfaction ([beta] = .11)
and the amount of social importance individuals attribute to their legal
work ([beta] = .07). The impact of a single mentor on these intrinsic
career rewards exists independently of the career rewards yielded from
work context, years of experience, areas of law, weekly hours invested
in law practice, elite law school education, and individual goals and
personality characteristics. However, contrary to Hypothesis la, having
a single mentor does not significantly increase earnings or
professionals' perceptions of career progress. Thus, a single
mentor enriches intrinsic career rewards, but is less effectual in
shaping professionals' extrinsic career rewards.
The best resource overall appears to be not one, but multiple
mentors. In fact, having multiple mentors significantly enriches
lawyers' careers across all four career outcomes. More is better.
By comparing the standardized coefficients we can see that having
multiple mentors has approximately twice the beneficial effect to having
a single mentor across all career rewards, independently of other
variables in our model. The benefits of multiple mentors are
particularly evident for the two extrinsic rewards; and in the case of
earnings, having multiple mentors yields a sizable earnings advantage of
approximately CDN$35,000 annually, over and above one's years of
experience, area of specialization, hours invested on a weekly basis,
elite education, and organizational work context. Similarly, individuals
with multiple mentors also achieve a satisfying level of career progress
([beta] =. 16), enjoy a sense of real social value to their legal work
([beta] =. 13), and report high levels of job satisfaction ([beta] =
.15), again controlling for the features of lawyers' work and
personal traits. These results support Hypothesis 1b that multiple
mentors deliver significant career rewards.
In addition, several other patterns of findings are worth noting.
First, working in larger firms is related to higher earnings, greater
perceived career progress and greater job satisfaction, whereas working
in smaller firms, solo practice, and other settings tends to be
correlated with labor that is perceived to make more of a contribution
to society. Second, several of the individual characteristics,
particularly career salience, internal locus of control, and depression,
are significantly related to career rewards, suggesting the salience of
personality and individual agency to our understanding of how career
rewards are distributed within organizations. Third, those who work
longer hours report more of all four of the career outcomes--a greater
investment in time spent of work appears to result in a career that is
more rewarding both intrinsically and extrinsically. Last, the
regression equations presented in Table 3 explain an impressive amount
of variation in earnings (51 percent), while less variance explained
among the other career rewards (e.g., ranging from 17 to 23 percent).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
This paper set out to ask two key questions regarding mentoring.
First, who is most likely to receive mentorship over the course of their
career? And second, how does mentorship make a difference to the careers
of professionals? In doing so, we also examined whether different
factors are related to having a single mentor versus multiple mentors
and whether there are greater benefits to having more mentors.
The results of this study show that organizational context is
important to understanding who is more likely to receive a mentoring
relationship. As predicted, mid- to large-sized law firms of 20 or more
lawyers offer superior mentoring opportunities, with the larger firms of
over 50 lawyers proving optimum for facilitating mentoring
relationships. Lawyers working in these settings are twice as likely to
receive mentorship compared with lawyers working in small firms. As
suggested earlier, law firms are more apt to offer mentoring programs
(formal or informal) because their structure and culture are reminiscent
of the Cravath System where senior members train junior lawyers in the
ways of the firm and law practice. While there have been changes to
hiring and promotion practices in law firms in recent years (Heinz et
al. 2005; Noonan and Corcoran 2004), it appears that the tradition of
the Cravath system of mentoring promising lawyers remains intact. In
contrast, other organizational settings, such as private industry or
in-house counsel for corporations, are perhaps not as concerned with the
professional development of junior members (at least not through
mentorship, per se) in their legal departments where lawyers often
representa small minority of the organization's employees.
Meanwhile, lawyers working in solo practice may face their own
challenges of seeking mentors outside their offices, ideally other sole
practitioners who could offer financial and management advice and
friendship and social support.
Future research might consider examining which specific
organizational characteristics associated with different work settings
facilitate or hinder the initiation and cultivation of mentoring
relationships. That is, are there specific structural features or
cultural workplace norms that are better suited for promoting
developmental relationships among professionals? To what extent does
mentoring occur interorganizationally versus intraorganizationally
(Thomas and Higgins 1996) or interoccupationally versus
intraoccupationally? Researchers need to explore mentoring outside
organizations and across professional designations. In addition, two
individual characteristics, career salience and internal locus of
control, are attributes of individuals that encourage mentoring
relationships. We argued that individuals who place greater emphasis on
full-time, long-term commitment to their careers are more likely to be
sought after by prospective mentors and/or more likely to seek out
mentors. Similarly, individuals with a strong internal locus of control
are more driven to take advantage of developmental opportunities, such
as mentoring that will enhance their job performance and contribute to
their career success. Career salience and locus of control may reflect
the protege's ambition to initiate a mentoring relationship and
these characteristics may also signal the individual as a potentially
productive and hard-working professional to possible mentors (Allen et
al. 2000; Young and Perrewe 2000).
In this study, we did not examine who initiated or sanctioned the
mentoring relationship. As a result, we still know little about how
individual characteristics and personality attributes affect who seeks a
mentor versus who is selected for mentorship (Chao 1997). It is
important to recognize both sides of the decision-making process
involved in determining which individuals receive mentoring (Olian et
al. 1988) That is, while potential proteges with certain characteristics
and traits may search for an appropriate mentor, this does not
necessarily guarantee that they will be mentored as the prospective
mentor also has a say in the formation of the relationship. Several
conditions must be met whereby the potential protege wishes to be
mentored by a particular mentor and the prospective mentor is interested
to assist that specific individual with his or her career (Laband and
Lentz 1995). While certain individual characteristics and personality
traits might be important in predicting which individuals attempt to
initiate mentoring relationships, these attributes may not be easily or
accurately observable to potential mentors who are also key to this
matching process. The individual characteristics examined in this study
may better reflect which junior professionals seek a mentor, rather than
which particular traits are identified by and attractive to prospective
mentors. The self-reported attributes are just that, and not necessarily
easily observable by colleagues working on a day-to-day basis with
potential proteges. This might explain why several of the individual
characteristics failed to significantly affect the likelihood of being
mentored, especially mentoring by several colleagues. Future research
might examine more directly how mentors assess junior colleagues in
terms of their attractiveness and potential as proteges (see, e.g.,
Kalbfleisch 2000; Michinov and Monteil 2002).
A surprising twist in this story of mentorship is that women,
rather than men, are more likely to receive mentorship during their
legal careers (see also Mobley et al. 1994). This finding is curious
given an impressive volume of literature that documents women's
marginalization within, and at times full out exclusion from,
traditionally male-dominated professions, such as law (see, e.g.,
Brockman 2001; Kay and Hagan 1995; Leiper 2006). How is it then that
women are more often the recipients of mentoring in the legal
profession? Are women more likely to actively seek out mentors as they
begin their careers, perhaps out of a sense of being
"outsiders" in a profession once argued to be too combative
and ill-suited for women's temperament (Mossman 2006)? Or is it
that other members of the profession are inclined to approach women, as
recent entrants to the profession, in an attempt to ease their
integration or even perceiving of them as in greater need of mentorship?
Future research needs to explore what encourages the development of
mentoring, especially mentoring of traditionally excluded or minority
groups within occupations (see, e.g., Murrell et al. 1999; Wallace and
Haines 2004).
Even if women are more likely have had a mentor, it is important to
recall that women are no more likely than men to have multiple mentors,
and it is multiple mentors that offer the most desirable career rewards,
specifically in terms of such tangibles as salaries and promotions.
Furthermore, mentorship, by one or many, occurs most often in larger law
firms--a sector of the profession that most often offers formal
mentoring programs (Kay et al. 2009). Formal mentor programs may offer
women and ethnic communities opportunities for guidance not commonly
afforded to these groups in the past, yet the quality of mentoring may
be inferior to more spontaneous, informal mentor arrangements (Scandura
and Williams 2001). Finally, women lawyers, compared with their male
peers, are more often mentored by other women. In our survey, we found
16 percent of women were mentored by women; meanwhile only 2 percent of
men were mentored by women. Mentoring research reveals that having a
male rather than female mentor significantly augments salaries for both
men and women proteges (Dreher and Cox 1996; Kay and Wallace 2009;
Ragins and Cotton 1999). Mentoring by women may be less effective
because women in the legal profession have not acquired the status and
influence comparable to their male colleagues, even as partners in law
firms (Epstein et al. 1995; Kay and Gorman 2008). The glass ceiling
confronting earlier cohorts of women lawyers has a cascade effect
whereby senior women's capacity to mentor new cohorts of women
lawyers is diminished.
Turning next to the second question addressed in this paper, we see
that having multiple mentors is far more beneficial to
professionals' careers than having a single mentor. Moreover, while
having one mentor enhances intrinsic career outcomes, it does not appear
to contribute to greater extrinsic rewards. Having either a series of
different mentors at different stages in the career or a group of
mentors at one time may offer diverse learning opportunities deficient
from singular mentor associations. In other words, a diversity of social
networks in the form of mentors may yield superior resources and
benefits. Different mentors may possess complementary qualities, a
portfolio of rich resources accessible to eager proteges. For example,
some mentors may be valued for their friendship, counseling, role
modeling, acceptance, and confirmation (e.g., psychosocial mentor
functions). In contrast, other mentors may be strategically positioned
to provide visibility and profile to senior management, introductions to
elite clientele and "rain-making" networks in the business
community, valued knowledge about negotiation tactics and deal making,
and even protection from politics within the workplace (e.g.,
career-related mentor functions). Single mentors may offer any
combination of mentor functions (though rarely a complete set of all
qualities and assets), but as a collective multiple mentors may prove to
be a powerful stock of resources. These mentors may work as a
coordinated team of sponsors or as disparate and unconnected contacts
that when called upon may produce valuable information and introductions
for junior professionals. Over the course of a career a sequence of
mentors may offer social resources that when tapped can open doors to
promotions (Murrell and Tangri 1999; Scandura 1992; Smith et al. 2000),
accelerate skill acquisition and reputational profile, enhances earnings
(Dreher and Cox 1996; Wallace 2001; Whitely et al. 1991), and even
provide advice and support to overcome barriers to advancement (such as
tensions among colleagues or family-work rime conflicts).
In closing, the current study has several limitations that should
be noted. First, we operationalize mentoring as the absence of mentoring
in comparison with the presence of one mentor or multiple mentors.
However, there are other ways to explore mentoring, such as the amount
of mentoring received, relationship length, or relationship quality (Eby
et al. 2008:265). Second, our study does not examine specific mentoring
behaviors and their differential impact on quality of mentoring and
career outcomes. Research that explores the substance of mentoring
behaviors is necessary to further advance theoretical understandings of
developmental relationships (see Higgins 2000; Higgins et al. 2008).
Third, while our study affords an opportunity to tap mentoring and
career development using longitudinal data, there remain questions
regarding the memory recall of established professionals as they recount
their mentoring experiences over career span. We encourage additional
studies that use controlled designs (e.g., experimental) and
longitudinal research that assesses mentoring and outcomes across time
(Eby et al. 2008; Higgins et al. 2008). Longitudinal research that
tracks mentorship at successive career stages could yield valuable
insights into the qualities of mentorship and the functions that are
most pivotal at each successive career stage or transition.
In conclusion, the results of this study show that individuals
benefit more from having multiple mentors over the course of their
career. The idea of a "constellation" of developmental
relationships echoes Kram's (1985) original scholarship and recent
work by Higgins (2000) and her colleagues (Higgins et al. 2008) that
contend most people draw on a broad and diverse range of individuals for
mentoring support during their work lives. It is important to note,
however, that the initial analysis predicting who is most likely to be
mentored was less relevant to predicting which proteges are more likely
to have multiple mentors. That is, the factors that distinguish who is
more or less attractive as a protege do not differentiate between who is
more likely to draw on the support of multiple mentors across their
career. Despite learning how having multiple mentors is extremely
beneficial, we can not conclude from the results of this study what it
takes to obtain more than one mentor over the course of a person's
career. Future research might explore how certain proteges are
successful in obtaining several mentors and the various developmental
functions that different mentors fulfill. Also, research needs to unpack
what composition and quantity of mentors is optimal. After all, for any
individual a winning line-up of mentors demands a suitable complement of
resources and talents, effective and advantageous to that
individual's professional competences and aspirations. That line-up
may mean only a small, elite squad of mentors, or one particularly
skilled mentor committed to the protege's advancement (Higgins
2000), or ah expansive network of mentors (Higgins et al. 2008) diverse
in abilities and willing to lend support as needed. The benefit of more
mentors is not necessarily a linear relationship (Baugh and Scandura
1999), but certainly the individual with more than one mentor is
merrier.
This research was supported by a research grant from the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Award
#410-2002-0308) and was made possible by the cooperation of the Law
Society of Upper Canada. The views expressed in this paper are those of
the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Law Society
of Upper Canada. We thank Suzanne Day and Katharine Zhang for valuable
research assistance. We gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments
offered by the former editor, Ralph Matthews, and the anonymous
reviewers at the Canadian Review of Sociology.
References
Allen, T.D. 2004. "Protege Selection by Mentors: Contributing
Individual and Organizational Factors." Journal of Vocational
Behavior 65:469-83.
Allen, T.D. and L.T. Eby. 2004. "Factors Related to Mentor
Reports of Mentoring Functions Provided: Gender and Relational
Characteristics." Sex Roles 50:129-39.
Allen, T.D., L.T. Eby, M.L. Poteet, E. Lentz and L. Lima. 2004.
"Career Benefits Associated with Mentoring for Proteges: A
Meta-Analysis." Journal of Applied Psychology 89:127-36.
Allen, T.D., M.L. Poteet and S.M. Burroughs. 1997. "The
Mentor's Perspective: A Qualitative Inquiry and Future Research
Agenda." Journal of Vocational Behavior 51:70-89.
Allen, T.D., M.L. Poteet and J.E.A. Russell. 2000. "Protege
Selection by Mentors: What Makes the Difference?" Journal of
Organizational Behavior 21:271-82.
Ashford, B.K. and A.M. Saks. 1996. "Socialization Tactics:
Longitudinal Effects on Newcomer Adjustment." Academy of Management
Journal 39:149-78.
Baugh, S.G., M.J. Lankau and T.A. Scandura. 1996. "An
Investigation of the Effects of Protege Gender on Responses to
Mentoring." Journal of Vocational Behavior 49:309-23.
Baugh, S.G. and T.A. Scandura. 1999. "The Effect of Multiple
Mentors on Protege Attitudes toward the Work Setting." Journal of
Social Behavior and Personality 14:503-22.
Becker, G.S. 1964. Human Capital. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Bielby, D.D. and W.T. Bielby. 1984. "Work Commitment, Sex Role
Attitudes, and Women's Employment." American Sociological
Review 49:234-47.
Blake-Beard, S.D. 2001. "Taking a Hard Look at Formal
Mentoring Programs: A Consideration of Potential Challenges Facing
Women." Journal of Management Development 20:331-45.
Brockman, J. 2001. Gender in the Legal Profession. Vancouver, BC:
University of British Columbia Press.
Burke, R.J. and C.A. McKeen. 1997. "Benefits of Mentoring
Relationships among Managerial and Professional Women: A Cautionary
Tale." Journal of Vocational Behavior 51:43-57.
Chao, G.T. 1997. "Mentoring Phases and Outcomes." Journal
of Vocational Behavior 51: 15-28.
de Janasz, S.C. and S.E. Sullivan. 2004. "Multiple Mentoring
in Academe: Developing the Professional Network." Journal of
Vocational Behavior 64:263-83.
Dezalay, Y. and B.G. Garth. 2004. "The Confrontation between
the Big Five and Big Law: Turf Battles and Ethical Debates as Contests
for Professional Credibility." Law and Social Inquiry 29:615-38.
Dinovitzer, R. and B.G. Garth. 2007. "Lawyers'
Satisfaction in the Process of Structuring Legal Careers." Law and
Society Review 41:1-50.
Dreher, G.F. and T.H. Cox. 1996. "Race, Gender, and
Opportunity: A Study of Compensation Attainment and the Establishment of
Mentoring Relationships." Journal of Applied Psychology 81:297-308.
Ducharme, L.J. and J.K. Martin. 2000. "Unrewarding Work,
Coworker Support, and Job Satisfaction: A Test of the Buffering
Hypothesis." Work and Occupations 27:22343.
Eby, L.T., T.D. Allen, S.C. Evans, T. Ng and D.L. DuBois. 2008.
"Does Mentoring Matter? A Multidisciplinary Meta-Analysis Comparing
Mentored anal Non-Mentored Individuals."
Journal of Vocational Behavior 72:254-67.
Ensher, E.A. and S.E. Murphy. 1997. "Effects of Race, Gender,
Perceived Similarity, and Contact on Mentor Relationships." Journal
of Vocational Behavior 50:460-81.
Epstein, C.F., R. Saute, B. Oglensky and M. Gever. 1995.
"Glass Ceilings and Open Doors: Women's Advancement in the
Legal Profession." Fordham Law Review 62:291-447.
Fagenson, E.A. 1994. "Perceptions of Proteges' vs
Nonproteges' Relationships with Their Peers, Superiors, and
Departments." Journal of Vocational Behavior 45:55-78.
Gentry, W.A., T.J. Weber and G. Sadri. 2008. "Examining
Career-Related Mentoring and Managerial Performance Across Cultures: A
Multilevel Analysis." Journal of Vocational Behavior 72:241-53.
Granfield, R. and T. Koenig. 1992. "Pathways into Elite Law
Firms: Professional Stratification and Social Networks." Research
in Politics and Society 4:325-51.
Greenhaus, J.H., S. Parasuraman and W.V. Wormley. 1990.
"Effects of Race on Organizational Experiences, Job Performance
Evaluations, and Career Outcomes." Academy of Management Journal
33:64-86.
Hagan, J., S. Rippl, K. Boehnke and H. Merkens. 1999. "The
Interest in Evil: Hierarchic Self-Interest and Right-Wing Extremism
among East and West German Youth." Social Science Research
28:162-83.
Heinz, J.P., R.L. Nelson, R.L. Sandefur and E.O. Laumann. 2005.
Urban Lawyers: The New Social Structure of the Bar. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Higgins, M.C. 2000. "The More, the Merrier? Multiple
Developmental Relationships and Work Satisfaction." Journal of
Management Development 19:277-96.
Higgins, M.C., S.R. Dobrow and D. Chandler. 2008. "Never Quite
Good Enough: The Paradox of Sticky Developmental Relationships for Elite
University Graduates." Journal of Vocational Behavior 72:207-24.
Higgins, M.C. and D.A. Thomas. 2001. "Constellations and
Careers: Toward Understanding the Effects of Multiple Developmental
Relationships." Journal of Organizational Behavior 22:223-47.
Hull, K. 1999. "The Paradox of the Contented Female
Lawyer." Law and Society Review 33:687702.
Johnson, W.B. 2007. "Student-Faculty Mentorship
Outcomes." Pp. 189-210 in Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring, edited
by T.D. Allen and L.T. Eby. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kalbfleisch, P.J. 2000. "Similarity and Attraction in Business
and Academic Environments: Same and Cross-Sex Mentoring
Relationships." Review of Business 21:58-61.
Kay, F.M. and E. Gorman. 2008. "Gender in the Legal
Profession." Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences 4:299-332.
Kay, F.M. and J. Hagan. 1995. "The Changing Opportunities for
Partnership for Men and Women Lawyers during the Transformation of the
Modern Law Firm." Osgoode Hall Law Journal 32:413-56.
Kay, F.M. and J. Hagan. 1998. "Raising the Bar: The Gender
Stratification of Law Firm Capitalization." American Sociological
Review 63: 728-43.
Kay, F.M. and J. Hagan. 2003. "Building Trust: Social Capital,
Distributive Justice and Loyalty to the Firm." Law and Social
Inquiry 28:483-519.
Kay, F.M. and J. Hagan. 2005. "Social Mobility and
Hierarchical Structure in Law Practice." Pp. 281-311 in
Reorganization and Resistance: Legal Professions Confront a Changing
World, edited by W. Felstiner. Oxford: Hart Publishing of Oxford.
Kay, F.M., J. Hagan and P. Parker. 2009. "Principals in
Practice: The Importance of Mentorship in the Early Stages of Career
Development." Law & Policy 31:69-110.
Kay, F.M., C. Masuch and P. Curry. 2004. Diversity and Change: The
Contemporary Legal Profession in Ontario. Toronto: Law Society of Upper
Canada.
Kay, F.M. and J.E. Wallace. 2009. "Mentors as Social Capital:
Gender, Mentor Capitalization, anal Career Rewards in Law
Practice." Sociological Inquiry 79:418-52.
Koberg, C.S., R.W. Boss and E. Goodman. 1998. "Factors and
Outcomes Associated with Mentoring among Health-Care
Professionals." Journal of Vocational Behavior 53:58-72.
Krakauer, L. and C.P. Chen. 2003. "Gender Barriers in the
Legal Profession: Implications for Career Development of Female Law
Students." Journal of Employment Counseling 40:65-79.
Kram, K.E. 1983. "Phases of the Mentor Relationship."
Academy of Management Journal 26:608-25.
Kram, K.E. 1985. Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in
Organizational Life. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Kram, K.E. and L.A. Isabella. 1985. "Mentoring Alternatives:
The Role of Peer Relationships in Career Development." Academy of
Management Journal 28:110-32.
Laband, D.N. and B.F. Lentz. 1995. "Workplace Mentoring in the
Legal Profession." Southern Economic Journa161: 783-802.
Lankau, M.J. and T.A. Scandura. 2002. "Ah Investigation of
Personal Learning in Mentoring Relationships: Content, Antecedents and
Consequences." Academy of Management Journal 45:779-90.
Leiper, J.M. 2006. Bar Codes: Women in the Legal Profession.
Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press.
Levenson, H. 1973. "Multidimensional Locus of Control in
Psychiatric Patients." Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology 41:397-404.
Lodahl, T. and M. Kejner. 1965. "The Definition and
Measurement of Job Involvement." Journal of Applied Psychology
49:24-33.
Michinov, E. and J. Monteil. 2002. "The Similarity-Attraction
Relationship Revisited: Divergence between the Affective and Behavioral
Facets of Attraction." European Journal of Social Psychology
32:485-500.
Mobley, G.M., C. Jaret, K. Marsh and Y. Lira. 1994.
"Mentoring, Job Satisfaction, Gender, and the Legal
Profession." Sex Roles 31:79-98.
Mossman, M.J. 2006. The First Women Lawyers: A Comparative Study of
Gender, Law and the Legal Professions. Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.
Murrell, A., J. Faye, J. Crosby and R.J. Ely. 1999. Mentoring
Dilemmas: Developmental Relationships within Multicultural
Organizations. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Murrell, A.J. and S.S. Tangri. 1999. "Mentoring at the
Margin." Pp. 211-24 in Mentoring Dilemmas: Developmental
Relationships within Multicultural Organizations, edited by A.J.
Murrell, F.J. Crosby and R.J. Ely. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Noe, R.A. 1988a. "An Investigation of the Determinants of
Successful Assigned Mentoring Relationships." Personnel Psychology
41:457-79.
Noe, R.A. 1988b. "Women and Mentoring: A Review and Research
Agenda." Academy of Management Review 13:65-78.
Noonan, M.C. and M.E. Corcoran. 2004. "The Mommy Track and
Partnership: Temporary Delay or Dead End?" The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science 596:130-50.
Olian, J.D., S.J. Carroll and C.M. Giannantonio. 1993. "Mentor
Reactions to Proteges: An Experiment with Managers." Journal of
Vocational Behavior 43:266-78.
Olian, J.D., S.J. Carroll, C.M. Giannantonio and D.B. Feren. 1988.
"What do Proteges Look for in a Mentor? Results of Three
Experimental Studies." Journal of Vocational Behavior 33: 15-37.
Parise, M.R. and M.L. Forret. 2008. "Formal Mentoring
Programs: The Relationship of Program Design and Support to
Mentors' Perceptions of Benefits and Costs." Journal of
Vocational Behavior 72:225-40.
Radloff, L.S. 1977. "The CES-D Scale: A Self-Report Depression
Scale for Use in the General Population." Applied Psychological
Measurement 1:385-401.
Ragins, B.R. 1989. "Barriers to Mentoring: The Female
Manager's Dilemma." Human Relations 42:1-22.
Ragins, B.R. 1997. "Diversified Mentoring Relationships in
Organizations: A Power Perspective." Academy of Management Review
22:482-521.
Ragins, B.R. and J.L. Cotton. 1991. "Easier Said Than Done:
Gender Differences in Perceived Barriers to Gaining a Mentor."
Academy of Management Journal 34:939-51.
Ragins, B.R. and J.L. Cotton. 1999. "Mentor Functions and
Outcomes: A Comparison of Men and Women in Formal and Informal Mentoring
Relationships." Journal of Applied Psychology 84:529-50.
Ragins, B.R. and. D. McFarlin. 1990. "Perceptions of Mentor
Roles in Cross-Gender Mentoring Relationships." Journal of
Vocational Behavior 37:321-39.
Ramaswami, A. and G.F. Dreher. 2007. "The Benefits Associated
with Workplace Mentoring Relationships." Pp. 211-32 in Blackwell
Handbook of Mentoring, edited by T.D. Allen and L.T. Eby. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Rotter, J.B. 1966. "Generalized Expectancies for Internal
versus External Control of Reinforcement." Psychological Monographs
80:1014-53.
Scandura, T.A. 1992. "Mentorship and Career Mobility: An
Empirical Investigation." Journal of Organizational Behavior
13:169-74.
Scandura, T.A. and E.A. Williams. 2001. "An Investigation of
the Moderating Effects of Gender on the Relationships between Mentorship
Initiation and Protege Perceptions of Mentoring Functions." Journal
of Vocational Behavior 59:342-63.
Smith, J.W., W.J. Smith and S.E. Markham. 2000. "Diversity
Issues in Mentoring Academic Faculty." Journal of Career
Development 26:251-62.
Spangler, E. 1986. Lawyers for Hire: Salaried Professionals at
Work. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Spector, P.E. 1982. "Behavior in Organizations as a Function
of Employee Locus of Contral." Psychological Bulletin 91:482-97.
Spencer, R. 2007. "Naturally Occurring Mentoring Relationships
Involving Youth." Pp. 98-118 in Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring,
edited by T.D. Allen and L.T. Eby. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stewart, W.F., J.A. Ricci, E. Chee, S.R. Hahn and D. Morganstein.
2003. "Cost of Lost Productive Work Time among US Workers with
Depression." The Journal of the American Medical Association
289:3135-44.
Thibault, J.W. and H.H. Kelley. 1959. The Social Psychology of
Groups. New York: John Wiley.
Thomas, D.A. and M.C. Higgins. 1996. "Mentoring as an
Extra-Organizational Activity: Lessons from Minority Experience."
Pp. 268-81 in Boundaryless Careers: Work, Mobility and Learning in the
New Organizational Era, edited by M.B. Arthur and D.M. Rousseau. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Turban, D.B. and T.W. Dougherty. 1994. "Role of Protege
Personality in Receipt of Mentoring and Career Success." Academy of
Management Journal 37:688-702.
Underhill, C.M. 2006. "The Effectiveness of Mentoring Programs
in Corporate Settings: A Meta Analytical Review of the Literature."
Journal of Vocational Behavior 68:292-307.
Viator, R.E. and T.A. Scandura. 1991. "A Study of
Mentor-Protege Relationships in Large Public Accounting Firms."
Accounting Horizons 5:20-30.
Wallace, J.E. 1995. "Organizational and Professional
Commitment in Professional and Nonprofessional Organizations."
Administrative Science Quarterly 40:228-55.
Wallace, J.E. 1997. "It's About Time: A Study of Hours
Worked and Work Spillover among Law Firm Lawyers." Journal of
Vocational Behavior 50:227-48.
Wallace, J.E. 2001. "The Benefits of Mentoring for Female
Lawyers." Journal of Vocational Behavior 58:366-91.
Wallace, J.E. and V.A. Haines. 2004. "The Benefits of
Mentoring for Engineering Students." Journal of Women and
Minorities in Science and Engineering 10:377-91.
Wayne, S.J., R.C. Liden, M.L. Kraimer and I.K. Graf. 1999.
"The Role of Human Capital, Motivation and Supervisor Sponsorship
in Predicting Career Success." Journal of Organizational Behavior
20:577-95.
Whitely, W., T.W. Dougherty and G.F. Dreher. 1991.
"Relationship of Career Mentoring for Early Career Managers'
and Professionals' Early Career Progress." Academy of
Management Journal 34:331-50.
Young, A.M., S. Cady and M.J. Foxon. 2006. "Demystifying
Gender Differences in Mentoring: Theoretical Perspectives and Challenges
for Future Research on Gender and Mentoring." Human Resource
Development Review 5:148-75.
Young, A.M. and P.L. Perrewe. 2000. "What Did You Expect? An
Examination of Career-Related Support and Social Support among Mentors
and Proteges." Journal of Management 26:611-32.
FIONA M. KAY
Queen' s University
JEAN E. WALLACE
The University of Calgary
(1) These three variables (elite education, status achievement
goals, and career salience) were measured in the first wave of our
survey (1990) when we began collecting detailed work history information
from each lawyer. With each additional wave of the survey, we were able
to build a cumulative work history of transitions in earnings,
employment status, promotions, and areas of practice. The first wave
(1990) offers the opportunity to tap lawyers' professional goals
and their career plans (e.g., how central they expected their legal
career to be in life, as full-time or less than full-time practice) at
the point of early career progress. Questions about legal education were
captured as well in this first survey.
(2) Note that in 1996 we also conducted another wave of data
collection using this same sample yielding a 70 percent response rate.
However, we draw information only from the first wave (1990) where
demographics and early work histories are recorded and from the most
recent panel (2002), which provides contemporary data on current
professional positions and a retrospective on mentoring relationships.
(3) A common problem plaguing longitudinal research designs is
panel attrition--the loss of survey participants over time with
successive waves of data collection (due to incorrect mailing addresses,
inability to track respondents, death, and refusal to continue
participation). The accuracy of longitudinal data depends on respectable
response rates. Our combined average of 70 percent across the three
waves of the panel survey provides some assurance of a representative
sample across time.
Fiona M. Kay, Department of Sociology, Queen's University, 99
University Avenue, D-431 Mackintosh-Corry Hall, Kingston, ON, Canada K7L
3N6. E-mail: kayf@queensu.ca
Table 1
Description of Measures
Mentoring Lawyers were instructed to answer a series of questions
about "informal or formal help, assistance or guidance" that they
received during their career in law. The specific question read:
"At any point in your legal career was there anyone who acted as
your informal or formal advisor/mentor (someone who looks out for
you or gives you advice)?" The response categories included: (1)
yes, there was one person who acted as my advisor/mentor; (2) yes,
there was more than one person who acted as my advisor/mentor; and
(3) no. The responses were recoded into three separate variables:
MENTOR: Lawyers with any mentor versus none; MENTOR1: Lawyers with
one mentor versus other possibilities (more than one or none at
all); and MULTMENT: Lawyers with multiple mentors versus those with
one or no mentors
Dependent variables
Earnings is measured by annual earnings after business deductions
and before taxes in the year before the survey
Perceived career success is measured by two items from Greenhaus,
Parasuraman, and Wormley (1990) and Wallace (2001): This is the
kind of position I expected to hold at this stage of my career; and
I have made good progress toward meeting my overall career goals
([alpha] = .83)
Social value of work is measured by three items that tap the
importance respondents place on having the following in their job:
influence in the community, helping people, and opportunity to be
of service to society to respondents (1 = not at all important to 5
= extremely important) ([alpha] = .81)
Job satisfaction is measured by 10 items adapted from Ducharme and
Martin (2000) and (Hul11999): The pay is good; I have the freedom
to decide what I do in my job; The benefits are good; The job allows
me to use my talents and legal skills; The work is intellectually
challenging; The job gives me a feeling of accomplishment; I look
forward to coming to work; I find real enjoyment in my work; I have
stayed in this job because of financial necessity (Reverse-coded);
The job security is good (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly
agree) ([alpha] = .81)
Organizational context is measured by a series of dummy coded
variables that include: Firm >50 includes law firms of 50 or more
lawyers; Firm 20-49 includes law firms of 20-49 lawyers; Firm 10-19
includes law firms of 10-19 lawyers; Firm less than 10 lawyers
includes law firms of two to nine lawyers are coded 1 (comparison
category); Solo practice includes sole practitioners; and Other
settings includes practicing law in other settings (government,
corporation, legal aid or law clinic, private industry, and other
workplaces). Note that in Table 2 this measure reflects lawyers'
first job, whereas in Table 3 this measure taps their current job
Individual characteristics
Elite education is measured by the lawyer's law school where
University of Toronto is considered elite and coded 1 and all other
law schools are coded 0 (measured in Wave 1 1990 survey)
Status achievement goals is measured by items developed by Kay and
Hagan (1998, 2003) that tap the importance the respondent places on
achieving the following goals for his or her professional
advancement: bencher in law society, seniority in large law firm,
seniority in medium or small law firm, leader in a corporation, and
financial rewards (1 = not important to 4 = ver2/important)
(measured in Wave 1 1990 survey) ([alpha] = .60)
Career salience is measured by a single item adapted from Bielby
and Bielby (1984): In the long run, which of the following career
patterns comes closest to what you would prefer? (1 = not working,
2 = half-time or less, 3 = three-quarter time or full-time with
numerous sabbaticals, 4 = full-time) (measured in Wave 1 1990 survey)
Locus of control is measured by seven items adapted from Levenson
(1973) and Hagan et al. (1999): I am responsible for my own
success; I can do just about anything I really set my mind to; My
misfortunes are the result of mistakes I have made; I am
responsible for my failures; The really good things that happen to
me are mostly luck (Reverse-coded); There is no sense to planning a
lot--if something good is going to happen it will (Reverse-coded);
Most of my problems are due to bad breaks (Reverse-coded) (1 =
strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) ([alpha] = .73)
Depression is measured by Radloff's (1977) 16-item scale that asks:
How many days in the past week (0-7) have you: felt you just
couldn't get going; felt sad; had trouble getting to sleep or
staying asleep; felt that everything was an effort; felt lonely;
felt you couldn't shake the blues; had trouble keeping your mind on
what you were doing; felt you were worrying a lot about little
things; felt tense or anxious; felt restless; felt annoyed with
things or people; felt angry; felt like yelling at someone; had
aches and pains; had headaches; felt weak all over ([alpha] = .89)
Gender and ethnicity
Gender (male) is coded 1 for males and 0 for females (measured in
Wave 1 1990 survey)
Ethnic minority is coded 1 for self-identified ethnic minority and
0 for others (measured in Wave 1 1990 survey)
Control variables (for Table 3)
Marital status is coded 1 for lawyers who are married or
cohabitating and 0 for others
Parental status is coded 1 for lawyers who are parents and 0 for
those who are not
Prestige of field was computed following (Kay and Hagan 1998) by
taking the mean average score accorded by respondents to each field
of law (1 - ver2/low to 10 = very high prestige). Scores were then
assigned to field of law reported as area in which respondent
practices most often (range = 3.52 for landlord & tenant to 7.17
for taxation)
Work experience was computed by subtracting the year the lawyer was
called to the Bar from the year of the survey (2002)
Average weekly hours was computed by multiplying the self-reported
number of hours worked each workday by 5 and adding the average
hours worked on the weekends
Toronto was coded 1 if the lawyer worked in the GTA and 0 if they
did not
Table 2
Logistic Regression Results Predicting the Probability of Having
Any Mentor (Model 1) and Having Multiple Mentors versus
One Mentor (Model 2)
Model 1
Had any mentor
Variables b Exp(b)
Organizational context (first job) (a)
Firm > 50 1.026 *** 2.791
Firm 20-49 .778 * 2.177
Firm 10-19 .482 1.620
Solo practice .159 1.172
Other settings -.260 .771
Individual characteristics
Elite education -.214 .808
Status achievement goals .023 1.023
Career salience .258 * 1.294
Internal locus of control .261 * 1.298
Depression .067 1.070
Gender (male = 1) -.534 *** .586
Ethnic minority -.208 .812
Constant -1.263 .283
-2 log likelihood 931.857
[chi square] (df) 43.46(12) ***
Model 2
Had multiple mentors
Variables b Exp(b)
Organizational context (first job) (a)
Firm > 50 .592 * 1.808
Firm 20-49 .639 1.894
Firm 10-19 -.173 .841
Solo practice .140 1.150
Other settings .093 1.098
Individual characteristics
Elite education .088 1.093
Status achievement goals -.193 .825
Career salience .063 1.065
Internal locus of control .052 1.053
Depression -.001 .999
Gender (male = 1) .095 1.100
Ethnic minority .425 1.529
Constant .410 1.507
-2 log likelihood 606.392
[chi square] (df) 9.14(12) ***
Note: Unstandardized regression coefficients and exponentiated
coefficients are displayed.
(a) Excluded category is small firms of two to nine lawyers.
* p <.05.
*** p <.001 (one-tailed test).
Table 3
OLS Regression Models of Career Rewards among Lawyers
Earnings
b [beta]
Single mentor (a) 6,886.902 .024
Multiple mentors (a) 34,690.243 .141 ***
Organizational context (current job) (b)
Firm >50 178,409.470 .450 ***
Firm 20-49 75,712.172 .109 ***
Firm 10-19 45,009.393 .062 *
Solo practice -4,923.983 -.016
Other settings 2,651.360 .011
Individual characteristics
Elite education 28,205.206 .078 **
Status achievement goals 8,248.112 .045
Career salience 18,055.337 .113 ***
Internal locus of control 9,324.105 .040
Depression -386.938 -.003
Gender (male = 1) 29,780.949 .122 ***
Ethnic minority -11,066.972 -.022
Controls
Marital status -10,194.156 -.032
Parental status 2,886.080 .009
Prestige of field 10,211.931 .079 **
Work experience 2,218.177 .073 **
Work hours 2,287.146 .196 ***
Toronto 26,156.090 .108 ***
Constant -229,526.300
[R.sup.2] .506
Career progress
b [beta]
Single mentor (a) .127 .053
Multiple mentors (a) .339 .164 ***
Organizational context (current job) (b)
Firm >50 .500 .150 ***
Firm 20-49 .187 .032
Firm 10-19 -.002 .000
Solo practice -.185 -.069 *
Other settings .106 .050
Individual characteristics
Elite education .036 .012
Status achievement goals -.093 -.060 *
Career salience .134 .100 **
Internal locus of control .261 .134 ***
Depression -.207 -.188 ***
Gender (male = 1) .031 .015
Ethnic minority -.282 -.068 *
Controls
Marital status .015 .006
Parental status -.090 -.035
Prestige of field -.082 -.075 *
Work experience -.006 -.025
Work hours .012 .126 ***
Toronto .025 .012
Constant 2.057
[R.sup.2] .166
Social value
b [beta]
Single mentor (a) .161 .073 *
Multiple mentors (a) .239 .126 ***
Organizational context (current job) (b)
Firm >50 -.365 -.119 **
Firm 20-49 .344 .064 *
Firm 10-19 -.219 -.039
Solo practice .306 .125 ***
Other settings .446 .230 ***
Individual characteristics
Elite education .029 .010
Status achievement goals -.119 -.084
Career salience .034 .027
Internal locus of control .028 .015
Depression -.111 -.109 ***
Gender (male = 1) .030 .016
Ethnic minority -.030 -.008
Controls
Marital status .187 .076 *
Parental status -.138 -.058
Prestige of field -.187 -.185 ***
Work experience -.002 -.009
Work hours .008 .087 **
Toronto -.076 -.041
Constant 4.026
[R.sup.2] .181
Job satisfaction
b [beta]
Single mentor (a) .108 .074 *
Multiple mentors (a) .189 .150 ***
Organizational context (current job) (b)
Firm >50 .271 .133 ***
Firm 20-49 .294 .083 **
Firm 10-19 -.063 -.017
Solo practice -.185 -.114 **
Other settings .251 .196 ***
Individual characteristics
Elite education .040 .022
Status achievement goals -.073 -.077 *
Career salience .082 .100 **
Internal locus of control .164 .138 ***
Depression -.156 -.233 ***
Gender (male = 1) .055 .044
Ethnic minority -.221 -.087 **
Controls
Marital status .004 .002
Parental status -.114 -.073 *
Prestige of field -.021 -.031
Work experience -.011 -.072 **
Work hours .005 .080 **
Toronto .032 .026
Constant 3.031
[R.sup.2] .232
Note: Unstandardized (b) and standardized (P) regression coefficients
are displayed.
(a) Excluded category is lawyers without mentors.
(b) Excluded category is small law firms of less than 10 lawyers.
* p<.05.
** p<.01.
*** p <.001 (one-tailed test).
