An investigation of mentoring and socialization among law faculty

Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning Vol. 17, No. 1, February 2009, 41–52

An investigation of mentoring and socialization among law faculty Ray K. Haynesa* and Joseph M. Petroskob a

School of Education, Department of Instructional Systems Technology, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA; bCollege of Education and Human Development, Department of Leadership, Foundations and Human Resource Education, University of Louisville, USA (Received 14 June 2007; final version received 15 May 2008) Taylor and Francis Ltd CMET_A_366022.sgm

Mentoring 10.1080/13611260802658520 1361-1267 Original Taylor 102009 17 [email protected] RayHaynes 00000March &Article Francis & (print)/1469-9745 Tutoring 2009 (online)

This study examined mentoring and organizational socialization among law faculty at American Bar Association (ABA) approved law schools. Data obtained from respondents (n = 298) captured the types of mentoring (formal or informal) occurring in law schools and faculty perceptions of the effectiveness of each type of mentoring. Comparative analysis was used to examine mentoring as an antecedent of organizational socialization by comparing senior mentored faculty to senior non-mentored faculty, junior formally mentored faculty to junior faculty with more informal types of mentoring, male to female faculty, and majority to non-majority faculty. Results indicated that senior mentored faculty had higher mean scores than senior non-mentored faculty on two of the six organizational socialization subscales. However, organizational socialization differences were not significant for other comparisons. The findings regarding mentoring are discussed within the context of diversity and suggestions for future research are provided. Keywords: mentoring; formal mentoring; informal mentoring; organizational socialization; law faculty; diversity

Protégés involved in mentoring relationships generally receive both career and psychosocial support from their mentors (Kram, 1985). Career support, also known as instrumental support, helps the protégé advance professionally, and psychosocial support fosters the social and emotional well-being of the protégé. Mentoring has long been publicized as essential to one’s career growth and development, and the belief that mentoring facilitates career development has been supported by previous research and a meta-analytic study of mentoring and career development. The meta-analysis found that mentoring is beneficial to career development; however, the career benefits were contingent on the type of mentoring received (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004). The distinction of mentoring type is important from a mentoring efficacy and outcomes perspective, and mentoring research must build understanding about the differences associated with mentoring types. This study is important because it is rooted in the reality that contemporary organizational mentoring now occurs in two forms: formal and informal. Unlike informal mentoring, formal mentoring is a relatively recent developmental process that began in the late 1970s and early 1980s as a way to integrate, develop and socialize women and people of color into the American workforce (Gunn, 1995). Given the diversification *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] ISSN 1361-1267 print/ISSN 1469-9745 online © 2009 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/13611260802658520 http://www.informaworld.com

42

R.K. Haynes and J.M. Petrosko

of contemporary organizations, we recognize the probability that both formal and informal mentoring are now being used to develop and socialize employees. Mentoring and diversity Diversity can be defined as observable and non-observable traits that result in differences in perspective and behaviors among cultural groups (Larkey, 1996; as cited in Roberson, 2006). It was predicted that people of color will account for 62% of the US workforce by year 2005 (US Department of Labor, 1995). This prediction has proven to be accurate, as people of color now represent 66% of the US workforce (US Department of Labor, 2008). According to Forsythe (2003), by the year 2050, 85% of new entrants to the workforce will be women and people of color. Many of these individuals will seek mentoring to develop their careers. Mentoring research now needs to focus on determining whether these protégés are being mentored (formally and informally) and how these protégés benefit from the mentoring process. Mentoring and organizational socialization We used Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory as a framework for this study because it provides a basis for understanding how human behavior is learned. Mentoring is one aspect of human behavior that involves modeling, vicarious reinforcement and observation (Noe, 1988a). This study is significant because mentoring – in particular formal mentoring – can be linked to diversity. According to Gunn (1995), formal mentoring programs proliferated in the mid-1980s as a way of improving the promotion and retention of women and people of color. We acknowledge that there are numerous definitions of mentoring; however, for purposes of this study, we define mentoring as a complex developmental and interpersonal relationship occurring between a senior, more experienced organizational member (mentor) and a junior, less experienced organizational member (protégé) who receives career support and guidance, as well as personal and psychosocial support (Carmin, 1988; Kram, 1985). James and Elman (1990) note that the individual and organizational benefits of mentoring include employee development, increased motivation, improved job performance, reinforcement of the organizational culture and increased employee retention. Similarly, Wright and Werther (1991) suggest that the protégés’ benefits associated with mentoring include career advancement, feedback and increased confidence, sponsorship and support. Such benefits contribute to the organizational socialization of employees – ‘the process by which an individual comes to appreciate the values, abilities, expected behaviors and social knowledge essential for assuming an organizational role and for participating as an organizational member’ (Louis, 1980, pp. 229–230). Through socialization, new and junior employees acquire new behaviors, attitudes and values essential for assuming roles within organizations (Fisher, 1986; Schein, 1968; Van Maanen, 1976; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Purpose of the study This study examined mentoring and organizational socialization among law faculty at American Bar Association (ABA) approved law schools. It was a pioneering study focusing on a unique population of professors, as we are unaware of any published empirical study examining mentoring and the socialization of law faculty.

Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning

43

Specifically, we sought to determine if both formal and informal mentoring are being used to socialize law faculty. Moreover, we investigated law faculty protégés’ perceptions of the effectiveness of each type of mentoring. As Finkelstein, Seal, and Schuster (1998) point out, there are numerous changes occurring in academic institutions; however, the most profound changes involve the demographic composition of new faculty entrants. Thus higher education, including law schools, must strategically address issues of diversity, including the career and professional development of diverse faculty. Law faculty diversity Law schools are grappling with issues of diversity and inclusion as more women and people of color enter the law academy, but there is also a corresponding rise in attrition (White, 2001). This disturbing trend, wherein underrepresented groups gain access but do not succeed or are not retained at our nation’s law schools, warrants investigation. The rate of attrition suggests that law schools, as well as their new and diverse faculty entrants, may be experiencing myriad socialization issues that developmental programs such as mentoring could mitigate. Research questions and hypotheses We used three research questions to guide the hypotheses of this study: (1) Does law faculty mentoring include both formal and informal mentoring? (2) What are the organizational socialization differences between mentored and non mentored tenured and tenure-track law faculty? (3) Is formal mentoring perceived as being more effective than informal mentoring and/or no mentoring for organizational socialization? These are critical questions that will provide us with a preliminary assessment of the role of mentoring in the socialization of law faculty. Given the established links between mentoring and career benefits, we proffer hypothesis 1: Mentored (formally and informally) senior law faculty will perceive greater levels of organizational socialization than non-mentored senior law faculty. Historically, mentoring has played a significant role in the continuity and evolution of art, craft, and commerce. As an example, societies in the Middle Ages used mentoring to structure and develop the professions of merchant and lawyer (Murray & Owen, 1991). Within the past 15–20 years, several studies have examined mentoring outcomes for protégés in formal and informal mentoring relationships (Chao, Walz, & Gardner, 1992; Ragins & Cotton, 1999). However, Wanberg, Welsh, and Hezlet (2003) suggest that the research on mentoring generally portrays informal mentoring as more effective than formal mentoring. As a result, we proffer hypothesis 2: Informally mentored junior law faculty will perceive greater levels of organizational socialization than formally mentored junior law faculty. Numerous studies have been conducted examining issues associated with mentoring and gender (Noe, Greenberger, & Wang, 2002; Wanberg et al., 2003). Some found that women have less access to mentors (Noe, 1988b; Ragins 1989), whereas others suggest that women appear to have equal access to mentors (Ragins, 1999; Riley & Wrench, 1985; Smith, Smith, & Markham, 2000; Thomas, 1990; Wallace, 2001). These

44


studies, in aggregate, provide contradicting evidence regarding access to mentoring for women, the nature of mentoring received and the mentoring outcomes. Given this contradictory evidence, we proffer hypothesis 3: Male law faculty will perceive higher levels of organizational socialization than female law faculty. There is a paucity of empirical studies addressing mentoring and race/ethnicity (Wanberg et al., 2003). The extant research and scholarly publications addressing this topic provide a less than definitive position about the efficacy of mentoring when the mentor and protégé differ by race/ethnicity. Several studies focusing on the mentoring experiences of African Americans found that African Americans and people of color had less access to mentors, received less career or instrumental help and were more likely to be in a diverse mentoring relationship (Dreher & Cox, 1996; Koberg, Boss, Chappell, & Ringer, 1994; McGuire, 1999; Smith et al., 2000). Examples of positive and negative findings associated with mentoring and race/ ethnicity include the Atkinson, Neville, and Casas (1991) study, which found that White professors and professionals can successfully mentor non-White students and protégés in organizational settings. Similarly, Turban, Dougherty, and Lee (2002) found that racial and ethnic similarity between mentor and protégé did not influence protégés’ perceptions of mentoring effectiveness. In contrast, Kram (1985) suggests that protégés who are demographically different from their mentors were generally dissatisfied with their mentoring relationship and were more likely to terminate the relationship. Ragins (1997) also outlines several obstacles that can make mentoring less effective for people of color, including visibility and performance pressures that tend to cause people of color to not serve as mentors, especially to people of color. Dreher and Cox (1996) and Dreher and Chargois (1998) found that protégés with White male mentors earned higher compensation than the non-mentored or protégés with non-White mentors. Additionally, Thomas’ (1990) study of the mentoring experiences of Blacks and Whites indicates that Black protégés received more psychosocial support and had Blacks for mentors that were generally from outside the protégés’ department. Further, Ortiz-Walters and Gilson (2005) found that graduate students of color obtained more psychosocial and career support and were more satisfied with mentors of color. These mixed results limit our understanding of race/ethnicity in mentoring relationships. Further, within the context of legal education, reports issued by the ABA, along with other publications, suggest that American law schools continue to struggle with the task of attracting and retaining women and people of color (Bell, 1994; Chambers, 1990; Delgado & Bell, 1989; Merritt & Reskin, 1997; White, 1996). In addition, other legal scholars have asserted that gender and ethnic biases continue to distort the process of hiring and retaining faculty at American law schools (Feagins, 1994; Paulsen, 1993). In light of our limited understanding of the role of race/ethnicity in mentoring relationships and the challenges associated with recruiting and retaining female faculty and people of color law, we proffer hypothesis 4: Caucasian/ majority law faculty will perceive higher levels of organizational socialization than non-Caucasian/minority faculty. Method Participants This study, including all procedures and instruments, was approved by the researchers’ Institutional Review Board, and participants were given appropriate informed


45

consent. The target population comprised tenured and tenure-track law professors from 178 of 184 ABA-approved law schools. In this study, assistant professors are defined as junior faculty and associate professors and professors are defined as senior faculty. Design and measures A causal comparative design was used to examine the role of mentoring in the organizational socialization of law faculty. This study used one instrument containing two questionnaires: our mentoring questionnaire (MQ), which included a demographic section, and Chao, O’Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein, and Gardner’s (1994) organizational socialization questionnaire (OSQ). The MQ provided operational definitions of mentoring, including formal and informal mentoring, and solicited information from respondents on the occurrence of mentoring, types of mentoring received and perceptions of the mentoring’s effectiveness. We operationally defined mentoring according to type to account for its contemporary manifestations. Formal mentoring was defined as a mentor–protégé relationship where career and psychosocial support is provided by the mentor to the protégé as part of an organizationally sanctioned and supported program. In contrast, informal mentoring was defined as a mentor-protégé relationship where career and psychosocial support is provided by the mentor to the protégé; however, the mentoring relationship is not sanctioned or managed by the organization and can be characterized as a naturally occurring relationship based on personal attributes, attraction and similar interests. These definitions were derived from classic works in the mentoring literature and incorporate the essential elements of mentoring, namely, career and psychosocial support provided by the mentor to the protégé (Carmin, 1988; Chao et al., 1992; Kram, 1985). We used Chao et al.’s (1994) OSQ, which consists of 34 items measured by a fivepoint Likert scale that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The OSQ measures six factors of organizational socialization: history, language, politics, people, organizational goals and values and performance proficiency. All organizational socialization factors were derived from an exploratory factor analysis. In regard to internal consistency reliability, each factor had a Cronbach’s coefficient alpha of .76 or greater. The OSQ’s language was slightly modified to fit more appropriately the research sample population (e.g., the term law school was substituted for the term organization). Examples of items from each OSQ subscales are: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

I know very little about the history behind my law school (reverse scored); I understand the specific words and jargon in my profession; I have learned how things really work inside my law school; I do not consider any of my coworkers my friends (reverse scored); I would be a good representative of my law school; and I have mastered the required tasks of my job.

Procedure A confidential survey was used to collect data from a stratified random sample of public and private ABA-approved law schools. Our research sample consisted of 44 public and private ABA-approved law schools, which constituted 25% of the universe of law schools (n = 178). Surveys were then mailed to 1176 full-time tenured or tenure-track

46


law professors. This sample (n = 1176) constituted 13% of the total number of full-time tenured or tenure-track law professors (n = 8827). Results Of the 1176 coded questionnaires mailed, 428 were returned. However, after subtracting the unusable and undeliverable questionnaires, there were a total of 298 usable questionnaires for a final response rate of 30%. This response rate resulted from numerous attempts to get the research participants to complete and return their questionnaires (letters to law deans, individual and broadcast reminder e-mails to faculty, and follow-up telephone calls). As a generalizability check, we compared the numbers of persons responding to this study with the population of all law school professors in the United States. Comparisons were made on three key variables: gender, ethnicity and position (faculty level). The first comparison involved gender. The percentage of females in the study sample (38.5%) exceeded the percentage of females among all US law school professors (22.4%). This was statistically significant in a chi-square test of independence (χ2(1, n = 8186)=42.04, p < .01). However, the national data on law faculty provided gender percentages for each of the professorial ranks; thus further analyses were pursued to locate where gender differences were greatest. At the level of assistant professor, the percentage of females for the US population (49.4%) and the percentage for the study sample (53.1%) were relatively similar and not statistically significant (χ2(1, n = 629) = 0.16, p > .05). In addition, at the level of associate professor, the percentage of females for the US population (49.4%) and the percentage for the study sample (46.5%) were similar and not statistically significant (χ2(1, n = 1217) = 1.08, p > .05). However, at the professor level, the percentage of females for the US population (22.9%) was significantly exceeded by the percentage for the study sample (33.0%) (χ2(1, n = 4757) = 11.94, p < .05). An additional comparison involved ethnic status. The percentage of minority persons in the study sample (17.6%) was not significantly different than the percentage of minority persons among all US law school professors (15%) (χ2(1, n = 5861) = 1.49, p > .05). The final demographic comparison involved position of respondent. This analysis confirmed that the percentages of professors, associate professors and assistant professors in the study sample were not significantly different than the percentages among all US law school professors (χ2 (2, n = 6307) = 2.07, p > .05). The mentoring questionnaire The MQ asked respondents to answer questions regarding their mentoring experiences, including type, mentoring quality and present involvement with mentoring. As Table 1 indicates, 55.1% of respondents were informally mentored and only 3.1% of respondents reported being formally mentored. Non-mentored respondents accounted for 21.8%. A new category was created for respondents who reported that they had received both formal and informal mentoring; respondents in this category represented 20.1% of all respondents. It should be noted, however, that the research on frequencies of mentoring type (formal and informal) concludes that mentoring relationships that are characterized as a mixture of formal and informal are generally informal in nature (Godshalk & Sosick, 2000; Ragins & Cotton, 1999). The third and fourth items of the MQ required respondents to rate the effectiveness of formal mentoring and informal mentoring, respectively, on a five-point Likert

Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning Table 1.

47

Types of mentoring among respondents (n = 298).

Mentoring type

(n)

%

Informal mentoring Formal mentoring Non-mentoring Mentoring (formal and informal)

162 9 64 59

55.1 3.1 21.8 20.1

Note: Numbers do not total 298 because of missing data.

scale. A slight majority of respondents (56.2%) agreed or strongly agreed that the formal mentoring they received was effective. In contrast, 81.7% agreed or strongly agreed that the informal mentoring they received was effective. The organizational socialization questionnaire Chao and colleagues’ (1994) OSQ is a multidimensional scale designed to assess different dimensions of organizational socialization. Table 2 shows the results of descriptive statistics and reliability analyses for the OSQ. We performed factor analysis on the OSQ scale responses in an effort to compare their results with those of Chao et al. (1994). In all analyses, principal component analysis was performed, followed by a varimax rotation of factors. Items with loadings at or above .40 were considered associated with a factor. Our factor analysis was calculated and we retained six factors for rotation and interpretation. The resulting factors accounted for 59.9 % of the variance in the items and were comparable to the 58.1% reported by Chao et al. (1994). Results for hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 1 stated that mentored senior law faculty (both formally and informally mentored) will perceive greater levels of organizational socialization than nonmentored senior law faculty. There were significant differences between the means of the two faculty groups (Hotelling’s trace statistic= .097, F (6, 191) = 3.09, p < .008). A measure of effect size for this statistic is provided by the partial eta squared statistic (η2 = .09); Cohen (as cited in Stevens, 2001) defines this as a medium effect size. Organizational socialization scales were examined individually, with independent sample t-tests, to determine the source of the statistical difference. Two scales showed Table 2.

Descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients for the six OSQ subscales.

Organizational socialization subscales History Language Politics People Organizational goals and values Performance proficiency

Number of items

M

SD

Cronbach’s Alpha

5 5 6 6 7 5

20.56 21.53 24.43 22.67 25.51 21.63

3.37 2.96 3.44 3.93 4.80 2.84

.80 .76 .78 .81 .85 .79

48


differences. On the scale ‘people’, the mean score of the mentored faculty (M = 3.88) exceeded the mean of non-mentored faculty ((M = 3.52), t (196) = 3.75, p < .0001) (η2=.07, medium effect size) . On the scale ‘organizational goals and values’, the mean score of the mentored faculty (M = 3.76) exceeded the mean of non-mentored faculty ((M = 3.39), t (196) = 3.38, p < .000) (η2 = .06, medium effect size). Results for hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 2 stated that informally mentored junior law faculty will perceive greater levels of organizational socialization than formally mentored junior law faculty. The data obtained did not permit a test of the second hypothesis. Results for hypothesis 3 It was hypothesized that male law faculty would perceive higher levels of organizational socialization than female law faculty. Hypothesis 3 required contrasting two groups of faculty, male faculty (n = 182) and female faculty (n = 114). We found no significant difference between the means of the two faculty groups (Hotelling’s trace statistic = .032, F(6, 289) = 1.54, p = .166). Results for hypothesis 4 Hypothesis 4 stated that Caucasian/majority law faculty would perceive higher levels of organizational socialization than non-Caucasian/minority faculty. Hypothesis 4 required contrasting two categories of faculty: ‘other ethnicity’ faculty (n = 59) and (b) White faculty (n = 239). We found no significant difference between the means of the two faculty groups (Hotelling’s trace statistic = .027, F(6, 291) = 1.30, p = .258). Discussion Research question 1 was: Does law faculty mentoring include both formal and informal mentoring? A major finding of this investigation of mentoring among law faculty at ABA-approved law schools is that formal mentoring programs are virtually nonexistent within the law schools that comprised our research sample, and informal mentoring was the preferred mode of mentoring law faculty. This finding is in contrast with the notion that contemporary organizational mentoring includes both formal and informal mentoring. One probable and compelling explanation for this finding is that the American law teaching academy is predominantly White and male. Among law professors, Whites constitute 85% and minorities 15%. Furthermore, among White professors, males account for 77% (White, 2001). This demographic characteristic of the American law teaching academy suggests that mentoring occurs informally and that formal mentoring is virtually nonexistent. Moreover, this demographic characteristic confirms previous research findings that informal mentoring is the predominant form of mentoring in White-male-dominated organizational settings (Kanter, 1977; Levinson, Darrow, Klein, Levinson, & McKee, 1978; Russell, 1991; Sheehy, 1976). Based on the virtual nonexistence of formal mentoring programs in our research sample, we can only conclude that law schools and their faculties have not changed how mentoring occurs in response to the increasing diversity in faculty ranks. This


49

lack of change and continued reliance on informal mentoring seemingly puts the American law schools in our research sample at odds with other contemporary organizations that have developed formal mentoring programs to facilitate the development, socialization and integration of women and people of color into their organizations. A further but more injurious consequence of the lack of formal mentoring programs is the likelihood that women and people of color law faculty may be intentionally or unintentionally excluded from these informal mentoring relationships because they are demographically different from law faculty mentors. The development of formal mentoring programs is, at a minimum, an acknowledgement that new and junior faculty members from diverse backgrounds may not have immediate access to the informal aspects of law schools where mentoring and other socialization processes tend to occur. Research question 2 was: What are the organizational socialization differences between mentored and non-mentored tenured and tenure-track law faculty? This study found significant differences for the subscales of ‘people’ and ‘organizational goals and values’. The OSQ ‘people’ subscale relates to the establishment of satisfying interpersonal work relationships with other organizational members. Mentoring in either form can be viewed, at a minimum, as the establishment of an interpersonal relationship between the mentor and protégé. The noteworthy point is that people who have the ability to connect with the right individual(s) within an organizational setting will invariably be more socialized to the organization than people who do not have this ability. Additionally, we found that mentored tenured and tenure-track law faculty had significantly higher socialization scores on the ‘organizational goals and values’ subscale than non-mentored faculty. This finding is logical and intuitive because understanding the goals and values of an organization enables the protégé to connect to the broader organization. The results of this study thus offer partial support for hypothesis 1. Research question 3 was: Is formal mentoring perceived as being more effective than informal mentoring and/or no mentoring for organizational socialization among tenured and tenure-track law faculty? The results of this study provide an inconclusive answer to this question. The data associated with the MQ suggest that respondents, on average, either disagreed or were undecided as to whether informal mentoring is more effective than formal mentoring. Thus, there is no clear indication that informal mentoring is perceived to be more effective than formal mentoring. This finding provides some justification for the establishment of formal mentoring programs within law schools. Limitations We acknowledge several limitations associated with this study. First, this study used a causal comparative design; therefore, our findings are suggestive rather than proven. In addition, we collected data using a cross-section survey procedure, which limits our findings to associations between mentoring and organizational socialization rather than direct cause and effect. One major challenge of this type of research involving diversity (gender and ethnicity) is obtaining a large enough sample of women and people of color; thus, this circumstance contributes to a sample size limitation. To address this limitation, chi-square tests of independence confirmed that the research sample was representative of the American law professor population in all demographic areas except for females with the rank of professor.

50


Directions for future research Based on the findings of this study, more research should be focused on establishing the efficacy of both types (formal and mentoring) of mentoring in producing beneficial outcomes. Several benefits worthy of inquiry are organizational tenure, organizational commitment and position power. Additionally, demographic diversity in organizations presents another area for future mentoring research. In this vein, research should attempt to verify the various roles mentors assume in diversified mentoring relationships. According to Ragins (1997), women and minorities have different workplace experiences compared with their White male counterparts. Research should compare and contrast diversified or heterogeneous mentoring relationships with homogeneous mentoring relationships. Additionally, research should attempt to isolate and understand the perspectives of people of color on the efficacy of one form of mentoring over another – for instance, in an all-minority organization, would most members of that organization prefer formal mentoring over informal mentoring, or vice versa? Given that mentoring is a human resource development process that facilitates the personal and professional socialization of junior and less experienced protégés in organizational settings, appreciative inquiry may be a productive avenue of investigation in building our understanding of contemporary organizational mentoring. Appreciative inquiry is an organizational development process and model for guiding change by intentionally focusing on the positive in organizational settings (Rothwell & Sullivan, 2005). Appreciative inquiry methodology could be applied to investigate successful formal and informal mentoring relationships among law faculty. What is learned from studies using the appreciative inquiry process could then be used as best practices to aid development and increase the effectiveness of organizational mentoring – in particular, diversified mentoring relationships. Notes on the contributors Ray K. Haynes is an assistant professor in the Department of Instructional Systems Technology at Indiana University, Bloomington. Joseph M. Petrosko is professor and chair of the Department of Leadership, Foundations and Human Resource Education at the University of Louisville.

References Allen, T.D., Eby, L.T., Poteet, M.L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 127–136. Atkinson, D.R., Neville, H., & Casas, A. (1991). The mentorship of ethnic minorities in professional psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 22(4), 336–338. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bell, D. (1994). Confronting authority: Reflections of an ardent protestor. Boston: Beacon Press. Carmin, C.N. (1988). Issues in research on mentoring: Definitional and methodological. International Journal of Mentoring, 2(2), 9–13. Chambers, M. (1990). Hiring policy stirs judge’s quiet protest. National Law Journal, 12(13). Chao, G.T., Walz, P.M., & Gardner, P.D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with non-mentored counterparts. Personnel Psychology, 45, 619–636. Chao, G.T., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, W., Klein, H.J., & Gardner, P.D. (1994). Organizational socialization: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 730–743.


51

Delgado, R., & Bell, D. (1989). Minority law professors’ lives: The Bell Delgado survey. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 24, 349–375. Dreher, G.F., & Chargois, J.A. (1998). Gender, mentoring experiences and salary attainments among graduates of an historically black university. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 401–417. Dreher, G.F., & Cox, T.H., Jr. (1996). Race, gender and opportunity: A study of compensation attainment and the establishment of mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 297–308. Feagins, K. (1994). Wanted—diversity: White heterosexual males need not apply. Widner Journal of Public Law, 4, 1–52. Finkelstein, M.J., Seal, R.K., & Schuster, J.H. (1998). The new academic generation: A profession in transformation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Fisher, C.D. (1986). Organizational socialization: An integrative review. In G.R. Ferris & K.M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (vol. 4, pp. 101–145). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Forsythe, J. (2003, September 14). Diversity works. New York Times Magazine. Section 6, 75–79. Godshalk, V.M., Sosick, J.J. (2000). Does mentor protégé agreement on mentor leadership behavior influence the quality of a mentoring relationship? Group and Organization Management, 25(3), 291–317. Gunn, E. (1995). Mentoring: The democratic version. Training, 32(8), 64–67. James, W.A., & Elman, N.A. (1990). Organizational benefits of mentoring. Academy of Management Executive, 4(4), 88–94. Kanter, R.M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books. Kram, K.E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Koberg, C.K., Boss, R.W., Chappell, D., & Ringer, R.C. (1994). Correlates and consequences of protégé mentoring in a large hospital. Group and Organization Management, 19(2), 219–239. Larkey, L.K. (1996). The development and validation of the workforce diversity questionnaire. Management Communications Quarterly, 9(3), 296–337. Levinson, D.J., Darrow, C.N., Klein, E.B., Levinson, M.H., & McKee, B. (1978). The seasons of a man’s life. New York: Ballantine Books. Louis, M.R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What new comers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(2), 226–251. McGuire, G.M. (1999). Do race and sex affect employees’ access to help from mentors? Insights from the study of a large corporation. In A.J. Murrell, F.J. Crosby, & R.J. Ely (Eds.), Mentoring dilemmas: Developmental relationships within multicultural organizations (pp. 105–120). Mahwah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum. Merritt, D.J., & Reskin, B.F. (1997). Sex, race and credentials: The truth about affirmative action in law faculty hiring. Columbia Law Review, 97(March), 199–311. Murray, M., & Owen, M.A. (1991). Beyond the myths and magic of mentoring: How to facilitate an effective mentoring program. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Noe, R.A. (1988a). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. Personnel Psychology, 41(3), 457–479. Noe, R.A. (1988b). Women and mentoring: A review and research agenda. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 65–78. Noe, R.A., Greenberger, D.B., & Wang, S. (2002). Mentoring: What we know and where we might go. In G.R. Ferris & J.J. Martocchio (Eds.), Research in personnel and human management (vol 21, pp 129–174). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science Ltd. Ortiz-Walters, R., & Gilson, L.L. (2005). Mentoring in academia: An examination of the experiences of protégés of color. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67(3), 459–475. Paulsen, M.S. (1993). Reverse discrimination and law school faculty hiring: The undiscovered opinion. Texas Law Review, 71, 993–1009. Ragins, B.R. (1989). Barriers to mentoring: The female manager’s dilemma. Human Relations, 42(22), 1–22. Ragins, B.R. (1997). Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations: A power perspective. Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 482–521.

52


Ragins, B.R. (1999). Gender and mentoring relationships: A review and research agenda for the next decade. In G.N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 347–370). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ragins, B.R., & Cotton J.L. (1999). Easier said than done: Gender differences in perceived barriers to gaining a mentor. Academy of Management Journal, 34(4), 939–951. Riley, S., & Wrench, D. (1985). Mentoring among women lawyers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15(5), 374–386. Roberson, Q.M. (2006). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations. Group and Organization Management, 31(2), 212–236. Rothwell, W.J., & Sullivan, R.L. (Eds.). (2005). Practicing organizational development: A guide for consultants (2nd ed.). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons. Russell, J.E. (1991). Career development in organizations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 38(3), 237–287. Schein, E.H. (1968). Organizational socialization and the profession of management. Industrial Management Review, 9, 1–16. Sheehy, G. (1976). Passages: Predictable crises of adult life. New York: E. P. Dutton. Smith, J.W., Smith W.J., & Markham S.E. (2000). Diversity issues in mentoring academic faculty. Journal of Career Development, 26(4), 251–262. Stevens, J. (2001). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Thomas, D.A. (1990). The impact of race on managers’ experiences of developmental relationships (mentoring and sponsorships): An intra-organizational study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11(6), 479–492. Turban D.B., Dougherty, T.W. & Lee, F.K. (2002). Gender, race, and perceived similarity effects in developmental relationships: the moderating role of relationship duration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(2), 240–262. United States Department of Labor. (1995). Final report on the glass ceiling. Washington, DC: Author. United States Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The employment situation, February 2008. Retrieved March, 20, 2008 from http:www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ epmsit.pdf Van Maanen, J. (1976). Breaking in: Socialization to work. In R. Dubin (Ed.), Handbook of work, organization and society (pp. 76–130). Chicago: Rand McNally. Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E.H. (1979). Towards a theory of organizational socialization. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (vol. 1, pp. 209–264). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Wallace, J.E. (2001). The benefits of mentoring female lawyers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(3), 366–391. Wanberg, C.R., Welsh, E.T., & Hezlett, S.A. (2003). Mentoring research: A review and dynamic process model. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 22, 39–124. White, R.A. (1996, March). Racial integration of legal education: Making progress and redoubling efforts. Association of American Law Schools Newsletter. White, R.A. (2001). Association of American Law Schools statistical report on law school faculty and candidates for law faculty positions, 2000–2001. Retrieved September 13, 2001, from www.aals.org/statistics/index.html Wright, R.G., & Werther, W.B., Jr. (1991). Mentors at work. Journal of Management Development, 10(3), 25–32.