„‚ CONDITIONS THAT HINDER EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

includes the education and involvement of the immediate supervisors of the junior
employees, as well as an advisory board that monitors the system’s effectiveness and
deals with any problems that occur (Lean, 1983).
Although no systematic evaluation of these formal mentoring programs has been
completed, there is sufficient evidence to raise a number of questions about their value
in creating conditions that encourage mentoring. It appears that although their primary
objective is to provide an effective socialization experience for newcomers (and, in
some instances, for particular groups of newcomers such as women, minorities, and/or
employees with high potential), they are not accomplishing this goal and, in some
instances, have had destructive consequences for the people involved. Some of these
negative results can be avoided through careful design and implementation of the
system; others are the consequences of attempts to engineer relationships that must
evolve naturally and voluntarily as a result of mutual attraction and interests (Kram,
1980).
When mentors and protégés are assigned to each other, they are likely to feel
coerced into the relationship. Senior employees may begin to resent their responsibilities
as mentors, and junior employees may resent the “patronized” aspects of their role or
doubt the value of the relationship. Even if the partners see potential value in the
relationship, they may experience anxiety or confusion about their new roles.
Educational interventions can alleviate some of this anxiety and confusion by defining
mentoring functions and providing interpersonal skill training.
Negative mentoring experiences can be minimized by making sure that
participation in a formal mentoring system is voluntary. Screening procedures can help
people to think through the decision to participate, and data can be collected to facilitate
the match between potential mentors and protégés (Phillips-Jones, 1982). However, the
very existence of a formal system that is endorsed by an organization’s management
makes it unlikely that the program will be genuinely voluntary.
Voluntary participation in a mentoring program can reduce the risk of destructive
experiences; it cannot, however, eliminate the possibility of negative reactions from
those who have not been selected to participate or from those who are affected by the
relationships that have been arranged. For example, in a mentoring system designed for
employees with high potential, those who are not selected are likely to feel deprived,
resentful, and pessimistic about their own opportunities for development. Similarly, in a
mentoring program designed to facilitate affirmative action, majority-group members
may become resentful of the guidance and support being offered to special-interest
group members. These side effects can affect relationships among peers as well as
people’s commitment to the organization.
Even if the formal mentoring system is available to all employees, the immediate
supervisors of the juniors in the mentoring pairs may be threatened by the new alliances.
The risk of losing influence over the performance and career decisions of a subordinate
increases as the bond between mentor and protégé strengthens. It is essential to involve
supervisors in the process of arranging the pairs in order to mitigate their resentment. At
The Pfeiffer Library Volume 6, 2nd Edition. Copyright ©1998 Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer ❚❘ 263