Social dominance orientation and mentorship

Abstract

Purpose – In all, 218 business/psychology working students contributed to the validation of the 20-item Mentor Expectations Measure (MEM). Mentors expected outcomes of mentoring protégés based on protégé race and mentors’ level of social dominance orientation (SDO) were established. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – Study 1: to better understand the structure of the newly created MEM, (and to take the first step toward establishing a model) the authors conducted an exploratory factor analysis, using principle axis factoring procedure for extraction with direct oblimin rotation. The factor analysis yielded four viable factors. Study 2: participants were the same 218 working undergraduate students from a mid-sized university located on the west coast of the USA. SDO and social desirability were collected and survey participants were presented a stimulus story written so that the reader would take on the perspective of a mentor within a formal organizational mentorship program. Participants were randomly assigned stories in which they, as the mentor, receive a new protégé (the manipulated variable – perceived ethnicity). Other than the names of the protégés, the stimulus stories and questionnaires were exactly the same. The survey consisted of 63 questions in total. Findings – Given evidence of discriminatory behavior toward those that threaten hierarchical norms, the authors anticipated worse expectations for the mentorship to be found in the African American protégé manipulation. Based on the literature, the authors also anticipated stronger interactions between SDO and the mentorship expectations based on the discipline of the mentor. Participant-mentors estimated expected mentor outcome rewards from mentoring a Black or White protégé. No interactions were established, but SDO was a significant predictor of lessened expectations across several elements of the mentorship. This suggests that high levels of SDO in workplace hierarchies manifest poor expectations toward mentorship outcomes no matter the race/ethnicity or disciplinary back ground of the mentor. Research limitations/implications – While the subjects in the study represent realistic entry level managers and the sample size is acceptable, the authors would like to replicate using larger sample sizes in the future. Practical implications – The development of the MEM reflects a step forward in the psychometric matching of mentors with protégé. The authors recommend utilizing the MEM to evaluate mentors before establishing a relationship and making sure that the relationship is based on clear expectations, knowledge and balanced interpersonal relationships. Importantly, understanding the impact of individual differences like SDO will facilitate more productive relationships than matching on just ethnic and gender-based commonality. Social implications – As significant negative correlations (at the 0.01 level) were found between SDO and mentor commitment, mentor tangible rewards, as well as mentor intrinsic rewards. The negative relationships suggests that as SDO levels increase, participants level of commitment to the protégé lessens, their expectation of tangible rewards based on the mentor ship lessen, and their own levels of intrinsic rewards will diminish. This paints a picture of low expectations for the protégé based on one’s level of SDO, which surprisingly does not seem to interact with race of protégé. Originality/value – First, the MEM can facilitate the matching of mentors and protégés’. Second, researchers (Klauss, 1981; Kram, 1985) have pointed out that formal mentorship relationships may suffer due to the lack of initiative and commitment which the MEM clarifies. Third, the MEM can be used to examine and existing mentorship relations. Fourth, established use of the MEM or mentorship assessment would signal a “culture of mentoring, with organizations broadcasting the seriousness with which they take mentorship. Finally, the authors establish the impact of SDO on mixed race mentorships.

When and How Subordinate Performance Leads to Abusive Supervision: A Social Dominance Perspective

“…Martin et al (2015), for example, found that business majors, who were higher in SDO than humanities majors (Sidanius et al, 1991), were more likely to justify the inequality in current economic systems and lack compassion for those in lower hierarchical positions. Other research has shown that individuals high in SDO are more likely to distance themselves from members of low-status groups, like subordinates or protégés, because they believe in their own superiority (Martin & Bok, 2014; Shao, Resick, & Hargis, 2011). Finally, Rosette, Carton, Bowes-Sperry, and Hewlin (2013) used SDT to explain how majority groups in the workplace (who tend to be higher in SDO) are more likely to use racial slurs as a serious form of interpersonal aggression intended to sustain social inequality.…”

Improving Mentoring in Higher Education in Undergraduate Education and Exploring Implications for Online Learning

“…In one study of an online mentoring program, "all mentors agreed it was better to do mentor/mentee matches based on a system that actually looks at personal and professional characteristics" (Halupa & Henry, 2015, p. 111). Other studies also showed a positive effect from using an online tool to match mentor and student characteristics (Martin & Bok, 2015;Rees Lewis et al, 2015). In another study, mentors were not persuaded of the benefits of the specific online mentoring platform they were using but were in favor of a similar mentoring matching process through another site such as LinkedIn, Skype, or a university-created mentoring program (Halupa & Henry, 2015).…”

“…In the research, structured programs also provided a standard for mentoring that is useful in working with unknown backgrounds and beliefs of mentors (Martin & Bok, 2015). One aspect of establishing a mentoring program standard is clearly identifying the roles of the individuals involved in the program, including mentors, students, administrators, and other volunteers (Black & Taylor, 2018).…”

“…Without current information on a website, students may not seek further mentoring help, nor mentors seek additional information about mentoring. Organizations can also better identify program mentoring expectations and goals for both mentors and students and establish better instruments for measuring mentoring progress (Cox et al, 2014;Martin & Bok, 2015). These goals can be discussed in the first meetings between mentor and mentee and should be incorporated with mentee and mentor goals in the mentoring relationship.…”

“…In addition, the literature is significantly lacking in studies on mentor training. What training methods are most beneficial for mentor learning (Martin & Bok, 2015)? What follow up mentor training is needed to maintain quality mentoring over time?…”