From the ordinary to the extraordinary:High-quality mentoring relationships at work§

Belle Rose Ragins

Organizational Dynamics (2016) 45, 228—244

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

jo ur n al h o mep ag e: www .e lsev ier . co m / loc ate /o r gd yn

The mantras that ‘‘Everyone who makes it has a mentor,’’‘‘Good managers are good mentors,’’ and ‘‘Mentor for excel-lence!’’ permeate the workplace. Mentoring relationshipsare expected to deliver exceptional outcomes that developemployees, improve their performance, and propel theircareers. However, like other relationships, mentoring rela-tionships fall along a continuum, with the majority reflectingaverage quality. Yet average relationships are unlikely toproduce the exceptional performance and personal growthoutcomes that are often expected by organizations andemployees.

Extraordinary outcomes require extraordinary relation-ships, so how do we move mentoring from the ordinary tothe extraordinary? Although mentoring scholars have pro-duced volumes of research over the past 30 years, most ofthis research, and what we know about mentoring, is basedon average quality relationships. Our traditional models ofmentoring, which have guided practitioners and researchersover the years, explain the most common mentoring experi-ences, but fail to capture the remarkable experiences andunique dynamics of high-quality relationships. This narrowperspective restricts our ability to understand and achievethe best mentoring has to offer. Mentoring can be one of themost fulfilling and transformative relationships we experi-ence at work, but we need to broaden our lens to find thepath to these high-quality relationships.

Relational mentoring illuminates the path for creatinghigh-quality mentoring relationships at work. Emerging fromthe positive organizational scholarship and positive relation-ships at work literatures, relational mentoring is a theory

§ Note: A special note of thanks to Guest Editor Peter Heslin and thecontributors to this special issue who also served as anonymousreviewers. Their thoughtful and constructive feedback was helpfuland appreciated.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2016.07.0080090-2616/# 2016 The Author. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is acreativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

that focuses on the high end of the quality continuum andexplains the antecedents, processes, and behaviors of high-quality mentoring relationships. High-quality mentoring rela-tionships are close relationships characterized by trust, dis-closure, vulnerability, and commitment. These relationshipsoffer exceptional opportunities for personal learning, growthand discovery for both mentors and proteges. By illuminatingthe dynamics in high-quality mentoring, relational mentoringhelps us visualize and ultimately move our mentoring rela-tionships from the ordinary to the extraordinary.

Relational mentoring takes us well beyond traditionalapproaches that cast mentors as coaches, advisors, or tea-chers. In high-quality mentoring relationships, both membersare transformed and changed in ways that reflect an entirelydifferent set of psychological processes, norms, and beha-viors. As we will discover, high-quality mentoring relation-ships also offer more than just instrumental outcomesrelating to advancement or promotion. They provide safehavens that accept us for who we are, giving us the freedomto find our best and authentic selves. Their reach extendswell beyond the workplace, as they can give us the courage toforge new career paths and identities. As we will see, theyalso offer important and unique benefits for a diverse work-force and afford opportunities to learn about diversity withinand outside the workplace.

Here is the roadmap for this article. We’ll start by lookingat some foundational definitions of mentoring and high-qual-ity relationships at work. Then we’ll compare traditional andrelational approaches to mentoring and examine the assump-tions that can prevent us from achieving high-quality men-toring relationships at work. We’ll go on to explore how high-quality mentoring relationships develop. We’ll consider theirunique dynamics and outcomes, and the important benefitsfor those in diverse relationships. We’ll gain insights on howto create high-quality mentoring relationships and strategiesfor improving the quality of our own mentoring relationships.

n open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://

From the ordinary to the extraordinary 229

We’ll conclude with some practical tips for organizations thatseek to promote high-quality mentoring relationships atwork.

LAYING THE FOUNDATION: DEFININGMENTORING AND HIGH-QUALITYRELATIONSHIPS AT WORK

What are mentoring relationships? Traditionally, mentoring isdefined as a relationship between a more experienced men-tor and a less experienced protege for the purpose of helpingand developing the protege’s career. Mentors and protegesmay or may not be in supervisory relationships or evenemployed at the same organization. Some mentoring rela-tionships develop informally, while others are assigned aspart of a formal mentoring program. Mentoring relationshipsexist within a constellation of relationships that can includeformal mentors, informal mentors, supervisory mentors,peer mentors and other developmental relationships withinand outside the workplace.

A distinguishing feature of mentoring relationships is theirfocus on learning and development within the career con-text. Because mentoring relationships involve a more experi-enced mentor paired with a less experienced protege, theyare traditionally viewed as hierarchical relationships whereone person has more influence over the other. However,differences in work experience do not necessarily mean thatthe relationship has to be a one-way learning experience. Asdescribed later, mentoring relationships can involve mutuallearning and development, and this mutuality can be a keydeterminant of high-quality relationships.

What are high-quality relationships? Like diamonds, rela-tionships are multifaceted with multiple indicators of quality.Relational quality can reflect behaviors, processes, norms,affective experiences, and outcomes of the relationship.Most relationship scholars agree that high-quality relation-ships involve mutual experiences of closeness, connection,trust, responsiveness, and vulnerability, and that people inhigh-quality relationships usually report being satisfied withtheir relationship. Members often experience a strong senseof emotional attachment, both to each other and theirrelationship. Harry Reis and colleagues note that these closerelationships involve partner responsiveness, which is theexperience of being understood, valued, cared for, andsupported by one’s relational partner. Focusing on workplaceinteractions, Jane Dutton and Emily Heaphy explain thathigh-quality connections are resilient to strain, and arecharacterized by experiences of vitality, positive energy,openness to new ideas, and the ability to express bothpositive and negative emotions in the relationship. Bill Kahngoes on to explain that high-quality work relationshipsinvolve the ability to give and receive care, particularly intimes of stress. High-quality relationships offer safe spacesthat accept and validate members’ experiences, while pro-viding them with enabling perspectives that help them makesense of confusing or upsetting experiences at work.

A key characteristic of high-quality relationships is thatthey meet the needs of their members. As pointed out by BillKahn and other scholars, high-quality work relationshipsreflect a high level of needs-based fit, which is the extentto which the relationship is able to meet the personal, career,

and developmental needs of its members. These scholarspoint out that relationships are also unlikely to last unlessthey meet the needs of their members.

Integrating these perspectives, high-quality mentoringrelationships can be defined as a mutually beneficial relation-ship that meets members’ needs while providing experiencesof relational closeness (i.e., care, concern, responsiveness,vulnerability, emotional connection and commitment). Meet-ing needs and experiences of relational closeness are closelyconnected. People are more likely to express their needs inclose relationships, and, as we discover later, close relation-ships are more likely to have norms that fill their members’needs. It’s important to remember that needs are not static,but change as people grow and develop. Needs also emerge inresponse to changing demands within and outside the work-place. As we see next, changing needs place new demandsand potential strains on mentoring relationships that cancreate transitions in relational quality.

UNDERSTANDING HIGH-QUALITY MENTORING:A RELATIONAL APPROACH TO MENTORING

Relational States and the Quality Continuum

Mentoring relationships vary in quality. At their best, they canbe transformative relationships that enrich our lives andenliven our careers. At their worst, they can be dysfunctionalrelationships that are toxic and destructive. The quality ofthe relationship is not static, but shifts as the relationshipevolves. As described by Belle Ragins and Amy Verbos, peoplein mentoring relationships can experience three relationalstates that reflect high (relational), medium (traditional) andlow (dysfunctional) levels of quality. As illustrated in Fig. 1,these relational states fall along a continuum of quality, withmost relationships falling in the middle, reflecting relationalstates of average quality. High-quality relational states yieldexperiences of close mentoring bonds, which reflect strongemotional attachment, as well as high levels of mutuallearning, growth, generativity, and empowerment. Asdescribed later, traditional or average relationships differnot only in the level of these experiences, but also in thenorms, processes, and behaviors exhibited in the relation-ship. Although this article focuses on high-quality mentoringrelationships, it should be noted that some mentoring rela-tionships experience dysfunctional states, which involveexploitation, jealousy, and other negative processes. Fortu-nately, dysfunctional states occur relatively infrequently inmentoring relationships.

Like other types of relationships, mentoring relationshipsare dynamic and can transition across this continuum ofquality. For instance, relationships may shift from averageto high-quality, or may backslide to average or even dysfunc-tional states. Shifts in quality may be driven by changes in thedynamics of the relationship, the behaviors displayed in therelationship, or the demands and resources experienced byits members. For example, broken trust, increased jobdemands, and non-work shocks may create more stress onthe relationship than it can handle, moving it toward anegative state of quality. As we will see, relationships canalso move toward positive states of quality through experi-ences that build trust and commitment in the relationship.

Figure 1 Reproduced from Ragins, B. R. & Verbos, A. K. (2007) Positive relationships in action: Relational mentoring and mentoringschemas in the workplace. In Dutton, J. & Ragins, B. R. (Eds.) Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical andresearch foundation (page 98) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates

230 B.R. Ragins

Sometimes high-quality mentoring relationships experience‘‘rough patches,’’ where members temporarily experiencelower states of relational quality. As described later, theunique norms and dynamics in high-quality mentoring rela-tionships increase their resiliency and ability to overcomethese temporary setbacks.

Changing needs and demands play a role in movingmentoring relationships across the continuum of quality.Some relationships are unable to meet the changing needsof their members and move down the quality continuum,while others are flexible and can adjust to new demands inways that maintain their level of quality, or even improveit. The resilience of high-quality mentoring relationshipscan create a positive cycle whereby new demands createnew opportunities for increased closeness in the relation-ship. Average relationships can also improve quality bymeeting their members’ needs, but since average relation-ships have less relational resources and resiliency to beginwith, increased demands pose more of a challenge forthese relationships.

Let us now examine how mentoring relationships canincrease their quality, and the assumptions that preventthem from realizing their true potential.

What is Relational Mentoring?

Relational mentoring is a theoretical perspective thatexplains how and why mentoring relationships becomehigh-quality mentoring relationships. The theory identifiesthe unique antecedents, processes, and behaviors in high-quality mentoring relationships, and offers an expanded setof outcomes for these relationships. Relational mentoring

helps us understand the dynamics of high-quality mentoring,and in so doing, offers a set of strategies for developing high-quality mentoring relationships.

A relational perspective does not dismiss traditionalapproaches to mentoring. As described below, traditionalapproaches and theories explain the most common type ofmentoring relationship (i.e., the average mentoring relation-ship), but don’t explain or capture the different dynamicsand outcomes of high-quality relationships. Traditionalapproaches also reinforce a set of assumptions that reflectaverage relationships. Our research and measures have reliedon these assumptions, which limits our knowledge abouthigh-quality mentoring and our ability to create theseremarkable relationships.

In this section, I distinguish high-quality from averagementoring relationships, illustrate the hallmarks of relationalmentoring, and articulate the assumptions that can preventus from developing high-quality mentoring relationships.Tables 1 and 2 offer examples that illustrate some of thedifferences between the relational and traditionalapproaches described below.

Beyond Godfathers and Yodas: RelationalMentoring Recognizes Mutual Learning andRejects Traditional ‘‘Teacher—Student’’ Roles

The first hallmark of relational mentoring is that it acknowl-edges that mentors can also learn and grow from the relation-ship. This shift in focus challenges the assumption thatmentoring should mimic traditional student—teacher rela-tionships, which as we see, limits the capacity and potentialof mentoring relationships.

Table 2 The Protege’s Perspective

Traditional protege Relational protege

‘‘I look up to my mentor, but wouldn’t want her to seemy weaknesses. I always try to put my best footforward in our relationship.’’

‘‘I feel like I can be myself with my mentor, and I’m comfortablesharing my fears and weaknesses with her. My mentor accepts mefor who I am, not who I pretend to be. My mentor is totally real withme too — we can be ourselves in our relationship. It’s a safe place.’’

‘‘I am indebted to my mentor for taking the time tohelp me and for opening doors to my advancement. Iwill always be grateful for what my mentor has donefor me.’’

‘‘We don’t keep score of who gives and who gets in our relationship— we are both there for each other and we have each other’s back. Idon’t feel like I ‘owe’ my mentor, but I do plan to be a mentorsomeday.’’

‘‘My mentor has really helped my career and myprofessional development.’’

‘‘My mentor has helped my career, but it doesn’t end there. I havelearned so much about myself from this relationship. My mentor andI bring out the best in each other. I guess you could say that we helpeach other find our best selves.’’

‘‘As a woman of color, I face challenges at work thatI’m just not comfortable sharing with my mentor.’’

‘‘My mentor and I can talk about diversity and my experiences atwork. My mentor has helped me figure out a way to be authentic atwork. I think my mentor has learned quite a bit about diversity fromour conversations.’’

Table 1 The Mentor’s Perspective

Traditional mentor Relational mentor

‘‘As a mentor, I see myself primarily as a teacher,expert, coach and role model. I get personalsatisfaction from volunteering my time to help myprotege, but I really don’t expect to learn from her.My job is to help my protege’s career and to share myknowledge with her.’’

‘‘I see mentoring as a two-way street: I have more work experiencethan my protege, but my experience does not extend to all aspectsof life. I enjoy learning from my protege and often get inspired byour interactions. She has taught me to think ‘outside the box’ andhas given me other perspectives on life.’’

‘‘My protege and I have a very professional workrelationship. I give her career advice, but we rarelytalk about issues outside of the workplace. Myprotege doesn’t bring them up, and I think they maybe a bit too off-task to talk about at work.’’

‘‘I would say we have a very close relationship. We feel comfortabletalking about work-life challenges and even issues related to raceand gender at work. I can think of few topics that are off limits inour relationship.’’

‘‘I rarely if ever discuss my personal life or challenges Iface at work with my protege. I can’t see howsharing these things would help her.’’

‘‘I feel comfortable sharing my personal challenges and struggleswith my protege. How can I expect her to share her challenges if Iam not willing to share mine? I think it takes our relationship to adeeper level where we can talk about things that really matter: whowe are and what we do.’’

‘‘Our mentoring relationship has helped my protege’scareer and professional development.’’

‘‘I think this relationship has helped both of us learn and grow —personally and professionally. I am a better person because of thisrelationship.’’

‘‘As a manager, mentoring is an important part of myjob. It’s my way to help the company and myemployees.’’

‘‘Mentoring is not just what I do — it’s who I am. I will always be amentor.’’

From the ordinary to the extraordinary 231

A shift in focus. Relational mentoring calls for a significantshift in our view of mentors and their role in the relationship.Traditionally, when we think about mentoring relationships,we often visualize a wise old mentor teaching and guiding ayoung, inexperienced protege. This image has ancient roots;in fact the term ‘‘mentor’’ originated from Greek Mythology.A character in Homer’s Odyssey, Mentor was a guardian andteacher to Odysseus’ son, Telemachus. Mentor was entrustedto protect, counsel, and teach Telemachus while Odysseussailed off to war.

Traditional models of mentoring reflect this archetype byfocusing nearly exclusively on the protege. Mentors areviewed primarily, and often solely, in terms of what theycan do to help their proteges. In traditional approaches,mentors are expected to sponsor their proteges, give themadvice, open doors, and offer them protection. Some men-toring relationships adopt the ‘‘Godfather Model of Mentor-ing’’, where the all-powerful mentor doles out favors, pullsstrings and protects his protege, who in turn is expected to bea loyal soldier to the mentor.

232 B.R. Ragins

In average quality relationships the mentor helps andsupport the protege, but there is little expectation of reci-procity in learning or growth. The mentor may gain status,prestige, loyalty, and a sense of satisfaction, but both mem-bers view the relationship primarily as a ‘‘one-way street’’that focuses on the protege.

In contrast, high-quality mentoring relationships are a‘‘two-way street’’ where both mentors and proteges activelylearn and grow from each other. Two-way relationships aremore likely to meet both members’ needs. As discussedearlier, meeting both members’ needs is an important char-acteristic of high-quality relationships. Achieving this high-quality state is not easy, and in fact requires a fundamental‘‘mindset’’ shift that questions assumptions and dismantlesthe hierarchical roles that are often prescribed for therelationship. This mindset shift can move the relationshipfrom average relationships that offer one-way learning, tohigh-quality relationships that generate personal learningand growth for both mentors and proteges.

Dismantling the teacher—student approach tomentoring. Traditional mentoring assumes hierarchical stu-dent—teacher roles. Applying traditional models of teaching,mentors are viewed as a repository of knowledge, and theirexperience and power take center stage in the relationship.This can lead to the ‘‘Yoda Mentor’’, where the mentorassumes the role of the wise and benevolent teacher whoperches on a pedestal of power, doling out tidbits of adviceand gems of knowledge to the protege. The protege takes therole of a student with little to offer other than obedience,loyalty, and gratitude. As the source of all knowledge, theYoda Mentor is not expected to learn from the protege, andthe protege has little influence on the mentor. The mentorremains emotionally aloof — secure and safe in her powerfulrole. She experiences little personal growth, because growthrequires vulnerability, which requires a shift in the power androles in the relationship.

This hierarchical approach creates emotional distance andrigid roles that limit the quality and capacity of the relation-ship. The protege is approached as an empty vessel that isfilled with the mentor’s expertise, knowledge, and advice.The relationship is static and becomes dispensable; once theprotege is ‘‘filled’’, she can easily move on to the nextmentoring relationship. The relationship is valued for whatit can do, rather than for it can be: an extraordinary settingfor learning and growth. The mentor and protege neverconnect in ways that foster healthy interdependence andpersonal growth. The roots of their relationship are neverintertwined, and this limits the quality of the relationshipand its capacity for resilience and adaptation.

In contrast, a relational approach to mentoring recognizesthat benefits can accrue to both mentors and proteges if bothmembers have the relational skills, desire, and ability tomove beyond traditional hierarchical roles. This is a chal-lenge because mentors have more experience than theirproteges and often hold influential positions in the organiza-tion. However, members of high-quality relationships recog-nize that although mentors have more work experience, thisexperience does not extend to all aspects of their lives. Forexample, proteges may offer expertise that reflects theirrecent educational training, and have life experiences thatcan be a source of inspiration and learning for the mentor.The mentor may learn the latest in computer technology

from her protege, or she may gain new insights from herprotege’s different life experiences, generational values,and perspectives.

In high-quality mentoring relationships, interactionsbecome places for mutual discovery and learning, and influ-ence shifts from hierarchical states of ‘‘power over’’ tocollaborative states of ‘‘power with.’’ Expertise is seen asfluid and based on ability and knowledge, rather than onhierarchical position. Mentors actively seek and appreciatetheir protege’s knowledge and experiences, which empowersthe protege. By relinquishing traditional hierarchical roles,the relationship becomes a vehicle for mutual learning,growth, and discovery.

The mentor’s role. Because mentors usually have morepower than proteges, they need to initiate this shift in roles.This requires psychological security and maturity on the partof the mentor. Even though she may have more experiencethan her protege, the mentor does not allow herself to slipinto the ego-stroking role of the all powerful, all knowingYoda mentor. Instead, she steps down from her pedestal ofpower and approaches the relationship from a position ofvulnerability and mutuality.

This role shift fundamentally changes the dynamics of therelationship. The protege moves from a state of dependenceto a state of interdependence. The mentor is no longerviewed as a ‘‘career savior’’ who is expected to do it all.The mentor’s ability to be vulnerable creates psychologicalsafety and helps make the relationship a ‘‘safe space.’’ Asdescribed later, this safe space allows both mentors andproteges to be authentic in their relationship, which furtherfacilitates their mutual learning and growth.

Relinquishing the hierarchical teacher role also allows thementor to be more effective and move beyond a ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ approach to sharing knowledge. Mentors who adhereto traditional teacher models may have a fixed ‘‘lesson plan’’of advice they want to give to their proteges. This advice maybe worthwhile, but it may not meet their protege’s needs, asthe mentor is not engaging in ways that allow the protege toshare or clarify her needs. As discussed later, the trust,closeness, and active listening in high-quality relationshipsallows members to share their weaknesses and needs. Thesehigh-quality interactions may help mentors realize that their‘‘lesson plan’’ may not be working for their protege. Insteadof giving advice, the mentor may engage in active listeningand serve as a sounding board for their protege. This movesthem from a static, role-based expertise approach (‘‘My roleis to teach you, and here is what I have to offer’’) to a flexible,needs-based approach (‘‘What do you need and how can Ihelp?’’). This role shift also moves the protege from passiverecipient (‘‘Tell me what to do’’) to a state of mutuality(‘‘Let’s figure this out together’’) and empowerment (‘‘Wow,you went through this too? Maybe I can do this!’’).

A ‘‘No-Strings’’ Approach: Relational MentoringUses Communal Rather than Exchange Norms

The second hallmark of relational mentoring is that it recog-nizes that high-quality mentoring relationships may use dif-ferent relational norms. Relational norms determine thebehaviors and interactions in a relationship, and are there-fore an important determinant of the relationship quality.

From the ordinary to the extraordinary 233

Communal and exchange norms. Most work relation-ships rely on exchange norms. Exchange norms use aneconomic approach, which holds that people are drivenby self-interest and that they use a cost-benefit analysiswhen forming and maintaining their relationships. Rela-tionships are viewed as transactions, and people are moti-vated to give in relationships when they expect to getsomething in return.

Like other work relationships, the average mentoringrelationship uses exchange norms. This means that whenone member of the relationship gives, the other experiencesa sense of debt, or felt obligation to reciprocate. Althoughthe relationship may not always use a strict quid pro quoorientation (i.e., ‘‘tit-for-tat’’), self-interest is the primarymotivating factor, and giving is nearly always accompanied bythe expectation of some form of repayment. It’s important tokeep in mind that exchange relationships focus on repaymentrather than meeting the needs of its members. So people areexpected to reciprocate, but the reciprocation may not meetthe needs of its members, which in turn constrains the qualityof the relationship.

However, not all relationships are motivated by self-inter-est. Margaret Clark and Judson Mills point out that many closerelationships use communal norms, where members give toeach other based on need, without the expectation of repay-ment. Communal norms frequently characterize close rela-tionships, such as those involving family and close friends. Inthese relationships, members give because they care for thewell being of their partner, not because they expect some-thing in return. These relationships are likely to be high-quality because members’ needs are likely to be met. Theyalso promote high levels of trust and disclosure, which asdescribed later, are key processes in high-quality mentoringrelationships.

Relational mentoring theory holds that the use of com-munal norms is a key marker that distinguishes high-qualityfrom average mentoring relationships. In high-quality men-toring relationships, both mentors and proteges mayapproach the relationship as a way to meet each other’sneeds. Their motivation for maintaining the relationship isdriven by their care and concern for their partner.

Why do people embrace communal norms? Althoughskeptics may view communal norms as a ‘‘pie in the sky’’example of altruism or selflessness, people who are in closerelationships may undergo psychological changes in theiridentities that reward and reinforce them for using commu-nal norms in their relationships.

Psychologists Aron and Aron point out that close relation-ships allow people to expand their sense of selves, and thisself-expansion motive underlies their development of closepersonal relationships. Self-expansion involves incorporatingthe other into ourselves (i.e., we are no longer two — butone.) This process is not entirely selfless, as assimilatingaspects of our partner’s identity can increase our self-effi-cacy and our ability to get the social and material resourcesneeded to attain our goals.

These concepts help us understand why some people areable to use communal norms in their mentoring relationships.Members can give without expecting repayment not onlybecause they have a deep sense of connection and caringfor their partner, but also because their relationship changestheir identity. As described later, they can develop mentoring

identities, where they view themselves in terms of theirmentoring relationship.

These processes build on each another in ways that movementoring relationships from the ordinary to the extraordin-ary. Relationships that use communal norms are better ableto meet each other’s needs and also lead to relationalprocesses involving trust, intimacy, disclosure and high-qual-ity connections. These relational processes, in turn, changehow we view ourselves in ways that further reinforce the useof communal norms in the relationship. For example, ourfeelings of closeness and connection in the relationship,which Ragins and Verbos call close mentoring bonds, canfacilitate mentoring identities. This creates a dynamic itera-tive cycle that pushes relationships along the quality con-tinuum to high-quality relationships.

Some caveats: The role of shared norms, context, timeand individual differences. There are four caveats that needto be considered when looking at communal norms in men-toring relationships. First, both members need to share acommunal norm approach for the relationship to be high-quality. If the relationship involves incongruent norms (i.e.,one gives without expecting repayment while the other usesan exchange approach), the quality of the relationship willsuffer. The relationship may become an average or even amarginal relationship that barely meets the needs of eithermember. Communal norm congruency is therefore a keyprerequisite to the development of high-quality mentoringrelationships.

Second, not all mentoring relationships can embracecommunal norms. Communal norms reflect a level of close-ness, connection, and caring that is not frequently found, oreven accepted, in many workplaces. The culture of theorganization and work group can play a role in the adoptionof communal norms in mentoring relationships. While someorganizations have supportive cultures that may accept andreinforce communal norms (e.g., ‘‘We are family!’’), othershave more competitive and formal cultures (e.g., ‘‘Creamrises to the top’’) that may not support, or even ridicule, theuse of communal norms in work relationships. Similarly,communal norms may be more likely to be found and sup-ported in teams that work closely together (e.g., firefighters)than teams that are independent, competitive, or exist invirtual space.

Third, communal norms do not happen overnight. It takestime for members to build the trust and commitment neces-sary to adopt communal norms in their relationship. Somerelationships can achieve closeness quickly, but trust takestime to develop. Due to the contracted shortness of mostformal mentoring relationships, it may be particularly chal-lenging to develop communal norms in formally assignedrelationships.

Fourth, individual differences play a role in these relation-ships. Some people may be more likely to embrace communalnorms in their relationships than others. For example, thosewho are prosocial, emotionally mature, and empathic bynature should be more likely to embrace communal normsthan those lacking these attributes. People also differ onother attributes that allow them to develop close relation-ships. For example, some people have interdependent self-construals, which means that they are oriented towardrelationships and tend to define themselves in terms of theirrelationships. People may also have formative experiences as

234 B.R. Ragins

children that determine their attachment styles and abilityto develop close relationships with others. People’s pastexperiences with communal norms in high-quality relation-ships could also make them more receptive to using thesenorms in future relationships. Overall, we need to rememberthat not everyone has the capacity or ability to meet theirpartner’s needs; even if they want to adopt communal normsthey may have difficulty effectively establishing these normsin their work relationships.

Life Does Not Begin or End at the WorkplaceDoor: Relational Mentoring Creates ChangeBeyond the Workplace

The third hallmark of relational mentoring is its recognitionof the reach and potential of high-quality mentoring relation-ships. While traditional perspectives focus primarily on work-place outcomes, relational mentoring recognizes thepermeability of the boundary between work and non-workdomains. As described below, this holistic perspective allowsfor a different and larger array of possible outcomes thatextend well beyond the workplace, such as life satisfaction,personal growth, and work-life balance.

You can take it with you: A holistic approach tomentoring. Relational mentoring incorporates a holisticapproach, which holds that employees can be changed bya myriad of experiences, including relationships, and thatthese transformations and changes are carried with themacross their life domains.

High-quality mentoring relationships are transformativein their effects, which can transcend organizational bound-aries. These relationships offer a safe space where peoplecan craft new career aspirations and identities, hone skillsrelated to personal and professional growth, and learn to beauthentic and emotionally present in their other work rela-tionships.

High-quality mentoring relationships also help peopledevelop skills that are critical for building effective relation-ships, such as empathic and active listening, perspectivetaking, and the ability to give feedback, manage conflict,and communicate effectively. These skills are called rela-tional caches as they are transportable across relationshipsand life domains. This means that the set of skills developedin one relationship can be carried over to benefit othercurrent and future relationships. For example, a mentormay help a protege develop her perspective taking andlistening skills. The protege can then bring these skills toher other work and non-work relationships, which builds thequality of these relationships. Since high-quality relation-ships involves learning from one’s partner, the protege couldpass this skill along to her other partners over time, who mayin turn share these skills in their developmental networks. Ifthis happens frequently enough in an organization, it couldhave a domino effect that creates and reinforces networks ofhigh-quality relationships and mentoring cultures in organi-zations.

In short, relational mentoring recognizes the capacity ofhigh-quality relationships to create change across lifedomains. In contrast, by focusing on average relationships,traditional perspectives fail to capture the full reach ofmentoring relationships for creating change in the individual

and their constellation of relationships within and outside theworkplace. Instead of taking a segmented view of workersthat views them only in terms of their work role, relationalmentoring uses a holistic lens and recognizes that high-quality mentoring can transcend the job and even the orga-nization. High-quality mentoring relationships can meetmembers’ needs that extend beyond the workplace. In anutshell, while average relationships may help members ‘‘dotheir jobs,’’ high-quality relationships help them ‘‘live theirlives.’’ This perspective yields a different and wider array ofbehaviors and outcomes for the mentoring relationship.

Relational behaviors. As described in Kathy Kram’sgroundbreaking 1985 book, mentors are traditionally viewedas providing two types of behaviors or ‘‘functions’’ in theirrelationships. First, they can provide career developmentfunctions that help their proteges learn the ropes andadvance in the organization. Career development behaviorsinclude coaching and sponsorship, providing visibility andexposure, protecting the protege, and giving them challen-ging assignments. These behaviors are measured by askingproteges to respond to such statements as: ‘‘My mentor helpsme attain desirable positions’’, ‘‘My mentor helps me learnabout other parts of the organization’’, ‘‘My mentor protectsme from those who are out to get me’’ and ‘‘My mentor helpsme be more visible in organizations.’’

Second, mentors can provide psychosocial functions thathelp proteges develop into their professional role. Psycho-social behaviors include offering support, acceptance, coun-seling, friendship and serving as a role model for theirproteges. These behaviors are measured with such questionsas: ‘‘My mentor guides my personal development’’, ‘‘Mymentor is someone I can confide in’’, ‘‘My mentor servesas a role model for me’’, ‘‘My mentor represents who I wantto be’’, and ‘‘My mentor thinks highly of me.’’

Although these functions may be important indicators ofrelational quality, they may not capture the full range ofbehaviors or processes that can be exhibited in high-qualitymentoring relationships. Because these functions were firstidentified over 30 years ago, they do not reflect currentknowledge about the processes and behaviors in high-qualityrelationships. Emerging research has revealed new insightsabout the role of learning, psychological safety, authenticity,and identity processes in close relationships that can help usbetter understand the types of behaviors and processes thatmay be displayed in high-quality mentoring relationships. Inaddition, although Kathy Kram’s original theory acknowl-edged the importance of mutuality, the career developmentand psychosocial functions reflected only the mentor’s beha-viors. Our measures and research inherited this limitation byfocusing nearly exclusively on the mentor’s behaviors in therelationship. This approach not only failed to capture theprotege’s behaviors and the behaviors that build the qualityof the relationship, but also reinforced the assumption thatmentoring is a one-way street that benefits only the protege.

Relational mentoring theory tries to address these issuesby offering a set of relational functions that reflect currentknowledge about behaviors and processes found in closeinterpersonal relationships. Relational functions includebehaviors reflecting personal learning and growth, inspira-tion, and the affirmation of ideal, best, and authentic selves.Examples of questions reflecting relational behaviorsinclude: ‘‘My partner is helping me become the person I

From the ordinary to the extraordinary 235

aspire to be,’’ ‘‘I am often inspired about my partner,’’ ‘‘Mypartner helps me learn more about myself,’’ ‘‘My partneraccepts me for who I am,’’ and ‘‘My partner seems to bringout the best in me.’’ Relational functions also measureprocesses and behaviors that build and reflect the qualityof the relationship, such as reliance on communal norms,shared influence, mutual respect, trust and commitment(e.g., ‘‘We give to each other without expecting repay-ment,’’ ‘‘There is mutual respect and influence in our rela-tionship,’’ and ‘‘My partner and I trust each other and we arecommitted to the relationship.’’). These functions not onlyexplicitly recognize the mutuality in the relationship, butalso offer insights into behaviors that can move mentoringrelationships across the quality continuum.

Relational functions do not replace traditional functions,but rather offer an additional set of behaviors that can befound in high-quality relationships. So a high-quality mentor-ing relationship may provide not only career developmentand psychosocial functions that help the protege, but also anexpanded set of relational functions that benefit both partiesand the relationship. As described below, these functions canyield a richer range of outcomes that extend well beyond theworkplace.

While a wider range of behaviors are likely to be found inhigh-quality relationships, more behaviors do not alwaysmean higher quality relationships. As described earlier,high-quality relationships meet the needs of their members,but not everyone has the same needs. For example, somepeople may look to their relationship to help them find work-life balance or cope with stressful experiences at work, whileothers may be interested primarily in advancement. In addi-tion, since people have a constellation of work relationships,they can ‘‘mix and match’’ to meet different needs fromdifferent relationships. As described earlier, there are multi-ple indicators of relational quality, and it’s important toconsider the fit between the individual’s needs and expecta-tions and what the relationship actually provides. So we needto be careful about assuming that the more behaviors exhib-ited, the higher the quality of the relationship. Even so, bycasting a wider net and recognizing a wider range of beha-viors, we can better understand the different types of beha-viors that are enacted in high-quality relationships and theimpact of these behaviors on the relationship. This perspec-tive also helps us think more broadly about our own behaviorsand as illustrated in Tables 1 and 2, opens new possibilities forimproving the quality of our own mentoring relationships.

Relational outcomes. High-quality mentoring relation-ships may yield a richer range of outcomes than those foundin average relationships. Mentoring relationships have beenfound to predict traditional indicators of career success, suchas the protege’s job and career satisfaction, advancementand compensation. These outcomes are important, but maynot capture the reach of high-quality mentorships. High-quality mentoring may yield an additional and much largerset of outcomes. For example, drawing on the positiveorganizational scholarship literature, high-quality mentor-ships could increase members’ self-confidence, hope, opti-mism and resiliency, as well as their vitality, energy,flourishing and creativity. High-quality relationships can beparticularly effective in facilitating personal and professionalgrowth, learning, and development for both mentors andproteges. The effects of high-quality relationships can also

spill over to affect non-work outcomes. For example, theymay improve members’ life satisfaction, work-life balance,and their experiences of meaningfulness, purpose and con-nection. As discussed later, high-quality relationships canalso help members develop authentic identities, which isparticularly important for those with stigmatized social iden-tities.

High-quality mentoring relationships may also offer safehavens that buffer employees from negative and stressfulworkplace experiences. For example, in our research wefound that high-quality mentoring buffered proteges fromthe negative effects of witnessing racial discrimination atwork. Employees who were exposed to racial discriminationexperienced physical symptoms of stress, insomnia, stress-related absenteeism and lower organizational commitment,but those in high-quality mentoring relationships experi-enced less of these negative outcomes than those lackinga high-quality mentoring relationship. High-quality mentor-ing relationships were safe harbors that anchored employeesto their workplace and buffered them from negative andstressful workplace experiences. Moreover, mentoring wasfound to be singularly effective in this regard, as high-qualitysupervisory and coworker relationships did not bufferemployees from the adverse effects of a discriminatoryworkplace.

As we can see, a relational perspective identifies uniqueoutcomes that may be overlooked when using traditionalapproaches to mentoring. This has important implicationsfor evaluating the effectiveness of the relationship. Forexample, a high-quality mentoring relationship may meeta proteges’ needs for achieving balance or a sense of harmonyin her life, but may not predict her compensation or advance-ment. Researchers using traditional indicators of objectivecareer success may therefore erroneously conclude that therelationship was not very effective, when in fact it was highlyeffective for meeting the specific needs of the protege. Ourknowledge about mentoring is constrained to a relativelynarrow set of traditional outcomes associated with averagerelationships, failing to capture or describe the best mentor-ing has to offer. This narrows our vision and expectations ofour own mentoring relationships, which ultimately restrictstheir potential.

Now that we have distinguished relational and traditionalperspectives, let us now examine how high-quality mentoringrelationships develop and the psychological processes thatenable people to create and maintain high-quality mentoringin the workplace.

HOW DO HIGH-QUALITY MENTORINGRELATIONSHIPS DEVELOP?

Tipping Points and Relational Mentoring Episodes

High-quality mentoring relationships do not spring to lifeimmediately, but rather develop over time via mentoringepisodes. Fletcher and Ragins defined mentoring episodes asshort-term developmental interactions. They point out thatwhile all mentoring relationships involve mentoring episodes,employees can experience a mentoring episode withoutnecessarily being in a mentoring relationship. For example,a senior manager may offer career advice to a new employee,

236 B.R. Ragins

and while both may agree that the manager is engaging in amentoring behavior, neither may see the relationship as amentoring relationship. However, if their mentoring episodescontinue and increase in frequency, duration and intensity,they may reach a ‘‘tipping point’’ where they come to viewthemselves as in a mentoring relationship.

Like mentoring relationships, mentoring episodes rangealong a continuum of quality. Relational mentoring episodesare growth-fostering interactions characterized by mutualexperiences of care, concern, authenticity and engagement.These episodes generate a sense of affirmation, acceptance,responsiveness, positive energy, vitality, and mutual empow-erment. Members experience positive emotions, feelings ofwell-being, self-efficacy and psychological safety. Those whohave frequent, high-quality mentoring episodes should bemore likely to define their work relationship as a mentoringrelationship and experience their relationship as high-qual-ity, compared to those who have infrequent episodes that areof mixed quality. Of course those experiencing low qualitymentoring episodes are unlikely to view their relationship asa mentoring relationship.

Psychological Processes in the Individual: the3 Self-Structures of Mentoring

There are three psychological processes that can affect ourability to develop high-quality mentoring relationships: men-toring schemas, mentoring identities and mentoring as pos-sible selves. These processes guide and shape ourexpectations, experiences, and behaviors in mentoring rela-tionships. By understanding these processes, we are betterable to understand our own mentoring relationships andmove them across the continuum to high-quality relation-ships.

1: Mentoring schemas: What are we supposed to do? Wedevelop expectations or ‘‘mental maps’’ of the roles,functions, behaviors, and outcomes of mentoring relation-ships. Ragins and Verbos call these mental maps of men-toring ‘‘mentoring schemas’’ and explain that they shapementors and proteges’ expectations, motivations, per-ceptions and behaviors in their mentoring relationships.Mentoring schemas are formed by our personal experi-ences and are shaped by the norms and culture of ourorganization. Mentoring schemas tell us what the mentor-ing relationship ‘‘looks like’’ and create ‘‘mentoringscripts’’ that guide our perceptions of our roles andbehaviors in the relationship. Mentoring schemas are heldby both mentors and proteges, and reflect their percep-tions of their roles as well as their partner’s roles in therelationship.

We are better able to develop high-quality relationshipswhen we have schemas that use a relational perspective.For example, the relational mentoring schema, ‘‘Mentorsand proteges learn from each other,’’ should be morelikely to lead to a high-quality relationship than thetraditional schema, ‘‘Mentors know best and protegesshould always follow their advice.’’ Examples of mentor-ing schemas are reflected in the narratives presented inTables 1 and 2. Because both mentors and proteges holdschemas, high-quality relationships are more likely to

develop when the members share congruent schemasabout their roles and the expected outcomes of therelationship.2: Mentoring identities: Who am I? High-quality mentor-ing relationships are also more likely to develop when weincorporate mentoring into our identity. Identity answersthe question ‘‘Who am I?’’ We can incorporate mentoringinto our identity by defining ourselves in terms of ourgeneral role in the mentoring relationship (e.g., Who am I?I am a mentor!) or our specific relationship (e.g., I am Pat’smentor).

Mentoring identities can be held by both mentors andproteges and can range from positive to negative. Positivementoring identities are affirming and reflect a sense ofpositive self-efficacy in their general role as a mentor(e.g., I am a caring and compassionate mentor) or theirrole in a specific relationship (e.g., I am a great mentor toPat). Sometimes people can develop a negative mentoringidentity that arises from negative mentoring experiences(e.g., I am a lousy mentor). However, those with limited ormarginal experiences generally should not incorporatementoring into their identity structures; mentoring hasno role in their self-view.

Those with positive mentoring identities should be moremotivated to enter and develop a high-quality mentoringrelationship than those lacking a mentoring identity orthose with a negative mentoring identity. As describedearlier, identity processes may drive and reinforce thedevelopment of communal norms in the mentoring rela-tionship. Positive mentoring identities can also be a keydriver in the mentor’s decision to initiate a mentoringrelationship. Mentors who incorporate the relationshipinto their identity and who view themselves as a goodmentor should be more invested in their relationship andmore likely to seek out future relationships than mentorswho do not hold these self-views.3: Mentoring as possible selves: Who can I be? The thirdpsychological process affecting our ability to develophigh-quality relationships involves a somewhat differentaspect of identity. Identity involves not only who we are,but also who we wish to become. Hazel Markus and PaulaNurius call this self-vision our possible selves, and explainthat it reflects the self we want to become as well as theself we fear becoming. Some people view themselves interms of their future role as a mentor or protege, whileothers do not. The possible selves of mentoring can alsorange from positive (I can see myself as an effectivementor) to negative (I would be a terrible mentor!) Thosewho hold positive self-visions of mentoring should be moremotivated to enter and develop high-quality relationshipsthan those who hold negative self-visions or those who areunable to envision themselves in a mentoring relationship.Those with positive self-visions should also have clearmentoring schemas that effectively guide their behaviorsonce they enter the relationship.

How do we develop these positive self-structures ofmentoring? One primary way to develop positive self-struc-tures is through our direct experience in mentoring relation-ships. Having positive past experience in high-qualityrelationships, either as a mentor or a protege, helps us

From the ordinary to the extraordinary 237

develop and refine our mentoring schemas and mentoringidentities. We can also develop positive self-structures bytalking to and learning from those who are in high-qualitymentoring relationships. As described later, the organizationmay also play a role in shaping and clarifying our expectationsabout the relationship by providing training that helps usdevelop clear and reasonable expectations of the relation-ship and by promoting a mentoring culture that helps usassimilate our mentoring relationship into our identity.

These three self-structures of mentoring (schemas, iden-tities and possible selves) do not operate independently —they build upon and reinforce one another. For example, amentor who has a strong positive mentoring identity shouldvalue and focus on her mentoring relationships, and thisincreased focus should help her clarify and develop hermentoring schemas. Having a clear road map of her role inthe relationship can in turn reinforce her identification withher role as a mentor. The self-structures of mentoring there-fore build on one another to create and maintain high-qualitymentoring relationships.

The cycle of high-quality mentoring. We can develop andrefine our self-structures while we are in our mentoringrelationship, which can reinforce other processes that con-tribute to the quality of the relationship. This represents anupward spiral that unfolds over time. As described below,trust and disclosure builds the quality of our relationshipsover time. As the quality of our relationship improves, webegin to see ourselves in terms of our mentoring roles. Asdescribed earlier, this identification helps us develop com-munal norms in our relationship, where we give based onneed rather than repayment. Communal norms build thequality of the relationship by meeting members’ needs,and by promoting even more trust and disclosure in therelationship. The experience of being in a high-quality rela-tionship may also help us refine and develop our relationalmentoring schemas. We begin to have clear visions aboutwhat high-quality relationships ‘‘look like’’ and the behaviorsthat lead to high-quality episodes. These schemas help usfurther build the quality of our relationship by providing clearexpectations of the roles, behaviors, and outcomes of high-quality mentoring relationships.

Where does this cycle start? The first place to look is thepast experience of members. People learn and grow fromrelationships, and these changes are brought with them intotheir future relationships. Those who had high-quality rela-tionships in the past should be more likely to develop positiveself-structures that help them create high-quality relation-ships in the future. However, this process is not totally drivenby the individual; there are also processes in the relationshipthat can determine the quality of our relationships.

Processes in the Relationship: Trust, Disclosure,and Authenticity

Relationships are dynamic and organic. They are in a constantstate of change that mirrors changes in the individuals, theirinteractions in the relationship, and the context. Mentoring isa unique relationship that can foster exceptional levels ofpersonal growth, learning, and discovery. However, thisrequires a relational safe space where we can share ourfears, weaknesses, and true selves. Relationships that are

nonjudgmental and affirming offer this sense of psychologicalsafety. These relationships can help us better understandourselves and give us a different perspective on our lives. Theprocesses described below can determine whether our men-toring relationships are marginal or magnificent.

Trust and disclosure. Like other relationships, the foun-dation for building a high-quality mentoring relationship istrust. Trust involves the willingness to be vulnerable anddevelops over time in the relationship. Mentors and protegesdevelop trust by engaging in mentoring episodes that chal-lenge their relationships in ways that test and strengthentheir commitment to the relationship and each other.

Trust can be developed through personal disclosures thatallow members to be vulnerable with one another. Disclosureinvolves sharing our fears, personal beliefs, struggles, aspira-tions, background, and experiences. Disclosure involves risk,but the greater the risk the greater the opportunity forbuilding trust — if disclosure is met with acceptance ratherthan rejection. Confidentiality is of course critical for devel-oping trust in our mentoring relationships.

Trust and disclosure grow alongside and reinforce oneanother in mentoring episodes. Successful disclosure inone mentoring episode can create trust that facilitates dis-closure in future episodes. As described earlier, high-qualitymentoring relationships are characterized by mutuality,which means that mentors also need to disclose to theirproteges. This can be a real challenge for mentors whoapproach their relationship from a hierarchical teacher—student perspective. However, the mentor’s ability and will-ingness to be vulnerable is key for creating the trust neededto create a high-quality relationship.

Trust and disclosure are also more likely to occur inmentoring relationships that are perceived as responsive.In responsive relationships we feel that our partners trulyunderstand, appreciate, value, and care about us as indivi-duals. The process becomes mutual; the responsiveness ofour partner makes us more responsive to them, which ulti-mately increases the trust, disclosure, closeness and com-mitment in the relationship.

Relational authenticity: bringing our full selves to therelationship. Trust and disclosure can lead to experiencesof authenticity in our mentoring and other work relation-ships. The experience of authenticity is an importantfeature and outcome of high-quality relationships. Authen-ticity refers to the alignment between our private andpublic selves. As Michael Kernis and Brian Goldman pointout, relational authenticity is the ability to be authentic inone’s relationships. We are able to bring our full selves toauthentic relationships; we can be true to ourselves with-out having to hide who we are or pretend to be someonewe’re not.

What motivates people to be authentic in their mentoringrelationships? William Swann explains that people are gen-erally motivated to seek a psychological state of self-verifi-cation, which is the consistency between their self-views andhow others see them. Simply put, we want others to see us aswe see ourselves. This motivation can prompt the disclosureof personal information in our work relationships.

Relational authenticity is important as it gives us thefreedom to develop new identities and the self-confidenceneeded to be authentic within and outside the workplace. Aspointed out by Fletcher and Ragins, authenticity is a skill we

238 B.R. Ragins

can bring to the relationship as well as a process that createshigh-quality mentoring relationships.

Authenticity evolves in our mentoring relationships overtime. The relational behaviors provided in high-quality rela-tionships build trust and the disclosure needed to supportrelational authenticity. In turn, the experience of relationalauthenticity solidifies trust, facilitates more disclosure, andreinforces the display of relational behaviors in our relation-ship. These behaviors continue to build the level of relationalauthenticity in the relationship. As you can see, this is not alinear process, but rather reflects a cyclical process thatevolves over time in the relationship.

Perceived similarity plays a key role in facilitating trustand authenticity in our mentoring relationships. Generally,we like and trust those who we see as similar to ourselves. Wesee similar others as ‘‘known quantities,’’ which gives us asense of control and psychological safety in the relationship.We experience less risk and vulnerability when we interactwith similar others, which facilitates disclosure of personalinformation that builds trust and authenticity. Perceivedsimilarity may or may not reflect actual similarity, but itcan drive disclosure, which ultimately builds trust andauthenticity in our relationships.

Creating relational safe havens: acceptance, valida-tion, and empathy. High-quality mentoring creates rela-tional safe havens where members feel accepted,supported and validated. Members need to trust that theirdisclosures will be held in confidence and that their experi-ences will be heard and not judged. These relational safehavens offer the experience of psychological safety; theybuffer employees from workplace stressors and offer them asafe space from which to explore and develop their profes-sional identities.

How do mentors and proteges create safe havens? To start,both need to be effective communicators who can engage inactive and empathic listening. Active listening is the abilityto listen and reflect on what the other person is sayingwithout interrupting or jumping into a ‘‘problem-solvingmode.’’ Empathic listening involves recognizing the emotionsunderlying the communication. This requires emotionalintelligence and our ability to understand non-verbal cues.These communication skills are particularly important formentors, who need to move from giving advice to listeningand asking non-judgmental, open-ended questions thatencourage their proteges to explore their options, feelings,and reactions.

Empathy and perspective taking are key interpersonalskills that can create safe havens and build the quality andeffectiveness of our mentoring relationships. Empathyinvolves the ability to understand how the other person feels,while perspective taking includes an understanding of theother person’s position and the ability to see the worldthrough their eyes. Perspective taking involves more thanjust putting yourself in the shoes of someone else; it involvesunderstanding their perspective and how they feel, ratherthan thinking about how you would feel if you were in theirposition. This distinction is particularly important for highperforming mentors, as they need to recognize that the tasksthat may be easy for them can be challenging for theirprotege. Similarly, perspective taking may help the protegeunderstand the level of pressure, responsibility, and visibilityfaced by their mentor, as the protege’s behavior can be a

public reflection of their mentor’s competence, abilities andintegrity.

How do mentors and proteges develop these skills? Asdescribed later, organizations can provide training to helpemployees develop effective communication and perspec-tive taking skills. Mentors and proteges can also developthese relational skills through their own experiences inhigh-quality relationships. Since these skills are transporta-ble across relationships, non-work relationships can also be avaluable resource for developing listening and perspectivetaking skills in the workplace.

A summary of the strategies for creating high-qualitymentoring relationships is presented in Table 3.

Now that we have illuminated the path to high-qualitymentoring relationships, let us explore the unique benefits ofthese relationships for diverse employees and for organiza-tions that seek to promote and develop a diverse workforce.

DIVERSITY AND HIGH-QUALITY MENTORINGRELATIONSHIPS

While high-quality mentoring relationships are important foreveryone, they are particularly critical for employees whoare in the numerical minority and those who are members ofstigmatized groups. Stigmas are social identities that aredevalued in a particular social context. Employees may bestigmatized because of visible differences (e.g., gender,race, ethnicity, age, weight, and observable forms of dis-ability) or because of differences that are not readily obser-vable (e.g., sexual orientation, religion, social class, andsome disabilities.) Stigmatized groups face challenges ran-ging from marginalization and exclusion to discrimination andharassment. These experiences can have adverse effects ontheir advancement, mobility, and careers. The stress asso-ciated with these experiences may also prompt them to leavetheir organization and even their profession. High-qualitymentoring offers three distinct benefits for stigmatizedemployees and their organizations.

Benefit #1: High-Quality Mentoring Offers a SafeHaven for Developing Authentic Identities atWork

Developing a professional identity can be particularly daunt-ing for those who are members of stigmatized groups. Theseemployees may experience identity stress from the pressureto both assimilate and preserve their group identities, andmay also feel the need to walk a fine line in the behaviorsthey display at work. For example, Black employees mayreceive negative reactions from their White supervisors foracting ‘‘too Black,’’ while simultaneously receiving criticismfrom their Black coworkers for acting ‘‘too White.’’ Women inmale-dominated positions may be penalized for being eithertoo feminine or not feminine enough, and may feel like theyare ‘‘walking a gender tight rope’’ in balancing their mascu-line and feminine leadership styles. Employees with invisiblestigmas face additional identity challenges. For example,gay, lesbian and transgender employees may need to decidewhether to ‘‘come out’’ and disclose their identity, whichleaves them vulnerable to social isolation, subtle discrimina-tion and harassment at work, or conceal their identity, which

Table 3 Strategies for Developing High-Quality Mentoring Relationships

Clarify expectations and create positive visions of the relationship� Be aware of your expectations: What do you expect from your partner? Yourself?� Share your expectations with your partner — are your expectations realistic?� Think about the big picture: Create a mental map or vision of a high-quality mentoring relationship using your past experiences orlearning from other high-quality relationships.� What do these high-quality relationships look like and how can you transform your relationship to get to that place?

Know yourself� Know your needs, strengths and limitations and share them with your partner.� Understand how your ‘‘blind-spots’’ or shortcomings could affect your relationship.� Think broadly about what you can offer your partner — both in terms of work and life experiences.

Build trust� Maintain absolute confidentiality.� Take off the armor: Be willing to be vulnerable and disclose in your relationship.� Take off the mask, too: Be genuine in your relationship.

Create a safe space relationship� Accept, validate and respect your partner’s feelings (even if you don’t understand them.)Put your judgments on hold and just listen.� Be responsive to your partner: Show them that you understand, value, appreciate and care about them.� Be here now: Give your partner your undivided attention and make sure they know you are listening.� Be fully engaged and committed to your relationship.� Show your commitment — take the time to develop your relationship.

Create positive norms� Reject student—teacher models: Create norms of co-learning, shared influence and fluid expertise.� Develop communal norms: Don’t be a taker — think about your partner’s needs and what you can give in your relationship.� Focus on filling each other’s needs: Be open to a range of work and non-work topics.� No need to put on a happy face: Accept the expression of positive and negative emotions.� Support and value authenticity in your relationship.� Put the relationship first and be willing to forgive.

Develop effective communication and relationship skills� Engage in empathic and active listening: Don’t jump into problem solving mode.� Be a sounding board and let your partner know that you truly hear them.� Build your emotional intelligence: Pay attention to underlying emotions and non-verbal cues.� Practice perspective taking and empathy: Try to understand your partner’s perspective and how they are feeling.

From the ordinary to the extraordinary 239

leaves them vulnerable to the stress associated with hidingtheir true identity and the risk that they may be ‘‘outed’’ byothers at work.

Employees from stigmatized groups face stereotypes thatfurther undermine their ability to develop authentic andpositive professional identities at work. For example, stereo-typing may prompt coworkers to question their competencyand abilities in ways that undermine self-confidence and self-efficacy. Because their minority status puts them in thespotlight, their actions, dress and behaviors may be closelyscrutinized. They may not be seen as individuals, but ratheras representatives of their group, and their performance andinteractions may be viewed through the lens of stereotypes.They may face social isolation from peers who are uncom-fortable with them, and they may be excluded from theinformal networks where professional identities are devel-oped and refined. They may lack role models and peers whocan help them overcome these challenges to developing anauthentic identity at work.

High-quality mentoring may offer a safe space wherestigmatized employees can share and process their experi-ences and receive the support needed to cultivate positiveand authentic professional and career identities. Employees

can know that even if their identity is not valued in theorganization, it is valued in their mentoring relationship. Theacceptance, affirmation and empathy provided might notonly help them develop an authentic identity, but can alsobuffer them from the negative effects of a discriminatoryworkplace.

Benefit #2: High-Quality Mentoring OffersThriving and Surviving Strategies

Stigmatized employees need to learn how to deflect themacro and micro aggressions stemming from stereotyping,attributions and assumptions. Micro aggressions are everydayverbal and nonverbal insults, dismissals and slights thatdegrade and devalue a group. While macro aggressions areovert and obvious, the insidious and subversive nature ofmicro aggressions makes them particularly dangerous. Forexample, stigmatized employees may find their competencequestioned because of their group membership, and theymay need to prove themselves in ways that are not requiredof their non-stigmatized counterparts. Their ideas may bediscounted or hijacked, and their success attributed to luckor affirmative action.

240 B.R. Ragins

Much like ‘‘death from a thousand paper cuts,’’ theseeveryday micro aggressions can erode self-esteem and theability to be effective at work. The career strategies thatwork for majority group members may be ineffective or evenbackfire for those in the minority. A female employee whoassertively asks for a raise or promotion, for instance, mayviolate gender role stereotypes that prescribe her to bepassive and submissive, and she may consequently facenegative reactions and backlash as a result.

High-quality mentoring relationships can help stigmatizedemployees develop strategies that not only address thesechallenges but also help them flourish at work. For example,a high-quality mentor may help a female protege dismiss theself-doubts stemming from a sexist workplace. The mentormay even help her get the perspective and courage needed tofind a new job that values her talents and allows her toflourish.

The demographic composition of the mentoring relation-ship plays a role in the types of strategies and resourcesoffered in the relationship. Homogeneous mentoring rela-tionships involve mentors and proteges who share groupmemberships (e.g., a female mentor and a female protege),while diversified relationships involve those who come fromdifferent groups (e.g., a male mentor and a female protege).Members who share a similar background or identity mayhave a deeper appreciation of the challenges faced by theirpartners, and may be able to offer ‘‘tried and true’’ strate-gies for surviving and thriving in the workplace. Homoge-neous relationships are not, however, automatically betterthan diverse relationships. For instance, a White male men-tor, while not sharing the same background or experiences ashis Black female protege, may be able to share informationfrom the ‘‘old boy’s network’’ that helps his protege learn theunwritten norms, expectations and information needed tonavigate the organization’s political and promotional sys-tems. Majority mentors also often have more power andinfluence than minority mentors, which can be used toprotect and help the protege.

Benefit #3: High-Quality Mentoring HelpsMembers Learn About Diversity

Diverse mentoring relationships provide members with aunique opportunity to learn about diversity, particularlywhen the relationship is high-quality. As described earlier,high-quality relationships involve mutual learning and safehavens that foster trust, acceptance and disclosure. Mem-bers know that their fears, concerns, and experiences will beaccepted and not judged by their partners. This offers themthe opportunity to engage in ‘‘diversity dialogues.’’ Diversitydialogues involve candid and open discussions about diver-sity. During these dialogues members can share their back-grounds and personal experiences with diversity, theirreactions to encounters involving diversity, and their percep-tions, struggles, and concerns about diversity within andoutside the workplace. High-quality relationships offer theopportunity to ask questions and engage in difficult conver-sations that are often skirted in the workplace.

These diversity dialogues offer an exceptional opportunityfor learning and personal growth. Consider the examplewhere a senior White male executive is mentoring a junior

woman of color. A high-quality relationship offers them theopportunity to have open and candid discussions about therole of race in their organization. The protege of color couldshare her experiences with micro-aggressions and the subtlebut corrosive experiences of racism she encounters at work.These dialogues would not only raise the mentor’s awarenessof racism at his organization, but may also prompt him tothink more deeply about modern or ‘‘underground’’ racism,White privilege, and the role of race in his life. For example,he may grapple with such questions as: What does it mean tobe White? How has my race affected my career and experi-ence at this organization? This dialogue may also give theprotege of color a different perspective that helps her under-stand why her White colleagues may not see or even deny herexperiences of racism. These dialogues offer a powerfulopportunity for developing perspective taking skills and forunderstanding the dynamics of race and diversity within andoutside the workplace.

High-quality mentoring relationships may be even moreeffective than diversity training for changing attitudes. Orga-nizations provide diversity training to raise consciousness andeliminate racism at work, but employees may hesitate tohave frank discussions about race in public forums. High-quality mentoring relationships offer a safe space to askquestions and engage in conversations that raise conscious-ness and awareness about diversity. Instead of watchingPower Point descriptions in training sessions, members ofdiverse mentoring relationships can gain first-hand knowl-edge about diversity in their workplace. High-quality men-toring relationships can therefore be a powerful tool forchanging attitudes and creating more inclusive diversityclimates in organizations.

HOW CAN ORGANIZATIONS PROMOTE HIGH-QUALITY MENTORING?

Managers, leaders and organizations can take an active rolein promoting high-quality mentoring at work. Here are a fewtips to help guide this journey.

Establish Relational Mentoring Cultures andEffective Training Programs

Organizations can promote high-quality mentoring by foster-ing relational mentoring cultures. A relational mentoringculture values employees’ learning, growth, and develop-ment. Organizations with relational mentoring culturesrecognize that mentoring relationships are the medium forlearning and development, and actively promote mentoringthrough their policies, practices and programs. Mentoring isvalued and woven into the very fabric of the company.Employees understand what high-quality mentoring lookslike, and their mentoring relationships are reinforced andsupported. Their leaders actively take on the mantle ofmentoring and ‘‘walk the talk’’ by modeling their mentoringrelationships and mentoring identities for others at work.

There are a number of practical strategies that organiza-tions can use to develop relational mentoring cultures. Tostart, they can offer training programs that apply the stra-tegies and principles presented in this article. These strate-gies and principles are summarized in Tables 3 and 4, and can

Table 4 Summary of Antecedents, Processes and Outcomes of High-quality Mentoring Relationships at Work

Antecedents of high-qualitymentoring

High-quality mentoringexperience

Outcomes of high-quality mentoring

Individual Processes & Attributes� Self-Structures of Mentoring: MentoringSchemas, Identities & Possible Selves� Relational Knowledge & Experience inHigh-quality Relationships� Individual Differences & SkillsEmpathy & Perspective TakingEffective Communication SkillsEmotional IntelligenceSelf-Construal & Attachment Style

� Experience of Needs-Based Fit

� Safe Havens & Stress Buffers

� Relational Authenticity

� Satisfaction with Relationship

� Commitment to Relationship

� Close Mentoring Bonds

Relational Outcomes� Mutual Learning, Growth & Development� Relational Competencies & Caches� Professional & Authentic Identities� Self-Efficacy, Empowerment & Resilience� Inspiration, Creativity, Vitality & Thriving� Health, Well-being & Balance� Life Satisfaction, Flourishing & Meaning� Affirmation of Ideal, Best & AuthenticSelves� Motivated to enter future mentoringrelationships

Relationship Norms, Processes & Behaviors� Communal Norms� Shared Influence & Fluid Expertise� Mutuality, Reciprocity & Vulnerability� Trust & Disclosure� Relational Behaviors

Traditional Outcomes� Job Attitudes & Performance� Promotion & Compensation� Retention & Organizational Attachment� Career Satisfaction & Efficacy

Organizational Context� Relational Mentoring Culture� Norms, Policies & Practices� High-quality Formal Mentoring Programs

Diversity Outcomes� Authenticity & Authentic Identitiesat Work� Thriving & Surviving Strategies� Learning about Diversity & DiversityDialogues

From the ordinary to the extraordinary 241

be incorporated into training programs that are offered to allemployees, not just those in formal mentoring programs.

Training can help employees develop positive mentoringschemas by showing what high-quality mentoring relation-ships do (i.e., relational behaviors), what they provide (i.e.,relational outcomes), and their unique dynamics (i.e., co-learning, fluid expertise, safe havens, trust, and commit-ment). One effective training technique is to ask trainees tobrainstorm characteristics of high-quality mentors and pro-teges and then list their ideas on the board. This visuallyillustrates the range of behaviors in high-quality relation-ships, clarifies expectations in the relationship, and helpstrainees understand the limitations of traditional teacher—student models of mentoring. Since people develop mentor-ing schemas by learning from others, trainers can also asktrainees to share their own high-quality mentoring experi-ences (as mentors and as proteges), which include: how theirmentoring relationships developed, the benefits theyreceived from them, and how their relationships affectedtheir lives and identities. This technique helps traineesdevelop a vision or mental model of high-quality mentoring,which can guide their current and future development ofhigh-quality mentoring relationships. The training could alsoinclude the communication, listening, empathy, and perspec-tive taking skills described earlier in this article.

Organizations also need to recognize the time that goesinto developing high-quality mentoring and not inadvertentlypenalize mentors for taking on a mentoring role. For exam-ple, organizations that work primarily on commissions and

billable hours can ensure that their pay and promotionsystems don’t penalize mentors for taking the time neededto develop high-quality mentoring relationships.

The Role of Formal Mentoring Programs

Formal mentoring programs can play an important role inpromoting mentoring cultures and high-quality mentoringrelationships at work. Formal mentoring relationships involverelationships that are assigned by the organization as part ofa formal mentoring program. Like their informal siblings,formal mentoring relationships fall along a continuum ofquality. Due to their short-term contractual nature, formalrelationships are generally of lower quality than informalrelationships. However, formal and informal relationshipsoverlap in quality and some formal relationships can be ofhigher quality than informal relationships. Overall, the qual-ity of the relationship matters more than whether the rela-tionship is formal or informal. We found, for example, thathigh-quality formal mentoring relationships offered employ-ees more benefits than informal relationships that were ofmarginal quality, and that high-quality formal mentors couldbuffer their proteges from the negative effects of a discri-minatory workplace. It’s important to recognize the conti-nuum of quality in formal relationships and not simply dismissthem as being less effective than informal relationships.

Quality begets quality, and organizations are unlikely toproduce high-quality relationships from low quality pro-grams. The quality of the program depends on the resources.

242 B.R. Ragins

Some organizations devote the resources needed to createand maintain high-quality programs; they develop tailoredprogram goals and objectives, carefully select and trainmentors and proteges, conduct careful matching that isaligned with program goals, monitor the match, and evaluatethe program. Other organizations simply throw mentors andproteges together and hope for the best. In some cases, high-quality relationships may emerge from haphazard programs,but generally the more resources and care taken in devel-oping the program, the higher the quality of the relationshipsit produces. While some employees may learn what not to dofrom a marginal or dysfunctional relationship, others may besoured by the experience, so it is important that organiza-tions devote the resources needed to create high-qualitymentoring programs.

High-quality formal mentoring offers a number of impor-tant benefits for organizations. Effective programs are a greatway to promote mentoring cultures, and the training providedin these programs can help employees develop high-qualityformal, as well as informal mentoring relationships. High-quality formal mentoring can help employees develop positivementoring schemas and mentoring identities, which can moti-vate them to develop and maintain other high-quality men-toring relationships in their organization. Our research hasfound that today’s proteges are tomorrow’s mentors: peoplewho have been proteges in the past are more likely to becomea mentor in the future than those who have never been in amentoring relationship. Formal mentoring can therefore bethe gateway to informal mentoring and can give proteges thebackground, experience, and motivation to be mentors in thefuture — if the experience is positive.

Finally, formal mentoring can promote diverse mentoringrelationships and level the playing field for access to mentors.

One problem with informal mentoring is that mentors oftenchoose proteges who they see as a younger version of them-selves. So a White male mentor may choose a White male ashis protege because of perceived similarity and comfort.Indeed, female employees and employees of color have beenfound to report more barriers to getting an informal mentorthan their White male counterparts. Formal mentoring pro-grams can remove barriers to mentors and also provide thebenefits associated with diverse mentoring relationshipsdescribed earlier.

In short, formal mentoring relationships are not the uglystep sisters of informal relationships, but rather are closecousins that can provide unique resources and benefits. It’salso important to remember that we do not have to choose —we can have both formal and informal relationships in ourfamily of developmental relationships.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Mentoring relationships can range from ordinary to extra-ordinary. Some relationships can be transformative andchange the way we view our careers, our environment,and ourselves. These relationships affect us in profoundand enduring ways. They inspire us to flourish and find ourbest and authentic selves. They energize us, opening newavenues for learning, growth and discovery. They generatefresh perspectives that spark our imagination and ignite ourcreativity. They offer safe havens that accept us for who wereally are, giving us the freedom to experiment and grow inour careers and lives. They give us the courage to do thethings we think we cannot do, and the strength to overcomeour limitations. They bring out the best in us and in others.

From the ordinary to the extraordinary 243

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

For the original theoretical work on relational mentoring seeB. R. Ragins, ‘‘Relational mentoring: A positive approach tomentoring at work,’’ In K. Cameron and G. Spreitzer (Eds.)The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship(New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 519—536. Formore information on mentoring schemas see B. R. Raginsand A. K. Verbos, ‘‘Positive relationships in action: Relationalmentoring and mentoring schemas in the workplace,’’ In J.Dutton and B. R. Ragins (Eds.) Exploring positive relation-ships at work: Building a theoretical and research founda-tion. (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2007). See J. K.Fletcher and B. R. Ragins, ‘‘Stone Center Relational CulturalTheory: A window on relational mentoring,’’ In B. R. Raginsand K. E. Kram (Eds.) The handbook of mentoring at work:Theory, research and practice (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2007),373—399, for more information on mentoring episodes andauthenticity in high-quality mentoring relationships.

For the original work on mentoring identities see B. R.Ragins ‘‘Positive identities in action: A model of mentoringself-structures and the motivation to mentor,’’ In L. M.Roberts and J. E. Dutton (Eds.) Exploring positive identitiesand organizations: Building a theoretical and research foun-dation (Routledge Press: New York, NY, 2009), 237—263. Formore information about relational caches see: K.E. Kram andB. R. Ragins, ‘‘The landscape of mentoring in the 21st cen-tury,’’ In B. R. Ragins and K.E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook ofmentoring at work: Theory, research and practice (ThousandOaks, CA: Sage, 2007), 659—692. For foundational work onmentoring relationships see: K.E. Kram’s book Mentoring atwork: Developmental relationships in organizational life.(Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1985).

For those interested in reading more about positive andhigh-quality relationships at work, see J. E. Dutton and B. R.Ragins (Eds.). Exploring positive relationships at work: Build-ing a theoretical and research foundation. (Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum, 2007) and J. E. Dutton and E. D. Heaphy, ‘‘Thepower of high-quality connections,’’ In K. S. Cameron, J. E.Dutton, and R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scho-larship: Foundations of a new discipline, (San Francisco, CA:Berrett-Koehler, 2003), 263—278. See also empirical work byJ. P. Stephens, E. D. Heaphy, A. Carmeli, G. M. Spreitzer, andJ. E. Dutton, ‘‘Relationship quality and virtuousness: Emo-tional carrying capacity as a source of individual and teamresilience,’’ Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2013, 49,13—41, and A. Carmeli, D. Brueller and J. E. Dutton, J. E.‘‘Learning behaviors in the workplace: The role of high-quality interpersonal relationships and psychological safety,’’Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 2009, 26, 81—98.

For more information on needs-based fit in work relation-ships see: W.A. Kahn, ‘‘Meaningful connections: Positiverelationships and attachments at work,’’ In J. E. Dutton &B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring positive relationships at work:Building a theoretical and research foundation, (Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2007), 189—206. For a discussion ofcare giving at work read W.A. Kahn, ‘‘Holding environmentsat work’’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2001, 37,260—279.

For learning more about communal norms in close rela-tionships, see M. Clark and J., Mills ‘‘The difference betweencommunal and exchange relationships,’’ Personality andSocial Psychological Bulletin, 1993, 19, 684—691. For adescription of partner responsiveness see: H. T. Reis, M.S.Clark and J. G. Holmes, ‘‘Perceived partner responsiveness asan organizing construct in the study of intimacy and close-ness,’’ in D. J Mashek and A. Aron (Eds.), The handbook ofcloseness and intimacy. (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,2004), 201—228. To read more about self-verification theorysee: W. B. Swann ‘‘Self-verification theory’’ In P. A. VanLange, A. W. Kruglanski and E. T. Higgins (Eds.), The hand-book of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2) (London, Sage,2012), 23—42.

For evidence about the impact of high-quality formalmentoring see B. R. Ragins, J. L. Cotton and J. S. Miller,‘‘Marginal mentoring: The effects of type of mentor, qualityof relationship, and program design on work and careerattitudes, ‘‘Academy of Management Journal, 2000, 43,1177—1194. See also, B. R. Ragins, K. Ehrhardt, K. Lyness,D. Murphy, and J. Capman, ‘‘Anchoring relationships at work:High-quality mentors and other supportive relationships asbuffers to ambient racial discrimination,’’ in press, PersonnelPsychology.

For the original discussion about the benefits of high-quality diverse mentoring relationships see B.R. Ragins‘‘Diversity and workplace mentoring relationships: A reviewand positive social capital approach’’ In T. D. Allen and L. T.Eby (Eds.) Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multipleperspectives approach. (Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing,2007), 281—300. See B. R. Ragins, ‘‘Diversified mentoringrelationships in organizations: A power perspective,’’ Acad-emy of Management Review, 1997, 22, 2, 482—521 for anexplanation of the processes underlying diverse mentoringrelationships. For a description of diversity dialogues inmentoring relationships see B.R. Ragins ‘‘Understandingdiversified mentoring relationships: definitions, challengesand strategies’’ In B. Ragins and D. Clutterbuck, Mentoringand diversity: An international perspective (Oxford: Butter-worth-Heinemann/Elsevier, 2002). 23—53.

To learn more about identity and relationships see: D. M.Sluss and B. E. Ashforth ‘‘Relational identity and identifica-tion: Defining ourselves through work relationships,’’ Acad-emy of Management Review, 2007, 32, 9—32. See also: A.Aron, E. N. Aron & C. Norman, ‘‘Self-expansion model ofmotivation and cognition in close relationships and beyond,’’In G. Fletcher and M. Clark (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook ofSocial Psychology, Vol 2: Interpersonal Processes (Malden,MA: Blackwell, 2001), 478—502. To learn about possible

244 B.R. Ragins

selves and authenticity see: H. Markus and P. Nurius,‘‘Pos-sible selves,’’ American Psychologist, 1986, 41, 954—969 andM. H. Kernis and B. M. Goldman, B. M. ‘‘A multicomponent

conceptualization of authenticity: Theory and research’’Advances in experimental social psychology, 2006, 38,283—357.

Belle Rose Ragins is a professor of management at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. She teaches, consultsand conducts research in the areas of mentoring, diversity and positive relationships at work. Her current researchexamines the positive impact of high quality mentoring relationships on employees’ organizational attachment,and the role of gender and diversity in these relationships. She has also researched the glass ceiling, racism atwork, and sexual orientation in organizations. Belle received her Ph.D. in Industrial-Organizational Psychologyfrom the University of Tennessee (Sheldon Lubar School of Business, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 3202 N.Maryland Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53211, United States. e-mail: Ragins@uwm.edu).