Copyright © eContent Management Pty Ltd. Contemporary Nurse (2014) 47(1–2): 79–87.
Mentoring: Some cautionary notes for the nursing profession Janet Green and Debra Jackson Faculty of Health, University of Technology, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Abstract: Mentoring has been embraced in nursing as a way of socialising new nurses into the profession, growing and developing nursing talent, and more recently as a way to retain experienced nurses with the current nursing shortage. Much of the extant literature focusses on the benefits of mentoring, differences between formal and informal mentoring, the elements of a successful mentoring relationship, and the characteristics of ‘good’ mentors and protégées. Until recently the research on mentoring has almost exclusively focussed on the positive aspects of mentoring for the protégées, organisations and to a lesser extent, mentors. While viewed by many as a beneficial and enriching developmental experience, it is equally important to recognise that there can be a darker side to the mentoring experience for the mentor and protégée. This paper will explore the negative aspects associated with mentoring and mentoring relationships and provide some cautionary notes for nursing.
Keywords: mentoring, mentor, nursing, discursive paper
T
he term ‘mentoring’ describes an association between people that has the goal of d evelopment of one person – usually less e xperienced – through their relationship with another, more experienced person (McCloughen, O’Brien, & Jackson, 2006). It can be a long or shorter term relationship that can involve various activities, including coaching, career advice, and one-on-one teaching. Mentoring can be formal or informal. Formal mentoring refers to structured and formalised relationships that are often instigated at the behest of employers, while informal or classical mentoring is characterised as an informal, often spontaneous relationship between two people based on a wish to work together, usually a more experienced mentor and a less experienced mentee. It is instigated by the individuals comprising the partnership, quite independent of any outside influence. The mentoring partnership involves two parties; one the mentor who takes the role of the more experienced person; and the protégée, who is the learner, or less experienced person in the dyad. As a discipline, nursing has embraced the concept of mentoring as a way to retain experienced nurses with the current nursing shortage (Cottingham, DiBartolo, Basstoni, & Brown, 2011; LaFleur & White, 2010; Thomka, 2007). It could be for this reason that uncritical acceptance has led to the nursing literature largely reflecting the positive aspects of mentoring relationships. However, the idea that mentoring relationships
could also have negative consequences is not new, with some evidence to suggest that negative and even toxic mentoring relationships are not uncommon and that these relationships can, in some situations, become destructive (Eby & Allen, 2002). Understanding of the negative aspects of mentoring has been greatly advanced by the work of Lillian Eby and various colleagues who have explored negative mentoring experiences from the protégées perspective (Eby & Allen, 2002; Eby & McManus, 2004; Eby, McManus, Simon, & Russell, 2000) the mentor’s perspective (Eby, Durley, Evans, & Ragins, 2008), why individuals stay in bad mentoring relationships (Burk & Eby, 2010), and whether bad experiences in mentoring are stronger than good experiences (Eby, Butts, Durley, & Ragins, 2010). Scandura (1998) has explored dysfunctional mentoring relationships and their outcomes, while McDonald and Hite (2005) and Moberg and Velasquez (2004) have written about the ethics of mentoring and how ethical principles and ethical boundaries can be violated by unprofessional behaviour. Eby et al. (2000) in a study of protégées, found that half of their participants reported encountering negative mentoring experiences during their careers. While it is unsurprising that people can experience both positive and negative aspects within the same relationship (Eby et al., 2008), the idea that there is a
Volume 47, Issue 1–2, April/June 2014
CN
79
CN
Janet Green and Debra Jackson
darker side of mentoring with possible profound consequences for individuals and organisations has had limited scrutiny or even acknowledgement in the literature. This paper will explore the negatives associated with mentoring and mentoring relationships and consider the implications for nursing. Anecdotal evidence suggests that mentoring relationships in nursing can be problematic. Currently, there is no literature on negative mentoring relationships in nursing. Indeed, virtually all of the mentoring literature related to nursing has a positive focus; therefore extrapolation to the broader mentoring literature focussing on negative experiences will be required. The term ‘mentoring’ is variously constructed. Mentoring may be confused with coaching or preceptoring and indeed, elements of these can be found in mentoring relationships. There are various international nuances around mentoring, and this impacts on the definitions of mentoring in the literature (Andrews & Wallis, 1999; Jokelainen, Turunen, Tossaainen, Jamookeeah, & Coco, 2011; Yonge, Billay, Myrick, & Luhanga, 2007). The United Kingdom considers mentoring as an experienced clinician providing guidance and support in the clinical environment (Bray & Nettleton, 2007; Elcock & Sharples, 2011; Hurley & Snowden, 2008; Huybrecht, Loeckx, Quaeyhaegens, De Tobel, & Mistiaen, 2011; Royal College of Nursing, 2007; Webb & Shakespeare, 2008). In Australia this relationship would be referred to as ‘preceptoring’ (Firtko, Stewart, & Knox, 2005; McCloughen et al., 2006; Mills, Francis, & Bonner, 2005). In nursing, both formal and informal mentoring relationships have been described. For the purpose of this paper, we construct mentoring as traditional mentoring that can have either a formal or informal framework. This paper will explore the literature that identifies negative aspects associated with mentoring relationships and consider the possible implications of this literature for nursing. It is noteworthy that most of the problems identified in the literature have been associated with formal or imposed mentoring relationships. 80
CN
Why mentoring for nursing? New graduate nurses are desperately needed in the health system because of the ageing workforce. Nursing graduates are expected to transition into the health system at a basic level of competence, yet in reality, much more is expected of these graduates once they are within the health care system. Chronic underfunding and a shortfall of nursing staff means that these new graduate nurses may be expected to fulfil staffing functions above their level of competence. In addition to understaffing issues, nurses are also leaving the workforce in large numbers because of feelings of stress, anxiety and oppression, often as the result of bullying and horizontal violence (Bally, 2007). It is believed that mentoring can foster positive, more supportive organisational cultures and reduce the number of nurses leaving the profession (Bally, 2007, p. 145; Huybrecht et al., 2011; Thomka, 2007). Mentoring has also been suggested as helpful because it helps to socialise new nurses to the values and standards inherent in the profession, it potentially maintains the standards of the profession, and prepares nursing leaders for the future (Cuesta & Bloom, 1998; LaFleur & White, 2010; McCloughen et al., 2006; Thomka, 2007). Borges and Smith (2004, p. 48) emphasise the importance of mentoring for nurses and argue that ‘establishing a successful mentoring relationship is not a luxury; it is a virtual necessity.’ It has also been suggested that mentoring can help with the vulnerability experienced by new graduate nurses when they transition from the idealist image of nursing acquired in nursing school to a more realistic image of the nursing profession and nursing practice (Beecroft, Santner, Lacy, Kunzman, & Dorey, 2006; Huybrecht et al., 2011). Sword, Byrne, Drummond-Young, Harmer, and Rush (2002) have identified that mentoring nursing students can have positives outcomes on their professional development and socialisation. Furthermore, mentoring is considered an important career development strategy, with research suggesting that individuals experiencing mentoring perform better at their jobs, advance more rapidly, enjoy increased salary, and claim more job and career satisfaction with less employment turnover than those who are unmentored (Eby et al., 2000; LaFleur & White, 2010).
Volume 47, Issue 1–2, April/June 2014
© eContent Management Pty Ltd
Mentoring: Some cautionary notes for the nursing profession There is much research that attests to the positives of mentoring for the nursing profession (Bally, 2007; Barker, 2006; Block, Claffery, Korow, & McCaffrey, 2005; Cottingham et al., 2011; Cuesta & Bloom, 1998; Huybrecht et al., 2011; LaFleur & White, 2010; Madison, 1994; McKinley, 2004; Stewart & Krueger, 1996). Problems in mentoring in nursing have been identified by Ehrich, Tennant, and Hansford (2002), therefore, it would seem timely that an exploration of the potential negative aspects of mentoring and the implications for the nursing profession is undertaken. Overview of the process and benefits of mentoring in nursing
The theoretical underpinnings of social contract theory or social exchange theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) can be used to understand close relationships that can occur in the professional context. The social–psychological interpretation of social contract/exchange theory focuses on the exchanges occurring within relationships, and propose that ‘individuals develop beliefs and emotional reactions to a relationship’ (Eby et al., 2008, p. 359). These reactions as based on individual perceptions of the positive benefits (as opposed to the negative costs) that any relationship offers. Generally speaking, costs tend to weaken relationships while benefits have a strengthening effect. Social contract theory recognises that not all relationships are positive experiences, and that costs can be incurred from participating in relationships. While ever the benefits outweigh costs a relationship will likely continue; however when costs outweigh benefits the relationship could be considered by either party as requiring too much effort to maintain it, for too little return, and it could dissolve (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). There are various models around mentoring, and successful growth of both parties is the aim of the relationship. Kram (1983) documents four phases in the mentoring relationship; ‘initiation, cultivation, separation and redefinition.’ The initiation phase involves mentor/protégée selection and learning each other’s style and working habits. The cultivation phase seems the most important for both parties as the protégée gains knowledge
© eContent Management Pty Ltd
CN
and skills, while the mentor gains the loyalty and support of the protégée. During the separation phase the mentor/protégée relationship in its current form ends (Kram, 1983), but may develop into a collegial relationship or peer friendship during the redefinition phase (Scandura, 1998). In successful mentoring relationships both parties benefit and grow personally and professionally as a result of the relationship, however Stewart and Krueger (1996) suggest that the end stage of mentoring relationship is a stage of reciprocity, and emphasise that the mentor–protégée relationship could end in a rift if it does not move to reciprocity. Generally, two distinct types of support can be found within the mentoring relationship; career related or professional development and psychosocial support that helps build the protégée’s self-efficacy, self-worth, and professional identity (Eby et al., 2010). Mentoring has been credited with many positives associated with career development. However, if they are to be successful, positive professional relationships such as mentoring rather than being imposed, have been said to require elements such as respect and attraction between the partners and a mutual willingness to support, nurture and enter into a respectful and committed relationship. The attraction between the parties may be based on shared interests, and recognition of talent, or other factors (Jackson, 2008). McCloughen, O’Brien, and Jackson (2009) refers to this aspect of forming a mentoring relationship as an ‘esteemed connection.’ Furthermore, mentoring is a relationship between people and so is subject to the vagaries of the personalities, needs and motivations of those involved. For these reasons, it can be quite difficult to uniformly reproduce all of the human factors that go into creating a successful and sustainable connection between people (Jackson, 2008). While the exact activities associated with mentoring vary depending on the needs and skills of the persons within the relationship, it frequently involves emotional support, career advice and guidance and professional role modelling which improves chances of promotion (Madison, 1994). The characteristics of a good mentor are said to include generosity, competence and openness to
Volume 47, Issue 1–2, April/June 2014
CN
81
CN
Janet Green and Debra Jackson
mutuality (Morse, 2006). Mentoring is said to bring its own rewards for mentors, and the potential positives for mentors include enhanced collegiality, improved opportunities for collaboration and sharing of ideas and knowledge, the formation of greater, stronger professional networks (Ehrich et al., 2002) and the satisfaction gained from helping junior staff grow and succeed (Eby & McManus, 2004). A positive and rewarding mentoring experience for a mentor creates favourable attitudes towards mentoring, with mentors having positive past experiences likely to agree to mentor again (Eby et al., 2010). The positives for protégées include increased self-confidence, job satisfaction, increased job competence, enhanced judgement, personal and professional growth, increased leadership ability and career satisfaction (Block et al., 2005), career visibility, information access (Moberg & Velasquez, 2004), positive work attitudes and career commitment (Barker, 2006). Protégées are more likely to learn the ropes more effectively, therefore participating in a mentoring relationship has the potential to influence a protégées power within an organisation. This can lead to greater workforce stability because of reduced intention to leave the organisation (Scandura, 1998). A ‘good’ protégée is a person who takes initiative, has a commitment to his/her career, possesses a positive self-identity, and is open to mutuality (Morse, 2006). Effective mentoring can be considered to be associated with positive work behaviours and also to contribute to succession planning, because those who have been mentored are more likely to become mentors themselves (Stewart & Krueger, 1996). When the mentoring experiences are positive and staff remain in the organisation there can be financial benefits to the organisation as staff turnover costs are reduced. Ethical issues associated with mentoring relationships
An exploration of mentoring would be incomplete without consideration of the ethical issues associated with mentoring relationships. One difficulty is that employees could consider that it is the workplace’s responsibility to provide them with a mentor, instead of them actively seeking 82
CN
connections. Mentoring connections that are actively sought are likely to be more successful (McCloughen et al., 2009). The two main ethical issues in mentoring that are potentially problematic are focussed on: firstly, ability to participate to mentoring relationships, with mentoring potentially being perceived as exclusionary and discriminatory; and secondly, abuses within the relationship related to power (Moberg & Velasquez, 2004). Mentors tend to choose protégées with similar backgrounds (McDonald & Hite, 2005, p. 571). This can cause cultural replication to occur, which is designed to reinforce unquestioning acceptance of the existing culture, thus ensuring the protégée fits into the culture. Problems can also arise can arise because mentoring relationships often can involve an unequal balance of power (McDonald & Hite, 2005). Power in mentoring relationships is complex, however issues of unequal power are considered more likely to surface in cross-gender and crossethnic mentoring (Scandura, 1998). According to Eby and Allen (2002) unethical mentor behaviours can involve distancing or manipulative behaviour. Such behaviours include deceit, taking credit, intentional exclusion and general abuse of power. Mentor neglect is also identified by Eby et al. (2000), and this occurs where mentors with high need for power engaged in manipulative behaviour. Conversely, mentors with low power needs engaged in distancing behaviours. It was noted by Eby et al. (2000) that some mentors engage in mentoring to wield power, thus providing an opportunity to delegate undesirable work and cover up their own shortcomings. The ethical consequences of an imbalance of power in the mentoring relationship can result in dysfunctional behaviours (McDonald & Hite, 2005). The mentor and protégée both have a responsibility to ensure the relationship remains ethically healthy (McDonald & Hite, 2005). Gender and race impact on mentoring. Much has been written about the challenges faced by women and underrepresented groups (Hoigaard & Mathisen, 2009). While it is true that females are not underrepresented in nursing, they are underrepresented in higher echelon and leadership positions in other professions (Hoigaard &
Volume 47, Issue 1–2, April/June 2014
© eContent Management Pty Ltd
Mentoring: Some cautionary notes for the nursing profession Mathisen, 2009). Problems for women have been identified such as lack of informal networks and support, role models and homo-social reproductions (Hoigaard & Mathisen, 2009). Females in formal mentoring relationships have been found to be less satisfied with their mentoring relationship and programme than their male colleagues (Hoigaard & Mathisen, 2009). Conflicting opinions exist regarding selection or allocation of mentors (Huybrecht et al., 2011). Interpersonal dynamics cannot be forced with evidence that more problems occur in allocated or imposed relationships (Madison, 1994), and Long (1997) suggests that when mentors and protégés are not self-selected the relationship can lead to a kind of contrived collegiality. If there is little personal attraction between the parties, the natural features that would allow for a relationship to develop may be absent meaning that the relationship becomes forced and lacking in authenticity and these relationships are unlikely to survive. Obviously, these relationships would have little likelihood of achieving the positive outcomes associated with classic mentoring. Problems can be also encountered when the immediate supervisor is allocated as the mentor. It can create a conflict of interest that can be problematic for the organisation. It could work in situations where there is a very high degree of integrity and trust between the mentor and protégée, especially if the mentoring relationship is already well established. However, it can be fraught with difficulties if these key factors are absent, and can likely impede the development of an authentic relationship. It is not advisable to have the person performing the employee’s appraisal as the mentor as issues of abuse of power and dependency have been reported (Scandura, 1998). Power relations in this kind of formalised mentoring might be more likely to result in dysfunction. Supervisory mentors might have control over protégées pay raises, performance evaluation status, job assignments, which could open up the potential for coercive behaviour and exploitation of the protégée. McKinley (2004) suggests that problems are likely to be encountered because a manager or supervisor is concerned with achieving the goals of the organisation, rather than meeting the needs of the protégée.
© eContent Management Pty Ltd
CN
Exploration of the dark side of mentoring and the identified negative aspects associated with dysfunctional mentoring
As with all human relationships, conflict can arise and even in healthy mentoring relationships there can be negative events. Negative experiences can range from minor episodes such as arguing or a disagreement through to serious incidents, such as physical or psychological abuse (Eby et al., 2000). Many mentoring relationships would be viewed as generally positive and beneficial to both parties, while at times marked by experiences that protégées and mentors may perceive as negative. It is important to note that mentoring scholars have found that ‘good and bad mentoring experiences are conceptually and empirically distinct’ (Eby et al., 2010, p. 82). This means that significant problems needed to be encountered by the mentor or protégée before the mentoring experience was considered negative. It is not surprising that negatives have been reported in mentoring relationships, because like any other relationship, the mentoring relationship has emotional elements and is prone to disappointments, difficulties and possible dysfunctional behaviours (Simon & Eby, 2003). Similarly, Duck (1994) argued that all relationships have positive and negative features, but in relation to mentoring, found that the focus in the literature on relationships was on the positive aspects with an underlying assumption that such relationships should be ‘nice.’ He went on to identify four types of destructive relationships – negative relations (bullies, enemies), sabotage (needling, revenge, silent treatment, career damage), difficulty (conflicts, binds), spoiling (betrayal, regret). Scandura (1998) identified the ways that mentoring relationships could become dysfunctional for the protégée. Dysfunctional in this context was defined as one or both participants’ needs not being met, or one or both participants suffering distress as a result of being in the relationship. Scandura (1998) goes on to present three common dysfunctional mentoring relationship patterns. Firstly, destructive relationships characterised by jealousy with the mentor acting to sabotage the protégée’s chance for advancement.
Volume 47, Issue 1–2, April/June 2014
CN
83
CN
Janet Green and Debra Jackson
Secondly, making the protégée dependent on the mentor and creating an environment where the protégée was suffocated within the relationship; and thirdly, where the protégée received a lack of support because of the mentor’s unrealistic expectations (Scandura, 1998). Negative mentoring experiences can range from mismatch between mentor and protégée (Simon & Eby, 2003, p. 1085), mentor neglect (Eby et al., 2008, p. 358), interpersonal compatibilities, power hungry mentors, interpersonal or technical ineptitude, resentment and jealousy at protégées achievements, tyrannical behaviour, taking credit for work, acts of verbal and physical aggression, sabotage, deceit (Simon & Eby, 2003, p. 1084), sexual harassment and the formation of inappropriate relationships with boundary crossing. Other identified problems include lack of mentor experience, manipulative behaviour, distancing behaviour and general dysfunctionality where the mentor has personal problems that interfere with his/her ability to work effectively with protégées or when the mentor shows negative attitude to the organisation (Eby et al., 2000, p. 15), regardless of whether such negativity is justified. Probably the most common problem encountered is the mentor–protégée mismatch (differences in values, personalities and work styles), and is considered more likely to occur when participants have not been free to choose their mentoring partner (Eby & Allen, 2002). Eby, Butts, Lockwood, and Simon (2004) note that many relationships began positively but became dysfunctional or destructive, with protégées describing mentors who were overly critical, excessively demanding, authoritarian, or sabotaging. Darling (1985) has described four types of toxic mentors; avoiders, dumpers, blockers and destroyers/criticisers. Avoiders are inaccessible, dumpers have the sink or swim attitude, blockers attempt to block the protégé’s success and destroyers consistently undermine the protégée. Another category ‘the smotherer’ has been added by Barker (2006), where the protégée is expected to become a clone of the mentor. It would be convenient to assume that mentors have caused all of the problems and created negative mentoring relationships. Indeed, there has 84
CN
been quite a strong discourse of blame positioning mentors as creating any and all problems in the relationships. However, there is increasing realisation that protégée’s can also be responsible for many of the problems encountered in mentoring relationships. Problems associated with protégées include acts of betrayal, protégée opportunism, a protégée who is a bad reflection on the mentor (Eby & McManus, 2004), protégées who were unwilling to learn, ingratiation, deceit, jealousy lack of completion (Eby et al., 2008) and submissiveness (Eby et al., 2010). Many of the problems encountered by mentors involve protégée performance and failing to meet mentors expectations, and protégées with interpersonal problems. Destructive behaviours of the protégée can damage the reputation of the mentor and compromise their position (Barker, 2006). Destructive patterns are more intense and involve a breach of trust, exploitation, jealousy and competitiveness (Eby et al., 2010). It needs to be remembered that mentoring is an act of professional generosity that is completely optional, and as with any relationship both parties need to commit to an authentic relationship, and bring integrity, honesty and effective communication if the relationship is to work effectively for both parties. Recommendations and implications for nursing
The nursing literature on mentoring tends to paint a very positive and rosy picture about mentoring, because problems may exists, but have not yet been documented in the literature. For a more realistic approach, it would be wise to consider mentoring relationships existing on a continuum, with some mentoring relationships considered effective, others marginally effective, ineffective or dysfunctional (Eby & McManus, 2004), while some are considered destructive (Scandura, 1998) and even toxic (Feldman, 1999). Negative mentoring experiences can make one or both parties withdraw from a relationship. Burk and Eby (2010) caution that the intention to leave the relationship can be based on fear of retaliation with a high risk of perceived retaliation equalling a low risk of leaving the relationship. Negative experiences in mentoring relationships
Volume 47, Issue 1–2, April/June 2014
© eContent Management Pty Ltd
Mentoring: Some cautionary notes for the nursing profession are important for predicting protégée outcome (Burk & Eby, 2010), and it seems that bad experiences have a longer lasting effect than good experiences. There are quite severe potential organisational costs to negative mentoring relationships with some literature suggesting that when a mentoring relationship becomes negative, the mentor, protégée or both can leave the organisation as a way of escaping the relationship (Scandura, 1998). Therefore, negative mentoring experiences can impact on the nurse’s career making him/her want to seek alternate employment, generating increased turnover rate and replacement costs (McKinley, 2004). Negative mentoring experiences for the protégée have been associated with less learning, lower amounts of career and psychological support, greater depressed mood at work and lower job satisfaction leading to greater psychological job withdrawal and increased turnover intentions (Burk & Eby, 2010; Eby & Allen, 2002; Eby et al., 2004), higher stress and unfavourable attitudes towards the relationship (Eby et al., 2008). Unsuccessful mentoring relationships can also result in anger, isolation, frustration (Barker, 2006), feelings of disappointment, resentment, anxiety and regret, leaving both the mentor and protégée with less commitment to the organisation and lower perceptions of organisational support, which could culminate in reduced efficiency at work, psychological distress and burnout (Burk & Eby, 2010). The finding that there are negative experiences in mentoring have implications for mentors, protégés and organisations that provide mentoring programmes. Organisational cultures need to be conducive to ethical mentoring practices (Kram, 1983). Mentors and protégées may need supportive intervention that could include education and training to develop strategies to ensure ethical mentoring practices and remediate and/or prevent negative mentoring experiences (Eby & Allen, 2002), and assist the individuals to achieve an optimal resolution. However, given the time commitment already associated with mentoring, adding any additional requirement would likely simply reduce the willingness of people to enter these relationships. Organisations should avoid creating situations in which people can find themselves in
© eContent Management Pty Ltd
CN
toxic or unhelpful mentoring relationships. This can be achieved by allowing people autonomy and choice in selecting a mentoring partner, avoiding having people in line managerial roles forced into simultaneous mentoring relationships. It is clear that not everyone in the workplace would be suited to participating in a mentoring relationship. Both parties must have a high degree of motivation and commitment to the profession, the organisation, and to their own professional growth. Therefore, it is important to encourage people to make wise and informed choices about with whom they enter into such relationships. It is also important to establish the ground rules in the mentor–protégée relationship around time commitment, expectations, confidentiality, location of meetings, but probably the most important is how to deal with difficulties in the relationship (McKinley, 2004). To ensure a good match, opportunities should be provided for interaction before committing to the mentor/protégée relationship (Eby & Allen, 2002). From the available research, perhaps the biggest issue is about being free to choose a mentor, and not being allocated a mentor who is also their supervisor. Conclusion The potential benefits of mentoring are well documented in the literature. However, nurses need to be aware of the difficulties in mentoring relationships that have been reported by other professionals. To minimise problems, organisations should provide training and coaching for mentors and protégées and instil in both parties reasonable expectations of what mentoring can offer and the responsibilities that both parties owe the relationship. The dark side of mentoring could exist and it would be helpful for the mentor and protégée to recognise that mentoring is a relationship, and like any other relationships the potential for problems exist. References Andrews, M., & Wallis, M. (1999). Mentorship in nursing: A literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29(1), 201–207. Bally, J. M. G. (2007). The role of nursing leadership in creating a mentoring culture in acute care environments. Nursing Economics, 25(3), 143–148.
Volume 47, Issue 1–2, April/June 2014
CN
85
CN
Janet Green and Debra Jackson
Barker, E. R. (2006). Mentoring: A complex relationship. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 18(2), 56–61. Beecroft, P. C., Santner, S., Lacy, M. L., Kunzman, L., & Dorey, F. (2006). New graduate nurses’ perceptions of mentoring: Six-year programme evaluation. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 55(6), 736–747. Block, L. M., Claffery, C., Korow, M. K., & McCaffrey, R. (2005). The value of mentorship within nursing organisations. Nursing Forum, 40(4), 134–140. Borges, J. R., & Smith, B. C. (2004). Strategies for mentoring a diverse nursing workforce. Nurse Leader, 6, 45–48. Bray, L., & Nettleton, P. (2007). Assessor or mentor? Role confusion in professional education. Nurse Education Today, 27, 848–855. Burk, H. G., & Eby, L. T. (2010). What keeps people in mentoring relationships when bad things happen? Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 77, 437–446. Cottingham, S., DiBartolo, S., Basstoni, S., & Brown, T. (2011). Partners in nursing: A mentoring initiative to enhance nurse retention. Nursing Education Perspectives, 32(4), 250–255. Cuesta, C. W., & Bloom, K. C. (1998). Mentoring and job satisfaction: Perceptions of certified nurse-midwives. Journal of Nurse-Midwifery, 43(2), 111–116. Darling, L. A. W. (1985). What to do about toxic mentors. Journal of Nursing Administration, 15(3), 43–45. Duck, S. (1994). Stratagems, spoils, and a serpent’s tooth: On the delights and dilemmas of personal relationships. In W. R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication (pp. 3–24). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Eby, L. T., & Allen, T. D. (2002). Further investigation of protégés negative mentoring experiences. Group and Organisational Management, 27(4), 456–479. Eby, L. T., Butts, M., Durley, J., & Ragins, B. R. (2010). Are bad experiences stronger than good ones in mentoring relationships? Evidence for the protégé and mentor perspective. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 77, 81–92. Eby, L. T., Butts, M., Lockwood, A., & Simon, S. (2004). Protégées negative mentoring experiences: Construct development and nomological validation. Personnel Psychology, 57(2), 411–447. Eby, L. T., Durley, J. R., Evans, S. C., & Ragins, B. R. (2008). Mentors’ perceptions of negative mentoring experiences: Scale development and nomological validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 358–373. Eby, L. T., & McManus, S. E. (2004). The protégés role in negative mentoring experiences. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 65, 255–275.
86
CN
Eby, L. T., McManus, S. E., Simon, S. E., & Russell, J. E. A. (2000). The protégés perspective regarding negative mentoring experiences: The development of a taxonomy. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 57(l), 1–21. Ehrich, L., Tennant, L., & Hansford, B. (2002). A review of mentoring in education: Some lessons for nursing. Contemporary Nurse, 12(3), 253–264. doi: 10.5172/ conu.12.3.253 Elcock, K., & Sharples, K. (2011). A nurse’s survival guide to mentoring. London, England: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier. Feldman, D. C. (1999). Toxic mentors or toxic protégées? A critical re-examination of dysfunctional mentoring. Human Resource Management Review, 9(3), 247–278. Firtko, A., Stewart, R., & Knox, N. (2005). Understanding mentoring and preceptorship: Clarifying the quagmire. Contemporary Nurse, 19(1–2), 32–40. doi: 10.5172/ conu.19.1-2.32 Hoigaard, R., & Mathisen, P. (2009). Benefits of formal mentoring for female leaders. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 7(2), 64–70. Hurley, C., & Snowden, S. (2008). Mentoring in times of change. Nursing in Critical Care, 13(5), 269–275. Huybrecht, S., Loeckx, W., Quaeyhaegens, Y., De Tobel, D., & Mistiaen, W. (2011). Mentoring in nursing education: Perceived characteristics of mentors and the consequences of mentorship. Nurse Education Today, 31(3), 274–278. Jackson, D. (2008). Random acts of guidance: Personal reflections on professional generosity. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 17, 2669–2670. Jokelainen, M., Turunen, H., Tossaainen, K., Jamookeeah, D., & Coco, K. (2011). A systematic review of mentoring nursing students in clinical placements. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 20, 2854–2856. Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentoring relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 608–625. LaFleur, A. K., & White, B. J. (2010). Appreciating mentorship: The benefits of being a mentor. Professional Case Management, 15(6), 305–311. Long, J. (1997). The dark side of mentoring. Australian Educational Researcher, 24(2), 115–133. Madison, J. (1994). The value of mentoring in nursing leadership: A descriptive study. Nursing Forum, 29(4), 16–26. McCloughen, A., O’Brien, L., & Jackson, D. (2006). Positioning mentorship within Australian nursing contexts: A literature review. Contemporary Nurse, 23(1), 120–134. doi: 10.5172/conu.2006.23.1.120
Volume 47, Issue 1–2, April/June 2014
© eContent Management Pty Ltd
Mentoring: Some cautionary notes for the nursing profession McCloughen, A., O’Brien, L., & Jackson, D. (2009). Esteemed connection: Creating a mentoring relationship for nurse leadership. Nursing Inquiry, 16, 326–336. McDonald, K. S., & Hite, L. M. (2005). Ethical issues in mentoring: The role of HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(4), 569–582. McKinley, M. G. (2004). Mentoring matters: Creating, connecting, empowering. AACN Clinical Issues, 15(2), 205–214. Mills, J. E., Francis, K. L., & Bonner, A. (2005). Mentoring, clinical supervision and preceptoring: Clarifying the conceptual definitions for Australian rural nurses. A review of the literature. Rural and Remote Health, 5(3), 410. Moberg, D., & Velasquez, M. (2004). The ethics of formal mentoring. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(1), 95–122. Morse, J. (2006). Deconstructing the mantra of mentorship: In conversation with Phyllis Noerager Stern. Health Care for Women International, 27, 548–558. Royal College of Nursing. (2007). Guidance for m entors of nursing students and midwives. Retrieved from www.rcn. org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/78677/002797.pdf Scandura, T. A. (1998). Dysfunctional mentoring relationships and outcomes. Journal of Management, 24(3), 449–467.
CN
Simon, S. A., & Eby, L. (2003). A typology of negative mentoring experiences: A multidimensional scaling study. Human Relations, 56(9), 1083–1106. Stewart, B. M., & Krueger, L. E. (1996). An evolutionary concept analysis of mentoring in nursing. Journal of Professional Nursing, 12(5), 311–321. Sword, W., Byrne, C., Drummond-Young, M., Harmer, M., & Rush, J. (2002). Nursing alumni as student mentors: Nurturing professional growth. Nurse Education Today, 22, 427–432. Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: Wiley. Thomka, L. A. (2007). Mentoring and its impact on intellectual capital: Through the eyes of the mentee. Nurse Administration Quarterly, 31(1), 22–26. Webb, C., & Shakespeare, P. (2008). Judgements about mentoring relationships in nurse education. Nurse Education Today, 28, 563–571. Yonge, O., Billay, D., Myrick, F., & Luhanga, F. (2007). Preceptorship and mentorship: Not merely a matter of semantics. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 4(4), 1–13. Received 02 November 2012 Accepted 07 November 2013
N o w Ava i l a b l e Advances in Contemporary Nurse Education (2nd edn) A special issue of Contemporary Nurse – Volume 38 Issue 1–2 ii+204 pages – ISBN 978-1-921729-26-3 – June 2011 Guest Editors: Debra Jackson (University of Western Sydney, Australia), Roger Watson (University of Sheffield, UK), and Tom Mason (University of Chester, UK) Dedication: Vale Tom Mason – Debra Jackson and Roger Watson Editorial: Workplace learning: A continuing concern in nurse education – Debra Jackson and Roger Watson Steps towards empowerment: An examination of colleges, health services and universities – Margaret McAllister, Leonie Mosel Williams, Tara Gamble, Kris Malko-Nyhan and Christian Jones Knowledge and positions on bioethical dilemmas in a sample of Spanish nursing students: A questionnaire study – Marta Elena Losa Iglesias, Ricardo Becerro de Bengoa Vallejo, Domingo Palacios Ceña and Paloma Salvadores Fuentes Factors associated with learning outcome of BSN in a blended learning environment – Li-Ling Hsu and Suh-Ing Hsieh Burden versus benefit: Continuing nurse academics’ experiences of working with sessional teachers – Kathleen Peters, Debra Jackson, Sharon Andrew, Elizabeth J Halcomb and Yenna Salamonson Factors impacting on career progression for nurse executives – Phyllis Moran, Christine Duffield, Judith Donoghue, Helen Stasa and Nicole Blay Editorial: Developing the health workforce: What constitutes clinical education? – Wendy M Cross Retention of Indigenous nursing students in New Zealand: A crosssectional survey – Denise Wilson, Caroline McKinney and Mereana Rapata-Hanning Undergraduate midwifery students’ first experiences with stillbirth and neonatal death – Lisa G McKenna and Colleen Rolls Linguistic diversity as sociodemographic predictor of nursing program progression and completion – Yenna Salamonson, Sharon Andrew, Jennifer Clauson, Michelle Cleary, Debra Jackson and Sharon Jacobs Enhancing preparation of undergraduate students for practice in older adult settings – Jill Clendon Mature age students access, entry and success in nurse e ducation:
An action research study – Amanda Kenny, Tracy Kidd, Katrina Nankervis and Sarah Connell Editorial: Legitimation code theory: A new lens through which to view our academic practice – Martin S McNamara and Gerard M Fealy Using an interdisciplinary partnership to develop nursing students’ information literacy skills: An evaluation – Beverley J Turnbull, Bernadette Royal and Margaret Purnell Evaluating an academic writing program for nursing students who have English as a second language – Roslyn Weaver and Debra Jackson Concerns among first year midwifery students: Towards addressing attrition rates – Mary C Carolan and Gina B Kruger Editorial: Are we failing to prepare nurses in the UK and Australia to practice by the codes of conduct? – Sharon Andrew Doctorates and nurses – Roger Watson, David R Thompson and Eliane Amella Determining frameworks for interprofessional education and core competencies through collaborative consultancy: The CARE experience – Jane Conway, Penny Little, Margaret McMillan AM and Mary FitzGerald Practical advice to support mid-career doctoral students in nursing: Some considerations for academic supervisors – Debra Jackson and Michelle Cleary Evaluation of a critical care simulation series for undergraduate nursing students – Jonathan Mould, Haidee White and Robyn Gallagher The transition experience of Enrolled Nurses to a Bachelor of Nursing at an Australian University – Lisa Hutchinson, Creina Mitchell and Winsome St John Editorial: Preparing health professionals for community-based practice: Some issues for consideration – Debra Jackson and Deborah C Saltman AM
http://www.contemporarynurse.com/archives/vol/38/issue/1-2/marketing/ www.e-contentmanagement.com
© eContent Management Pty Ltd
Volume 47, Issue 1–2, April/June 2014
CN
87
Copyright of Contemporary Nurse: A Journal for the Australian Nursing Profession is the property of eContent Management Pty. Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Mentoring: Some cautionary notes for the nursing profession Janet Green and Debra Jackson Faculty of Health, University of Technology, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Abstract: Mentoring has been embraced in nursing as a way of socialising new nurses into the profession, growing and developing nursing talent, and more recently as a way to retain experienced nurses with the current nursing shortage. Much of the extant literature focusses on the benefits of mentoring, differences between formal and informal mentoring, the elements of a successful mentoring relationship, and the characteristics of ‘good’ mentors and protégées. Until recently the research on mentoring has almost exclusively focussed on the positive aspects of mentoring for the protégées, organisations and to a lesser extent, mentors. While viewed by many as a beneficial and enriching developmental experience, it is equally important to recognise that there can be a darker side to the mentoring experience for the mentor and protégée. This paper will explore the negative aspects associated with mentoring and mentoring relationships and provide some cautionary notes for nursing.
Keywords: mentoring, mentor, nursing, discursive paper
T
he term ‘mentoring’ describes an association between people that has the goal of d evelopment of one person – usually less e xperienced – through their relationship with another, more experienced person (McCloughen, O’Brien, & Jackson, 2006). It can be a long or shorter term relationship that can involve various activities, including coaching, career advice, and one-on-one teaching. Mentoring can be formal or informal. Formal mentoring refers to structured and formalised relationships that are often instigated at the behest of employers, while informal or classical mentoring is characterised as an informal, often spontaneous relationship between two people based on a wish to work together, usually a more experienced mentor and a less experienced mentee. It is instigated by the individuals comprising the partnership, quite independent of any outside influence. The mentoring partnership involves two parties; one the mentor who takes the role of the more experienced person; and the protégée, who is the learner, or less experienced person in the dyad. As a discipline, nursing has embraced the concept of mentoring as a way to retain experienced nurses with the current nursing shortage (Cottingham, DiBartolo, Basstoni, & Brown, 2011; LaFleur & White, 2010; Thomka, 2007). It could be for this reason that uncritical acceptance has led to the nursing literature largely reflecting the positive aspects of mentoring relationships. However, the idea that mentoring relationships
could also have negative consequences is not new, with some evidence to suggest that negative and even toxic mentoring relationships are not uncommon and that these relationships can, in some situations, become destructive (Eby & Allen, 2002). Understanding of the negative aspects of mentoring has been greatly advanced by the work of Lillian Eby and various colleagues who have explored negative mentoring experiences from the protégées perspective (Eby & Allen, 2002; Eby & McManus, 2004; Eby, McManus, Simon, & Russell, 2000) the mentor’s perspective (Eby, Durley, Evans, & Ragins, 2008), why individuals stay in bad mentoring relationships (Burk & Eby, 2010), and whether bad experiences in mentoring are stronger than good experiences (Eby, Butts, Durley, & Ragins, 2010). Scandura (1998) has explored dysfunctional mentoring relationships and their outcomes, while McDonald and Hite (2005) and Moberg and Velasquez (2004) have written about the ethics of mentoring and how ethical principles and ethical boundaries can be violated by unprofessional behaviour. Eby et al. (2000) in a study of protégées, found that half of their participants reported encountering negative mentoring experiences during their careers. While it is unsurprising that people can experience both positive and negative aspects within the same relationship (Eby et al., 2008), the idea that there is a
Volume 47, Issue 1–2, April/June 2014
CN
79
CN
Janet Green and Debra Jackson
darker side of mentoring with possible profound consequences for individuals and organisations has had limited scrutiny or even acknowledgement in the literature. This paper will explore the negatives associated with mentoring and mentoring relationships and consider the implications for nursing. Anecdotal evidence suggests that mentoring relationships in nursing can be problematic. Currently, there is no literature on negative mentoring relationships in nursing. Indeed, virtually all of the mentoring literature related to nursing has a positive focus; therefore extrapolation to the broader mentoring literature focussing on negative experiences will be required. The term ‘mentoring’ is variously constructed. Mentoring may be confused with coaching or preceptoring and indeed, elements of these can be found in mentoring relationships. There are various international nuances around mentoring, and this impacts on the definitions of mentoring in the literature (Andrews & Wallis, 1999; Jokelainen, Turunen, Tossaainen, Jamookeeah, & Coco, 2011; Yonge, Billay, Myrick, & Luhanga, 2007). The United Kingdom considers mentoring as an experienced clinician providing guidance and support in the clinical environment (Bray & Nettleton, 2007; Elcock & Sharples, 2011; Hurley & Snowden, 2008; Huybrecht, Loeckx, Quaeyhaegens, De Tobel, & Mistiaen, 2011; Royal College of Nursing, 2007; Webb & Shakespeare, 2008). In Australia this relationship would be referred to as ‘preceptoring’ (Firtko, Stewart, & Knox, 2005; McCloughen et al., 2006; Mills, Francis, & Bonner, 2005). In nursing, both formal and informal mentoring relationships have been described. For the purpose of this paper, we construct mentoring as traditional mentoring that can have either a formal or informal framework. This paper will explore the literature that identifies negative aspects associated with mentoring relationships and consider the possible implications of this literature for nursing. It is noteworthy that most of the problems identified in the literature have been associated with formal or imposed mentoring relationships. 80
CN
Why mentoring for nursing? New graduate nurses are desperately needed in the health system because of the ageing workforce. Nursing graduates are expected to transition into the health system at a basic level of competence, yet in reality, much more is expected of these graduates once they are within the health care system. Chronic underfunding and a shortfall of nursing staff means that these new graduate nurses may be expected to fulfil staffing functions above their level of competence. In addition to understaffing issues, nurses are also leaving the workforce in large numbers because of feelings of stress, anxiety and oppression, often as the result of bullying and horizontal violence (Bally, 2007). It is believed that mentoring can foster positive, more supportive organisational cultures and reduce the number of nurses leaving the profession (Bally, 2007, p. 145; Huybrecht et al., 2011; Thomka, 2007). Mentoring has also been suggested as helpful because it helps to socialise new nurses to the values and standards inherent in the profession, it potentially maintains the standards of the profession, and prepares nursing leaders for the future (Cuesta & Bloom, 1998; LaFleur & White, 2010; McCloughen et al., 2006; Thomka, 2007). Borges and Smith (2004, p. 48) emphasise the importance of mentoring for nurses and argue that ‘establishing a successful mentoring relationship is not a luxury; it is a virtual necessity.’ It has also been suggested that mentoring can help with the vulnerability experienced by new graduate nurses when they transition from the idealist image of nursing acquired in nursing school to a more realistic image of the nursing profession and nursing practice (Beecroft, Santner, Lacy, Kunzman, & Dorey, 2006; Huybrecht et al., 2011). Sword, Byrne, Drummond-Young, Harmer, and Rush (2002) have identified that mentoring nursing students can have positives outcomes on their professional development and socialisation. Furthermore, mentoring is considered an important career development strategy, with research suggesting that individuals experiencing mentoring perform better at their jobs, advance more rapidly, enjoy increased salary, and claim more job and career satisfaction with less employment turnover than those who are unmentored (Eby et al., 2000; LaFleur & White, 2010).
Volume 47, Issue 1–2, April/June 2014
© eContent Management Pty Ltd
Mentoring: Some cautionary notes for the nursing profession There is much research that attests to the positives of mentoring for the nursing profession (Bally, 2007; Barker, 2006; Block, Claffery, Korow, & McCaffrey, 2005; Cottingham et al., 2011; Cuesta & Bloom, 1998; Huybrecht et al., 2011; LaFleur & White, 2010; Madison, 1994; McKinley, 2004; Stewart & Krueger, 1996). Problems in mentoring in nursing have been identified by Ehrich, Tennant, and Hansford (2002), therefore, it would seem timely that an exploration of the potential negative aspects of mentoring and the implications for the nursing profession is undertaken. Overview of the process and benefits of mentoring in nursing
The theoretical underpinnings of social contract theory or social exchange theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) can be used to understand close relationships that can occur in the professional context. The social–psychological interpretation of social contract/exchange theory focuses on the exchanges occurring within relationships, and propose that ‘individuals develop beliefs and emotional reactions to a relationship’ (Eby et al., 2008, p. 359). These reactions as based on individual perceptions of the positive benefits (as opposed to the negative costs) that any relationship offers. Generally speaking, costs tend to weaken relationships while benefits have a strengthening effect. Social contract theory recognises that not all relationships are positive experiences, and that costs can be incurred from participating in relationships. While ever the benefits outweigh costs a relationship will likely continue; however when costs outweigh benefits the relationship could be considered by either party as requiring too much effort to maintain it, for too little return, and it could dissolve (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). There are various models around mentoring, and successful growth of both parties is the aim of the relationship. Kram (1983) documents four phases in the mentoring relationship; ‘initiation, cultivation, separation and redefinition.’ The initiation phase involves mentor/protégée selection and learning each other’s style and working habits. The cultivation phase seems the most important for both parties as the protégée gains knowledge
© eContent Management Pty Ltd
CN
and skills, while the mentor gains the loyalty and support of the protégée. During the separation phase the mentor/protégée relationship in its current form ends (Kram, 1983), but may develop into a collegial relationship or peer friendship during the redefinition phase (Scandura, 1998). In successful mentoring relationships both parties benefit and grow personally and professionally as a result of the relationship, however Stewart and Krueger (1996) suggest that the end stage of mentoring relationship is a stage of reciprocity, and emphasise that the mentor–protégée relationship could end in a rift if it does not move to reciprocity. Generally, two distinct types of support can be found within the mentoring relationship; career related or professional development and psychosocial support that helps build the protégée’s self-efficacy, self-worth, and professional identity (Eby et al., 2010). Mentoring has been credited with many positives associated with career development. However, if they are to be successful, positive professional relationships such as mentoring rather than being imposed, have been said to require elements such as respect and attraction between the partners and a mutual willingness to support, nurture and enter into a respectful and committed relationship. The attraction between the parties may be based on shared interests, and recognition of talent, or other factors (Jackson, 2008). McCloughen, O’Brien, and Jackson (2009) refers to this aspect of forming a mentoring relationship as an ‘esteemed connection.’ Furthermore, mentoring is a relationship between people and so is subject to the vagaries of the personalities, needs and motivations of those involved. For these reasons, it can be quite difficult to uniformly reproduce all of the human factors that go into creating a successful and sustainable connection between people (Jackson, 2008). While the exact activities associated with mentoring vary depending on the needs and skills of the persons within the relationship, it frequently involves emotional support, career advice and guidance and professional role modelling which improves chances of promotion (Madison, 1994). The characteristics of a good mentor are said to include generosity, competence and openness to
Volume 47, Issue 1–2, April/June 2014
CN
81
CN
Janet Green and Debra Jackson
mutuality (Morse, 2006). Mentoring is said to bring its own rewards for mentors, and the potential positives for mentors include enhanced collegiality, improved opportunities for collaboration and sharing of ideas and knowledge, the formation of greater, stronger professional networks (Ehrich et al., 2002) and the satisfaction gained from helping junior staff grow and succeed (Eby & McManus, 2004). A positive and rewarding mentoring experience for a mentor creates favourable attitudes towards mentoring, with mentors having positive past experiences likely to agree to mentor again (Eby et al., 2010). The positives for protégées include increased self-confidence, job satisfaction, increased job competence, enhanced judgement, personal and professional growth, increased leadership ability and career satisfaction (Block et al., 2005), career visibility, information access (Moberg & Velasquez, 2004), positive work attitudes and career commitment (Barker, 2006). Protégées are more likely to learn the ropes more effectively, therefore participating in a mentoring relationship has the potential to influence a protégées power within an organisation. This can lead to greater workforce stability because of reduced intention to leave the organisation (Scandura, 1998). A ‘good’ protégée is a person who takes initiative, has a commitment to his/her career, possesses a positive self-identity, and is open to mutuality (Morse, 2006). Effective mentoring can be considered to be associated with positive work behaviours and also to contribute to succession planning, because those who have been mentored are more likely to become mentors themselves (Stewart & Krueger, 1996). When the mentoring experiences are positive and staff remain in the organisation there can be financial benefits to the organisation as staff turnover costs are reduced. Ethical issues associated with mentoring relationships
An exploration of mentoring would be incomplete without consideration of the ethical issues associated with mentoring relationships. One difficulty is that employees could consider that it is the workplace’s responsibility to provide them with a mentor, instead of them actively seeking 82
CN
connections. Mentoring connections that are actively sought are likely to be more successful (McCloughen et al., 2009). The two main ethical issues in mentoring that are potentially problematic are focussed on: firstly, ability to participate to mentoring relationships, with mentoring potentially being perceived as exclusionary and discriminatory; and secondly, abuses within the relationship related to power (Moberg & Velasquez, 2004). Mentors tend to choose protégées with similar backgrounds (McDonald & Hite, 2005, p. 571). This can cause cultural replication to occur, which is designed to reinforce unquestioning acceptance of the existing culture, thus ensuring the protégée fits into the culture. Problems can also arise can arise because mentoring relationships often can involve an unequal balance of power (McDonald & Hite, 2005). Power in mentoring relationships is complex, however issues of unequal power are considered more likely to surface in cross-gender and crossethnic mentoring (Scandura, 1998). According to Eby and Allen (2002) unethical mentor behaviours can involve distancing or manipulative behaviour. Such behaviours include deceit, taking credit, intentional exclusion and general abuse of power. Mentor neglect is also identified by Eby et al. (2000), and this occurs where mentors with high need for power engaged in manipulative behaviour. Conversely, mentors with low power needs engaged in distancing behaviours. It was noted by Eby et al. (2000) that some mentors engage in mentoring to wield power, thus providing an opportunity to delegate undesirable work and cover up their own shortcomings. The ethical consequences of an imbalance of power in the mentoring relationship can result in dysfunctional behaviours (McDonald & Hite, 2005). The mentor and protégée both have a responsibility to ensure the relationship remains ethically healthy (McDonald & Hite, 2005). Gender and race impact on mentoring. Much has been written about the challenges faced by women and underrepresented groups (Hoigaard & Mathisen, 2009). While it is true that females are not underrepresented in nursing, they are underrepresented in higher echelon and leadership positions in other professions (Hoigaard &
Volume 47, Issue 1–2, April/June 2014
© eContent Management Pty Ltd
Mentoring: Some cautionary notes for the nursing profession Mathisen, 2009). Problems for women have been identified such as lack of informal networks and support, role models and homo-social reproductions (Hoigaard & Mathisen, 2009). Females in formal mentoring relationships have been found to be less satisfied with their mentoring relationship and programme than their male colleagues (Hoigaard & Mathisen, 2009). Conflicting opinions exist regarding selection or allocation of mentors (Huybrecht et al., 2011). Interpersonal dynamics cannot be forced with evidence that more problems occur in allocated or imposed relationships (Madison, 1994), and Long (1997) suggests that when mentors and protégés are not self-selected the relationship can lead to a kind of contrived collegiality. If there is little personal attraction between the parties, the natural features that would allow for a relationship to develop may be absent meaning that the relationship becomes forced and lacking in authenticity and these relationships are unlikely to survive. Obviously, these relationships would have little likelihood of achieving the positive outcomes associated with classic mentoring. Problems can be also encountered when the immediate supervisor is allocated as the mentor. It can create a conflict of interest that can be problematic for the organisation. It could work in situations where there is a very high degree of integrity and trust between the mentor and protégée, especially if the mentoring relationship is already well established. However, it can be fraught with difficulties if these key factors are absent, and can likely impede the development of an authentic relationship. It is not advisable to have the person performing the employee’s appraisal as the mentor as issues of abuse of power and dependency have been reported (Scandura, 1998). Power relations in this kind of formalised mentoring might be more likely to result in dysfunction. Supervisory mentors might have control over protégées pay raises, performance evaluation status, job assignments, which could open up the potential for coercive behaviour and exploitation of the protégée. McKinley (2004) suggests that problems are likely to be encountered because a manager or supervisor is concerned with achieving the goals of the organisation, rather than meeting the needs of the protégée.
© eContent Management Pty Ltd
CN
Exploration of the dark side of mentoring and the identified negative aspects associated with dysfunctional mentoring
As with all human relationships, conflict can arise and even in healthy mentoring relationships there can be negative events. Negative experiences can range from minor episodes such as arguing or a disagreement through to serious incidents, such as physical or psychological abuse (Eby et al., 2000). Many mentoring relationships would be viewed as generally positive and beneficial to both parties, while at times marked by experiences that protégées and mentors may perceive as negative. It is important to note that mentoring scholars have found that ‘good and bad mentoring experiences are conceptually and empirically distinct’ (Eby et al., 2010, p. 82). This means that significant problems needed to be encountered by the mentor or protégée before the mentoring experience was considered negative. It is not surprising that negatives have been reported in mentoring relationships, because like any other relationship, the mentoring relationship has emotional elements and is prone to disappointments, difficulties and possible dysfunctional behaviours (Simon & Eby, 2003). Similarly, Duck (1994) argued that all relationships have positive and negative features, but in relation to mentoring, found that the focus in the literature on relationships was on the positive aspects with an underlying assumption that such relationships should be ‘nice.’ He went on to identify four types of destructive relationships – negative relations (bullies, enemies), sabotage (needling, revenge, silent treatment, career damage), difficulty (conflicts, binds), spoiling (betrayal, regret). Scandura (1998) identified the ways that mentoring relationships could become dysfunctional for the protégée. Dysfunctional in this context was defined as one or both participants’ needs not being met, or one or both participants suffering distress as a result of being in the relationship. Scandura (1998) goes on to present three common dysfunctional mentoring relationship patterns. Firstly, destructive relationships characterised by jealousy with the mentor acting to sabotage the protégée’s chance for advancement.
Volume 47, Issue 1–2, April/June 2014
CN
83
CN
Janet Green and Debra Jackson
Secondly, making the protégée dependent on the mentor and creating an environment where the protégée was suffocated within the relationship; and thirdly, where the protégée received a lack of support because of the mentor’s unrealistic expectations (Scandura, 1998). Negative mentoring experiences can range from mismatch between mentor and protégée (Simon & Eby, 2003, p. 1085), mentor neglect (Eby et al., 2008, p. 358), interpersonal compatibilities, power hungry mentors, interpersonal or technical ineptitude, resentment and jealousy at protégées achievements, tyrannical behaviour, taking credit for work, acts of verbal and physical aggression, sabotage, deceit (Simon & Eby, 2003, p. 1084), sexual harassment and the formation of inappropriate relationships with boundary crossing. Other identified problems include lack of mentor experience, manipulative behaviour, distancing behaviour and general dysfunctionality where the mentor has personal problems that interfere with his/her ability to work effectively with protégées or when the mentor shows negative attitude to the organisation (Eby et al., 2000, p. 15), regardless of whether such negativity is justified. Probably the most common problem encountered is the mentor–protégée mismatch (differences in values, personalities and work styles), and is considered more likely to occur when participants have not been free to choose their mentoring partner (Eby & Allen, 2002). Eby, Butts, Lockwood, and Simon (2004) note that many relationships began positively but became dysfunctional or destructive, with protégées describing mentors who were overly critical, excessively demanding, authoritarian, or sabotaging. Darling (1985) has described four types of toxic mentors; avoiders, dumpers, blockers and destroyers/criticisers. Avoiders are inaccessible, dumpers have the sink or swim attitude, blockers attempt to block the protégé’s success and destroyers consistently undermine the protégée. Another category ‘the smotherer’ has been added by Barker (2006), where the protégée is expected to become a clone of the mentor. It would be convenient to assume that mentors have caused all of the problems and created negative mentoring relationships. Indeed, there has 84
CN
been quite a strong discourse of blame positioning mentors as creating any and all problems in the relationships. However, there is increasing realisation that protégée’s can also be responsible for many of the problems encountered in mentoring relationships. Problems associated with protégées include acts of betrayal, protégée opportunism, a protégée who is a bad reflection on the mentor (Eby & McManus, 2004), protégées who were unwilling to learn, ingratiation, deceit, jealousy lack of completion (Eby et al., 2008) and submissiveness (Eby et al., 2010). Many of the problems encountered by mentors involve protégée performance and failing to meet mentors expectations, and protégées with interpersonal problems. Destructive behaviours of the protégée can damage the reputation of the mentor and compromise their position (Barker, 2006). Destructive patterns are more intense and involve a breach of trust, exploitation, jealousy and competitiveness (Eby et al., 2010). It needs to be remembered that mentoring is an act of professional generosity that is completely optional, and as with any relationship both parties need to commit to an authentic relationship, and bring integrity, honesty and effective communication if the relationship is to work effectively for both parties. Recommendations and implications for nursing
The nursing literature on mentoring tends to paint a very positive and rosy picture about mentoring, because problems may exists, but have not yet been documented in the literature. For a more realistic approach, it would be wise to consider mentoring relationships existing on a continuum, with some mentoring relationships considered effective, others marginally effective, ineffective or dysfunctional (Eby & McManus, 2004), while some are considered destructive (Scandura, 1998) and even toxic (Feldman, 1999). Negative mentoring experiences can make one or both parties withdraw from a relationship. Burk and Eby (2010) caution that the intention to leave the relationship can be based on fear of retaliation with a high risk of perceived retaliation equalling a low risk of leaving the relationship. Negative experiences in mentoring relationships
Volume 47, Issue 1–2, April/June 2014
© eContent Management Pty Ltd
Mentoring: Some cautionary notes for the nursing profession are important for predicting protégée outcome (Burk & Eby, 2010), and it seems that bad experiences have a longer lasting effect than good experiences. There are quite severe potential organisational costs to negative mentoring relationships with some literature suggesting that when a mentoring relationship becomes negative, the mentor, protégée or both can leave the organisation as a way of escaping the relationship (Scandura, 1998). Therefore, negative mentoring experiences can impact on the nurse’s career making him/her want to seek alternate employment, generating increased turnover rate and replacement costs (McKinley, 2004). Negative mentoring experiences for the protégée have been associated with less learning, lower amounts of career and psychological support, greater depressed mood at work and lower job satisfaction leading to greater psychological job withdrawal and increased turnover intentions (Burk & Eby, 2010; Eby & Allen, 2002; Eby et al., 2004), higher stress and unfavourable attitudes towards the relationship (Eby et al., 2008). Unsuccessful mentoring relationships can also result in anger, isolation, frustration (Barker, 2006), feelings of disappointment, resentment, anxiety and regret, leaving both the mentor and protégée with less commitment to the organisation and lower perceptions of organisational support, which could culminate in reduced efficiency at work, psychological distress and burnout (Burk & Eby, 2010). The finding that there are negative experiences in mentoring have implications for mentors, protégés and organisations that provide mentoring programmes. Organisational cultures need to be conducive to ethical mentoring practices (Kram, 1983). Mentors and protégées may need supportive intervention that could include education and training to develop strategies to ensure ethical mentoring practices and remediate and/or prevent negative mentoring experiences (Eby & Allen, 2002), and assist the individuals to achieve an optimal resolution. However, given the time commitment already associated with mentoring, adding any additional requirement would likely simply reduce the willingness of people to enter these relationships. Organisations should avoid creating situations in which people can find themselves in
© eContent Management Pty Ltd
CN
toxic or unhelpful mentoring relationships. This can be achieved by allowing people autonomy and choice in selecting a mentoring partner, avoiding having people in line managerial roles forced into simultaneous mentoring relationships. It is clear that not everyone in the workplace would be suited to participating in a mentoring relationship. Both parties must have a high degree of motivation and commitment to the profession, the organisation, and to their own professional growth. Therefore, it is important to encourage people to make wise and informed choices about with whom they enter into such relationships. It is also important to establish the ground rules in the mentor–protégée relationship around time commitment, expectations, confidentiality, location of meetings, but probably the most important is how to deal with difficulties in the relationship (McKinley, 2004). To ensure a good match, opportunities should be provided for interaction before committing to the mentor/protégée relationship (Eby & Allen, 2002). From the available research, perhaps the biggest issue is about being free to choose a mentor, and not being allocated a mentor who is also their supervisor. Conclusion The potential benefits of mentoring are well documented in the literature. However, nurses need to be aware of the difficulties in mentoring relationships that have been reported by other professionals. To minimise problems, organisations should provide training and coaching for mentors and protégées and instil in both parties reasonable expectations of what mentoring can offer and the responsibilities that both parties owe the relationship. The dark side of mentoring could exist and it would be helpful for the mentor and protégée to recognise that mentoring is a relationship, and like any other relationships the potential for problems exist. References Andrews, M., & Wallis, M. (1999). Mentorship in nursing: A literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29(1), 201–207. Bally, J. M. G. (2007). The role of nursing leadership in creating a mentoring culture in acute care environments. Nursing Economics, 25(3), 143–148.
Volume 47, Issue 1–2, April/June 2014
CN
85
CN
Janet Green and Debra Jackson
Barker, E. R. (2006). Mentoring: A complex relationship. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 18(2), 56–61. Beecroft, P. C., Santner, S., Lacy, M. L., Kunzman, L., & Dorey, F. (2006). New graduate nurses’ perceptions of mentoring: Six-year programme evaluation. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 55(6), 736–747. Block, L. M., Claffery, C., Korow, M. K., & McCaffrey, R. (2005). The value of mentorship within nursing organisations. Nursing Forum, 40(4), 134–140. Borges, J. R., & Smith, B. C. (2004). Strategies for mentoring a diverse nursing workforce. Nurse Leader, 6, 45–48. Bray, L., & Nettleton, P. (2007). Assessor or mentor? Role confusion in professional education. Nurse Education Today, 27, 848–855. Burk, H. G., & Eby, L. T. (2010). What keeps people in mentoring relationships when bad things happen? Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 77, 437–446. Cottingham, S., DiBartolo, S., Basstoni, S., & Brown, T. (2011). Partners in nursing: A mentoring initiative to enhance nurse retention. Nursing Education Perspectives, 32(4), 250–255. Cuesta, C. W., & Bloom, K. C. (1998). Mentoring and job satisfaction: Perceptions of certified nurse-midwives. Journal of Nurse-Midwifery, 43(2), 111–116. Darling, L. A. W. (1985). What to do about toxic mentors. Journal of Nursing Administration, 15(3), 43–45. Duck, S. (1994). Stratagems, spoils, and a serpent’s tooth: On the delights and dilemmas of personal relationships. In W. R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication (pp. 3–24). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Eby, L. T., & Allen, T. D. (2002). Further investigation of protégés negative mentoring experiences. Group and Organisational Management, 27(4), 456–479. Eby, L. T., Butts, M., Durley, J., & Ragins, B. R. (2010). Are bad experiences stronger than good ones in mentoring relationships? Evidence for the protégé and mentor perspective. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 77, 81–92. Eby, L. T., Butts, M., Lockwood, A., & Simon, S. (2004). Protégées negative mentoring experiences: Construct development and nomological validation. Personnel Psychology, 57(2), 411–447. Eby, L. T., Durley, J. R., Evans, S. C., & Ragins, B. R. (2008). Mentors’ perceptions of negative mentoring experiences: Scale development and nomological validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 358–373. Eby, L. T., & McManus, S. E. (2004). The protégés role in negative mentoring experiences. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 65, 255–275.
86
CN
Eby, L. T., McManus, S. E., Simon, S. E., & Russell, J. E. A. (2000). The protégés perspective regarding negative mentoring experiences: The development of a taxonomy. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 57(l), 1–21. Ehrich, L., Tennant, L., & Hansford, B. (2002). A review of mentoring in education: Some lessons for nursing. Contemporary Nurse, 12(3), 253–264. doi: 10.5172/ conu.12.3.253 Elcock, K., & Sharples, K. (2011). A nurse’s survival guide to mentoring. London, England: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier. Feldman, D. C. (1999). Toxic mentors or toxic protégées? A critical re-examination of dysfunctional mentoring. Human Resource Management Review, 9(3), 247–278. Firtko, A., Stewart, R., & Knox, N. (2005). Understanding mentoring and preceptorship: Clarifying the quagmire. Contemporary Nurse, 19(1–2), 32–40. doi: 10.5172/ conu.19.1-2.32 Hoigaard, R., & Mathisen, P. (2009). Benefits of formal mentoring for female leaders. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 7(2), 64–70. Hurley, C., & Snowden, S. (2008). Mentoring in times of change. Nursing in Critical Care, 13(5), 269–275. Huybrecht, S., Loeckx, W., Quaeyhaegens, Y., De Tobel, D., & Mistiaen, W. (2011). Mentoring in nursing education: Perceived characteristics of mentors and the consequences of mentorship. Nurse Education Today, 31(3), 274–278. Jackson, D. (2008). Random acts of guidance: Personal reflections on professional generosity. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 17, 2669–2670. Jokelainen, M., Turunen, H., Tossaainen, K., Jamookeeah, D., & Coco, K. (2011). A systematic review of mentoring nursing students in clinical placements. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 20, 2854–2856. Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentoring relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 608–625. LaFleur, A. K., & White, B. J. (2010). Appreciating mentorship: The benefits of being a mentor. Professional Case Management, 15(6), 305–311. Long, J. (1997). The dark side of mentoring. Australian Educational Researcher, 24(2), 115–133. Madison, J. (1994). The value of mentoring in nursing leadership: A descriptive study. Nursing Forum, 29(4), 16–26. McCloughen, A., O’Brien, L., & Jackson, D. (2006). Positioning mentorship within Australian nursing contexts: A literature review. Contemporary Nurse, 23(1), 120–134. doi: 10.5172/conu.2006.23.1.120
Volume 47, Issue 1–2, April/June 2014
© eContent Management Pty Ltd
Mentoring: Some cautionary notes for the nursing profession McCloughen, A., O’Brien, L., & Jackson, D. (2009). Esteemed connection: Creating a mentoring relationship for nurse leadership. Nursing Inquiry, 16, 326–336. McDonald, K. S., & Hite, L. M. (2005). Ethical issues in mentoring: The role of HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(4), 569–582. McKinley, M. G. (2004). Mentoring matters: Creating, connecting, empowering. AACN Clinical Issues, 15(2), 205–214. Mills, J. E., Francis, K. L., & Bonner, A. (2005). Mentoring, clinical supervision and preceptoring: Clarifying the conceptual definitions for Australian rural nurses. A review of the literature. Rural and Remote Health, 5(3), 410. Moberg, D., & Velasquez, M. (2004). The ethics of formal mentoring. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(1), 95–122. Morse, J. (2006). Deconstructing the mantra of mentorship: In conversation with Phyllis Noerager Stern. Health Care for Women International, 27, 548–558. Royal College of Nursing. (2007). Guidance for m entors of nursing students and midwives. Retrieved from www.rcn. org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/78677/002797.pdf Scandura, T. A. (1998). Dysfunctional mentoring relationships and outcomes. Journal of Management, 24(3), 449–467.
CN
Simon, S. A., & Eby, L. (2003). A typology of negative mentoring experiences: A multidimensional scaling study. Human Relations, 56(9), 1083–1106. Stewart, B. M., & Krueger, L. E. (1996). An evolutionary concept analysis of mentoring in nursing. Journal of Professional Nursing, 12(5), 311–321. Sword, W., Byrne, C., Drummond-Young, M., Harmer, M., & Rush, J. (2002). Nursing alumni as student mentors: Nurturing professional growth. Nurse Education Today, 22, 427–432. Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: Wiley. Thomka, L. A. (2007). Mentoring and its impact on intellectual capital: Through the eyes of the mentee. Nurse Administration Quarterly, 31(1), 22–26. Webb, C., & Shakespeare, P. (2008). Judgements about mentoring relationships in nurse education. Nurse Education Today, 28, 563–571. Yonge, O., Billay, D., Myrick, F., & Luhanga, F. (2007). Preceptorship and mentorship: Not merely a matter of semantics. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 4(4), 1–13. Received 02 November 2012 Accepted 07 November 2013
N o w Ava i l a b l e Advances in Contemporary Nurse Education (2nd edn) A special issue of Contemporary Nurse – Volume 38 Issue 1–2 ii+204 pages – ISBN 978-1-921729-26-3 – June 2011 Guest Editors: Debra Jackson (University of Western Sydney, Australia), Roger Watson (University of Sheffield, UK), and Tom Mason (University of Chester, UK) Dedication: Vale Tom Mason – Debra Jackson and Roger Watson Editorial: Workplace learning: A continuing concern in nurse education – Debra Jackson and Roger Watson Steps towards empowerment: An examination of colleges, health services and universities – Margaret McAllister, Leonie Mosel Williams, Tara Gamble, Kris Malko-Nyhan and Christian Jones Knowledge and positions on bioethical dilemmas in a sample of Spanish nursing students: A questionnaire study – Marta Elena Losa Iglesias, Ricardo Becerro de Bengoa Vallejo, Domingo Palacios Ceña and Paloma Salvadores Fuentes Factors associated with learning outcome of BSN in a blended learning environment – Li-Ling Hsu and Suh-Ing Hsieh Burden versus benefit: Continuing nurse academics’ experiences of working with sessional teachers – Kathleen Peters, Debra Jackson, Sharon Andrew, Elizabeth J Halcomb and Yenna Salamonson Factors impacting on career progression for nurse executives – Phyllis Moran, Christine Duffield, Judith Donoghue, Helen Stasa and Nicole Blay Editorial: Developing the health workforce: What constitutes clinical education? – Wendy M Cross Retention of Indigenous nursing students in New Zealand: A crosssectional survey – Denise Wilson, Caroline McKinney and Mereana Rapata-Hanning Undergraduate midwifery students’ first experiences with stillbirth and neonatal death – Lisa G McKenna and Colleen Rolls Linguistic diversity as sociodemographic predictor of nursing program progression and completion – Yenna Salamonson, Sharon Andrew, Jennifer Clauson, Michelle Cleary, Debra Jackson and Sharon Jacobs Enhancing preparation of undergraduate students for practice in older adult settings – Jill Clendon Mature age students access, entry and success in nurse e ducation:
An action research study – Amanda Kenny, Tracy Kidd, Katrina Nankervis and Sarah Connell Editorial: Legitimation code theory: A new lens through which to view our academic practice – Martin S McNamara and Gerard M Fealy Using an interdisciplinary partnership to develop nursing students’ information literacy skills: An evaluation – Beverley J Turnbull, Bernadette Royal and Margaret Purnell Evaluating an academic writing program for nursing students who have English as a second language – Roslyn Weaver and Debra Jackson Concerns among first year midwifery students: Towards addressing attrition rates – Mary C Carolan and Gina B Kruger Editorial: Are we failing to prepare nurses in the UK and Australia to practice by the codes of conduct? – Sharon Andrew Doctorates and nurses – Roger Watson, David R Thompson and Eliane Amella Determining frameworks for interprofessional education and core competencies through collaborative consultancy: The CARE experience – Jane Conway, Penny Little, Margaret McMillan AM and Mary FitzGerald Practical advice to support mid-career doctoral students in nursing: Some considerations for academic supervisors – Debra Jackson and Michelle Cleary Evaluation of a critical care simulation series for undergraduate nursing students – Jonathan Mould, Haidee White and Robyn Gallagher The transition experience of Enrolled Nurses to a Bachelor of Nursing at an Australian University – Lisa Hutchinson, Creina Mitchell and Winsome St John Editorial: Preparing health professionals for community-based practice: Some issues for consideration – Debra Jackson and Deborah C Saltman AM
http://www.contemporarynurse.com/archives/vol/38/issue/1-2/marketing/ www.e-contentmanagement.com
© eContent Management Pty Ltd
Volume 47, Issue 1–2, April/June 2014
CN
87
Copyright of Contemporary Nurse: A Journal for the Australian Nursing Profession is the property of eContent Management Pty. Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
