Determining the Feasibility and Effectiveness 

of Aircraft Pilot Mentoring Programs

Civil Aerospace Medical Institute

Federal Aviation Administration

Oklahoma City, OK 73125

May 2015

Final Report
i

Table of Contents

Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1

Need for an Aircraft Pilot Mentoring Program............................................................... 1

Pilot Training as a Continual Process............................................................................. 2

Results................................................................................................................................. 3

Establishing a Definition of Aircraft Pilot Mentoring .................................................... 3

A Review of the Effectiveness of Mentoring Programs................................................. 8

Characteristics of a Good Mentor................................................................................. 11

Characteristics of a Good Protégé................................................................................. 14

Relating These Results to Airline Piloting Goals......................................................... 16

Challenges for Pilot Mentoring..................................................................................... 17

Mentor Program Recommendations............................................................................. 19

Conclusions....................................................................................................................... 25

Recommendations............................................................................................................. 30

References......................................................................................................................... 33

Appendix A – Summary of Workplace Mentoring (Meta Analyses)*............................. 44

Appendix B – An Evidence-Based Approach to Workplace Mentoring.......................... 46

Planning and Providing Infrastructure .......................................................................... 47

Participant Recruitment and Selection.......................................................................... 48

Matching Mentors and Protégés ................................................................................... 49

Training......................................................................................................................... 50

Mentoring Structure and Process.................................................................................. 50

Monitoring and Program Evaluation ............................................................................ 51

Action Plan.................................................................................................................... 52

References – Appendices.................................................................................................. 58
1

Determining the Feasibility and Effectiveness of 

Aircraft Pilot Mentoring Programs

Introduction

Need for an Aircraft Pilot Mentoring Program

On February 22, 2009, a Colgan Air, Inc., Bombardier DHC-8-400, operating as 

Continental Connection flight 3407, was on approach to Buffalo-Niagara International Airport, 

Buffalo, New York, when it crashed into a residence in Clarence Center, New York, killing the

two pilots, two flight attendants, all 45 passengers aboard the airplane, and one person on the 

ground. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the probable cause of 

this accident was the captain’s inappropriate response to the stall warning that eventually led to a 

stall from which the airplane did not recover. Contributing to the accident were: (1) the flight 

crew’s failure to monitor airspeed; (2) the flight crew’s failure to adhere to sterile cockpit 

procedures; (3) the captain’s failure to effectively manage the flight; and (4) Colgan Air’s 

inadequate procedures for airspeed selection and management during approaches in icing 

conditions. As part of the accident report, the NTSB made recommendations to the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) for improving the professionalism, flight skills, and decisionmaking abilities of air carrier pilots (NTSB, 2010).

In response to these recommendations, the FAA drafted a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) that would, among other actions, “establish flight crew mentoring 

programs for new-hire pilots and pilots upgrading or transitioning to a pilot in command 

position,” (FAA, 2013). Before publishing this NPRM, the FAA Civil Aerospace Medical 

Institute, Human Factors Research Laboratory, was asked to review the mentoring research 

literature to assess the benefits of mentoring as it was related to flight deck training. In addition, 
2

we were asked to research the effectiveness of mentoring programs across a range of occupations 

and to make recommendations regarding the development of mentoring programs, the selection 

and training of mentors, and the expected benefits to mentors and protégés. This report is a 

summary of that research review.

Pilot Training as a Continual Process

As pilots move from student to certification, several requirements must be met along the 

way. This progression is illustrated by the test of a pilot’s knowledge in a written exam, 

simultaneous acquisition of flight skills while receiving instruction, and culminates with the 

successful completion of a practical test. As pilots train to proficiency, they do so with a certified 

flight instructor (CFI) in the right seat. Instructors provide immediate feedback on student

performance and the best decisions to make in hypothetical situations (FAA, 2002). CFIs guide 

student pilots as they become comfortable and proficient within the cockpit. At a very broad 

level, this instruction is the foundation of the pilot’s flight skills and decision-making ability and 

can establish a basis for their proficiency throughout their flying career. This initial exposure sets 

the stage for the understanding of aerodynamics, risk-based decision making, and emergency

preparedness within aviation. 

After receiving their flight certification, pilots must still undergo a periodic assessment of 

skills and additional training to remain current (Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 

61.56 Flight Review). For airline pilots, this usually involves assessments and training sessions 

using flight simulators, as well as classroom instruction. In 2012, the International Federal Air 

Line Pilots Association (IFALPA) highlighted the importance of on-going training of both 

technical and nontechnical skills to establish the requisite competencies for a professional pilot

(IFALPA, 2012). They suggested that a portion of the training should be acquired through a 
3

mentoring relationship with a more experienced pilot. One reason for this may be the recent 

introduction of the Multi-Crew Pilot License (MPL) that has been adopted in Europe and other 

countries. Another reason may be the perceived similarity of the CFI-student relationship to the 

mentor-protégé relationship, essentially extending the training experience of the pilot that 

occurred during initial flight training. However, no research to support the effectiveness of this 

type of training was provided within the IFALPA report.

Although airlines have many options for the training of their pilots, the FAA sought to 

explore the practice of mentoring as a way to improve pilot decision-making, airmanship, and 

professionalism. Mentoring programs have been recommended in most governmental 

organizations (OPM, 2008). Mentoring has also been recommended as a successful approach in 

implementing operational training for several other professions, including pilots (ALPA, 2009; 

FAA, 2009; IFALPA, 2012); however, the methodology for tailoring mentoring to airline pilots 

with established criteria that demonstrate success has yet to be accomplished.

Results

Establishing a Definition of Aircraft Pilot Mentoring

At a broad level, mentoring consists of a more experienced individual (the mentor)

offering advice, encouragement, guidance, and support to a less experienced individual in the 

same field (the protégé). The expectation is that the benefits that occur in this relationship occur 

faster than it would have if the less experienced individual had struggled through phases of trial 

and error on their own (Bell & Goldsmith, 2013). While this definition is helpful, it is not 

complete or precise enough for our review.

The first task in the assessment of the research on mentoring is to establish a useful 

definition of mentoring. One problem with the mentoring literature is the possibility that one 
4

researcher’s definition of mentoring could differ from another researcher’s definition. If this 

discrepancy is too great, a comparison of the research results is meaningless because even 

though on the surface both research studies are looking at the same concept, in reality they are 

measuring different activities.

A review of mentoring research by Haggard, Dougherty, Turban, and Wilbanks (2011) 

underscores this problem. In this article, the authors state that the construct of mentoring has 

changed over the past three decades. The authors found approximately 40 different definitions of 

mentoring. This raises serious questions concerning what the construct means across studies,

since few authors clearly defined the mentoring process (what does a mentor do?). There is a 

similar lack of specificity in boundary conditions, including “(a) the mentor’s place within the 

organizational hierarchy, (b) supervisory versus nonsupervisory mentoring, (c) inside versus 

outside mentors, and (d) the level of relationship intimacy” (p. 287).

One factor that determines the level of relationship intimacy is whether the mentoring is 

established formally or informally (Inzer & Crawford, 2005). The magnitude of the problem of 

defining mentoring can be illustrated by looking at the large number of differences between 

informal and formal mentoring programs. Table 1 shows a comparison of differences between 

informal and formal mentoring. 

Table 1. A comparison of differences between informal and formal mentoring.*

Informal Mentoring Formal Mentoring

Driven more by developmental needs of 

the protégé and similarity of interests.

Ideally, the approach is based on an 

organizational needs assessment.

Unstructured – structure is determined by

the mentor and protégé.

Structured to ensure that the process is 

consistent with the corporate goals and 

objectives (managerial talent development, 

skill building, diversity development and new 

employee socialization (Eddy, et al. 2001).

Individuals who seek mentoring need to 

find their own mentor – the only screening 

Participation of protégés may be restricted 

to a specific group. A screening process is 
5

involves the need for mutual attraction. often used to identify and match mentors and 

protégés.

Differences in organizational level 

between mentor and protégé are undefined.

Differences in rank between the mentor 

and protégé and whether the mentor comes 

from the same department are typically 

predetermined.

Mentors and protégés are not formally

trained prior to initiation of the relationship.

Best practices call for training of mentors 

and protégés.

Goals and objectives for the mentoring are 

determined by the nature of the relationship.

Best practices call for the establishment of 

expectations, goals, and boundary conditions 

for the relationship. 

Meeting frequency and duration of the 

mentoring is defined by the participants. 

Informal mentoring relationships often last 3-

6 years.

The meeting frequency and duration of 

the mentoring are typically structured as part 

of the overall program. Typically, 1-2 hour 

meetings are held monthly and are designed 

to continue for from 6 to 12 months.

Less likely to be monitored by the 

organization.

Best practices call for a monitoring 

process to identify potential problems and to 

ensure success.

Evaluation of formal mentoring by the 

organization is rare. 

Best practices call for an evaluation of the 

program. This helps determine if the program 

is meeting the established goals and 

objectives.

Informal mentoring has a greater impact 

on career planning, psychosocial support, and 

long-term career goals.

Some research suggests that formal 

mentoring is likely to have its primary impact 

on psychosocial support.

Research has demonstrated that formal 

mentoring is superior to informal mentoring.

Research has demonstrated that formal 

mentoring is better than no mentoring.

* The table structure has been built around the best practices for designing workplace mentoring programs (Allen, 

Finkelstein, & Poteet, 2009).

Haggard et al. (2011) point out that much of the mentoring research literature does not 

specify whether the mentoring was formal or informal. Given the numerous differences between 

these two approaches, it is problematic to suggest that they are actually the same type of training 

activity. 

Before we can properly define mentoring, we must compare and contrast the mentorprotégé relationship to other forms of training. In Table 2, Eby, Rhodes, and Allen (2007)

provide a comparison of the mentoring-protégé relationship as compared to other types of 

training relationships.
6

Table 2. Comparison of the mentor-protégé relationship to other training paradigms. From Eby, 

Rhodes, and Allen (2007).

Type of 

relationship

Relational dimension

Context Primary scope 

of influence

Degree 

of 

mutuality

Relationship 

initiation

Relational 

closeness

Interaction 

required

Power 

difference

Mentor–

protégé

Academic, 

community, 

workplace

Academic, 

social, career, 

personal

Low–

high

Informal or 

formal

Low–high Yes Large–

small

Role modelobserverAcademic, 

community, 

workplace

Academic, 

social, career, 

personal

None Informal or 

formal

None No Large–

small

Teacher–

student

Academic Academic, 

career

Low–

moderate

Formal Low–

moderate

Yes Moderate

–small

Advisor–

advisee

Academic Academic, 

career, 

personal

Low–

moderate

Formal Low–

moderate

Yes Large

Supervisor–

subordinate

Workplace Career Low–

moderate

Formal Low–

moderate

Yes Large–

moderate

Coach–client Workplace Career, 

personal

Low Formal Low–

moderate

Yes Large

Note. Shading indicates where mentor-protégé relationships are similar to other types of relationships.

Looking at Table 2, we see that the Role model-observer relationship is most similar to 

the mentor-protégé relationship, compared to other forms of training relationships. In addition, 

the other training relationships are similar to mentor-protégé only in requirement for interaction 

but can differ on all other relational dimensions. However, if we assume that mentoring is 

formal, we find similarities with other training relationships, including how the relationship is 

initiated and the degree of relational closeness that can be expected.

In addition to these differences between mentoring and other types of training, there are a 

number of training protocols that are described as “mentoring” but do not fit the traditional 

mentoring template. These protocols include peer-to-peer mentoring, group mentoring, and ementoring. Whether these should be included as part of a mandated mentoring program will 

require further debate and discussion. 
7

To establish a clear definition of mentoring for the current paper, it is necessary to 

specify who the mentor is in relation to the protégé as well as the goal(s) of the mentoring 

process. In addition to being a more experienced individual within the same field, there is a 

question of whether or not the mentor is within or outside of the company, in a supervisory or 

non-supervisory role to the protégé, is more senior or a peer of the protégé, is selected by the 

protégé or assigned through some other process, and other factors.

In regard to the goal of the mentoring process, two broad categories of mentoring found 

in the literature are career mentoring and psychosocial mentoring. Table 3 presents commonly

found mentoring goals within these two categories. It should be noted that there have been 

efforts to include Role Modeling as a separate third function (Burke, 1984; Scandura, 1992; 

Scandura & Ragins, 1993; Scandura & Viator, 1994).

Table 3. How mentoring supports protégé development.*

Career Functions Psychosocial Personal Functions

Sponsorship. The mentor opens doors that 

would otherwise be closed.

Role Modeling. The mentor demonstrates 

the kinds of behaviors, attitudes, and 

values that lead to success in the 

organization.

Coaching. The mentor teaches and 

provides feedback.

Counseling. The mentor helps the protégé 

deal with difficult professional dilemmas.

Protection. The mentor supports the 

protégé and/or acts as a buffer.

Acceptance and Confirmation. The mentor 

supports the protégé and shows respect.

Challenging. The mentor encourages new 

ways of thinking and acting, and pushes 

the protégé to stretch his or her 

capabilities.

Friendship. The mentor demonstrates 

personal caring that goes beyond business 

requirements.

*Adapted from K.E. Kram, Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in Organizational 

Life (New York: University Press of America, 1988) and appearing in Harvard Business 

Essentials. Coaching and Mentoring: How to Develop Top Talent and Achieve Stronger 

Performance. (Boston: Harvard Business Press, 2004, pg. 77).

The intent of airline pilot mentoring has been defined broadly as an attempt to increase 

pilot proficiency (ALPA, 2009). More specifically, it is an attempt to improve airline pilot 

aeronautical decision-making, airmanship, and professionalism (ARC, 2010). Comparing these 
8

goals to Table 3, we can see that the intended goals of pilot mentoring include both career and 

psychosocial personal functions. The improvement of airmanship is most closely associated with 

the coaching function described in the table. Increasing professionalism is most closely

associated with the role-modeling function. Improving aeronautical decision-making could be 

accomplished through either coaching or challenging.

A Review of the Effectiveness of Mentoring Programs

In recent decades, mentoring has grown in popularity as a training tool for corporations 

and large organizations. As mentoring grows in the corporate world, the body of literature on 

mentoring also expands. The literature has described mentoring functions that provide both 

career and psychosocial support. These mentoring functions have been described as having 

positive outcomes for protégés. Mentoring in the workplace has been associated with careerrelated outcomes for protégés that include: increased performance (e.g., sales performance, raw 

profit, and business success), helping behaviors (e.g., mentoring others and organizational 

citizenship behaviors), interpersonal relations (e.g., positive peer relations, satisfaction with 

coworkers, and supervisor support), and motivation and involvement (e.g., career planning, job 

involvement, motivation, and career commitment) (Eby, Allen, Evans, Ng, & DuBois, 2008). In 

addition, protégés who received higher levels of mentoring from their mentors reported 

For the purposes of the current research, the goal of airline pilot 

mentoring is defined as improving pilot airmanship, aeronautical 

decision-making, and professionalism. A mentor is someone within the 

organization who is not a supervisor of the protégé. The mentoring will 

be formal in the sense that it is structured to accomplish specific 

objectives. The mentor will act as a coach, challenger, and a rolemodel for the protégé but is not prohibited from performing other 

functions as outlined in Table 1. Given these parameters, is there a 

sufficient body of mentoring research to support an expectation that an 

airline pilot mentoring program will improve protégé airmanship, 

aeronautical decision-making, and professionalism?
9

significantly greater organizational commitment, as well as satisfaction with communications

with their supervisors (Chun et al., 2012; Madlock & Kennedy-Lightsey, 2010). Appendix A 

presents a summary of several meta-analyses of mentoring programs and the specific positive 

outcomes that were found in the literature.

Compared to those who were not mentored, protégés were more likely to be satisfied 

with their job and career and believe they will advance in their career, have higher political skill, 

and have greater compensation, salary growth, perceptions of job retention, and communication 

satisfaction (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004; Chopin, Danish, Seers, & Hook, 2012; 

Madlock & Kennedy-Lightsey, 2010; Piper, 2013; Underhill, 2006). Using a quasi-experimental 

design that evaluated a formal mentoring program, Seibert (1999) found that mentored protégés 

had higher levels of job satisfaction, but did not differ from their non-mentored colleagues with 

respect to role stress or self-esteem. Protégés have reported that greater levels of mentoring 

resulted in significantly greater affective well-being, organizational commitment, leadership selfefficacy, and ratings of new skills learned (Chun, Sosik, & Yun, 2012; Fleig-Palmer & 

Schoorman, 2011). Mentoring has also been shown to significantly impact the transfer of 

knowledge and aid in skill acquisition/enhancement and application through peer mentoring

(Files, Blair, Mayer, & Ko, 2008; Fleig-Palmer & Schoorman, 2011).

Besides the benefit to protégés, studies have shown that mentoring relationships result in 

positive outcomes for mentors as well. Compared to those who have not mentored, mentors were 

more satisfied with their jobs and committed to their organizations. Also, mentoring resulted in 

higher performance at work and higher perceived career success (Ghosh & Reio, 2013). Protégés 

who reported receiving better mentoring also resulted in mentors reporting significantly greater 
10

levels of transformational leadership, affective well-being, and organizational commitment over 

time (Chun et al., 2012). 

Although most of the literature has focused on the benefits of mentoring, some 

researchers have also looked at the negative effects of mentoring. Different types of dysfunctions 

have been identified in mentoring relationships that include: negative relations (related to having

bullies or enemies), sabotage, relationship difficulties (e.g., conflict and binds), spoiling of the 

relationship (e.g., betrayal), submissiveness, deception, and harassment (Scandura, 1998). 

Protégé outcomes from these dysfunctions can include lowered self-esteem, decreased job 

satisfaction, decreased propensity to become a mentor in the future, increased stress/anxiety, 

increased absenteeism, and increased turnover. For mentors, dysfunctional mentoring 

relationships can result in increased stress/anxiety, decreased propensity to become a mentor in 

the future, increased jealousy, increased feelings of betrayal, increased overdependence on 

protégés, and increased overestimation of protégés’ contributions. Negative mentoring 

experiences have resulted from distancing/manipulative behaviors (e.g., deceit, sabotage, 

intentional exclusion, general abuse of power, inappropriate delegation, self-absorption, neglect), 

and poor fit between the mentor and protégé (e.g., mismatched values, mismatched personality, 

interpersonal incompetence, personal problems, bad attitude, mismatched work styles, technical 

incompetence). Outcomes from these relationships resulted in increased turnover intentions, 

increased stress, and decreased job satisfaction (Eby & Allen, 2002). In addition, some types of 

dysfunctional mentoring has also been found to negatively relate to social exchange perceptions, 

intentions to leave the relationship, depressed mood, psychological withdrawal, and poor 

learning (Eby, Butts, Lockwood, & Simon, 2004). Individuals who reported that these negative 

experiences were typical of their mentoring relationship also perceived a greater impact from 
11

these experiences, which ultimately lowered their relationship satisfaction (Eby & McManus, 

2004). 

Characteristics of a Good Mentor

According to Allen, Finkelstein, and Poteet (2009) employees are willing to serve as 

mentors due to “(1) the desire to benefit the organization and its members, (2) intrinsic 

satisfactions; and (3) the desire to enhance one’s own standing within the organization (pg. 30).” 

In a study of Dutch bank employees, Emmerik, Baugh, and Euwema (2005) found that while 

career aspirations were positively related to the desire to mentor networking activities were 

negatively related. One of the most important aspects of being a mentor is being experienced in 

your field, so it is no surprise that Barker (2006), Cho, Ramanan, and Feldman (2011), Ferguson 

(2011), and Straus, Johnson, Marquez, and Feldman (2013) found that mentors who are highly 

knowledgeable, skilled, and experienced in the field had more successful and more satisfied 

protégés. Eddy, Tannenbaum, Alliger, D’Abate, and Givens (2001), in their survey of 143 

industry organizations, found that 70% of the 30 companies that reported on mentor screening 

indicated that they used some form of mentor screening. Though the process was variable across 

organizations, most screened their mentors at least in regard to technical expertise and 

knowledge. In addition to having experience in the field, mentors who have previous experience 

with mentoring relationships and a willingness to share their knowledge with a protégé are 

recommended. This is because these mentors are already familiar with the mentoring process and 

are not creating a negative learning environment by begrudgingly giving advice (Cho, Ramanan,

& Feldman, 2011; Ferguson, 2011; Hamlin & Sage, 2011; Murray, 1991; Zerzan, Hess, Schur, 

Philips, & Rigotti, 2009). Rather than a reluctant mentor, Brechtel (2004) and Hamlin and Sage 

(2011) found that it is very important to have a mentor who is supportive, encouraging, and 
12

works to boost their protégé’s self-esteem. However, it is important to balance self-esteem 

boosting and challenging; therefore, mentors who are honest, especially when offering feedback 

and coaching, are the most desirable (Brechtel, 2004; Cho, Ramanan, & Feldman, 2011; 

Johnson, 2002; Straus, Johnson, Marquez, & Feldman, 2013). Although these are some of the 

most important and agreed upon characteristics of an effective mentor, many researchers 

included several other personality factors that they felt protégés should look for in a mentor such 

as being caring, kind, humorous, generous, enthusiastic, warm, and passionate.

While exploratory in nature, Smith, Howard and Harrington (2005) examined the 

essential traits and functions of a formal mentor from the mentor’s perspective. Using a ninemember Delphi panel, they developed a list of 14 mentor traits and 21 mentor functions. They

then prepared a survey instrument and asked respondents to rate the importance of each trait and 

function on a 5-point Likert scale. Of the 741 surveys distributed, 355 were returned; 68 from an 

academic industry context, 102 from business, 101 from military-armed forces, and 70 from 

military-academic. A factor analysis of the mentor traits revealed three factors. Respectability

involved honesty, integrity, high moral and ethical standards, and bearing/personal presence. 

Wisdom involved organizational savvy, professional competence, understanding the

organization’s core values, and ability to teach. Finally, sensitivity involved empathy, 

compassion/understanding, genuineness, and confidentiality. Several mentor traits were not 

included due to their cross factor loadings. Respectability was viewed as most important, 

followed by sensitivity.

The factor analysis of the mentor functions also revealed three factors. The Training 

factor included: broadens protégé’s professional experience; serves as a role model for protégé;

coaches protégé; offers introduction to academic/corporate/military culture; provides cross 
13

functional information; and provides vision for protégé. The Supporter factor involved: fosters 

teamwork with protégé; accepts protégé; develops cooperation with protégé; and provides 

support for protégé. The final factor, Activist, included: intervenes on protégé’s behalf; provides 

exposure for protégé; demonstrates networking ability for protégé; sponsors protégé; and 

disciplines protégé when appropriate. Several mentor functions were not included due to their 

cross factor loadings. The trait factor that was most closely related with a mentor function was 

wisdom (r of .61) as related to career functions. The next highest correlation was between 

wisdom traits and training functions (r of .55).

In assessing differences across the industry contexts, the authors failed to find a 

significant difference in the importance ranking of the three mentor functions. There was weak 

evidence that the importance of the trait rankings differed across context. The authors point out 

some of the concerns associated with use of these scales, including significant correlations 

between scales and low alphas for several scales. While a majority of the traits and functions 

have been identified previously, we do not know if the ratings by formal mentors are fully 

consistent with what is important for protégés.

Although an individual’s characteristics cannot always be changed, there are some 

behaviors and actions that a mentor can learn and incorporate into their relationships in order to 

be an effective mentor. For example, it is imperative in any relationship to communicate, and 

mentoring is no different. It is important for mentors to effectively explain their goals and 

expectations for the protégé, provide feedback in areas the protégé may be struggling, and listen 

to the protégé’s needs to adjust the goals, deadlines, or relationship dynamics (Brechtel, 2004; 

Gheesling, 2010; Hamlin & Sage, 2011; Ramani, Gruppen, & Kachur, 2006). It is also very

important for mentors to remain available to their protégés by scheduling and maintaining
14

regular meetings (Cho, Ramanan, & Feldman, 2011; Gheesling, 2010; Jacobi, 1991; Zerzan, 

Hess, Schur, Philips, & Rigotti, 2009). There are also several behaviors that can lead to a 

negative experience or a failed relationship. Barker (2006) explained that ineffective or toxic 

mentors are commonly overly critical of their protégé due to unrealistic expectations or they

avoid having any contact with them at all. Additionally, Hamlin and Sage (2011) found that 

ineffective mentors did not maintain consistent contact, let their opinions take priority, and did 

not provide the protégé with a purpose of the relationship. 

Characteristics of a Good Protégé

Like mentors, there are certain characteristics of the protégé that are related to the 

likelihood of having a positive mentoring relationship. Gheesling (2010), Gibson (1998), and 

Green and Bauer (1995) found that protégés who appeared to have more talent or were higher 

performing tended to receive more career based mentoring and identified assigned superiors as 

mentors. This is likely due to mentors wanting to invest more time and energy into a protégé 

with higher potential as it may seem easier or will reflect well on them if the protégé is 

successful after the relationship concludes. Likewise, protégés with strong work ethics and 

higher career motivation tend to receive more psychosocial support, career mentoring, and 

complete training programs (Day & Allen, 2004, Green & Bauer, 1995; Hill & Dalley-Trim, 

2008; Noe, 1988; Teatheredge, 2010). Finally, protégés who are confident, positive, and 

proactive are more likely to have effective mentoring relationships and complete their training 

(Gibson, 1998; Harris et al., 2001; Hill & Dalley-Trim, 2008; Teatheredge, 2010). Additional 

characteristics discussed at less length in the literature included having an internal locus of 

control, openness, and enthusiasm. Turban and Dougherty (1994) for example, suggest that 

protégés with an internal locus of control and high self-monitoring and emotional stability were 
15

more likely to initiate a mentoring arrangement. In their review of the role of personality in 

mentoring relationships, Turban and Lee (2007) indicated that they believe that personality 

characteristics of both the protégé and mentor influence the overall relationship. They call for 

additional more rigorous research to better understand the interactive effectiveness throughout 

the duration of the mentoring relationship.

There are also several ways that a protégé can ensure that they get the most out of the 

relationship. One such way is to utilize their interpersonal skills. For instance, Harris et al. 

(2001) found that apprentices who had strong communication skills were more likely to 

complete training and Gibson (1998) found that high amounts of quality communication was 

related to high mentor effectiveness. These skills can be used to clarify expectations, explain 

learning goals, and provide honest feedback to a mentor in order to improve the relationship 

(Hamlin & Sage, 2011; Straus, Johnson, Marquez, & Feldman, 2013). In addition to 

communicating effectively, protégés should work to be open and active listeners. Straus, 

Johnson, Marquez, and Feldman (2013) found that both these actions related to a successful 

mentoring relationship. Others found that protégés should show responsibility in their work, for 

their own learning, and for the progress of the relationship to contribute to the learning 

environment (Hamlin & Sage, 2011; Hill & Dalley-Trim, 2008; Straus, Johnson, Marquez, & 

Feldman, 2013). There are also certain qualities a protégé can exhibit or actions they take that are 

related to failed relationships and unsatisfied mentors. Barker (2006) explained that protégés 

who are manipulative and power seeking get into the relationship for the wrong reasons and do 

not see it as a learning experience; therefore, these types of protégés do not tend to take anything 

away from the relationship and can create a hostile environment between them and their mentor. 
16

Actions that Hamlin and Sage (2011) found related to negative mentoring experiences included

not being prepared for meetings and coming into meetings with a negative mind-set. 

Relating These Results to Airline Piloting Goals

Although there is evidence in the literature regarding the positive effects of mentoring 

programs, the critical question to be answered is whether mentoring is expected to improve pilot 

airmanship, aeronautical decision-making, and professionalism. Most of the research studies on 

mentoring looked at different professions than that of an airline pilot. For example, Dougherty 

and Dreher (2007) report that of 47 mentoring studies reviewed, 23 of them looked at business 

professionals and managers, with additional groups including lawyers, accountants, educators, 

Army officers, nurses, and midshipmen. So we must ask whether the results from these studies 

are generalizable to the airline industry. To answer this question, we will address each of the 

mentoring goals (improved airmanship, better aeronautical decision-making, and increased 

professionalism) separately because they involve different types of learning and different 

methods for assessing performance. 

Airmanship primarily involves the psychomotor skills and procedural knowledge 

required to pilot the aircraft. Despite the claim above that mentoring increases job skill 

acquisition, a review of which skills have been shown to increase does not yield sufficient data to 

adequately assess the extent to which a mentoring relationship might improve performance of 

psychomotor skills, such as is required in the control of an aircraft. For example, Eby, Allen, 

Evans, Ng, and DuBois (2008) measured job skill as sales performance. Egan and Song (2008) 

indicated that “... few studies have focused on direct measures of job performance in relation to 

mentoring participation and no studies have been identified which use managerial or 

organizational reported measures of protégé performance (p. 355).” In their randomized field 
17

experiment involving employees in health-care services, insurance and health maintenance Egan 

and Song (2008) did find that mentoring had a significant effect on managerial performance 

ratings. Most of the research that suggests that job performance has improved involves sales 

organizations or academic settings. This type of job skill differs significantly from the type of 

skills required to fly an aircraft. 

Likewise, the literature does not seem to directly support the effectiveness of mentoring 

for improving aeronautical decision-making. Chun, Sosik, and Yun (2012) and Fleig-Palmer and

Schoorman (2011) report on an improvement in leadership effectiveness but it is difficult to 

generalize this finding to decision-making in general and especially to aeronautical decisionmaking. Other literature cites the need for the mentor to provide challenging assignments (e.g., 

Kram, 1988), but again the generalization to decision-making within an aeronautical setting is 

tenuous.

Unlike the first two goals, the literature does seem to offer some support to the notion 

that mentoring could increase pilot professionalism. However, professionalism is a poorlydefined concept that would need to be operationally defined and measured before determining 

the effects of a mentoring program. The success of such a program would probably depend on 

both the characteristics of the mentor and the protégé, as outlined above. In addition, the type of 

mentoring arrangement will also have an effect on the mentoring outcome.

Challenges for Pilot Mentoring

Thus far, we have suggested that the mentoring literature provides only limited support to 

the notion that mentoring programs can attain the goals for improvement of a protégé pilot’s 

airmanship, aeronautical decision-making, and professionalism that are needed to justify

mandating those programs. There are a number of other factors that need to be considered in the 
18

context of pilot mentoring as well. Traditional mentoring involves a one-to-one; face-to-face 

relationship. Given that not all pilots live near their domicile, how will this affect assignment of 

mentor to protégé? The National Research Council’s Committee on the Effects of Commuting on 

Pilot Fatigue (NRC, 2011) gained information on the zip code of the pilot’s home on record as 

well as the location of his/her domicile. Using that information, they were able to determine the 

approximate distance of each pilot’s commute. While 45% of the mainline, 46% of the regional, 

41% of cargo and 38% of charter pilots lived within 90 miles of their domicile, 22% of the 

mainline, 22% of the regional, 26% of cargo, and 30% of charter pilots lived 750 or more miles 

from their domicile. Extended commuting distances of pilots are likely to present a challenge to 

the establishment of times and opportunities for face-to-face mentoring sessions. It could lead to 

unacceptable increases in the length of the duty day for the involved pilots. It might also lead to 

problems with the scheduling of mentor-protégé meetings, especially when factoring in the bid 

practices used by airlines to establish route assignments. In addition, if mentor-protégé meetings 

were assumed to occur during scheduled flights, there could be potential problems with how 

many times particular pairings occurred or did not occur.

Another issue involves whether a mentor can also be the supervisor of the protégé. While 

there are situations where supervisors serve as mentors, most authors do not recommend this 

approach. The use of the captain as a mentor also involves some challenges since this would 

change the nature of the relationship and possibly modify traditional CRM 

recommendations/procedures.

Will mentoring be required of all new pilots? Will mentoring practices need to be 

different for those who enter through traditional means than those who enter from a Multi-Crew 

Pilot License (MPL) program? Questions remain regarding the number of senior pilots who have 
19

the necessary expertise, interest, motivation, and interpersonal skills to serve as mentors. 

Depending on staffing levels, this may represent a significant challenge for some carriers.

As is true of any work environment, mentoring is already going on. At this point we don't 

know how often, the extent to which it occurs and its benefits in aviation. It is doubtful that 

traditional formal mentoring programs will be sufficient to address all of the potential issues 

involved in the proposed pilot mentoring goals. This is based on data that suggest that most 

formal mentoring programs last a year and involve monthly or twice a month face-to-face 

meetings (Eddy et al., 2001; Hegstad & Wentling, 2004; Murray, 1991; Ragins & Cotton, 1999). 

It seems highly unlikely that a one-year program, involving 12 meetings will be sufficient to 

communicate the necessary information and ensure that the performance of a younger pilot has 

been sufficiently enhanced. Data have consistently demonstrated greater benefits from informal 

as compared with formal mentoring programs. One factor that may contribute to this difference 

is that when a mentor selects a protégé as part of an informal approach he/she may select only 

high performing individuals, individuals who are highly motivated to succeed. Another factor is 

that the literature on mentoring suggests that the higher the frequency of meetings the more 

likely the mentoring will have a positive outcome. The extent to which this imposes an additional 

burden on work schedules could be problematic.

Mentor Program Recommendations

If the decision is made to proceed with a mentoring program, some approaches to the 

mentoring process would likely increase the probability of the success of the program. This 

section of the report will highlight the development of a formal mentoring program. A more 

detailed set of information concerning best practices, as described in the book by Allen, 

Finkelstein, and Poteet (2009), can be found in Appendix B.
20

Planning and Providing Infrastructure. As with any intervention in the workplace, it is 

extremely important that employees can readily observe upper management’s support and 

ownership. This can be demonstrated in how the mentoring program is developed. With regards 

to the development of a formal flight crew mentoring program, the impetus came from the US 

Congress as part of the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 

2010 (Pub. L. 111-216) ɠ 206 that called for the FAA to establish an aviation rulemaking 

committee to provide recommendations regarding the establishment of a flight crewmember 

mentoring program in which experienced flight crewmembers would be paired with newly 

employed flight crewmembers. The goal was to provide “... specific instruction on techniques 

for instilling and reinforcing the highest standards of technical performance, airmanship and 

professionalism in newly employed flight crewmembers.” (Pub. L. 111-216). Additional efforts 

were to be directed toward enhancing leadership and command experience and improving 

professional development. Results from the MLP ARC are provided in their November 2010 

report. They recommended that carriers establish a professional development committee that 

would be responsible for the selection and training of “career mentors” for newly hired pilots as 

well as initial upgrading captains. While in some ways this effort could be considered to be part 

of the needs assessment that would serve as the basis for the development of the overall goals 

and objectives for a formal mentoring program it provides limited information concerning how 

this should be accomplished within an air carrier’s organization. It is important that the goals and 

objectives of the mentoring program are firmly tied to the organization’s culture and to other 

human resource strategies associated with pilot training and development. If technical 

performance, airmanship and professional development are the overall goals of the mentoring 

effort, how will this be addressed during mentoring and how can you measure those goals and 
21

ensure that the mentoring was successful? We have addressed a number of concerns surrounding 

these goals earlier in this document. Each air carrier will need to determine the extent to which 

their mentoring program can assist in improving technical performance, airmanship, and 

professionalism. Details concerning the mentoring process need to be defined and a program 

manager identified. Attention needs to be focused on the importance of confidentiality in the 

mentoring process. Clear standards need to be established so that both mentor and protégé 

understand the limits of confidentiality. The planning needs to include a description of all other 

aspects of the mentoring program including the monitoring process and overall evaluation.

Protégé selection. The requirement suggests that the formal mentoring will be provided 

to all new hires as well as to newly upgraded captains.

Matching. One solution for the conflicts that may arise due to individual differences is 

controlling the matching process. Rather than randomly assigning mentors to protégés, there are 

a few factors to consider to ensure that the relationship starts off on the right foot. First, what are 

referred to as deep level similarities between mentors and protégés should be considered as 

studies have found that perceived personality similarities or incompatibilities strongly predicted 

satisfaction levels and success (Gheesling, 2010; Straus, Johnson, Marquez, & Feldman, 2013; 

Waters, 2004). It should also be noted that while Ensher and Murphy (1997) found that general 

perceived similarities were related to high satisfaction and liking for both mentors and protégés;

later works suggested matching based on similar attitudes and values, rather than demographics,

is more beneficial (Ensher, Grant-Vallone, & Marelich, 2002; Lee, Dougherty, & Turban, 2000).

Lankau, Riordan, and Thomas (2005) reported that deep-level similarity (personality, interests, 

work values, and problem solving approach) were more important in forming a positive liking 

relationship than similarity in gender, race or other demographic characteristics. Finally, research 
22

from Boyle and Boice (1998) and Straus, Johnson, Marquez, and Feldman (2013) suggested that 

mismatched expectations between the mentor, protégé, and program can result in failed 

relationships and unmet goals. Hegstad and Wentling (2004) found that all of the Fortune 500 

Companies in their review used a matching process to link protégé and mentor. Comments from 

company personnel suggests that this may be one of the more crucial factors involved in the 

mentoring process. In their review of industry mentoring programs, Eddy et al. (2001) reported 

that 75% of the organizations used some sort of structured matching procedure.

Training. Another simple solution is to prepare mentors and protégés for the 

relationship. One of the most important and highly agreed-upon elements that should be included 

in pre-relationship training is alignment and clarification of expectations between the mentor, 

protégé, and program creators (Barnett, 1995; Garvey & Alred, 2000; Kasprisin & Single, 2005; 

Ramani, Gruppen, & Kachur, 2006). Additionally, Kasprisin, Single, Single, Ferrier, and Muller 

(2008) and Scielzo (2008) found that protégés who participated in pre-relationship training tend 

to disclose at a similar level to their mentor and have mentors who were more involved, more 

satisfied with the relationship, and reported holding their protégés in higher esteem.

Training mentors appeared to result in more learning for their protégés, more career 

support given to protégés, and higher satisfaction with their protégés (Giebelhaus & Bowman, 

2002; Martin & Sifers, 2012; Scielzo, 2008). Allen, Finkelstein, and Poteet (2009) define several 

levels of protégé – mentoring training that should be a part of a well-designed workplace 

mentoring program. Hegstad and Wentling found that training was conducted in all but one of 

the participating companies. Eddy et al. (2001) indicate that 58% of the industry companies 

provided “mentoring program orientations.”
23

In addition, mentor training should have a human relations component, which includes 

gender/culture issues awareness, boundaries in the mentor-protégé relationship, and increasing 

interpersonal skills (Barnett, 1995; Garvey & Alred, 2000; Ramani, Gruppen, & Kachur, 2006). 

Training should also focus on developing mentor-specific skills such as knowing how to balance 

challenging and supporting the protégé, keeping the focus of the relationship on the protégé, and 

not trying to take on mental/personal problems in the protégé’s life (Barnett, 1995; Garvey & 

Alred, 2000; Ramani, Gruppen, & Kachur, 2006). According to Garvey and Alred (2000), it is 

also important to emphasize the need for trust in the relationship as it facilitates a safe 

environment for the protégé to share openly. 

Research has suggested that protégés should receive very similar training to their mentors 

regarding both structure and information (Kasprisin & Single, 2005; Scielzo. 2008). Eddy et al. 

(2001) found that mentor training typically emphasized the roles and responsibilities of the 

mentor, giving feedback, coaching, listening and communications skills; while for protégés, the 

emphasis was on protégé roles and responsibilities, career choices/career advising, selfawareness, and listening and communications skills. Agreed upon protégé-specific 

recommendations included assessing what they want to take away from the relationship and 

reflecting on values, perspectives, and biases that they may bring to the relationship (Dean, 2009; 

Zerzan, Hess, Schur, Philips, & Rigotti, 2009). Dean (2009) also asserted that protégés should 

decide what qualities they want most in a mentor and communicate expectations early to ensure 

their needs are not overlooked. According to Zerzan, Hess, Schur, Philips, and Rigotti (2009), it 

will also be beneficial to the protégé if they identify their work and learning styles and establish

learning goals with specific time increments to help keep the relationship moving forward and 

focused. 
24

Monitoring and Program Evaluation. When carriers establish the new part 119 

professional development position, there is a question of whether that individual as well as 

members of the professional development steering committee (PDSC) will be responsible for 

developing, monitoring, and evaluating the formal aircrew mentoring program. Someone needs 

to be designated as the responsible individual for the formal mentoring program. If you do not 

establish a process to monitor the mentoring you will be unable to determine whether the 

participants are meeting as required and/or whether there are problems with some of the 

mentoring relationships. Periodic follow-ups are required. It would be advisable to obtain 

feedback from the mentor and protégé within the first few weeks of the program concerning how 

the relationship is developing and whether there are any issues that need to be resolved.

Without a formal evaluation you will be unable to determine if the program objectives are 

being met. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways. As indicated in Appendix B, 

Kirkpatrick has described four levels of measurement: (1) reactions to the training, (2) learning 

what resulted from the training, (3) behavior or performance change, and (4) business results for 

the organization. These efforts can be accomplished through face-to-face meetings, surveys, or 

group feedback sessions. The last two levels of measurement are often left out during program 

evaluations. They are also the most difficult to measure. It is often difficult to determine the 

extent to which behavioral or performance changes can be attributed to the intervention or to 

other factors that have occurred. It will also be difficult to determine the extent to which the 

formal mentoring process may have impacted the organization since the effects of any

intervention take time to show results.
25

Conclusions

While there are numerous studies in the literature that support the effectiveness of 

mentoring programs, there are very few that directly support the expectation that mentoring will 

improve pilot airmanship, decision-making, and professionalism. Two difficult problems with 

the use of mentoring as an effective training tool is the lack of well-established definitions of the 

mentoring process and the lack of scientific rigor in the mentoring research literature.

There is a wealth of anecdotal literature that supports the importance of mentors in the 

lives of influential individuals. Each of us can probably remember a teacher, colleague, 

supervisor, or another employee who served as a mentor and thus supported our career choices 

and career development. Numerous research studies have been designed to identify the important 

mentor/protégé factors that support the career and psychosocial development of the protégé.

However, we could not draw definitive conclusions from the literature because of the general 

lack of scientific rigor involved in nearly all of the investigations.

With few exceptions, mentoring studies can be described as cross-sectional field studies. 

This means that in the workplace, data are gathered from employees at a single point in time. 

Employees are asked to indicate whether or not they had a mentor and are subsequently asked to 

describe, define, or rate the mentoring experience and the overall outcomes, depending on the 

focus of the investigation. Shipp and Fried (2014a, 2014b) edited a two-volume set devoted to 

time and work. The articles contained in those volumes illustrate the problems associated with 

research that is focused on a single dimension in time and does not consider the temporal nature 

of events that occur in the workplace. For example, when asking employees to describe or rate 

their mentoring experiences at a single point in time, we know nothing about how that 

experience has evolved across time, difficulties that may have been encountered, or how those 
26

events have impacted the employee’s mentoring experience. Another important issue is that 

whenever there is a change in the workplace, there is likely a time lag between what was 

changed or implemented and the employee’s reactions. As indicated by Dougherty and Dreher 

(2007), most of the research attention has been focused on proximal (immediate) versus distal 

(long-term) outcomes. Eby et al. (2013) also addresses this point, “Currently we have virtually 

no understanding of the dynamic nature of mentoring relationships or how critical events in a 

mentoring relationship influence the trajectory of the relationship (p. 632).” We also know little 

about what percentage of the mentoring relationships resulted in positive outcomes, how many

were positive but not particularly noteworthy, how many involved negative outcomes, and how 

many were primarily dysfunctional. In one study (Eby, McManus, Simon, & Russell, 2000), 

more than 50% of the participants reported at least one negative mentoring experience during 

their career.

Ramaswami and Dreher (2010) propose a process-oriented model that can be used to 

better understand the process or mechanisms whereby mentoring can influence career outcomes. 

Additional research is needed to evaluate the potential mediating processes as well as determine 

the relative influence of individual functions. Additional scales beyond those currently in use are 

needed to support this effort.

Concerns associated with the cross-sectional nature of the mentoring research are listed in 

a table by Dougherty and Dreher (2007, p. 85) shown in Figure 1.
27

Figure 1. Key Conceptual and Methodological Issues in Studies of Mentoring and Protégé Career 

Outcomes.

The first concern listed in Figure 1, Definitional Variability, refers to the definition of 

mentoring across studies and how those differences may influence outcomes, as was discussed 

earlier. Along with the definitional issues, Scandura and Pellegrini (2010) expressed concerns 

about the lack of integration between the mentoring literature and other psychological research, 

the need for improved measurement instruments, as well as improvements in the overall design 

of the research and the need for longitudinal investigations.

Criterion problems include the need to expand the investigation of the effects of 

mentoring to consider the overall functioning of the organization, and whether mentoring has 
28

affected the talent pool of employees who are being considered for advancement. Positive as 

well as negative effects of mentoring need to be considered with this type of research.

There is a tendency for individuals to assume causality involving correlations between 

mentoring and outcomes. Dougherty and Dreher (2007); Eby et al. (2013); Allen, Eby, and Lentz 

(2006); and Turban and Dougherty (1994) raise concerns that common method bias (variance) 

can be explained in several ways. So you should not assume that mentoring was a causal factor 

in the outcomes. There may be other interpretations. Dougherty and Dreher (2007) refer to 

several factors that may contribute to the outcomes: (1) consistency in cognitions and attitudes, 

(2) illusory correlations and implicit theories, (3) social desirability, and (4) positive and 

negative affectivity of respondents. At this point there are an insufficient number of longitudinal 

or quasi-experimental studies in the literature to adequately define the overall impact of 

mentoring. Eby et al. (2013, p. 24) indicated the need for “...more methodologically rigorous 

research...” in order to make causal inferences.

Another concern involves the wide range of time periods involved in the various studies.

While formal mentoring generally involves 9 months to a year, informal mentoring may last up 

to 6 years or more. Given that Kram (1985) defines and demonstrates the importance of stages in 

the mentoring process, it is difficult to see how those stages can be adequately accomplished in 

formal mentoring settings with a time frame of a year or less. This issue has not been adequately 

addressed in the literature. The indication in several studies that mentoring relationships are more 

positive and outcomes are improved in informal mentoring as compared to formal mentoring 

should not be unexpected, given the difference in time involved in mentoring.

Another difference that is often touched on when comparing formal and informal 

mentoring involves the approach to the selection of a protégé. Informal mentoring involves a 
29

voluntary choice on the part of the mentor. Most formal mentoring programs involve a matching 

process. Protégés who report receiving mentoring support often have higher ability or potential, 

higher motivation and commitment, strong interpersonal skills, and positive self-regard. Turban 

and Dougherty (1994, p. 698) found that “... individuals with internal loci of control and high 

self-monitoring and emotional stability were more likely to initiate and therefore to receive 

mentoring.” Given those general characteristics of protégés, is it the mentoring, the proactive 

behavior of certain employees, or the selection of high quality employees that leads to more 

positive outcomes? Wanberg, Kammeyer-Mueller, and Marchese (2006, p. 417) found that 

mentor proactivity at program onset related “...positively to both protégé and mentor reports of 

career-related mentoring and to mentor reports of psychosocial mentoring at the conclusion of 

the program.”

In summary, despite a superficial resemblance to initial flight training methodologies, 

there is little evidence to support the effectiveness of mentoring, in general, and in achieving the 

goals focused on in this report, in particular. Most studies used to validate a particular training 

methodology involve a pre-training test of proficiencies, training, and post-training test of 

proficiencies design, with the expectation that post-training proficiency scores will be higher and 

demonstrate the effectiveness of the training protocol. While even these types of studies have 

potential problems with confounding variables, they are more effective than other approaches at 

validating the effectiveness of the training. The cross-sectional nature of most mentoring studies 

does not allow a clear validation of mentoring as an effective training technique. This, in 

addition to the problems with finding consistent mentoring methodologies, does not allow us to 

conclude that mentoring is an effective approach to improving pilot airmanship, aeronautical 

decision-making, or professionalism.
30

Recommendations

1. Before proceeding with mandating mentoring programs for the airlines, clearly specified 

goals need to be developed for those programs. Development of those goals should include a 

consideration of the potential impact of cultural differences between carriers on the 

implementation of the mentoring program. Mentor selection and training requirements 

should be established, and the process for pairing mentors and protégés should be 

understood. Appendix B presents a highly structured approach to the development of a 

workplace mentoring program, along with recommendations for the evaluation of the 

effectiveness of the program. We recommend that an operational test of a mentoring program 

be completed within a selected airline to ensure that there is no undue imposition on the 

workloads of mentors or protégés, and that flight scheduling activities are not negatively 

affected. Pre- and post- mentoring measures of pilot performance (airmanship, decisionmaking, professionalism) should be used to establish the effectiveness of the mentoring 

process. Other details, such as the length of the mentoring program, would also need to be 

specified prior to the operational test. The approach to mentoring may differ for newly hired 

pilots that enter through traditional means (1,500 hours) versus those who enter via MPL

training programs (10 hours solo, 240 hours log time).

2. As an alternate recommendation, we believe that other forms of pilot training might prove to 

be more effective than mentoring. For example, a form of accelerated expertise (Hoffman, 

Ward, Feltovich, DiBello, Fiore, & Andrews, 2013) emphasizes efforts to focus more clearly 

on the development of scenarios that could be used to train workers regarding decisionmaking on complex events. Cases would be developed and focused around problems or 

events “older” workers had encountered that challenged their decision-making ability. 
31

Hoffman et al. (2013) indicate that the events that are identified should involve “...cases 

from their own experience that caused them great difficulty and stretched their professional 

capacity” (p.159). A case library of these events would then be constructed and used to 

develop specialized computer-based scenarios or simulations that could be presented to 

younger workers to improve their ability to identify and respond to unusual events. The 

cases/scenarios contained in the database should be ranked on the basis of the level of 

knowledge required to respond appropriately. This will guide their use at the appropriate time 

during training. Examples of accelerated approaches to training include; the use of Intelligent 

Tutoring Systems, an approach to the training of “perceptual-cognitive” skills in athletes (the 

ability to rapidly perceive patterns that non-experts cannot perceive), and use of the 

Decision-Making Exercise Method (DMX – which was initially used to train military

commanders).

3. A third recommendation is to look at the practice of virtual or e-mentoring. The increasingly 

global nature of business, along with the widespread geographic locations of co-workers in 

many large corporations, has resulted in an increased interest in what Zey (2014) calls virtual 

mentoring where “... electronic-based communication is the primary format for mentorprotégé interaction (p. 2.).” This form of mentoring has been described in many ways - “...ementoring, e-coaching, computer-mediated mentoring, telementoring, e-mail mentoring, 

internet mentoring, online mentoring, cybermentoring, virtual mentoring, electronic 

mentoring, distance mentoring, Web-enabled coaching, and Web-based mentoring (p. 3)” 

Communication between mentor and protégé can take many forms including use of the 

telephone, video conferencing, email, online chat sessions, knowledge bases, texting, instant 

messaging, Skype, Webex, and other forms of Web-conferencing software. Modern 
32

communications in the medical field also allow real-time and live teaching of techniques and 

procedures via telementoring. Zey (2014) indicates that Intel was one of the pioneers in 

online mentoring. Since then, a number of other Fortune 500 companies have utilized online 

mentoring. Single and Muller (2001) describe the development and implementation of 

MentorNet (www.mentornet.net) as a means of providing a nationwide structured ementoring program for women engineering and science students that was designed to 

“...encourage retention and advancement for women students in engineering and related 

science fields (p. 110).” This effort has been in place since 1997 and can serve as a model for 

structured mentoring. A Cybermentor program involving the University of Calgary, the 

University of Alberta, and the Alberta Women’s Science Network has similar goals and 

objectives (Kenter, 2010) While these programs have many of the same issues and concerns 

associated with traditional face-to-face mentoring programs, one advantage is that the mentor 

and protégé do not have to be physically at the same place, and with some forms, the 

communications can be asynchronous. Shrestha, May, Edirisingha, Burke, and Linsey

(2009), while identifying a number of commonalities between e-mentoring and traditional 

mentoring also identified some challenges that are particular to e-mentoring in an academic 

environment in the United Kingdom.

While there is limited research available regarding best practices and the overall benefits 

from e-mentoring, it could resolve concerns in aviation regarding the need for face-to-face 

meetings between mentor and protégé. Use of knowledge bases and other technology tools (part 

task simulations) that could be used to present technical challenges to protégés could lead to 

increased training opportunities and could challenge and enhance pilot decision-making. Efforts 

would need to be expended to see how these opportunities are utilized in other professions, 
33

particularly in medicine. Angstman, Adamson, Furst, Houston, & Rohrer (2009) surveyed the 

extent to which primary care physicians in a large multispecialty clinic utilized a form of ementoring called virtual consultation (VC) and their level of satisfaction with virtual 

consultations with specialists. While 30% of those surveyed had not tried the VC system, 73% 

felt that VCs provided good medical care and 81% indicated that they were an efficient use of 

their time.

References

Air Line Pilot Association, International (2009). Producing a professional airline pilot: Candidate 

screening, hiring, training, and mentoring. ALPA White Paper, retrieved from: 

https://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/pressroom/inthecockpit/ProducingProfessionalPilot_9-

2009.pdf

Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., & Lentz, E. (2006). Mentorship behaviors and mentorship quality 

associated with formal mentoring programs: closing the gap between research and 

practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 567.

Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits associated

with mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 

127–136.

Allen, T. D., Finkelstein, L. M., & Poteet, M. L. (2009). Designing workplace mentoring 

programs: An evidence-based approach (Vol. 19). John Wiley & Sons.

Angstman, K.B., Adamson, S.C., Furst, J.W., Houston, M.S., and Rohrer, J.E. (2009). Provider 

satisfaction with virtual specialist consultations in family medicine department. Health 

Care Management, 28(1), 14-8.
34

ARC (2010). Flight crewmember mentoring, leadership and professional development (MLP) 

Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) report (Nov. 2, 2010)

Barker, E. R. (2006). Mentoring: A complex relationship. Journal of the American Academy of 

Nurse Practitioners, 18(2), 56-61.

Barnett, B. G. (1995). Developing reflection and expertise: Can mentors make the difference?

Journal of Educational Administration, 33(5), 45-59.

Bell, C. R., & Goldsmith, M. (2013). Managers as mentors: Building partnerships for learning. 

San Francisco, CA, US: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Boyle, P., & Boice, B. (1998). Systematic mentoring for new faculty teachers and graduate

teaching assistants. Innovative Higher Education, 22(3), 157-179.

Brechtel, M. F. (2004). The affective correlates of a good mentoring relationship. Dissertation 

Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 64(9-B), pp. 4604.

Burke, R.J. (1984). Mentors in organizations. Group and Organization Studies, 9, 353-372.

Cho, C. S., Ramanan, R. A., & Feldman, M. D. (2011). Defining the ideal qualities of 

mentorship: A qualitative analysis of the characteristics of outstanding mentors. 

American Journal of Medicine, 124(5), 453-458.

Chopin, S. M., Danish, S. J., Seers, A., & Hook, J. N. (2012). Effects of mentoring on the 

development of leadership self-efficacy and political skill. Journal of Leadership Studies, 

6(3), 17-32.

Chun, J. U., Sosik, J. J., & Yun, N. Y. (2012). A longitudinal study of mentor and protégé 

outcomes in formal mentoring relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(8), 

1071–1094.
35

Day, R., & Allen, T. D. (2004). The relationship between career motivation and self-efficacy

with protégé career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64: 72-91.

Dean, D. J. (2009). Preparing to be mentored. In Getting the Most out of your Mentoring 

Relationships: A handbook for women in STEM. 3, pp.7-19. New York, NY: Springer.

Dougherty, T., & Dreher, G. (2007). Mentoring and career outcomes: conceptual and 

methodological issues in an emerging literature. In Belle Rose Ragins and Kathy Kram

(Eds.) The Handbook of Mentoring at Work (pp. 51-94). California: Sage.

Eby, L. T., & Allen, T. D. (2002). Further investigation of protégés’ negative mentoring 

experiences patterns and outcomes. Group & Organization Management, 27(4), 456-479.

Eby, L.T., Allen, T.D., Evans, S.C., Ng, T., & DuBois, D.L. (2008), Does mentoring matter? A 

multidisciplinary meta-analysis comparing mentored and non-mentored individuals. 

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(2), 254–267.

Eby, L.T., Allen, T.D., Hoffman, B.J., Baranik, L.E., Sauer, J.B., Baldwin, S., Morrison, M.A., 

Kinkade, K.M., Maher, C.P., Curtis, S., & Evans, S.C. (2013). An interdisciplinary metaanalysis of the potential antecedents, correlates, and consequences of protégé perceptions 

of mentoring. Psychological Bulletin, 139(2), 441-476.

Eby, L., Butts, M., Lockwood, A., & Simon, S. A. (2004). Protégés negative mentoring 

experiences: Construct development and nomological validation. Personnel Psychology, 

57(2), 411-447.

Eby, L. T., & McManus, S. E. (2004). The protégé's role in negative mentoring experiences. 

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(2), 255-275.
36

Eby, L. T., McManus, S. E., Simon, S. A., & Russell, J. E. (2000). The protege's perspective 

regarding negative mentoring experiences: The development of a taxonomy. Journal of 

Vocational Behavior, 57(1), 1-21.

Eby, L.T., Rhodes, J.E., & Allen, T.D. (2007). Definition and evolution of mentoring. In T.D. 

Allen and L.T. Eby (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple 

perspectives approach, (pp. 7-20). Boston: Blackwell Publishing.

Eddy, E., Tannenbaum, S., Alliger, G., D’Abate, C., & Givens, S. (2001). Mentoring in industry:

The top 10 issues when building and supporting a mentoring program (Technical Report 

No. N61339-D-012). Orlando Fl: Naval Air Warfare Training Systems Division.

Egan, T. M., & Song, Z. (2008). Are facilitated mentoring programs beneficial? A randomized 

experimental field study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 351-362.

Ensher, E. A., Grant-Vallone, E. J., & Marelich, W. D. (2002). Effects of perceived attitudinal 

and demographic similarity on protégés' support and satisfaction gained from their 

mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(7), 1407-1430.

Ensher, E. A., & Murphy, S. A. (1997). Effects of race, gender, perceived similarity, and contact 

on mentor relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50(3), 460-481

Federal Aviation Administration (2013). Flightcrew member mentoring, leadership, and 

professional development. NPRM 4910-13, Predecisional Draft (unpublished).

Federal Aviation Administration (2009). Best practices for mentoring in flight instruction. 

Federal Aviation Administration, 1(1), 1-20.

Federal Aviation Administration (2002). Private pilot practical test standards for airplane (SEL, 

MEL, SES, MES). U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 

Flight Standards Service, Washington, D. C. Report # FAA-S-8081-14A.
37

Ferguson, L. M. (2011). From the perspective of new nurses: What do effective mentors look 

like in practice? Nurse Education in Practice, 11(2), 119-123.

Files, J.A., Blair, J.E., Mayer, A.P., & Ko, M.G. (2008). Facilitated peer mentorship: A pilot 

program for academic advancement of female medical faculty. Journal of Women's 

Health. 17(6), 1009–1015.

Fleig-Palmer, M. M., & Schoorman, F. D. (2011). Trust as a moderator of the relationship 

between mentoring and knowledge transfer. Journal of Leadership & Organizational 

Studies, 18(3), 334-343.

Garvey, B., & Alred, G. (2000). Developing mentors. The Career Development International, 

5(4), 216-22.

Gheesling, R. (2010). A study of formal and informal mentoring in the United States Air Force.

(Unpublished Dissertation). Air Force Institute of Technology, Ohio. 

Ghosh, R., & Reio, T. G., Jr. (2013). Career benefits associated with mentoring for mentors: A 

meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(1), 106–116.

Gibson, S. (1998). An evaluation of characteristics and practices associated with effective 

mentoring within the United States Air Force. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Air Force 

Institute of Technology.

Giebelhaus, C. R., & Bowman, C. (2002). Teaching Mentors: Is It Worth the Effort? The Journal 

of Educational Research, 95(4), 246.

Green, S. S. & Bauer, T. N. (1995). Supervisory mentoring by advisers: Relationships with 

doctoral student potential, productivity, and commitment. Personnel Psychology, 48(3), 

537-561.
38

Haggard, D.L., Dougherty, T.W., Turban, D.B., & Wilbanks, J.E. (2011). Who is a mentor? A 

review of evolving definitions and implications for research. Journal of Management, 37, 

280-304.

Hamlin, R. & Sage, L. (2011). Behavioral criteria of perceived mentoring effectiveness: An 

empirical study of effective and ineffective mentor and mentee behavior within formal 

mentoring relationships. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35(8), 752-778.

Harris, R. R., Simons, M. M., Bridge, K. K., Bone, J. J., Symons, H. H., Clayton, B. B., Pope, 

B., Cummins, G., & Blom, K. (2001). Factors that contribute to retention and 

completion rates for apprentices and trainees. Leabrook, SA, Australia: National Centre 

for Vocational Education Research Ltd.

Harvard Business Essentials. (2004).Coaching and Mentoring: How to Develop Top Talent and 

Achieve Stronger Performance. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Hegstad, C. D. & Wentling, R. M. (2004). The development and maintenance of exemplary

formal mentoring programs in Fortune 500 Companies. Human Resource Development 

Quarterly, 15(4), 421-448.

Hill, A., & Dalley-Trim, L. (2008). Hanging in there: What makes a difference in the first year of 

an apprenticeship. Youth Studies Australia, 27(1), 36-42.

Hoffman, R. R., Ward, P., Feltovich, P. J., DiBello, L., Fiore, S. M., & Andrews, D. H. (2013). 

Accelerated Learning: Training for High Proficiency in a Complex World. New York: 

Psychology Press.

International Federation of Airline Pilots Association (2012). IFALPA pilot training standards: 

Guide for best practices. The International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Association,

Retrieved from: http://www.talpa.org/wp-content/uploads/IPTS.pdf
39

Inzer, L.D., & Crawford, C.B. (2005). A review of formal and informal mentoring: Processes, 

problems, and design. Journal of Leadership Education, Vol. 4(1), Summer, 31-50.

Jacobi, M. (1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: A literature review. Review 

Of Educational Research, 61(4), 505-532

Johnson, W. (2002). The intentional mentor: Strategies and guidelines for the practice of 

mentoring. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 33(1), 88-96.

Kasprisin, C.A., & Single, P.B. (2005). Identifying essential elements of successful e-mentoring 

programs through needs assessment. In F.K. Kochan & J.T. Pascarelli (Eds.), Mentoring 

and technology: Insights and challenge. (pp. 51–71). Greenwich, CT: Information Age 

Publishing.

Kasprisin, C., Single, P., Single, R. M., Ferrier, J. L., & Muller, C. B. (2008). Improved mentor 

satisfaction: Emphasizing protégé training for adult-age mentoring dyads. Mentoring &

Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 16(2), 163-174.

Kenter, Peter. (2010). Engineering Mentors: Invisible Encouragement for the Invisible 

Profession. Schulich Engineer, December, p.19.

Kram, K. E. (1985). Improving the mentoring process. Training & Development Journal.

Kram, K.E. (1988). Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in Organizational Life.

New York: University Press of America

Lankau, M. J., Riordan, C. M., & Thomas, C. H. (2005). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 

252-265.

Lee, F.K., Dougherty, T.W., & Turban, D.B. (2000). The role of personality and work values in 

mentoring programs. Review of Business, 21(1), 33–40.
40

Madlock, P. E., & Kennedy-Lightsey, C. (2010). The effects of supervisors’ verbal 

aggressiveness and mentoring on their subordinates. Journal of Business Communication, 

47(1), 42-62.

Martin, S. M., & Sifers, S. K. (2012). An evaluation of factors leading to mentor satisfaction 

with the mentoring relationship. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(5), 940-945.

Murray, M. (1991). Beyond the myths and magic of mentoring: How to facilitate an effective 

mentoring program. pp. 210. San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass; US.

National Research Council (2011). The Effects of Commuting on Pilot Fatigue. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press.

Noe, R. A. (1988) An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring 

relationships. Personnel Psychology, 41(3), 457-479.

NTSB (2010). Loss of control on approach, Colgan Air, Inc., operating as Continental 

Connection Flight 3407, Bombardier DHC-8-400, N200WQ, Clarence Center, New York, 

February 12, 2009. NTSB Accident Report AAR-10/01 (Feb. 2, 2010).

O’Brien, K.E., Biga, A., Kessler, S.R., & Allen, T.D. (2010). A meta-analytic investigation of 

gender differences in mentoring. Journal of Management, 36(2), 537-554.

Office of Personnel Management (2008). Best Practices: Mentoring. Washington, D.C.: US 

Office of Personnel Management.

Piper, R. E., II. (2013). To be or not to be...perceived benefits of mentoring in the United States 

Air Force. (Unpublished Dissertation). Air Force Institute of Technology, Ohio.

Ragins, B. R. & Cotton, J. L. (1999) Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and 

women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 

84(4), 529-550.
41

Ramani, S., Gruppen, L., & Kachur, E. (2006). Twelve tips for developing effective mentors. 

Medical Teacher, 28(5), 404-408.

Ramaswami, A., & Dreher, G.F. (2010). The benefits associated with workplace mentoring 

relationships. In T.D. Allen & L.T. Edy (Eds.). The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A 

multiple perspectives approach (p. 211-233). Boston: Blackwell Publishing.

Scandura, T.A. (1992). Mentorship and career mobility: An empirical investigation. Journal of 

Organizational Behavior, 13, 169-174.

Scandura, T. A. (1998). Dysfunctional mentoring relationships and outcomes. Journal of 

Management, 24(3), 449-467.

Scandura, T.A., & Pellegrini, E.K. (2010). Workplace mentoring: Theoretical approaches and 

methodological issues. In T.D. Allen & L.T. Edy (Eds.). The Blackwell handbook of 

mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach (p. 71-91). Boston: Blackwell Publishing.

Scandura, T. A., & Ragins, B.R. (1993). The effects of sex and gender role orientation on 

mentorship in male-dominated occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43, 251-265.

Scandura, T.A., & Viator, R. (1994). Mentoring in public accounting firms: An analysis of 

mentor-protégé relationships, mentoring functions, and protégé turnover intentions.

Accounting, Organizations & Society, 19, 717-734.

Scielzo, S. A. (2008). The effects of training on goal orientation, mentoring relationship 

processes, and outcomes. (Doctoral dissertation) University of Central Florida Orlando, 

Florida.

Seibert, S. (1999). The effectiveness of facilitated mentoring: A longitudinal quasiexperiment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(3), 483-502.
42

Shipp, A. J., & Fried, Y. (Eds.). (2014). Time and Work, Volume 1: How Time Impacts 

Individuals. New York: Psychology Press.

Shipp, A. J., & Fried, Y. (Eds.). (2014). Time and Work, Volume 2: How Time Impacts Groups, 

Organizations and Methodological Choices. New York: Psychology Press.

Shrestha, C.H., May, S., Edirisingha, P., Burke, L., & Linsey, T. (2009). From face-to-face to ementoring: Does the “e” add any value for mentors? International journal of teaching 

and learning in higher education, 20, 116-124.

Single, P.B., & Muller, C.B. (2001). When Email and mentoring unite: The implementation of a 

nationwide electronic mentoring program—MentorNet, the National electronic industrial 

mentoring network for women in engineering and science. In L.K. Stromei (Ed.) 

Creating mentoring and coaching programs: Twelve case studies from the real world of 

training. (p. 107-122). Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and 

Development.

Smith, W.J., Howard, J.T., & Harrington, K.V. (2005). Essential formal mentor characteristics 

and functions in governmental and non-governmental organizations from the program 

administrator’s and the mentor’s perspective. Public Personnel Management Vol. 34(1), 

spring 2005, pp. 31-57.

Straus, S. E., Johnson, M. O., Marquez, C., & Feldman, M. D. (2013). Characteristics of 

successful and failed mentoring relationships: A qualitative study across two academic 

health centers. Academic Medicine, 88(1), 82-89.

Teatheredge, J. (2010). Interviewing student and qualified nurses to find out what makes an 

effective mentor. Nursing Times, 106(48), 19-21.
43

Turban, D. B., & Dougherty, T. W. (1994). Role of protégé personality in receipt of mentoring 

and career success. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 688-702.

Turban, D.B., & Lee, F.K. (2007). The role of personality in mentoring relationships: 

Formation, dynamics, and outcomes. In B.R. Ragins & K.E. Kram (Eds.). The handbook 

of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications Inc.

Underhill, C.M. (2006). The effectiveness of mentoring programs in corporate settings: A metaanalytical review of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(2), 292-307.

Van Emmerik, H., Baugh, S. G., & Euwema, M. C. (2005). Who wants to be a mentor? An 

examination of attitudinal, instrumental, and social motivational components. Career 

Development International, 10(4), 310-324.

Wanberg, C. R., Kammeyer-Mueller, J., & Marchese, M. (2006). Mentor and protégé predictors 

and outcomes of mentoring in a formal mentoring program.Journal of Vocational 

Behavior, 69(3), 410-423.

Waters, L. (2004). Protégé-mentor agreement about the provision of psychosocial support: The 

mentoring relationship, personality, and workload. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 

65(3), 519-532

Zerzan, J., Hess, R., Schur, E., Phillips, R., & Rigotti, N. (2009). Making the most of mentors: A

guide for mentees. Academic Medicine, 84(1), 140-144.

Zey, M.G. (2014). Virtual mentoring: The challenges and opportunities of electronicallymediated formal mentor programs. Downloaded 9/21/2014. 

http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1103507732457-

19/Virtual+Mentoring.pdf
44

Appendix A – Summary of Workplace Mentoring (Meta Analyses)*

Article Population Time frame 

of review

Aspect of mentoring 

studied

Variables studied in relation to 

mentoring

Key findings/conclusions

Underhill (2006) Employed 

Adults

1988-2004 (14 

individual 

studies)

Mentored vs non-mentored Outcomes: income, tenure, number 

of promotions, job satisfaction, 

self-esteem, intent to stay, 

promotion/career advancement, 

organizational commitment, 

alternative employment 

opportunities, work stress, workfamily conflict

Positive effect on job satisfaction, 

organizational commitment, selfesteem, lower work stress, work-family 

conflict, and perceptions of promotion 

or career advancement; informal 

mentoring had larger effects than did 

formal mentoring

Allen, Eby, 

Poteet, Lentz, & 

Lima (2004)

Employed 

Adults

References 

from 1985-

2004

43 individual 

studies

Mentored versus nonmentored; protégé perceived 

career and psychosocial 

mentoring

Outcomes: Objective and 

subjective career success, 

satisfaction, relationship quality

Small but positive relationships with 

compensation and number of 

promotions, greater satisfaction with 

career and jobs, more likely to advance 

and more committed to their career

Eby, Allen, 

Evans, Ng, & 

DuBois (2008)

Youth, 

academic, 

employed 

adults

1985-2006

116 

independent 

samples

Mentored versus nonmentoredOutcomes: behavioral, attitudinal, 

health-related, relational, 

motivational, career

Effect sizes were generally small, 

largest effect sizes were between 

mentoring and helping others, school 

attitudes, and career attitudes, smallest 

were between mentoring and 

psychological stress and strain, effect 

sizes for youth ranged from .03 to .14, 

for academic and workplace mentoring 

they ranged from .11-.36 and .03-.19 

respectively

KammeyerMueller & Judge 

(2008)

Employed 

Adults

1987-2007

120 unique 

samples

Mentored versus nonmentored; protégé perceived 

instrumental and 

psychosocial mentoring, 

overall mentoring quality or 

satisfaction with mentor

Predictors and outcomes:

demographic, core self-evaluations, 

performance, promotions, salary, 

job satisfaction, career satisfaction

Benefits of mentoring are modest. 

Positive effect on job and career 

satisfaction after controlling for 

demographics, human capital, and core 

self-evaluations

O’Brien, Biga, 

Kessler, & Allen 

(2010)

Employed 

Adults

1984-2007

40 published 

articles and 1 

conference 

Mentored versus not 

mentored; protégé 

perceptions of instrumental 

and psychosocial mentoring

Predictors: mentor and protégé 

gender

Very small in magnitude gender 

differences (e.g., no gender difference 

in reported experience as a protégé and 

report of career development; women 
45

paper perceive more psychosocial mentoring; 

men are more likely to serve as 

mentors). Further research is needed to 

assess the influence of potential 

moderators.)

Eby, Allen, 

Hoffman, 

Baranik, Sauer, 

Baldwin, 

Morrison, 

Kinkade, Maher, 

Curtis, & Evans 

(2013)

Youth, 

Academic, 

Workplace

1985-2010

173 

independent 

samples (14 

youth, 36 

academic and

117 

workplace)

Protégé perceptions of 

instrumental and 

psychosocial support and 

protégé perceptions of 

relationship quality in 

relation to each other, as 

well as to potential 

antecedents, correlates, and 

consequences

Predictors and Outcomes: 

antecedents (demographics, human 

capital, relationship attributes) 

correlates (interaction frequency, 

relationship length, performance, 

motivation, social capital), 

consequences (attitudinal 

outcomes, behavioral outcomes, 

career-related outcomes, healthrelated outcomes)

Potential Antecedents: Deep-level 

similarity was related to protégé 

perceptions of instrumental, 

psychosocial support and relationship 

quality; experiential similarity was 

positively related to instrumental 

support and relationship quality; 

Potential Correlates: interaction 

frequency was positively related with 

instrumental support, psychosocial 

support, and relationship quality; 

longer durations resulted in greater 

perceived psychosocial support and 

higher relationship quality; Potential 

Outcomes: Perceived greater 

instrumental support, psychosocial 

support, and higher relationship quality 

also reported higher situational 

satisfaction and sense of affiliation; 

higher reports of instrumental support 

and psychosocial support reported 

greater socialization/learning; small 

effect relations greater instrumental 

support to reported higher 

compensation, greater instrumental 

support and higher relationship quality 

were related to career success, only 

weak relationships evident for any of 

the health-related outcomes

*This table is an expansion of the table included in Eby, Allen, Hoffman, Baranik, Sauer, Baldwin, Morrison, Kinkade, Maher, 

Curtis, and Evans (2013).
46

Appendix B – An Evidence-Based Approach to Workplace Mentoring

The information contained in this section is based primarily on the work of Allen, 

Finkelstein, and Poteet (2009), that provides “evidenced-based guidance” to organizations 

regarding the development of formal mentoring programs. As part of the introduction they

caution organizations that one mentoring program approach will not necessarily fit all 

organizations. Each organization needs to develop their approach based on their particular needs 

and objectives. Following an introduction the book chapters are devoted to, what the authors 

feel, are specific elements of any mentoring program (Planning and providing infrastructure; 

Participant recruitment and selection; Matching mentors and protégés; Training; Mentoring 

structure and process; and Monitoring and program evaluation).

We have elected to provide a brief summary of the information provided in each chapter 

along with the action plan that concludes each of the chapters. In their book, Allen, Finkelstein, 

and Poteet (2009) include forms in Appendices “A” through “O” that can be used by an 

organization to support program development and evaluation. In the introduction, the authors 

indicate that until recently there was insufficient empirical research to help guide the 

development of workplace mentoring programs. The recommendations provided are based, to 

the extent possible, on a synthesis of available research evidence. One caution regarding much of 

the existing scientific literature concerns the overall rigor of that research. Eby et al. (2012) 

provide the following caution – “The vast majority of effects reported were based on crosssectional data (93%) and none were based on data from experimental designs, precluding our 

ability to make causal inferences (pg. 23).” They also expressed concerns that much of the 

primary data involves self-report data for both independent and dependent variables which 

increases the potential for common source bias. Other authors support those concerns and point 
47

to other issues where the experimental design is lacking, more rigorous methodological research 

is needed.

Mentoring provides two primary forms of support, career-related support and 

psychosocial support. Mentoring differs from other relationships at work in that it is a twoperson relationship; while asymmetrical, the relationship is mutual, as well as being dynamic.

While mentoring may include elements of teaching and skill-based instruction that are the focus 

in coaching, it is broader since it encompasses elements that involve extending the protégé’s 

contacts and assists him/her in better understanding the organization so as to help advance 

professional development. Examples of the mentoring efforts from several larger organizations 

are illustrated throughout the book.

Planning and Providing Infrastructure

Without sound planning and an infrastructure that demonstrates strong managerial and 

organizational support, a formal mentoring program is likely to fail. To develop the mentoring 

program, management needs to conduct a formal needs assessment to identify the overall basis 

for mentoring. This will assist in identifying the objectives of the program. The needs assessment 

can involve employee surveys, individual interviews, or focus groups. The authors also indicate 

that the effort needs to be fully integrated into the organization’s human resources (HR) system 

as well as the organization’s overall mission, values, and philosophy. The implementation effort 

needs to demonstrate how upper-level management is behind the initiative. Based on Eddy, 

Tannenbaum, Alliger, D’Abate, and Givens’ (2001) review of 127 formal mentoring programs 

across industries, the objectives most frequently cited for formal mentoring programs included: 

managerial talent development, skill building, diversity development, and new employee 

socialization. Hegstad and Wentling (2004), in their qualitative review of the mentoring 
48

programs from 17 Fortune 500 Companies, reported that their mentoring programs were first 

initiated for retention (53%), diversity initiative (53%), and career management or development 

(47%).

Participant Recruitment and Selection

Based on the program objectives, who should be the targeted participants? It may not be 

impossible to have sufficient mentors for all potential protégés. Research suggests that mentoring 

programs often target new hires, anyone in the organization, high potential employees, and those 

in professional and managerial ranks. Of the 17 Fortune 500 Companies, 9 programs were for all 

employees, 4 were for high potential employees, 3 were for new hires, several focused on “new 

hires of color,” and 1 was for women (Hegstad & Wentling, 2004, p. 435). Eddy et al. (2001) 

reveal that over half of the formal mentoring programs screen employees on factors that include 

potential for advancement, desire to participate, tenure, and interest and goals. A sample of 

protégé screening criteria includes skill-based, motivation-based, and personality-based criteria.

One of the first issues involves guidelines for participation. Most programs do not require 

mandatory participation either by the mentor or protégé. While research from the mentoring 

literature is not clear cut, evidence from most training programs suggests that voluntary

participation leads to improved outcomes.

Screening is also required for mentors since the relationship between mentor and protégé 

is, according to research by Matthews (2003), the most important factor affecting the overall 

quality of the experience. Beyond interest and motivation, the authors include empathy, ability to 

role model appropriate behavior, confidence, listening and communications skills, technical 
49

knowledge, credibility, commitment, patience, and other types of knowledge, skills, abilities, and 

characteristics.

Matching Mentors and Protégés

Typically, a matching process is used for mentors and protégés. Given the criticality of 

the relationship, the matching process is highly important. In their meta-analytic review, Eby et 

al. (2013) revealed that what they called perceived deep-level similarity between mentor and 

protégé exhibited “the strongest and most positive association” with protégé perceptions of 

instrumental support, psychosocial support, and ratings of the relationship quality. As noted 

earlier, perceived deep-level similarity is most often based on self-reports. Research does not 

support any single approach to matching. Approaches vary from some organizations where 

protégés identify their own mentor to situations where a computer algorithm is used to match the 

two. In any case, the company needs to develop a standardized process for making the decision.

Most companies appear to use a structured matching procedure. Similarity along some 

dimension appears to be most relevant. Eby et al. (2013) would recommend that attempts should 

be made to identify mentor-protégé commonalities in values, beliefs, personality, and other 

characteristics. Specific suggestions by Allen, Finkelstein, and Poteet (2009) include: (a) base 

the matching process on the program’s objectives, (b) base the matching process on the 

company’s culture, (c) pair mentors and protégés in close physical proximity, (d) pair mentors 

and protégés not in direct line of supervisory relationship, (e) base the matching decision on 

multiple factors, (f) ensue rationality and consistency of matching decisions, and (g) include 

some level of “similarity” even for “dissimilar” mentor-protégé relationships.
50

Training

Nearly all organizations require training before employees enter into a new assignment.

All but one of the Fortune 500 Companies examined had a required training program. Recent 

research suggests that mentors and protégés appear to benefit from the training, and outcomes 

tend to be more positive. The training should be built around the program objectives and goals of 

the mentoring. While there appears to be little research surrounding the content of the training, 

Allen, Finkelstein, and Poteet (2009) recommend that the following be included: (a) a definition 

of mentoring, (b) an outline of the program objectives, (c) a review of responsibilities of both 

mentors and protégés, (d) a preview of the role of the program staff, (e) clear expectations for 

what the program can and cannot do, (f) established structure and boundaries for the mentorprotégé relationship, (g) a description of the potential relationship challenges, and (h) a 

description of the structure of the formal mentoring program (pg. 63). It is recommended that the

training itself should be evaluated.

Mentoring Structure and Process

Since trust is an important part of the mentoring process, all parties need to be aware of 

what the standards are in terms of confidentiality. You may want to recognize that there may be 

circumstances where it is appropriate to share feedback with other individuals. Establishing 

expectations, goals, and boundaries for the relationship are an important first step in the 

mentoring process. There is some evidence that this contributes to protégé satisfaction. Another 

component involves the frequency of the interactions and the method for meeting. While meeting 

frequency across organizations varies, the most common involves monthly interactions. This 

should be addressed in the organizational guidelines. While face-to-face meetings are often 

preferred, there are numerous other approaches that have been used (e-mail, video-conferencing, 
51

and e-mentoring). Kram (1985) conducted a qualitative investigation of “developmental 

relationships” at work (mentoring). The process often lasted from 6-8 years and involved four 

states (initiation, cultivation, separation, and redefinition). Formal mentoring relationships are 

typically much shorter. Guidelines for the Fortune 500 Companies examined included 14 where 

the formal relationship lasted a year, 1 was 9 months in length, and 2 left the length of the 

relationship up to the participants (Hegstad & Wentling, 2004). Participants were allowed to 

continue beyond the guidelines if they so desired. In the Fortune 500 companies examined, 

guidelines for meeting frequency was varied from two times a month, once a month, six times in 

a year, to leaving that detail to the participants. There is weak evidence in the research literature, 

which suggests that protégés experience more benefits from longer relationships. Eby et al. 

(2013), in their meta-analysis of 173 programs, found that an increase in interaction frequency

led to an increase in protégé perceptions of instrumental support, psychosocial support, and 

relationship quality.

Monitoring and Program Evaluation

The only way you can ensure that the mentoring program is achieving the goals and 

objectives is through a monitoring and evaluation process. A monitoring process will help 

identify problems that may arise. Monitoring will provide an opportunity to determine if 

meetings are being held regularly and if progress is being made. Monitoring can be 

accomplished in several ways (surveys, face-to face meetings, phone contacts, group meetings). 

Without a proper evaluation, the organization has no way of knowing the program’s return-oninvestment. Kirkpatrick (1994) has provided extensive guidance regarding the evaluation of 

training programs that can be adapted to evaluating mentoring programs. Many times evaluations 

are focused primarily on reactions to the training and what participants learned from the training.
52

Kirkpatrick describes four levels of measurement: (1) reactions to the training, (2) learning what 

resulted from the training, (3) behavior or performance change, and (4) business results for the 

organization. There are a number of approaches to gathering the necessary data from face-to-face 

meetings to more elaborate surveys and questionnaires. A tracking system will need to be 

established to assess longitudinal performance. The information gained from the evaluations can 

be used to revise and improve the mentoring program.

Action Plan

Planning and Providing Infrastructure:

 Determine the relevant questions to be addressed in a needs assessment (including 

organizational and person analysis).

 Determine the methods to be used for conducting the needs analysis.

 Conduct the needs analysis.

 Conduct an external scan of the environment.

 Based on the results of the needs assessment, decide whether a formal mentoring program 

is appropriate. If so, proceed with following actions.

 Determine whether there is an adequate level of upper-management and front-line 

support for the program.

 Determine specifically how this support will be behaviorally demonstrated to potential 

participants.

 Based on the results of the needs assessment, clearly state (in writing) the specific 

objectives of the program.

 State the specific measurable outcomes that you would like to achieve.

 Develop a program evaluation plan.
53

 Review current HR systems and leadership development strategies, and determine how 

mentoring fits into the HR strategy.

 Determine the level of structure and formality that will best fit the organization’s culture.

 Select a program administrator, ensuring he or she has the motivation and time for the 

position.

 Decide if there will be a steering committee, determine the types of people to be 

represented on the committee, and recruit committee members.

 Determine the specific responsibilities of the program administrator and members of the 

steering committee, and determine how often they will meet.

 Set a date and an agenda for the initial steering committee meeting (pg. 22).

Participant Recruitment and Selection:

 Narrow down the pool of potential protégés depending on the goal of the program and the 

target number of protégés desired, given resources.

 Within this pool, determine if protégé selection will be voluntary or mandatory.

 Determine protégé screening criteria and how to measure those criteria.

 Screen protégés and select final pool.

 Determine the qualities needed in mentors based on the goal of the program.

 Determine number of mentors needed based on the number of protégés.

 Recruit potential mentors.

 Determine mentor screening criteria and how to measure those criteria.

 Screen potential mentors.

 At this stage, consider retaining more than the number of mentors you will ultimately

need, to provide more flexibility at the matching stage (pg. 35).
54

Matching Mentors and Protégés:

 Once the pool of mentors and protégés is determined, the mentoring steering committee 

should discuss the goals of the program, the cultural expectations of the organization, and 

the resources available to determine a matching strategy.

 Determine what specific characteristics will be used for the match, and measure (or 

gather information) on those characteristics.

 If multiple characteristics will be used in matching, determine a weighting system.

 Determine if a computer algorithm will be used for the match if so, put in place (in-house 

or through the use of a consultant).

 If input from the mentor or protégé will be used, determine how those individuals will 

garner information about potential partners (e.g., through written information, social 

function, or individual interviews).

 Determine a time frame for completing the matches and schedule all needed 

meetings/interviews/events.

 Decide how the match information will be communicated to the participants.

 If more potential mentors were recruited than actually needed, determine how to inform 

those not chosen of your decision (pg. 58).

Training:

 Determine the resources available to devote to training in terms of cost (e.g., for training 

materials) and time (for preparation as well as mentor, protégé, and trainer time away

from work).

 Given the resources at your disposal, clearly state (in writing) your training objectives 

and determine how many layers of training would best suit your needs.
55

 Make an outline of the topics and specifics to be covered in the first layer of training 

(e.g., foundational topics such as objectives, roles, expectations). Create any needed 

presentation slides.

 Make an outline of the topics and specifics to be covered in the second layer of training 

(e.g., topics specific to your organization and the goals of your mentoring program).

Create any needed presentation slides and practice activities.

 If including a third layer of training topics (knowledge and skill development), determine 

the specific knowledge and skills to be covered for mentors and protégés. Determine if 

this will be done in separate training sessions. Create or find relevant experiential 

exercises and create any needed presentation slides.

 Do a “dry run” of the training sessions, possibly with the mentoring steering committee, 

to work out any problematic issues.

 Create a training evaluation strategy and any forms of materials to be used to evaluate the 

training program.

 Determine whether all participants will take part in one big training session or if there 

will be several for them to choose from. This may depend on the size of the program and 

the flexibility of schedules.

 Schedule and conduct the training.

 Evaluate the training and determine if improvements should be made (pg. 69).

Mentoring Structure and Process:

 Make decisions about the level of confidentiality required of the mentors and protégés; 

communicate this to them and decide if it should be part of a written mentoring 

agreement. If it is determined that mentors will share information on protégés to 
56

supervisors/organizational leaders, the nature of the information that will be shared 

should be clarified to all parties.

 Decide whether a mentoring agreement will be used and design the template of an 

agreement to include information to guide goal setting, boundary setting, and 

expectations.

 Determine whether the meeting frequency guidelines will be mandated by the committee, 

only suggested by the committee, or fully determined by the pairs. Communicate this to 

the pairs.

 Determine if the mode of conduct will be only in person, or in person combined with 

phone and/or electronic communication, or if this will be decided by the pairs.

Communicate this to the pairs.

 Determine whether the length of the relationships will be set by the mentoring committee 

or set by individual pairs; if by committee, decide on the length and communicate this to 

the pairs.

 Communicate to the pairs what the expected roles are of protégés and mentors for driving 

the process.

 Decide if a protégé development plan will be used by the pair and, if so, design a 

template to include whatever components make sense for the goals of the program.

 Decide on the type of planned activities to be included in the program (pg. 83).

Monitoring and Program Evaluation:

 Plan how often you will check in with the mentors and protégés throughout the 

mentorship.
57

 Decide whether these check-ins will involve surveys, individual meetings, or group 

meetings (or a mix of these methods).

 Create a list of questions to be used for the check-ins.

 Determine a step-by-step plan for handling problems within matches. Ideally this is 

something that the pairs will be informed of during orientation.

 Decide how the data gathered will be tracked and analyzed, who will be responsible for 

that, and who will see the data.

 Based on the program objectives, select or create the appropriate program evaluation

criteria.

 Determine whether measures will be qualitative, quantitative, or both.

 Decide what measures should focus on the individual level and what should focus on the 

organizational level.

 Determine what reactions you would like to garner from participants and create 

appropriate reaction measure.

 If learning was a measurable objective determined at the outset, create or select a 

measure to assess the level of learning. Ideally there will be a pre- and post-measure to 

look for change.

 If specific behavior/performance change was a measurable objective determined at the 

outset, create or select a measure to assess that behavioral change. Ideally there will be a 

pre- and post-measure to look for change.

 If organizational-level business results were a measurable objective determined at the 

outset, decide which business metrics will be examined and how the impact of other 

business factors on those metrics will be controlled.
58

 Decide the method for collecting these evaluations (e.g., individual meetings, focus 

groups, surveys). Ideally if methodological control is feasible, assignment of participants 

to groups should be considered earlier on in the process.

 Create a timeline or when various measures will be taken, and task individuals on the 

mentoring committee with carrying out the process (pg. 102,103 – All page numbers 

refer to Allen, Finkelstein and Poteet (2009)).

References – Appendices

Allen, T.D., Finkelstein, L.M., & Poteet, M.L. (2009). Designing Workplace Mentoring 

Programs. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Eby, L.T., Allen, T.D., Hoffman, B.J., Baranik, L.E., Sauer, J.B., Baldwin, S., Morrison, M.A., 

Kinkade, K.M., Maher, C.P., Curtis, S., & Evans, S.C. (2013). An interdisciplinary metaanalysis of the potential antecedents, correlates, and consequences of protégé perceptions 

of mentoring. (Mar 16). Psychological Bulletin. , 139(2), 441-476.

Eddy, E., Tannenbaum, S., Alliger, G., D’Abate, C., & Givens, S. (2001). Mentoring in industry:

The top 10 issues when building and supporting a mentoring program. Technical report 

prepared for the Naval Air Warfare Training Systems Division (Contract No. N61339-99-

D-0012), Orlando, FL.

Hegstad, C.D. & Wentling, R.M. (2004). The development and maintenance of exemplary

formal mentoring programs in Fortune 500 Companies. Human Resources Development 

Quarterly, 15(4), 421-448.

Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Judge, T. A. (2008). A quantitative review of mentoring research: 

Test of a model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 269-283.
59

Kirkpatrick, D. (1994). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco, CA:

Berrett-Koehler.

Kram, K.E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life.

Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Matthews, B.A. (2003). Enhancing the protective capacity of mentoring relationships:

Strengthening the social bond. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A.

Humanities and Social Sciences, 65(03), 112