University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Identification of barriers to mentoring and their impact on retention and advancement of underrepresented populations in the federal government

(USC Thesis Other)

Identification of barriers to mentoring and their impact on retention and advancement of underrepresented populations in the federal government

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Identification of Barriers to Mentoring and their Impact on Retention and Advancement of
Underrepresented Populations in the Federal Government

Joseph Brian Essex

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2023

© Copyright by Joseph Brian Essex 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Joseph Brian Essex certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Anthony Maddox
Kenneth Yates
Patricia Tobey, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
This dissertation examined barriers to establishing work-based mentoring relationships and their
impact on retention and advancement of employees from underrepresented populations working
for the federal government. The impetus for the study was a report by the Office of Personnel
Management, which identified the significant underrepresentation of minorities in the Senior
Executive Service as an area of particular interest. The study utilized Clark and Estes’s gap
analysis framework to identify gaps in knowledge and motivation as well as organizational
barriers which prevented employees from establishing work-based mentoring relationships. A
thorough review of the literature on mentoring was conducted to identify individual and
organizational benefits of mentoring, potential barriers that effect the development of formal and
informal work-based mentoring relationships, and the impact a lack of mentoring may have on
employee and organizational outcomes. The study used a mixed methods explanatory sequential
design incorporating a quantitative survey and qualitative interviews. Data analysis revealed gaps
in employee knowledge and motivation as well as the presence of organizational barriers which
inhibited participation in the organization’s mentoring program. Recommendations to address
the identified gaps are provided.
Keywords: mentor, protégé, mentoring, knowledge, motivation, organizational
influences, diversity.

v
Dedication
The true measure of a person is not in their days, but in their deeds.
In their actions, not their words.

This dissertation is dedicated to all the people who understand the importance of
mentoring, and who take the time to offer their help and encouragement to whoever asks for it.

vi
Acknowledgements
Completing a doctorate is similar to completing a marathon: it is not an individual event,
but rather, a team sport that requires a tremendous amount of encouragement and support. I want
to thank my wife Laura for understanding my crazy schedule, and for all the nights she stayed up
late waiting for me to get out of class, off a Zoom study session or finish my evening writing so
we could have a few minutes together. I needed every long walk we took, and the time and space
you gave me when I just needed to be alone to think. To the other members of my amazing team,
my son Evan and my daughter Leya, thank you for allowing me to share your academic journeys
as I navigated my own. Your thirst for knowledge inspired me, and I am proud of all that you
have accomplished.
I would like to thank the members of my committee, Dr. Tobey, Dr. Maddox and Dr.
Yates, for their guidance and support during the development of my proposal, the execution of
my study, and the completion of this dissertation. I appreciate your flexibility, scheduling time to
talk, and your willingness to jump on a zoom session when needed. Thank you for your constant
inspiration and empowerment to explore the space as I saw it, and not how others wanted it to be
explored. I would also like to thank Dr. Pritchard, my associate dissertation chair, for his
continued support during the development of the conceptual framework that defined my study,
and his assistance with the statistical analysis.
I was privileged to have had the opportunity to engage with some amazing faculty who
guided my learning journey. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge and thank Dr. Fecht, Dr.
Martinez, Dr. Wilcox, Dr. Lynch, and Dr. Kho. I appreciate the safe space you each created, and
your help keeping the main thing the main thing. I would also like to thank Dr. Datta for her

vii
assistance navigating the currents and counter currents that envelop a doctoral student in a vortex
of learning during their academic journey.
When I started the OCL program, I never imagined the deep friendships that I would
develop, nor the profound impact they would have on me. I want to thank the members of Cohort
15, in particular, the members of Team SEW: Dr. Amy Williams and Dr. Natalie Salvador. You
made the tough times fun, and the fun times memorable. To the rest of my family and friends,
thank you for indulging me as I shared the latest journal article I had read, and for understanding
why I had not read the most recent best seller or seen the show or movie you were talking about.
As I explored the mentoring space, I often reflected on my own experience working with
some incredible leaders who understood the importance of mentoring, and who supported me
throughout my career. I learned a great deal from my mentors, and would like to thank CAPT
Christopher Schuyler, USN(ret), Dr. Donna Murdoch, CAPT, USN(ret), CAPT Keith Syring,
MSC, USN(ret), Col Joe “Mort” Mortensen, USMC(ret), and CDR Dave Taylor, USN(ret) for
selflessly offering me their time, wisdom and experience.
To my parents who always taught me that I could do anything I set my mind to, and for
believing in me and supporting me even when you may not have understood what I was doing or
why. Thank you for the unconditional love you always provided.

* This document has been reviewed and approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
The name of the government organization where the research was conducted, and which
approved public release has been omitted to protect participants’ confidentiality.

viii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xiii
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study ...........................................................................................1
Context and Background of the Problem .............................................................................2
Organizational Goal .............................................................................................................3
Description of Stakeholder Groups ......................................................................................4
Stakeholder Group for the Study .........................................................................................5
Stakeholder Performance Goals ...........................................................................................5
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions ...................................................................6
Importance of the Study .......................................................................................................6
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .....................................................8
Definitions............................................................................................................................9
Organization of the Dissertation ........................................................................................10
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................................11
A Historical Perspective of Mentoring ..............................................................................11
Organizational Diversity ....................................................................................................21
Theoretical Frameworks ....................................................................................................26
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences ...............................29
Summary ............................................................................................................................45
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................46
Research Questions ............................................................................................................46

ix
Overview of Design ...........................................................................................................46
Research Setting.................................................................................................................49
The Researcher...................................................................................................................50
Data Sources ......................................................................................................................51
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................54
Ethics..................................................................................................................................60
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................62
Chapter Four: Results and Findings ...............................................................................................64
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................64
Cronbach’s Alpha for Survey Measures ............................................................................69
Interview Participants ........................................................................................................70
Results and Findings for Knowledge .................................................................................72
Results and Findings for Motivation..................................................................................84
Results and Findings for Organizational Influences ..........................................................93
Results and Findings for Sense of Belonging ..................................................................107
Summary of Results and Findings ...................................................................................111
Chapter Five: Discussion, Recommendations and Evaluation ....................................................114
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................114
Organizational Goal .........................................................................................................114
Discussion, Solutions and Recommendations .................................................................115
Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Framework ......................................................................115
Learning, Motivation, and Organizational Theories ........................................................118
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ..............................................................124
Recommendations for Future Research ...........................................................................146
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................147

x
References ....................................................................................................................................149
Appendix A: Quantitative Survey Instrument .............................................................................163
Appendix B: Qualitative Interview Participation Survey Instrument ..........................................176
Appendix C: Interview Protocol ..................................................................................................179
Appendix E: Introduction to Mentoring 90-Day Post-Training Assessment ..............................183
Appendix F: Foundations of Mentoring 90-Day Post-Training Assessment...............................184
Appendix G: ATEPS Introduction to Mentoring Post-Course Assessment ................................185
Appendix H: ATEPS Foundations of Mentoring Post-Course Assessment ................................186
Appendix I: Information Sheet for Exempt Research ..................................................................187

xi
List of Tables
Table 1: ATEPS Demographic Data 3
Table 2: Organizational Mission, Organizational Performance Goal, and Stakeholder Goal 6
Table 3: Knowledge Influences 33
Table 4: Motivation Influences 38
Table 5: Organizational Influences 42
Table 6: Data Sources 48
Table 7: Demographic Information: Race 65
Table 8: Demographic Information: Gender 66
Table 9: Demographic Information: Primary Career Field 66
Table 10: Demographic Information: Employee Age 67
Table 11: Demographic Information: Time Spent Working at ATEPS 67
Table 12: Demographic Data Aggregation 68
Table 13: Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients 70
Table 14: Interview Participant Demographic Data 71
Table 15: Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA, Factual Knowledge 73
Table 16: Mentoring Skill Self-Assessment 74
Table 17: Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA, Procedural Knowledge 78
Table 18: Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA, Conceptual Knowledge 81
Table 19: Attributes of a Positive Mentoring Relationship 82
Table 20: Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA, Self-Efficacy 85
Table 21: Self-Efficacy Self-Assessment 86
Table 22: Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA, Utility Value 88

xii
Table 23: Utility Value Self-Assessment 89
Table 24: Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA, Organizational Policy 94
Table 25: Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA, Training 99
Table 26: Mentoring Tool 100
Table 27: Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA, Sense of Belonging 108
Table 28: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 128
Table 29: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 129
Table 30: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 130
Table 31: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 141
Table 32: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 142
Table C1: Interview Protocol 179
Appendix D: Theoretical Framework Alignment Matrix 182

xiii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 28
Figure 2: Mixed-Methods Research Design 47
Figure 3: Optimized Organizational Scorecard 117
Figure 4: Current ATEPS Mentoring Scorecard 118
Figure 5: Reporting Dashboards 145

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Despite separate executive orders by Presidents John F. Kennedy (The American
Presidency Project, 1961) and Barack Obama (The White House, Office of the Press Secretary,
2011) to promote diversity in the workplace, there is still significant racial and ethnic minority
underrepresentation in leadership positions in both the public and private sectors (Dobbin et al.,
2011). According to a 2016 report by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), minorities
represented 36.4% of the federal workforce but only 21.2% of the Senior Executive Service
(SES). The 2016 Governmentwide Inclusive Diversity Strategic Plan (GIDSP) highlighted the
significant underrepresentation of minorities at the SES level and identified recruitment of
minorities and women for SES positions as an area of particular interest (OPM, 2016).
Choi (2013) identified the impact of disproportionate minority representation in public
organizations as a significant negative factor in overall job satisfaction among minority
employees. Central to the underrepresentation are several barriers, including the lack of minority
managers and leaders and a shortage of racial and ethnic minority mentors in the workplace. In
periods of low unemployment when there is high demand for skilled workers and the number of
qualified replacements is low (Samuel & Chipunza, 2009), these factors negatively impact new
employee recruitment and retention. However, organizations that effectively incorporate
workplace mentoring programs have demonstrated improved organizational commitment
(Thurston et al., 2012), job satisfaction (Olson & Jackson, 2009) and career outcomes (Underhill,
2006) among minority employees. Failure to address barriers to mentoring for minority
employees may lead to a disenfranchised workforce, creating a labor shortage that could place an
added burden on existing workers and negatively impact the organization’s effectiveness.
2

Context and Background of the Problem
The organization at the center of this study was the Acquisition, Test and Evaluation and
Support Program office (ATEPS, a pseudonym), a large federal agency with the mission to
design, develop, test and evaluate, acquire, and sustain weapon systems and associated support
equipment for the military.
1
The organization accomplishes its mission through a coordinated
network of supported and supporting commands, work-centers and depots located in several
states. The ATEPS workforce includes a mix of civil servants, active-duty military, and
contractor support personnel. Employees represent several functional disciplines, including
program management, engineering, financial management, human resources, procurement
management, legal and logistics. According to the ATEPS website, the civil servant workforce
consists of just over 9,000 employees. Table 1 highlights the demographic information of the
civilian workforce.

1
Information derived from organizational websites and documents not cited to protect
anonymity.
3

Table 1
ATEPS Demographic Data
Race/ethnicity Male Female Total
White 4,850 2,648 7,498
African American 379 357 736
Asian 270 128 398
Hispanic 275 111 386
Pacific Islander 11 4 15
Native American 23 13 36
Multi-racial 49 28 77
Total 5,857 3,289 9,146

To support employee growth and development, ATEPS initiated a mentoring program in
2007. The program’s goal was to provide the workforce with the opportunity for personal growth
and professional development and to facilitate the transfer of knowledge and expertise through
mentoring relationships. To further increase access to mentoring and identify potential mentors,
the program featured an online portal where employees could register as mentors or protégés.
Although the program and website were well received when they were introduced, the mentoring
tool was not adequately maintained, and functionality has diminished since its introduction. A
reduction in the number of senior employees who registered to serve as mentors compounded the
system functionality issues.
Organizational Goal
The ATEPS office responsible for managing the mentoring program identified the need
to update the organization’s mentoring goals, which included increasing employee participation
4

in the program, offering more mentoring classes, and refreshing the online mentoring tool. The
proposed goals reflected in this study are based on a review of the organization’s overarching
strategic goals. As the mentoring program is not centrally managed across all ATEPS sites, the
focus of the goals was limited to the specific location where data collection was conducted.
The organization’s performance goal is to increase employee participation in the
mentoring program to 75% by December 2023. This date was identified to coincide with the 12-
month anniversary of introducing the new mentoring tool and reflects the combined registration
of senior employees who volunteer to serve as mentors and junior employees interested in
mentoring. The organization does not collect demographic data on mentoring program
participants and does not have performance goals related to minority involvement in the
mentoring program.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
It will take the combined efforts of three primary stakeholder groups to realize ATEPS’s
goal of achieving 75% participation in the mentoring program. The first stakeholder group is
comprised of the junior employees who provide engineering, logistics, financial management,
contract management and program management support to the weapon system and support
equipment programs. Members of this group are recent college graduates or have less than 5
years of experience working at ATEPS. The second group is comprised of the senior employees
who oversee the execution of the development, test and evaluation, acquisition, and sustainment
programs. Members of this group have 20 or more years of experience working at ATEPS, and
most have earned advanced degrees in their respective disciplines. The third group includes the
members of the organization’s mentoring program office who manage the mentoring program,
including employee registration, development of training content and maintenance of the
5

mentoring tool. Members of this group have between 10 and 20 years of experience working at
ATEPS, with a focus on the human resource management area. Achievement of the
organization’s goal will depend on receiving the stakeholder groups’ support and participation.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
The stakeholder group of focus for this study was the junior ATEPS employees. Selecting
this group aligns with the findings and recommendations of the GIDSP with regard to addressing
the advancement of women and minorities in the federal government. Understanding their
opinions regarding the current mentoring program, the knowledge and motivational factors
influencing their decision to engage in a mentoring relationship, as well as any perceived barriers
to establishing a meaningful mentoring relationship, is central to achieving the organization’s
goal. A successful mentoring relationship requires the participation of experienced senior
employees willing to serve as mentors, junior employees interested and willing to become
protégés, and an organizational culture that supports and promotes employee learning and
development.
Stakeholder Performance Goals
Central to ATEPS achieving its goal of 75% employee participation in the mentoring
program will be an understanding of the employees’ perspectives regarding the benefits of
mentoring and the barriers, if any, preventing them from participating. Table 2 provides an
overview of the alignment between the ATEPS mission, its organizational goal, and the specific
stakeholder goal.

6

Table 2
Organizational Mission, Organizational Performance Goal, and Stakeholder Goal
Organizational mission
The mission of ATEPS is to design, develop, test and evaluate, acquire, and sustain weapon
systems and associated support equipment for the military.
Organizational performance goal
By December 2023, ATEPS will increase employee participation in the mentoring program to
75%.
Stakeholder goal
By December 2023, all ATEPS junior employees interested in participating in the mentoring
program will have a mentor.

Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to examine barriers to establishing work-based mentoring
relationships and the impact they have on the retention and advancement of federal government
employees from underrepresented populations. Key questions addressed by the study included:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences required to support
employee engagement in the ATEPS mentoring program?
2. What are the recommendations associated with employee knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences required to achieve the stated organizational goals?
Importance of the Study
The GIDSP noted the significant role leaders play in the success of organizational
diversity efforts and identified the disproportionate number of minorities in senior leadership
positions as negatively impacting efforts to maximize the performance of current federal
employees from underrepresented groups (OPM, 2016). Failure to address the GIDSP findings
and recommendations may result in continued underrepresentation of minorities in the federal
workforce. However, in addition to the issue of diversity, equity and inclusion for the federal
7

workforce, there are significant financial implications associated with employee turnover that
ATEPS must consider.
There are many ways to quantify the benefits of diversity on organizational performance.
Herring (2009) reported that racial and gender diversity positively impacted organizational
performance by increasing opportunities for creativity and innovation. Herring reported that
companies that incorporated the ideas of many people demonstrated improved problem solving
and performance. Page (2007) identified the positive effects that combining multiple diverse
perspectives can have during problem solving, with more diverse groups outperforming groups
of like-minded individuals. Page attributed the reason for the improved performance to an
additive effect, whereby each person saw the problem a bit differently and provided a different
perspective. Hewlett et al. (2013) examined the benefits of different forms of diversity on
organizational performance. They reported that companies with both inherent and acquired
diversity innovated and performed better than companies without higher levels of diversity
(Hewlett et al., 2013). Whereas leveraging diversity may result in a competitive advantage and
produce tangible economic benefits, failure to promote a diverse organization can have
significant financial implications with respect to retaining existing employees or recruiting and
training new employees.
The financial impact on the organization (measured by both the cost to recruit and train a
new employee as well as lost productivity while the position was vacant) can approach 50% of
the first-year salary (Hannay & Northam, 2000; Laddha et al., 2012). Evaluating the financial
impact of new employee turnover for ATEPS over the 5-year period of January 2016 to January
2021, ATEPS retained 82% of newly hired employees. Based on an average starting salary of
$80,800, the financial impact of an 18% attrition rate to ATEPS is greater than $98 million.
8

Whereas some new employee attrition is inevitable, a 10% reduction is new employee attrition
could result in savings of over $9.8 million. This funding could be reallocated to support core
mission functions.
The ATEPS human resource office requests that all employees leaving the organization
complete an exit survey to help understand the factors that influenced their decision. In addition
to demographic data (age, gender, race/national origin), years working for ATEPS and the
employees’ primary career field, the survey instrument asks questions regarding the employees’
reason for leaving (ex: retirement, resignation, transfer to another agency), and what changes
could have been made by ATEPS that would have changed their decision to leave. Seven
hundred seventy-seven (36%) of the employees who left the organization between October 2017
and January 2021 completed the survey, with 372 of them (48%) identifying the lack of career
advice and guidance (lack of a mentor) among their reasons for leaving. Further analysis of these
372 employees identified that 166 had spent 5 years or less working for ATEPS. Applying the
previously mentioned attrition multiple to this group of 166 employees, voluntary termination
cost ATEPS just over $6.7M. Of these 166 employees, 45% were members of minority
populations, and 30% were female. It should be noted that applying the attrition multiple to the
entire population of ATEPS employees who left the organization between October 2017 and
January 2021 yields a voluntary termination cost of $41.8M due to the lack of career advice and
guidance (lack of a mentor).
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
This study utilized Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework to identify and
understand the differences between existing organizational goals and actual organizational
performance. Focusing on identifying gaps in employee knowledge, motivation, and
9

organizational barriers, the gap analysis model provided an analytical approach to assess how the
ATEPS mentoring program supports the development of and engagement in meaningful
mentoring relationships for employees who self-identify as members of underrepresented
populations.
This study used a mixed-methods explanatory sequential design that incorporated two
distinct data collection phases. The first phase focused on collecting quantitative data, and the
second focused on collecting qualitative data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This research design
supported the assessment of barriers to mentoring by identifying historical trends and impacts on
retention and advancement, which were then used to frame an exploration of the current
workforce to understand contemporary employee perspectives and thoughts.
Definitions
Acquired diversity: Refers to traits gained from experience (Hewlett et al., 2013).
Formal mentoring: A mentoring arrangement established by the organization to benefit a
junior employee (Palgi & Moore, 2004).
Informal mentoring: A mentoring relationship established outside the construct of a
formal or existing organizational program (Palgi & Moore, 2004).
Inherent diversity: Refers to traits you are born with, such as gender, ethnicity, and sexual
orientation (Hewlett et al., 2013).
Mentoring: A positive workplace relationship between a senior member of the
organization (mentor) and a subordinate (protégé; Lankau & Scandura, 2002).
Navigator buddy: A more senior or experienced employee assigned to help a new
employee during their first few weeks or months on the job.
10

Organization of the Dissertation
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One provides an overview of the
study, including the problem of practice, methodology, theoretical framework, key terms, a
description of the organization of focus and its goals, as well as the primary stakeholders.
Chapter Two provides a comprehensive review of the literature related to mentoring and its
impact on the persistence and advancement of employees from underrepresented populations.
Chapter Three provides an overview of the research methodology and study design, participant
selection procedures, and the approach to data collection and analysis. Chapter Four presents an
analysis and assessment of the data collected. Chapter Five provides recommendations, based on
the data and literature, to address barriers to establishing effective mentoring relationships for
employees from underrepresented populations in the federal government, and proposes
opportunities for future research.
11

Chapter Two: Literature Review
This literature review examines foundational concepts of mentoring, which supported a
deeper investigation into potential factors that may impact mentoring at ATEPS. The review
begins with a historical review of mentoring, including the benefits of mentoring, types of
mentoring relationships, identification of attributes of a successful mentoring dyad and barriers
known to impact mentoring. That section is followed by a review of organizational diversity and
the impact that diversity has on organizational performance. The literature review then pivots to
address the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used to frame the study, beginning with a
review of the gap analysis framework defined by Clark and Estes (2008). The review then
transitions to a discussion of social capital theory and factors that influence network
development. The chapter concludes with a discussion of relevant knowledge, motivational
factors, and organizational influences that impact the development of successful mentoring
relationships.
A Historical Perspective of Mentoring
The following section provides an overview of the benefits of participation in a
mentoring relationship, followed by an explanation of the difference between formal and
informal mentoring, attributes of positive mentoring relationships, and a discussion of barriers
that impact participation in mentoring. The framework proposed by Sambunjak et al. (2009) is
used to identify the personal, relational, and structural attributes of effective mentoring
relationships. The section concludes with a description of common barriers that prevent the
establishment of a mentoring relationship, including protégé gender, race, ethnicity, and culture.
12

Benefits of Mentoring
There are many reasons younger employees seek to engage in a mentoring relationship
with more senior, experienced members of their organizations. Fundamental to all mentoring is
the transfer of knowledge, information, and skills required for career advancement (Eller et al.,
2014; Pfund et al., 2016; Underhill, 2006). However, mentoring also provides protégés with
access to expanded networks (Holley & Caldwell, 2012), training opportunities, and
organizational resources (Seibert et al., 2001). Psychosocial support is another benefit of a
healthy mentoring relationship (Feeney & Bozeman, 2008) which creates a safe, positive
environment that supports open communication (Eller et al., 2014) and empowers the protégé
(Mathews, 2006). Although the focal point of most organizational mentoring relationships is the
effect mentoring will have on the protégé, effective mentoring programs also provide a variety of
benefits for both the mentor and the organization.
Senior employees who participate in mentoring programs report developing new skills
(Traut et al. 2000), earning enhanced recognition, and accelerated promotion (Coates, 2012).
Their position as role models also provides them with a sense of personal satisfaction and
fulfillment (Eby, Durley, et al., 2006; Ragins & Scandura, 1999). Organizations that sponsor
mentoring programs benefit from improved employee performance (Mathews, 2006),
commitment (Olson & Jackson, 2009; Schmidt, 2007), and retention (Schroyer et al., 2020).
These factors combine to reduce operating costs associated with hiring and training new
employees (Robinson & Reio, 2012) and may provide the organization with a competitive
advantage in its market (Friday & Friday, 2002; Mathews, 2006).
13

The Nature of the Mentoring Relationship: Formal Versus Informal Mentoring
Organizational constructs may define the formation and characteristics of the senior
(mentor)-subordinate (protégé) relationship. Whereas some organizations prefer a more formal
structured approach in which mentors and protégés are assigned through a standardized process
managed by the organization (Allen et al., 2006), others prefer a more relaxed approach that
allows the protégé to identify their mentor (or vice versa) in a less formal manner (Allen et al.,
2006). Formal and informal mentoring programs differ in the intensity, duration, and
commitment of the relationship (Bynum, 2015), as well as in the degree of career guidance and
psychosocial support they provide, which may impact the protégés level of satisfaction with the
mentoring relationship and their career development (Nemanick, 2000). Regardless of the type of
mentoring program implemented, it is important for the organization to develop a strategy that
ensures alignment between the mentoring process and the organization’s goals and objectives
(Friday & Friday, 2002) and addresses cultural, racial, and gender factors (Ehrich et al., 2004) to
maximize the benefit of mentoring.
The voluntary nature of an informal mentoring relationship allows the participants to
decide with whom they wish to work (Allen et al., 2006). Since partner selection is often based
on common interests and similar personalities, these mentoring dyads tend to transcend the
normal workplace constructs, which may limit the depth, breadth, and frequency of
conversations (Underhill, 2006). Protégés who selected their mentor reported greater satisfaction
and quality of mentoring (Allen, 2006) and greater benefits (Ragins & Cotton, 1999) compared
to protégés assigned a mentor by their organization. Additionally, protégés who select mentors
from the same department or portion of the organization enjoy greater access to regular
mentoring engagements, leading to improved outcomes (Allen et al., 2006). Orpen (1997)
14

reported higher motivation and organizational commitment among employees who liked their
mentor, a finding that supports protégé involvement in the selection or assignment of a mentor.
However, in the absence of common interests or factors which can serve as a foundation upon
which the mentor and protégé can build a healthy relationship, the potential benefits of
mentoring may not be realized.
The structured assignment of a mentor to a protégé may result in the participants in the
dyad having few common interests, which can serve as a foundation for their relationship
(Ragins & Cotton, 1999; Underhill, 2006). As a result, the relationship may be weak and not
provide the protégé with an adequate amount of sponsorship (Allen et al., 2006). In extreme
cases, a mentor may choose to spend little time with a protégé whom they consider a poor
candidate, reducing program success (Orpen, 1997). Factors such as work location and proximity
may also reduce access to mentoring or frequency of mentoring sessions if the assigned mentor
and protégé are not co-located (Allen et al., 2006). Although formal mentoring programs
incorporate training as a required element of program participants, variability in training content,
duration, and quality impacts the outcome for both the mentor and protégé (Allen et al., 2006).
Attributes of an Effective Mentoring Relationship
Mentoring programs need defined attributes and metrics to assist in the formulation and
assessment of mentoring relationships (Pfund et al., 2016). A meta-analysis by Sambunjak et al.
(2009) provides a framework for developing a mentoring program. Sambunjak and colleagues
proposed key attributes in a mentoring relationship should include personal, relational, and
structural elements. Collectively, these elements represent the actions of a good mentor and
protégé dyad, eliminating barriers that could lead to an ineffective mentoring relationship. The
15

literature suggests that open communication, exchange of knowledge, and goal setting are
appropriate elements for incorporation.
Personal Attribute: Open Communication
Several authors suggest that foundational to a healthy mentoring relationship is the ability
of the mentor and protégé to engage in open, honest dialogue. Gandhi and Johnson (2016)
addressed the importance of communication, highlighting the need for both participants to be
active listeners, especially during difficult conversations. Holley and Caldwell (2012) and Pfund
et al. (2016) identified the role of effective communication as it pertains to giving and receiving
feedback, suggesting feedback was a critical component of the mentoring process. Finally, Eller
et al. (2014) recognized open communication as the first of eight critical themes necessary for a
healthy mentor-protégé relationship, emphasizing the role that frequent dialogue between the
mentor and protégé played in assessing learning and progress toward achieving personal and
professional goals. Collectively, these studies support the incorporation of communication as a
necessary personal attribute in a mentoring relationship. Effective communication between the
mentor and protégé facilitates the career development and psychosocial support elements of
mentoring.
Relational Attribute: Exchange of Knowledge
Establishing open communication between the mentor and protégé supports the exchange
of knowledge. Within the scientific domain, Eller et al. (2014) identified the exchange of
information, including scholarly discussions on the explanation and application of theories, as a
critical component of a young scientist’s development. Pfund et al. (2016) highlight the
importance of identifying the requisite knowledge and skills necessary for protégé success,
emphasizing how a skilled and knowledgeable mentor can leverage their experience to guide the
16

protégé in their learning. Holley and Caldwell (2012) cited the role that information exchange
between the mentor and protégé plays in the personal and professional development of the
protégé, describing enhanced opportunities for collaboration and networking. Taken together,
these studies identify the importance of information exchange as a critical component of an
individual’s professional development. Whereas communication and exchange of knowledge
address the mechanical elements of mentoring, foundational to any learning endeavor is the
establishment of goals.
Structural Attribute: Goal Setting
Eller et al. (2014) addressed the importance of establishing achievable yet challenging
goals, considering them a vital element in developing individual learning plans and a way to
manage expectations. Similarly, Holley and Caldwell (2012) concluded that “establishment of
clear guidelines and expectation for all participants” (p. 252) was necessary for the establishment
of a successful mentoring program. Pfund et al. (2016) identified establishment and alignment of
mentor-protégé expectations as important attributes of an effective mentoring relationship,
noting that goal achievement improves motivation and persistence. Given the role goal setting
plays in learning and self-regulation, incorporating goal setting as a foundational element of a
mentoring framework appears warranted. Although prospective mentors and protégés may be
interested in participating in an organization’s mentoring program, several barriers may prevent
the formation of effective mentoring dyads.
Barriers to Establishing a Mentoring Relationship
Barriers to establishing mentoring relationships were found in organizations that were not
committed to supporting their mentoring programs (Ehrich et al., 2004). These barriers may
include gender (Blake-Beard et al., 2011; Parker & Kram, 1993; Sosik & Godshalk, 2000) and
17

race (Palmer & Johnson-Bailey, 2008) as well as ethnicity and culture (Gonzáles-Figueroa &
Young, 2005; Knouse & Moody, 2013; Liang et al., 2002; Santos & Reigadas, 2005). Barriers
may impact communication, the transfer of knowledge, and the amount of psychosocial support
received, reducing outcomes for protégés.
In a study of 200 mentoring dyads, Sosik and Godshalk (2000) reported that female
protégés engaged in a mentoring relationship with a female mentor reported greater psychosocial
support and role modeling compared to female protégés who had a male mentor. However, the
female protégés with a male mentor reported greater career development. Differences in protégé
career development were attributed to the amount of organizational power and influence
possessed by the male mentor compared to the female mentor. Parker and Kram (1993)
investigated the issue of organizational power and its impact on mentoring dyads, proposing the
amount of organizational power female leaders have in a mentoring relationship is impacted by
the corporate glass ceiling, which limits the sponsorship a female mentor can provide a female
protégé. The lower prestige level associated with sponsorship by a female leader resulted in
fewer female mentor-protégé dyads, which hindered the individual development of both the
mentor and the protégé as well as organizational performance.
The gender mix of a mentoring dyad can impact the benefits the protégé receives. Blake-
Beard et al. (2011) evaluated the role of gender on mentoring outcomes as part of a multifactor
analysis of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) and business students. Based on
their analysis of over 1,000 survey responses from undergraduate, graduate, and post-doctoral
students, they concluded that students with a same-gender mentor received more help and
support than students in a mixed-gender mentoring dyad; however, this did not equate to better
academic performance (Blake-Beard et al., 2011). The study did note the importance of protégé
18

motivation and commitment toward academic success as a limiting factor regardless of the
mentor’s gender. Whereas positionality and organizational power can create gender-based
barriers to mentoring, cultural differences in communication and perceptions of leadership may
make it difficult for ethnic minorities to benefit from mentoring relationships.
Ethnicity and race can impact the development of a mentoring relationship. Santos and
Reigadas (2005) investigated the importance of ethnicity in mentoring relationships among
college students. Results of a survey they administered to 65 minority students who participated
in a mentoring program with an assigned faculty sponsor showed a positive correlation between
ethnic homogeneity and academic performance. Survey participants who had a mentor of the
same ethnic background reported higher levels of adaptation to campus life with increased access
to information and resources compared with students in mixed-ethnic mentoring dyads. Among
the benefits cited as contributing to their success were “similarities in values, expectations and
background” between the mentor and protégé (p. 351).
In a qualitative study of 10 African American employees working for either a Fortune
500 or Fortune 1000 company, Palmer and Johnson-Bailey (2008) identified mentoring as a
“significant factor impacting the career aspirations of the respondents” (p. 45). The absence of
formal mentoring programs in their organizations was considered a career-defying barrier,
contributing to reduced opportunities and subsequent delays in their advancement. Race affected
the establishment of a mentoring relationship due to the limited number of African American
executives available to serve as a mentor, increasing the importance of cross-cultural mentoring
relationships. Respondents also reported fewer bi-racial dyads initiated by White males or
females, attributing this to a lack of diversity training programs in their organizations.
19

An organization’s failure to recognize and embrace racial and cultural differences may
create barriers to participation in a mentoring program. Lack of diversity training in an
organization was one of several barriers Giscombe and Mattis (2002) identified in their study of
Fortune 500 and Fortune 1000 companies. They used a multi-faceted approach, including a
survey of 1735 women of color, to investigate the impact of race and gender on advancement
opportunities in large businesses (Giscombe & Mattis, 2002). In response to questions about
their work environment, 56% of African American women and 46% of Asian American women
reported the presence of disadvantageous racial stereotypes, with 36% of African American
women and 25% of Asian American women reporting that they needed to “adjust their style to fit
into the corporate environment” (Giscombe & Mattis, 2002, p. 108). With regard to mentoring,
although 44% of respondents felt that having a mentor or sponsor was important for career
advancement, 47% reported not having a mentor, with 40% reporting the absence of an informal
network available for career advice. Compounding the lack of mentoring and networking
opportunities for women of color was a lack of company-sponsored diversity programs to
provide managers with training to “effectively manage a diverse workforce” (p. 117). The lack of
mentoring and networking opportunities and the presence of disadvantageous stereotypes were
associated with reduced advancement opportunities for women of color.
Cultural differences in relationship building, communication, traditional values and anti-
group biases may limit the ability of a minority protégé to engage in a successful mentoring
relationship (Liang et al., (2002); Liang et al., (2006)). Assessing Asian American student
success with mentoring, Liang et al. (2002) identified the presence of traditional cultural values
(including subordination of the individual to the group and deference and obedience to their
elders) as barriers that may preclude an Asian American protégé from reaching out to a more
20

senior person. These results are supported by a study by Liang et al. (2006) on the role of cultural
barriers to mentoring among college students. In their survey of 450 students (including 122
women of Asian descent) enrolled in a women’s liberal arts college, cultural differences in
relationship building and communication contributed to Asian students being less likely to
initiate a mentoring relationship compared to other students on campus. Liang et al. (2006)
proposed that underlying this finding is the potential breach of a cultural norm that considers it
inappropriate for a younger person to initiate a relationship with an older person. Findings from
the study also supported the hypothesis that cultural differences in expressing emotions may
prevent a potential mentor from identifying that an Asian woman was interested in establishing a
mentoring relationship.
Findings by Gonzáles-Figueroa and Young (2005) regarding the importance of
recognizing cultural identity in establishing a mentoring relationship, as well as findings by
Knouse and Moody (2013) regarding the need to respect cultural differences further support the
theory that culturally specific factors may inhibit the participation of minority groups in
mentoring relationships. Knouse and Moody (2013) identified several culturally specific factors
unique to Hispanic professionals which impact the likelihood of developing successful
mentoring relationships. These include the centrality of the family and a strong sense of
community which prevents the establishment of relationships with people who do not share
“common preferences in language, religion or entertainment” (p. 83) and a preference among
Hispanics to speak Spanish as a part of maintaining their cultural identity. Structurally, Knouse
and Moody (2013) also cited the lack of Hispanics in senior leadership positions who can serve
as role models or mentors.
21

Gonzáles-Figueroa and Young (2005) hypothesized that a combination of fewer available
mentors and a “lack of awareness of the importance of mentoring” (p. 220) created a barrier to
mentoring relationships among Latina women. Results of a survey administered to 103 Latina
businesswomen identified strong ethnic and cultural influences which impacted their ability to
establish career-enhancing mentoring relationships, with respondents indicating a preference for
mentors of the same ethnicity. A majority of respondents reported having informal mentoring
relationships, which provided more psychosocial benefits by helping to “reinforce their cultural
and ethnic identity” (p. 220) compared to formal mentoring that focused on strategies for career
success. Although the results reinforce the importance of ethnic identity in workplace
relationships and respondents who participated in mentoring relationships reported higher
income levels and career success than respondents who had not, the study did not identify or
quantify differences in cross-cultural mentoring dyads or provide insight into specific barriers to
identifying suitable mentors who shared a common heritage.
Organizational Diversity
Proper organizational diversity management can become a force multiplier for an
organization, improving performance metrics and organizational outcomes. However, for
organizations that do not understand or leverage the power of a diverse workforce, results may
not be favorable. The following section provides a review of efforts to address diversity in the
federal government, the concepts of diversity management and the impact that diversity may
have on the workforce. The section concludes with a discussion of the impact that organizational
diversity can have on the development of mentoring relationships.
22

Diversity in the Federal Government
In 2016, minorities represented 36.4% of the federal workforce but only 21.2% of the
SES (OPM, 2016). The 2016 GIDSP noted that an area of particular interest is recruiting
minorities and women for SES positions (OPM, 2016). Choi (2013) identified the impact of
disproportionate minority representation in public organizations as a significant negative factor
in overall job satisfaction among minority employees. The absence of diversity management
across all levels of an organization has been shown to hinder individual and group performance
among minority employees (Pitts, 2009). However, federal organizations that featured diverse
leadership teams were more effective in implementing diversity policies, and this was positively
correlated as a predictor of performance among non-White employees (Jin et al., 2017). Several
barriers were central to the underrepresentation, including the lack of a common definition of
diversity and diversity management, the lack of minority managers and leaders, and the shortage
of racial and ethnic minority mentors in the workplace.
Diversity Management
The lack of a common definition of diversity makes it difficult for organizations to
develop and implement effective diversity management programs. Carrell et al. (2006) proposed
the lack of a fundamental definition of diversity and diversity management is the root cause. In a
survey of 251 public administrators, Carrell and Mann (1995) suggested public sector
professionals are evenly divided on whether they consider diversity to mean anything broader
than existing equal employment opportunity and affirmative action policies. In a related survey
of 169 human resource managers conducted 11 years later by Carrell et al. (2006), respondents
were equally divided over the definition of diversity management. Pitts and Jarry (2007)
asserted, in the absence of a common definition, organizations will be unable to understand what
23

diversity is, does, or how to effectively manage it. This opinion is supported by Valdez (2018),
who argued that broader definitions of inclusion and diversity are required to remove barriers for
minority employees. However, the newly adopted definitions for diversity, inclusion, and
inclusive diversity provided by OPM in 2016 fail to clearly articulate quantifiable parameters.
After establishing a common understanding of diversity and inclusion, leaders need to
determine a method to assess progress toward achieving a diverse and inclusive workforce.
While the federal government has broad definitions of diversity, there is no widely accepted
method to measure or identify inclusion or inclusive behaviors at federal government agencies
(OPM, 2016). The absence of measurable criteria to support OPMs new diversity definitions
directly contradicts guidance provided in the 2016 GIDSP initiative, which called for a data-
driven approach to assessing progress in its diversity and inclusion (D&I) efforts. Wyatt-Nichol
and Antwi-Boasiako (2012) cited the need to develop and implement quantifiable diversity
metrics to assess the benefit of diversity programs as a requirement for organizations looking to
assess the impact of diversity programs on productivity. Valdez (2018) identified the lack of
clear metrics to quantify the return on investment of D&I programs (including their impact on
mission accomplishment in the federal government) as a risk factor that could have negative
consequences if budgetary pressures necessitate reductions in funding. In the absence of a clear
and common definition or quantifiable metrics, organizations will be unable to determine the
impact of policies and programs on the retention and advancement of racial and ethnic minority
employees, nor their impact on the number of minority leaders and managers.
Impact of Diversity on Employee Performance
The lack of minority leaders and managers has been shown to negatively impact
employee performance. Choi (2013) identified the disproportionate minority representation in
24

public organizations as a significant factor in overall job satisfaction among minority employees.
In a study of 191 federal agencies, Choi reported racial and ethnic minorities were more satisfied
with their job and organization when there were higher levels of racial and ethnic diversity in
managerial positions. Based on an analysis of data collected from 221,000 respondents to the
2006 Federal Human Capital Survey, Pitts (2009) concluded the lack of diversity management
across an organization harms individual and group performance among minority employees.
However, Jin et al. (2017) reported federal organizations with diverse leadership teams are more
effective in implementing diversity policies, which was positively correlated as a predictor of
performance among non-White employees. Their conclusion was based on an analysis of data
obtained from over 415,000 respondents to the 2012 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey.
Whereas the GIDSP notes leaders’ significant role in diversity efforts’ success, the
disproportionate number of employees from underrepresented populations in federal government
senior leadership positions will negatively impact efforts to maximize the performance of current
federal employees in underrepresented groups.
Impact of Diversity on Establishing Workplace Mentoring Relationships
A consequence of the underrepresentation of racial and ethnic minorities in leadership
positions is the negative impact on the promotion of mentoring and development of new
employees. The significant costs associated with employee recruitment, training and retention
warrant that human resource offices (HROs) focus on maintaining employee job satisfaction and
commitment to their organization (Robinson & Reio, 2012). One approach HRO can use to
accomplish this objective is to create and sustain a mentoring program that supports employee
development and generates company loyalty. However, the benefits of mentoring may depend on
the relationship between protégé and mentor (Illies & Reiter-Palmon, 2018). In a meta-analysis
25

assessing the effectiveness of mentoring programs in corporate settings, Underhill (2006)
reported a statistically significant positive impact on career outcomes for individuals involved in
a workplace mentoring program. However, Underhill noted that for minorities, the similarity of
mentor and protégé gender and race were important factors that increased the overall level of
satisfaction achieved by the mentoring relationship (Underhill, 2006). Likewise, Eby et al.
(2008) evaluated 116 independent studies in their multidisciplinary meta-analysis on mentoring,
identifying diversity as an important attribute of effective mentoring programs. However, it can
be difficult for employees from underrepresented populations seeking a mentor to find a senior
executive with whom they can develop a mentoring relationship.
The inability to identify a senior leader to serve as a mentor is particularly troubling for
employees from underrepresented populations. Olson and Jackson (2009) evaluated the
significance of a mentoring relationship on minority employees in their study of 359 African
American males working in the business sector. The study reported higher job satisfaction and
organizational commitment from employees with a mentor compared to respondents who were
not involved in a mentoring program. Of note, 23% of the respondents highlighted barriers to
initiating a mentoring relationship, including a shortage of mentors (Thurston et al., 2012). In a
study of 146 mentoring relationships, Illies and Reiter-Palmon (2018) reported fewer women and
people of color available to serve as mentors, limiting protégés’ ability to initiate a beneficial
mentoring relationship. They also noted that protégés who received less support received fewer
benefits, reducing career success, job satisfaction, and overall organizational success. The
disproportionate number of minorities and lack of diversity in mid-level and senior leadership
positions available to serve as mentors hinders efforts to develop employees, which has
significant implications for future organizational success. Barriers that inhibit junior employees’
26

development have added significance in the federal government, whose workforce has “an
enormous, and often poorly understood impact on virtually every sector of the U.S. economy,
workforce, and everyday life of all Americans” (Valdez, 2018, p. 676).
Theoretical Frameworks
This study applied a traditional gap analysis approach that incorporated the elements of
social capital theory to assess barriers to mentoring relationships at ATEPS. This section begins
with an explanation of Clark and Estes’s (2008) model and includes a graphic representation of
the conceptual framework used to guide this study. The section then transitions to and concludes
with an explanation of social capital theory and the role mentoring can play in supporting the
development of professional networks.
Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Framework
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis model provides a framework to systematically
assess organizational performance against existing organizational goals. The model focuses on
identifying gaps in stakeholder knowledge, motivation, or organizational influences (KMO) that
prevent achieving established goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Organizations may leverage the gap
analysis results to develop recommendations, including identifying new goals, developing or
implementing training, addressing factors hindering motivation, considering availability or
allocation of resources, and removing barriers to remediate or eliminate the gaps. Analysis of
each of the KMO elements supports recognizing individual causal factors, as well as the
interaction of factors that led to the performance gaps and helps ensure that proposed solutions
address the underlying root causes (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Foundational in executing an assessment utilizing the KMO approach is identifying the
primary stakeholder group, understanding their role in the organization, and how their specific
27

work function aligns with the organization’s goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Based on the
stakeholder group’s specific roles and responsibilities, instruments can be developed to measure
the difference between their actual performance and organizational goals, as well as their beliefs
and opinions. Analysis of data obtained from the instrument or subsequent interviews can be
used to determine the magnitude of gaps in employee knowledge, skill, or motivation, as well as
organizational barriers that negatively impact the ability of employees to do their job.
The KMO approach was used to assess knowledge and motivational gaps as well as
organizational barriers that prevent junior ATEPS employees’ engagement in the organization’s
mentoring program. Data analysis provided an understanding of the magnitude of the gaps as
well as their impact on participation in the mentoring program and insight into how participation
affected junior employees’ career progression. The gap analysis results were compared to
information found in the literature to develop actionable recommendations for ATEPS to address
the identified deltas.
Figure 1 provides a graphic representation of the conceptual framework used to guide this
study. The ability of ATEPS to improve participation in the organization’s mentoring program
and achieve its overarching organizational goals is predicated on the availability of mentors who
can help junior employees obtain the requisite knowledge and skills while providing them with
support to address their personal, professional developmental, and motivational needs. The
model also reflects the significant influence mentors may have in helping junior employees
develop strong networks through which they can develop and exchange the social capital
required to overcome organizational barriers.

28

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

Social Capital Theory
Social capital theory (Bourdieu, 1986; Feeney & Bozeman, 2008; Seibert et al., 2001)
defines social capital as a resource (e.g., knowledge or information) that can be passed from one
individual to another through personal or professional relationships (also known as the
individuals’ network). The size of the individual’s network and the strength of their network ties
29

become the limiting factor in their access to capital. In the context of workplace mentoring, the
barriers racial and ethnic minorities face in establishing formal and informal mentoring
relationships limit the breadth and depth of their network. This, in turn, restricts the transfer of
social capital, including information about career-enhancing training opportunities and
assignments. Whereas limited networks may restrict access to other forms of organizational
capital, including material resources and exposure to influential organizational leaders, large
networks provide enhanced opportunities that may improve employees’ outcomes.
The development of social capital in the workplace may provide significant advantages
for individuals and organizations. In a review of the impact of social capital and gender in the
workplace, Timberlake (2004) reported that women did not have the same access to capital as
their male counterparts. However, women who developed strong professional networks
demonstrated improved commitment and loyalty to their organization. Lin (2000) reported
similar deficits in the development of social capital among women and ethnically minoritized
groups, citing their relative positions in their organization’s social hierarchy as the limiting factor
in their network development. However, for networks of similar size, the limiting factor in career
success was the quality of the network. In an assessment of the impact of gender differences on
social capital development, Palgi and Moore (2004) reported that women had a smaller range of
elite contacts than men, which negatively impacted their ability to build social capital. To
compensate for fewer elite contacts, women tended to build broader networks that included a
greater number of mentors.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Execution of a gap analysis requires understanding the knowledge and skills required for
the stakeholder group of focus, motivational factors that affect performance, and organizational
30

barriers that prevent achieving specific goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). The following sections
provide an overview of the KMO factors, with a focus on how each influences the establishment
of a positive mentoring relationship. Each section concludes with the factor-specific influences
ATEPS employees require to engage in a positive mentoring relationship.
Knowledge Influences
Krathwohl (2002) proposed a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of learning to reflect four
separate categories of knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Within this
framework, Krathwohl proposed that each type of knowledge represented a different aspect of
the learning continuum, which could help define learning goals and objectives. In the mentoring
domain, defining the specific types of factual, procedural and conceptual knowledge that a
prospective protégé must learn is foundational to their ability to engage in a successful mentoring
relationship. However, Hezlett (2005) proposed that the nature of protégé learning as a function
of participation in a mentoring relationship focused on transferring technical knowledge or skills
required to perform a specific job.
Theoretical best practices for implementing a mentoring program have been documented
in the literature; however, these approaches focus on transferring domain-specific procedural and
conceptual knowledge and skills required to support professional development and success in a
specific profession. There appears to be a gap in the literature regarding the pedagogy of
mentoring in the areas of procedural and conceptual knowledge required to be a protégé. Johnson
(2002) noted, “graduate students are often unfamiliar with mentor relationships and may lack
both an appreciation of the benefits of mentoring and an understanding of the mechanics of
mentorship initiation and maintenance” (p. 92). Weldy (2010) also noted the lack of formal
graduate-school-level training for prospective mentors and protégés on developing a successful
31

mentoring relationship. Kolars (2010) briefly addressed the need to teach medical residents the
value of mentorship. The explanation focused on developing personality traits, including being
resilient, well organized, and responsible, and the need to provide prospective protégés coaching
in how to select a mentor. However, the explanation did not specifically address mentoring
mechanics. Santillan-Jimenez et al. (2020) addressed the lack of formal mentor-protégé training
in STEM graduate education, noting that although advisors may note deficiencies in the skills
required to become a successful protégé, they do not share this information with their students,
leading to poor results. Given the lack of literature specifically addressing the procedural and
conceptual knowledge protégés require as a precursor for engaging in a successful mentoring
relationship, further examination of this area is warranted.
Factual Knowledge
Krathwohl’s definition of factual knowledge reflected the specific information required to
operate within a given career field (2002). Examples of factual knowledge include the required
terminology, details and basic elements of a given subject which a learner would need to
understand and apply to successfully solve domain specific problems. Applying Krathwohl’s
definition to mentoring, a protégé needs specific knowledge and skills to successfully identify a
mentor, engage in and sustain a mentoring relationship if they are to realize the personal and
professional benefits that participation in mentoring can provide.
Procedural Knowledge: The Mentoring Process
Krathwohl defined procedural knowledge as the subject-specific skills, methods and
techniques required to accomplish a task (2002). Applying Krathwohl’s definition to mentoring,
a protégé needs specific skills in applying for a mentoring program, identifying a suitable
mentor, and using program-specific tools. Unfortunately, prospective protégés may lack
32

fundamental professional skills that could be considered prerequisites for entering and
participating in a mentoring program.
Feldman et al. (2012) asserted that a mentoring program designed around specific
elements yields better outcomes for protégés. Mentoring programs that provided specific training
in communication (Gandhi & Johnson, 2016), goal setting (Eller et al., 2014), as well as
collaboration and networking skills and techniques (Holley & Caldwell, 2012), aided protégés in
achieving their personal and professional goals. Collectively, these elements comprise what
Sambunjak et al. (2009) defined as the personal, relational, and structural elements of a
successful mentoring relationship. For protégés in the ATEPS mentoring program, their ability to
find a suitable mentor and develop robust networks may be limited by their understanding of
and/or proficiency in these skills and their ability to apply them.
Conceptual Knowledge
Conceptual knowledge reflects a person’s understanding of how the components or
elements of a system work together to achieve the desired end state (Krathwohl, 2002). In the
context of a mentoring program, this encompasses how a protégé learns to apply their
communication, goal setting, collaboration and networking skills to select and work with their
mentor. Successful integration of these skills with their procedural knowledge of their
organization’s mentoring program would support the protégés pursuit and acquisition of
additional career-enhancing knowledge, experience and professional opportunities. However,
operationalizing procedural and conceptual knowledge also requires alignment between mentor
and protégé expectations (Pfund et al., 2016).
For an organization trying to improve participation in a formal mentoring program,
assessing program success based solely on the number of employees registered does not consider
33

how each element of the program contributes to employee participation. An evaluation that does
not consider employees’ understanding of the program’s components cannot assume a positive
programmatic impact. Understanding how a program’s elements influence employee engagement
is central to discovering the actual impact the program has on employee performance. To
promote employee engagement in the mentoring program, ATEPS must know how program
participants individually and collectively understand the mentoring program’s elements and
which elements are embraced or rejected and why. This knowledge will allow ATEPS to
improve the program to promote employee engagement and enhance outcomes. Table 3 presents
the knowledge influences ATEPS employees require to engage in a positive mentoring
relationship.

Table 3
Knowledge Influences
Knowledge influence Knowledge type
ATEPS employees know the components of a mentoring
relationship.
Factual
ATEPS employees need to know what social capital is. Factual
ATEPS employees need to understand the components of
the advancement process.
Factual
ATEPS employees need to know how to develop networks. Procedural
ATEPS employees need to know how to use the ATEPS
mentoring tool.
Procedural
ATEPS employees need to know how to apply career-
enhancing information.
Procedural
ATEPS employees need to know how to collaborate. Procedural
ATEPS employees need to have communication skills. Procedural
ATEPS employees know the benefits of a mentoring
relationship.
Conceptual
ATEPS employees need to know the relevance of
mentoring to career development.
Conceptual
ATEPS employees need to understand the components of
the mentoring process.
Conceptual
34

Motivational Influences
In addition to understanding the procedural and conceptual knowledge required for
participation in a formal mentoring program, an understanding of the motivational factors that
contribute to or retard employee participation is also needed. Motivation represents the personal
investment that an individual is willing to make to achieve a desired outcome (Ambrose, 2010).
An individual’s level of motivation is influenced by the satisfaction they will obtain from
achieving the goal (attainment value), the satisfaction they will get from accomplishing a specific
task (intrinsic value) and the degree to which goal achievement helps them to accomplish another
important goal (instrument value; Ambrose, 2010). Collectively, intrinsic value, attainment
value, and instrument value support behavioral changes which affect an individual’s persistence
(Bandura, 1977).
Clark and Estes (2008) identified motivation as an area where an organization can realize
improved outcomes even when there is no gap between measured performance and established
goals. They posited that an individual’s motivation is influenced by three behaviors: active
choice (does an individual take action to pursue a goal), persistence (will the individual remain
focused on the task or get distracted), and mental effort (level of thought required to complete
the task; Clark & Estes, 2008). Collectively, active choice, persistence, and mental effort
influence how successful an individual will be on a task they find undesirable or difficult to
achieve.
Motivational factors that contribute to participation and persistence in a mentoring
program will vary based on individual employee goals. Whereas some employees seek greater
access to “information, resources, and career sponsorship” (Seibert et al., 2001, p. 779), others
desire increased networking opportunities that would promote career advancement (Hezlett &
35

Gibson, 2007). Other motivational factors include vocational support, personal development,
psychosocial support, and role modeling (Feeney & Bozeman, 2008; Lankau & Scandura, 2002;
Ragins, 1997; Robinson & Reio, 2012). Motivation and persistence are also influenced by how
an individual values a task (do they want to do it) and their belief that they have the knowledge
and skill required to be successful (expectancy).
Self-Efficacy Theory
Closely aligned with an employee’s motivation to engage and persistence to remain in a
mentoring program is their belief that they will achieve their desired outcome. Self-efficacy, an
individual’s belief that they can accomplish a specific goal (Bandura, 1977), is an important
determinant of success. Individuals with high levels of self-efficacy select more achievable
goals, adopt more positive behaviors, and will put forth a greater effort toward achieving their
goals than individuals with low self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). A person’s self-efficacy may be
positively or negatively affected by previous successes or failures, verbal persuasion, or social
feedback. Additionally, self-efficacy may be influenced by the environmental factors around
them (Bandura, 1977).
A positive mentoring experience may contribute to improved employee self-efficacy and
persistence. Employees who are provided additional training opportunities will gain confidence
in their skills, be willing to attempt more challenging tasks, and set higher goals. Employees with
expanded networks gain additional psychosocial support, which may create a safe work
environment where they are more comfortable taking risks. Coaching received during regular
mentoring sessions provides positive reinforcement by identifying recent successes or by
identifying and correcting behaviors that did not yield the desired outcome. The combined
benefits of these opportunities will help to build employee confidence resulting in more
36

favorable outcomes in the future. A 2004 study by Day et al. investigating the relationship
between mentoring, self-efficacy and career motivation identified significant differences in these
variables among employees who participated in a mentoring relationship compared to employees
who were not actively mentored. Of note, higher levels of self-efficacy were associated with
higher salaries, more effective performance, and better feelings of career success. Whereas
participation in a positive mentoring relationship may increase an employee’s belief that they can
achieve a desired outcome, an individual’s perception that there is value in participation in a
mentoring program serves as another source of motivation.
Utility Value
Utility value, defined as the degree to which a person believes that an activity has value
to current or future goals and is therefore worth pursuing, is another component of motivation
(Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Pintrich, 2003). The value placed by an individual on achieving a
specific goal is related to its perceived importance (Ambrose, 2010). The greater the value of a
goal, or the stronger the connection between participation in an activity and achieving a goal, the
greater the level of motivation (Ambrose, 2010). Hulleman et al. (2010) suggested that an
individual’s level of interest in completing a task or activity (motivation) and their level of
performance were functions of the perceived utility value of a given task or activity. For a
prospective protégé considering participating in a mentoring program, the alignment between
possible mentoring benefits and career goals will influence the perceived utility value.
The utility value an employee places on participation in a mentoring program is an
important determinant of their future involvement. Betts and Pepe (2006) surveyed 120 business
professionals to evaluate the perceived value of participation in a mentoring relationship. The
survey specifically addressed the value of mentoring on career variables, including impact on
37

achieving long-term goals, professional development, and career satisfaction. Data analysis
revealed that protégés involved in voluntary mentoring programs considered their participation
high value and worth the extra effort required to identify a mentor on their own compared to
protégés involved in mandatory mentoring programs. In a study of women in emergency
medicine, Welch et al. (2012) reported a positive perceived value of voluntary participation in a
mentoring program. Survey results from 46 medical residents who participated in the program
identified the psychosocial support, enhanced networking opportunities, attention to gender-
specific issues and strategies to overcome barriers to advancement as important components that
facilitated career development while achieving a work-life balance. Campbell and Campbell
(2000) evaluated the value of mentoring to college student protégés attending a large
metropolitan university. Protégés volunteered to participate in the program designed to promote
retention and academic success through engagement with a faculty mentor. Survey results from
182 participants indicated that protégés placed greater value on the benefits of mentoring then
did the faculty mentors. This difference may be attributed to the perceived needs each group
identified when signing up for the program: students’ needs focused on academic support and
career guidance, while faculty needs emphasized altruism, proof of service to the university and
developing positive student relationships.
Table 4 presents the motivational factors influencing ATEPS employees to engage in a
mentoring relationship. The table also provides a classification for each type of motivation.

38

Table 4
Motivation Influences
Assumed motivation influence Motivation type
Self-efficacy: ATEPS employees need to feel
confident in their ability to use the mentoring
tools to establish a positive mentoring
relationship.
Intrinsic, active choice
Utility value: ATEPS employees need to believe
that participating in mentoring will help them
achieve their career goals.
Intrinsic, persistence

Organizational Influences
The dynamic nature of organizations requires leadership to maintain a balance between
competing factions that vie for limited resources while eliminating barriers that inhibit the
efficient execution of the organization’s mission (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Internal organizational
barriers may affect communication, retard organizational growth and development, and create a
negative work environment (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Clark and Estes (2008) identified
organizational barriers as the third element of their gap analysis framework. Barriers, which may
include unclear or misaligned policies, availability and adequacy of training, or the
organization’s culture, may affect employee knowledge and motivation, preventing the employee
from succeeding in achieving established goals and objectives (Clark & Estes, 2008).
In evaluating how organizational influences impact employee participation in a formal
mentoring program, consideration must be given to (a) how existing policies support employee
participation; (b) the nature, scope, and quality of available training; and (c) the manner in which
the organization’s culture supports employee participation. The following sections address these
organizational influences.
39

Role of Organizational Policy on Mentoring
Organizations establish and maintain policies and procedures to serve several purposes,
including standardizing behavior, defining standards of quality, and reducing variability (Bolman
& Deal, 2017). The consistent application of standard policies and procedures helps
organizations identify, measure, and address performance problems. This is particularly
important when evaluating an organization’s performance relative to achieving established goals
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Organizations can only achieve the desired outcome for their mentoring program when
their policies guide participants in a manner that promotes productive and effective engagements
(Polikoff et al., 2015). Under these circumstances, there is a high correlation between the time
spent in the mentoring relationship and the protégés reported outcome. However, inconsistent
application of mentoring policies contributes to reduced availability of mentors, resulting in lost
opportunities for the people who need them the most (Washburn-Moses, 2010). Tillman et al.
(2013) conducted a national survey of over 50 federally funded medical research institutions to
assess policies and procedures designed to support the mentoring of junior research investigators.
Results suggested that the limited number of programs that had written policies governing the
selection and training of mentors, clear definition of mentor-protégé roles and responsibilities as
well as evaluation criteria of mentor-protégé relationships contributed to variability in the
success of junior researchers.
Similarly, Hemming et al. (2019) reported that among six minority serving institutions
with research mentoring initiatives, a lack of standardized mentoring policies and activities
impacted program effectiveness. Most institutions lacked formal policies to guide their
mentoring programs, leaving mentoring program decisions to individual departments. This
40

minimized the sharing of best practices and resulted in a lack of standardized training and
qualifications for prospective mentors and a misalignment between mentoring program goals and
the organizational mission. Therefore, it is incumbent on the organization to ensure its mentoring
policy establishes clear guidelines regarding how mentor-protégé pairs will be assigned, how the
relationship will be managed, what training will be required, and how mentoring sessions will be
conducted (Wilson & Elman, 1990).
Role of Organizational Training on Mentoring
It is important for organizations to provide employees with the training to develop or
maintain the required knowledge and skills. Senge (1990) recognized the need for organizations
to develop and implement appropriate policies, strategies, structures and learning processes to
facilitate the development of a learning organization. He believed that integrating these elements
provided an organization with a competitive advantage. The use of training to differentiate an
organization from its peers by improving employee performance was also a way to generate
income as long as the training addressed the required knowledge or skills (Clark & Estes, 2008).
However, when providing employees with required formal or informal training to learn new
skills or behaviors, the organization must provide positive role models to serve as coaches who
can help employees assimilate the new knowledge into their daily routine (Schein, 2017).
Organizations that provide quality training improve the performance and commitment of
their employees. Bulut and Culha (2010) reported increased access to training provided
reciprocal benefits with employees’ demonstrating improved skills, performance and
commitment, which resulted in enhanced organizational performance. Of note was employees’
perception that the opportunity to achieve their personal and professional objectives would be
strengthened when the organization supported training and they had the direct support of their
41

superiors. An important consideration for organization-sponsored training events is the method
of delivery. In an evaluation of different training delivery modes, Schmidt (2007) reported that
while employees find value in job-related training, the preferred mode of learning is face-to-face
training provided by a coach or mentor. The collaborative nature and high degree of interaction
associated with this mode of training were also associated with improved motivation and higher
levels of organizational commitment. In an evaluation of job satisfaction among public service
employees, Traut et al. (2000) noted the importance of establishing mentoring programs to
provide veteran employees an opportunity to develop new skills (how to mentor). Mentoring by
veteran employees helped introduce new employees to the organization, and the coaching
provided helped to teach and reinforce important job-related skills.
Impact of Organizational Culture and Support on Participation in a Mentoring Program
In assessing organizational influences, consideration must be given to the impact that the
organization’s culture has on employee performance. The culture reflects the learned behaviors
and experiences of the organization that are passed onto new employees and may be displayed in
symbols and ceremonies or captured in shared experiences (Bolman & Deal, 2017). An
organization’s culture is reflected in its core values, goals, and beliefs and influences its
environment (Clark & Estes, 2008). However, the exact way culture influences organizational
norms and values is not always visibly apparent and may manifest in many ways (Schein, 2017).
Whereas a positive alignment between culture, values and goals may promote a healthy work
environment that supports employee motivation and engagement, misalignment may result in a
negative environment that leads to dissatisfied employees (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Perceived organizational support reflects the relationship between the employee and the
organization, wherein the employee develops a sense of obligation toward the organization based
42

on their belief that the organization is committed to them (Eisenberger et al., 1986).
Incorporating mentoring into the organization’s culture as an accepted and supported activity
promotes participation by both mentors and protégés, leading to improved outcomes (Jyoti &
Sharma, 2015) and influencing employee feelings for the organization. Cultural normalization of
mentoring and leaderships affirmation of the importance of mentoring for workforce
development (Eby, Lockwood, et al., 2006) contribute to improved levels of perceived
organizational support for mentoring programs and appear to be significant predictors of
employee job satisfaction (Baranik et al., 2010), organizational commitment (Baranik et al.,
2010; Dawley et al., 2007), and participation in the mentoring program (Eby, Lockwood, et al.,
2006). Table 5 presents the organizational factors influencing ATEPS employee participation in
mentoring.

Table 5
Organizational Influences
Assumed organizational influence Organizational category
Employees perceive that ATEPS
organizational policies support developing
and executing a mentoring program.
Policy
ATEPS employees perceive that ATEPS
provides appropriate training to assist
employees in gaining the knowledge and
skills required to engage in a positive
mentoring relationship.
Training
ATEPS employees perceive that the ATEPS
organizational culture promotes
participation in mentoring relationships.
Culture

43

Sense of Belonging
Hagerty et al. (1992, p. 173) defined sense of belonging as “the experience of personal
involvement in a system or environment so that persons feel themselves to be an integral part of
the system or environment.” An individual’s belief that they were a part of the system
(organization) was influenced by the belief that they were needed (sense of value) and that they
shared similar characteristics (fit) relative to their specific group, environment, or network
(Hagerty et al., 1992). The concepts of fit, alignment of personal values with those of the
organization, and their importance in developing a sense of belonging were reported by McClure
and Brown (2008), whose evaluation of employee experiences at work identified the sharing of
similar values and developing trust with co-workers as important factors that contributed to
developing a sense of belonging. Of note, a stronger sense of belonging was associated with an
employee’s invitation to participate in and learn the organization’s culture.
Stum (2001) identified the importance of sense of belonging as a function of
organizational culture which may serve as a source of motivation to promote employee
contributions. Based on his review of data collected as part of a national workforce commitment
survey, he proposed that an individual’s sense of belonging aligns with the social components of
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. In this regard, individuals will do without higher-level needs
(personal growth and development, achieving a work-life balance) until they establish physical
and psychological safety (Stum, 2001). However, among racial and ethnic minorities, achieving
psychological safety and developing a sense of belonging is more often associated with
organizational culture and climate than individuals who do not self-identify as members of an
underrepresented group.
44

Hagerty et al. (1996) reported that the experience of being valued or needed as well as a
sense that the individual fits in with the members of the specific group were important
characteristics that influenced an individual’s sense of belonging. The results of a survey
administered to 379 community college students showed positive experiences promoted a higher
sense of belonging, whereas negative experiences led to a reduced sense of belonging. The
importance of organizational culture and positive interactions in developing a sense of belonging
was also noted by Johnson et al. (2007), whose survey of 3,000 first-year college students from
different racial and ethnic backgrounds identified the important role that campus climate played
in their transition to college. The organization’s influence on creating an inclusive culture and
environment for these students was identified as a major contributor to improving sense of
belonging. Strayhorn et al. (2016) reported similar results in an assessment of first-year Black
male college students, noting the relationship between institutional climate and support, sense of
belonging and improved mental and physical health. Whereas organizational culture and climate
appear to be key factors that influence an individual’s sense of belonging, mentoring and
engagement in a positive mentoring relationship may serve as a tool to promote engagement and
facilitate the development of a sense of belonging.
Vinales (2015) cited mentors’ key role in developing healthcare professionals. In addition
to promoting learning and helping student nurses gain comfort in a clinical setting by
demonstrating proper techniques and procedures, the support provided by mentors led student
nurses to feel that they were part of the healthcare team, increasing their sense of belonging.
Holloway-Friesen (2021) assessed the relationship between mentorship and sense of belonging
and the impact on academic self-efficacy among Hispanic graduate students. Analysis of 332
responses to a survey identified the vital role that mentors played in developing a sense of
45

belonging and improving self-efficacy for these students. Mentored students reported a stronger
sense of belonging, described feeling more comfortable in the classroom, and were more likely
to engage with members of the faculty during and after class, which resulted in improved
academic performance compared to their unmentored peers. McCallum et al. (2018) evaluated
the relationship between mentorship and sense of belonging and the impact on career
development among 192 undergraduate and graduate science students. The study’s mixed-
methods approach provided additional insight into the interrelationship between the trust
developed in a strong mentoring relationship, the development and sharing of social capital, and
protégés ability to develop a sense of being connected to others in their field (McCallum et al.,
2018). Of note, the association between mentoring and sense of belonging was strongest among
members of underrepresented groups.
Summary
This chapter presented a review of the literature and research related to mentoring,
including its benefits, the differences between formal and informal mentoring programs, the
attributes of an effective mentoring relationship, and barriers to the development of effective
mentoring dyads. The chapter also provided information regarding employee knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences, including training, policy and culture, and their impact
on employee sense of belonging and engagement in mentoring activities. The literature presented
supports the assertion that an organization may realize suboptimal performance or fail to achieve
established goals for participation in mentoring activities due to gaps in employee knowledge,
motivation or the presence of organizational barriers as defined in Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap
analysis framework.

46

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to investigate barriers preventing ATEPS employees who
self-identify as members of underrepresented populations from developing positive mentoring
relationships and the impact these have on their retention and advancement. Investigating the
knowledge and motivational influences, as well as the organizational barriers identified in
Chapter Two, will provide ATEPS leadership with important data necessary to better understand
how they can achieve the organization’s goal of improving ATEPS employee engagement in the
mentoring program. Chapter Three provides information on the sampling methodology, data
collection and analysis methods, and techniques used to address the research questions. As the
study leveraged a mixed-methods design, the chapter also addresses the issues of data validity
and reliability for the quantitative component and credibility and trustworthiness for the
qualitative component. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the researcher’s positionality,
ethical considerations that guided the design and execution of the study, and finally, study
limitations.
Research Questions
Two research questions guided this study:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences required to support
employee engagement in the ATEPS mentoring program?
2. What are the recommendations associated with employee knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences required to achieve the stated organizational goals?
Overview of Design
A mixed-methods explanatory sequential design was used for this study (Figure 2). This
approach featured two data collection phases. The first focused on quantitative survey data
47

(Appendix A), while the second focused on qualitative data (Appendices B and C). The data
collection methods aligned with the theoretical framework (Appendix D). This research design
supported assessing barriers to mentoring as it identified historical trends and impacts on
retention and advancement, which were used to frame an exploration of the current workforce to
understand contemporary employee perspectives and thoughts. Analysis of existing exit
interview surveys provided an untapped source of quantifiable information regarding barriers
that may have contributed to employees choosing to leave the organization. This information was
used to inform the development of a survey instrument administered to current ATEPS
employees who have been with the organization for 5 years or less. Survey results from the first
phase were used to help develop the interview protocol used in the second phase.

Figure 2
Mixed-Methods Research Design

Note. Adapted from Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches by J. W. Creswell and J. D. Creswell, 2018. Sage Publications.

48

Use of the existing exit interview database along with adaption and adoption of survey
questions from existing instruments used to investigate mentoring relationships supported
internal quantitative validity and reliability as these survey instruments have already been
validated by the organization or research team, as supported by the respective psychometric data
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Triangulation, member checking and detailed descriptions were
used to address qualitative validity, while careful documentation of procedures used during the
interview process and recording of interviews (pursuant to institutional review board guidelines
and participant informed consent) supported credibility, reliability, and confirmability (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). Table 6 identifies the data sources used to address the research questions.

Table 6
Data Sources
Research questions Survey Interview
What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences required to support employee engagement
in the ATEPS mentoring program?
X X
What are the recommendations associated with
employee knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences required to achieve the stated
organizational goals?
X X

49

Research Setting
Selecting ATEPS as this study’s location aligns with the findings of the GIDSP regarding
the underrepresentation of minorities in senior-level federal government positions (OPM, 2016).
ATEPS has a total workforce of over 9,000 employees, with 18% self-identifying as a member
of a minority group/underrepresented population. However, only 10% of the senior leaders self-
identify as a member of a minority group/underrepresented population. Seeking to understand
the KMO influences that may limit the advancement of employees from underrepresented
populations to the most senior leadership positions at ATEPS promotes achieving the goals
established in the GIDSP as well as the organization’s goals to promote diversity, equity, and
inclusion.
Surveying and interviewing junior-grade employees from underrepresented populations
at ATEPS provided the opportunity to gain a contemporary narrative regarding the thoughts and
perspectives of current employees regarding KMO influences and perceived barriers to
advancement. Although ATEPS requests all employees leaving the organization participate in a
voluntary survey to learn about their perceptions of the organization and gain insight into their
reasons for leaving, the survey is limited in scope, focusing on job satisfaction, factors that
influenced the employee’s decision to leave, and what the employee plans to do after leaving
ATEPS. However, the survey seeks limited information on KMO influences on the employee’s
decision to leave. Whereas understanding historical trends provides important insight that can
help shape future research and exit interview data were analyzed during the framing of this
study, current trends could only be understood by engaging current ATEPS employees.
An explanatory sequential design allowed for the identification of trends and their
subsequent exploration. Electronic distribution of the survey instrument made it convenient for
50

employees to participate, increasing the potential for a large response rate. This approach was
also the least expensive mode of survey administration and eliminated risks associated with
transmission of the COVID-19 virus as well as risks associated with a smaller sample that did
not represent the actual population. Interviews provided the opportunity to explore trends
identified during the analysis of the survey instrument data and supported obtaining a deeper
understanding of the KMO influences that may impact participation in the ATEPS mentoring
program.
The Researcher
Although I do not identify as a member of an underrepresented ethnic or racial minority
group as defined in the GIDSP (OPM, 2016), as a senior-level program manager in the federal
government, I have observed the lack of diversity in my teams and the departments to which I
have been assigned. There have been few people of color, women, or people of different
ethnicities in senior leadership or technical positions. I was aware of the severe shortage of
mentors in the organization, including the difficulties my subordinates had in identifying a
suitable mentor and the impact this has had on their career development and advancement.
Whereas this level of awareness of the organization’s history and current demographics was
important in shaping my research design, my positionality may be seen by prospective
participants as “a member of a dominant culture doing research on people of oppressed groups”
(Merriam & Tisdell, p. 64). To address any potential bias caused by my positionality, it was
incumbent on me to be completely transparent with prospective participants as to my purpose,
how I intended to use the data, how I intended to report my findings and how I intended to
represent the views and opinions of study participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
51

Based on the organization’s history and current demographics, I understood that my role
as the lead investigator might have been met with skepticism by the organization’s junior
members, who might have been reluctant to answer questions about their experiences with
someone whose appearance epitomizes the organizational history this study sought to
understand. The survey was administered online, and I was only identified by name as the
researcher, so the anonymity this provided may have prevented any direct influence my position
in the organization might have had on employee participation in the survey. However, I have an
ethical responsibility to ensure that I did everything possible to mitigate any bias or influence
that my position in the organization may have created, as well as to ensure that there was no real
or perceived pressure to participate. In addition to clearly informing participants how their
confidentiality would be maintained (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), I submitted the draft survey for
review to the ATEPS institutional review board, office of council, human resource office, and
equal employment opportunity office to assess if the survey reflected any bias due to my
positionality that may have influenced participation or results (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Data Sources
The mixed-methods explanatory sequential design utilized in this study leveraged three
data sources. The first was the existing ATEPS exit interview data base, which was reviewed
prior to administering the survey. The second was the responses to the survey instrument
administered to current ATEPS employees. The third source was interviews conducted with
current ATEPS employees.
Method 1: Survey
The study utilized a 63-question survey instrument that included seven demographic
questions, three short answer questions, seven yes/no response questions, six questions with a
52

rating scale from 0 to 100, four questions with a rating scale from 0 to 10, and 36 closed-ended
questions. The design of the survey instrument supported the investigation of employee
perspectives on and experiences with mentoring opportunities at ATEPS and specifically
addressed knowledge, motivation and organizational issues related to mentoring. The closed-
ended questions used a 5-point Likert rating scale with well-defined response options, while the
open-ended questions allowed the respondent to use their own words to express their feelings,
opinions, and experiences in answering the questions (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2018).
Method 2: Interviews
An interview guide approach that incorporated open-ended questions was utilized for this
study. The interview guide included four demographic questions and 17 open-ended questions
that supported the exploration of the participants’ experiences with and knowledge of mentoring
as well as their familiarity with the organization’s mentoring tools and training. The guide also
contained questions to address barriers to establishing a meaningful mentoring relationship. The
questions were open-ended and written in a manner that invited the participants to share their
personal experiences, impressions and opinions and featured probes and prompts to help
facilitate the conversation if they were needed (Patton, 2002).
Participants
Participants for the quantitative portion of the study included all ATEPS employees who
had worked at the organization for 5 years or less. Based on information obtained from the
ATEPS human resource office in February of 2022, the initial sample size was 2,776. The
demographic composition of this group was 36% female and 18.0% who self-identified as a
member of an underrepresented population. At ATEPS, employees serve in a variety of career
fields, including engineering, logistics, financial management, procurement management,
53

program management, test and evaluation and corporate operations. The ATEPS workforce is
highly educated, with a large percentage of the study population having earned a bachelor’s
degree.
Participants for the qualitative portion of the study were identified via purposeful
selection. This approach was used to ensure they could “best help the researcher understand the
problem and the research question” (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p. 185). The survey instrument
administered in Phase 1 of the study included a question that asked if the respondent was willing
to participate in a follow-up interview. A yes response directed the respondent to a separate 11-
question survey instrument which included seven demographic questions, two yes/no response
questions and two short answer questions. The survey was designed to bin responses into two
categories: employees who indicated that they had had a positive mentoring experience, and
employees who indicated that they had not had a positive mentoring experience while working at
ATEPS. Six employees were randomly selected from each group and invited to be interviewed.
This approach provided a narrative to the quantitative data collected during the study’s first
phase.
Respecting the presence of cultural barriers and organizational influences that may
prevent employees from volunteering to complete the survey, prior to its distribution, the human
resource office sent an email to all ATEPS employees with less than 5 years at the organization.
The email announced the survey, explained its purpose, detailed how the data would be used, and
the steps that would be taken to ensure participants’ confidentiality and anonymity (Robinson &
Firth Leonard, 2018). A follow-up email was sent a week after the survey was sent, and a final
reminder was sent 2 days before the end of the 2-week survey period. This strategy was
employed to encourage participation and maximize the number of responses (Robinson & Firth
54

Leonard, 2018). To promote participation from employees who self-identified as members of
minority groups or underrepresented populations, I emailed, called or met with diversity team
representatives from the various employee organizations registered with the human resource
office to explain the purpose of the study, answer their questions, and seek their endorsement of
the survey in accordance with local human resource office policies and procedures.
Instrumentation
The following section addresses data collection, analysis, and integrity. It begins with a
description of the quantitative and qualitative data collection instruments and includes
information regarding instrument construction and content, as well as alignment with the study’s
research questions. The section also provides details regarding the recruitment of study
participants, followed by an explanation of the procedures used for data collection and analysis.
The section concludes with an explanation of the measures taken to address data validity and
reliability as well as credibility and trustworthiness.
Survey Instrument
The survey instrument that was administered in Phase 1 of the study consisted of 63
questions: 36 questions were close-ended and used a 5-point Likert rating scale with well-
defined response options (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2018), eight questions requested
demographic information, seven questions required a yes or no response, six questions required
the participant to provide a subjective rating using a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 meant not at all
confident and 100 meant totally confident, four questions required the participant to provide a
subjective rating using a scale from 0 to 10, and three questions required a short answer. The
survey instrument consisted of nine adopted and seven adapted questions from surveys published
by Scandura (2004) and Beyene et al. (2002) that sought to understand protégé perspectives on
55

elements of mentoring relationships, as well as seven questions derived from the Motivated
Strategies for Learning Questionnaire developed by Pintrich et al. (1991). Eight questions were
primarily demographic.
The adopted and adapted survey questions were selected based on their ability to address
the employee knowledge and engagement aspects of Research Question 1 as well as the
participation elements of Research Question 2. Responses to these questions also supported an
understanding of the key concepts of network development and ties. The remaining non-
demographic questions sought to address Research Question 1 by ascertaining barriers to
establishing a positive mentoring relationship, as well as the key concepts of barriers that impact
developing mentoring relationships and the underrepresentation of minorities in senior leadership
positions.
Interview Guide
An interview guide approach incorporating open-ended questions was utilized in Phase 2
of the study. This approach provided the interview with the structure of a defined protocol while
allowing the flexibility to change a question’s wording or the question sequence based on the
progression of the interview (Johnson & Christensen, 2014). This approach was selected as it
supported a comprehensive exploration of the problem of practice being studied and allowed the
respondent to use their own words to express their feelings, opinions, and experiences in
answering the question (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2018). The composition of the interview
guide facilitated a conversation that supported the acquisition of the data required to address the
research questions.
The interview guide included four demographic and 17 open-ended questions that
explored the participants’ experiences with and knowledge of mentoring as well as their
56

familiarity with existing mentoring tools and training available at ATEPS. The guide also
contained questions to address barriers that hindered the participants’ ability to establish a
meaningful mentoring relationship. The questions invited the participants to share their personal
experiences, impressions, and opinions (Patton, 2002).
Data Collection Procedures
The following section describes the data collection procedures used. Phase 1 of data
collection was accomplished via an online survey tool, while Phase 2 was completed using a
commercial video-teleconferencing platform to conduct face-to-face interviews. Appropriate
controls to ensure participant confidentiality, data integrity, and security were implemented in
accordance with institutional review board guidelines for the protection of human subjects.
Quantitative Data Collection
The survey instrument was administered online in March 2022. March was selected to
maximize employee participation by providing adequate time after institutional review board
(IRB) approval to build awareness of the research effort and to avoid winter vacation schedules
common at ATEPS during December and January. These strategies were selected to help
promote the survey and make it easy and convenient to participate, with the goal of reducing the
potential for a low response rate (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2018).
The Qualtrix online survey tool was selected to collect data for Phase 1 of the study. This
tool was selected based on its ease of use, administration, data analysis and reporting features.
Online survey administration represented the lowest cost method of reaching the large number of
employees that comprise the target population of this study and also represented the most
convenient mode for ATEPS employees (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The online modality also
reflected the safest mode of survey administration given COVID-19 social distancing policies in
57

place at the time of this study. In keeping with organizational human resource policies and cyber-
security measures, the human resource office sent the initial survey correspondence to all eligible
employees. The principal investigator sent follow-on correspondence, including a link to the
survey and the survey reminders.
Qualitative Data Collection
As a function of COVID-19 and respecting safety protocols, interviews were conducted
using the Zoom video conference platform. Zoom provided a video recording of the interview
along with a separate audio transcript. The Zoom platform helped to ensure that no information
provided by the participants, including quotes, was missed or misstated due to errors in note
taking. Recording the interview also helped ensure the data’s integrity (Weiss, 1994).
Immediately following each interview, the video and audio transcripts were downloaded from
Zoom into a secure, password-protected storage media, and each file was appropriately coded to
ensure the confidentiality of the participant.
Two groups of interview subjects were purposefully selected to participate in the study’s
second phase. The first group was comprised of subjects who reported having had a positive
ATEPS mentoring experience, and the second consisted of employees who reported having had a
negative experience. Interview participation was limited to survey respondents who self-
identified as being interested in participating in a follow-on interview as part of the study’s
second phase of data collection. Quantitative survey participants who were interested in
participating in a follow-on interview were provided a separate link at the end of the quantitative
survey instrument. The link directed them to a supplemental survey instrument. The
supplemental survey instrument included seven demographic questions and one question
regarding the employee’s experience with mentoring at ATEPS. Responses to the mentoring
58

question were sorted into two categories: positive mentoring experience and negative mentoring
experience. A random sample of six employees was selected from each category, and these
employees were invited to participate in an interview. In the event that an employee decided not
to participate in the interview, an alternate employee was randomly selected from the same group
and invited to participate.
The invitation to participate in the interview included information on the purpose of the
study, the mode of interview, the 1-hour anticipated duration and guidelines for a suitable
interview location (private, quiet room free from distractions, with reliable internet access). To
minimize the interview’s impact on the participants’ work and family schedules, the researcher
asked that each interested participant provide a primary and alternate block of time that would be
most convenient for them. Based on the date/time information provided by the participants, I
scheduled the interview and sent each participant a meeting maker with a Zoom meeting link.
Data Analysis
The primary tool for quantitative data analysis was the Qualtrix software suite.
Additional data analysis was completed using SPSS. The Likert scale used in the survey
instrument was converted into a numerical data set for statistical analysis. A frequency trend
analysis was used to identify trends in the quantitative data. Additional statistical analysis was
conducted to assess: (a) means and standard deviations, (b) Pearson correlation to examine
interactions between demographic groups across the full spectrum of KMO factors, and (c)
ANOVA testing between the various subgroups.
The primary tool for qualitative data analysis involved coding the interview responses.
Codes were developed based on the emerging themes and aligned to their specific KMO
influences. Interview results were used to provide a contemporary narrative to trends identified
59

during the analysis of the quantitative assessment and, where possible, to provide context for
specific quantitative factors determined to be statistically significant.
Data Validity and Reliability
Quantitative validity and reliability, the degree to which the questions on the survey
instrument measured what they are intended to measure and are repeatable (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018), can be influenced in many ways. One method to improve validity and reliability
is to use survey questions adopted or adapted from a validated survey. A validated survey
instrument where the questions have a high Cronbach’s alpha value was another method used to
maximize reliability and content validity (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). A third method utilized
was pilot studies (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2018). Pilot testing of the survey instrument was
conducted to ensure that the directions and questions were clearly worded and the wording was
appropriate for the target population (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Pilot testing was also
implemented to help address the issue of cultural relevance, which further impacts validity and
reliability (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2018).
Distribution of the survey instrument to all members of the ATEPS workforce who had
been employed at ATEPS for 5 years or less reflected a census approach to data collection
(Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2018). This approach further supported validity and reliability by
reducing the risk associated with a smaller random sample that might miss a key demographic or
group and, therefore, not truly be representative of the population. To prevent non-response bias
from influencing the data, notification emails were sent to all potential survey recipients prior to
survey distribution, informing them of the survey, its purpose, and its importance. Reminder
emails were sent 1-week after the survey was sent and again 2 days before the end of the survey
period (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
60

Credibility and Trustworthiness
Interviews with current employees added a contemporary narrative and insight into
knowledge, motivational factors, and strategies employees use to navigate barriers to mentoring
at ATEPS. However, employees would not support the effort and provide useful, meaningful
data that supports organizational change if they did not believe in the credibility or
trustworthiness of the investigator (Clark & Estes, 2008). Efforts to promote credibility and
trustworthiness focused on strategies that promoted data accuracy and reflected the participant’s
voice and perspectives while eliminating researcher bias (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
The study design included several strategies to promote credibility and trustworthiness.
These strategies included triangulation (use of several sources of data), member checking
(discussing tentative findings with the people who were the source of the data) and use of
detailed descriptions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Careful documentation of procedures used
during the interview process and recording of interviews to ensure data accuracy further
supported the credibility, reliability, and confirmability of the information (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). Use of reflection and peer review were utilized to help ensure that the investigator’s
positionality and world view did not result in the introduction of bias into data analysis or
interpretation of results (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Ethics
Creswell and Creswell (2018) and Merriam and Tisdell (2016) asserted that the
investigator’s ethics must be beyond reproach in all phases of a research effort, including during
the development of the study design, recruitment of participants, data collection and analysis and
reporting of results. Failure to identify and implement appropriate ethical standards and controls
jeopardizes the validity, reliability, and integrity of the research effort. In this regard, every effort
61

was made to protect the rights and safety of study participants and ensure that the research did no
harm. This study’s design implemented several controls, including two institutional review
boards (University of Southern California and ATEPS), receipt of participant informed consent
prior to administration of the survey or participation in an interview, and data collection and
storage procedures. The following sections explain each control.
Prior to the study, the protocol was reviewed by the University of Southern California’s
(USC) IRB to ensure its design complied with all overarching policies and guidelines for the
protection of human subjects. The findings of the USC IRB were forwarded to the ATEPS IRB
for review and concurrence. The survey instrument and interview protocols were also reviewed
by the AETPS human resource office, human resource officer, equal opportunity officer, and
office of council. All comments and recommendations received from the IRBs and ATEPS
offices were either adjudicated or incorporated.
For the quantitative phase, the survey instrument contained an informed consent
notification that identified participation as voluntary and explained participants’ rights, including
the right not to answer specific questions or terminate participation in the survey at any time. The
first survey question asked each participant if they understood their rights and asked them to
provide informed consent by answering yes to the question. Only respondents who answered yes
to the informed consent question were permitted access to the remaining survey questions.
For the qualitative phase, each participant provided informed consent prior to being
interviewed. All information provided during the interview was coded in a manner to ensure the
confidentiality of each participant. Published results do not identify participants by name and do
not expose the identify of any participants by aggregating demographic data, position
descriptions, and other coded information.
62

Participants were not compensated for their participation in either phase of the study.
Additionally, participants could resign from participation in the study at any time if they believed
that an institutional conflict of interest existed or developed.
Although completion of the study provided a benefit to the researcher with regard to
satisfying a graduation requirement, the focus and target groups of interest and the groups that
gained the most benefit were the employees from underrepresented communities who work at
ATEPS. Whereas improving retention benefits the organization, both in terms of real and
opportunity costs associated with a reduction in vacant billets and improved diversity,
understanding the barriers that negatively impact the development of mentoring relationships and
which prevent the development and transfer of capital which influences retention and
advancement has the greatest impact on the organization’s employees from underrepresented
communities. Identifying barriers to establishing mentoring relationships may also be relevant to
other employees. The study design and execution plan ensured that no participant, employee, or
the organization was harmed due to participating in the study or publication of any findings.
Although the researcher developed the study design, scope and questions, efforts to ensure the
qualitative phase of the study provided a rich story that represented the views, opinions and
experiences of the participants helped ensure that the research questions were answered using the
voice of the participants (not the researcher’s voice) and reflected their perspectives. Results
were first shared with study participants prior to dissemination to organizational leadership and
submission for publication.
Limitations and Delimitations
Although every effort was made during the design and execution of this study to control
for factors that could decrease the accuracy or completeness of the data, limitations beyond the
63

investigator’s control must be recognized (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2018). Although the
survey instrument was distributed to all ATEPS employees who had worked for the organization
for less than 5 years, it is possible that some had worked in private industry or for another
government organization prior to joining ATEPS and did not require the same level of formal or
informal mentoring as a new employee with limited work experience. It is also possible that
survey fatigue or cultural or language barriers led to a low response rate which skewed the data.
Finally, there is also the potential that survey participants did not answer all survey questions
honestly or misinterpreted the Likert scale used in the survey instrument, limiting the accuracy of
the data.
Decisions regarding the study’s design, including the stakeholder group of interest,
resulted in several delimitations. The large number of employees who work at ATEPS prevented
the administration of the survey instrument to the entire workforce and limited the number of
employees interviewed. These design decisions may have prevented the discovery of information
regarding other strategies employees from underrepresented communities may have used to
overcome barriers to developing positive mentoring relationships. The decision to focus on the
experiences and perspectives of junior employees versus senior employees who might serve as
mentors prevented collection of data that might have provided an alternate perspective on
mentoring at ATEPS. It is also possible that undiscovered KMO influences prevent senior
employees from engaging in mentoring relationships and exacerbate the experiences reported by
junior employees.
64

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
The purpose of this study was to determine if there were gaps in ATEPS employees’
knowledge and motivation or if there were organizational barriers preventing ATEPS employees
from participating in the organization’s mentoring program, and what impact the gaps had on
employee retention and advancement. A mixed-methods explanatory sequential design
incorporating Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework was used to assess each KMO
factor. This chapter presents the results of the data analysis and associated findings for each
KMO factor. Quantitative data were collected using a survey instrument, and qualitative data
were collected during one-on-one interviews. Data and results have been organized and
presented according to each KMO factor, with sub-sections dedicated to factor-specific survey
and interview data. A summary section for each factor is also provided.
Two research questions guided data collection and analysis:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences required to support
employee engagement in the ATEPS mentoring program?
2. What are the recommendations associated with employee knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences required to achieve the stated organizational goals?
Participating Stakeholders
The primary stakeholder group that was the focus of the study was the ATEPS employees
who had worked for the organization for 5 years or less. The survey instrument was
electronically distributed to 2,776 employees listed on a roster provided by the ATEPS human
resource office. However, 174 emails failed to deliver (either the address was incorrect, or the
employee had left the organization), resulting in a sample of 2,602. A total of 372 employees
65

submitted a completed survey, meeting the threshold for 95% confidence with a 5% margin of
error.
Demographic information on the survey respondents is provided in Tables 7 through 11.
The survey sample closely reflected the overall composition and cultural diversity of the ATEPS
workforce population (Table 7), although the percentage of survey respondents who identified as
female was greater than their representation in the ATEPS workforce (Table 8). Additional
demographic parameters collected in the survey and used in the evaluation included employee
career field (Table 9), employee age (Table 10) and time spent working at ATEPS (Table 11).

Table 7
Demographic Information: Race
Race Count Sample
percentage
Organizational
percentage
African American/Black, not Hispanic 36 10.5 8.0
Native American, not Hispanic 0 0 0.4
Asian American, not Hispanic 16 4.7 4.4
Caucasian/White, not Hispanic 237 69.3 82.0
Hispanic/Latino(a) 20 5.8 4.2
Pacific Islander, not Hispanic 1 .3 0.2
Prefer not to answer 19 5.5 0
Two or more races, not Hispanic 13 3.8 0.8
No response provided 1 0.3 0

66

Table 8
Demographic Information: Gender
Gender Count Sample percentage Organizational percentage
Male 168 48.9 64.0
Female 167 48.7 36.0
Prefer not to answer 8 2.3 –

Table 9
Demographic Information: Primary Career Field
Career field Count Percent of survey response (n = 343)
Engineering 135 39.4
Test and evaluation 32 9.3
IT/cyber security 19 5.5
Logistics 41 11.9
Program management 37 10.8
Financial management 22 6.4
Procurement management 13 3.8
Other (please specify) 41 11.9
No response provided 3 0.9

67

Table 10
Demographic Information: Employee Age
Employee age Count Percent of survey responses (n = 343)
21–25 61 17.8
26–30 55 16.0
31–35 38 11.1
36–40 45 13.1
41–45 35 10.2
46–50 35 10.2
51–55 37 10.8
56–60 20 5.8
61 or greater 8 2.3
No answer provided 9 2.6

Table 11
Demographic Information: Time Spent Working at ATEPS
Time at ATEPS Count Percent of survey response (n = 343)
Less than 12 months 51 14.8
13–24 months 67 19.5
25–36 months 41 11.9
37–48 months 81 23.6
49–60 months 87 25.4
No answer provided 16 4.7

68

For statistical analysis, demographic categories were binned, and data were aggregated to
determine if there were differences within or among groups for each of the KMO factors. Table
12 provides the specific data aggregation strategy used for each demographic category.

Table 12
Demographic Data Aggregation
Demographic category How were data aggregated
Age Under 35
35 or older
Gender Female or male
Race Caucasian
Non-Caucasian
Career field Engineer
All others
Mentor status Has mentor (Yes or No)
Wants a mentor (Yes or No)
Highest degree Graduate
Undergraduate or less
Latest degree 2017 or later
Before 2017
Employment length at ATEPS 3 years or less
4 years or more

69

Cronbach’s Alpha for Survey Measures
Cronbach’s Alpha provides a measure of a survey instrument’s reliability and internal
consistency (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Cronbach Alpha values range from 0 to 1.0, with a
value of .7 or greater reflecting strong internal consistency of a survey instrument. An accepted
method to maximize a study’s reliability and content validity is to use a validated survey
instrument or harvest questions from an existing instrument where the questions have a high
Cronbach’s Alpha (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). As questions used in this study’s survey
instrument were adopted or adapted from other published instruments with Cronbach Alpha
values equal to or greater than .7 or developed to reflect accepted principles as discussed in
relevant, peer-reviewed, and published literature (face validity), a psychometric analysis of the
survey instrument used in this study was not conducted.
Pearson’s Correlation
Pearson’s correlation coefficient provides a measurement of the strength of the
relationship between two variables (Salkind & Frey, 2020). A perfect positive relationship
between the variables would result in a value of 1.0, whereas no relationship would result in a
value of 0, and a perfect negative relationship between the variables would result in a value of –
1.0. Pearson Correlation Coefficients were calculated for the variables evaluated as part of the
quantitative analysis and are presented in Table 13.

70

Table 13
Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients
Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Factual
knowledge
–
Procedural
knowledge
0.12* –
Conceptual
knowledge
0.32* 0.08 –
Self-efficacy 0.22** 0.28** –.10 –
Utility value 0.05 0.19** 0.20** 0.50** –
Organizational
policy
–0.41** 0.17** 0.14** 0.23** 0.13** –
Organizational
culture
0.14 0.27** 0.21* 0.13 0.47** 0.46** –
Training 0.24* 0.22 0.14 0.35** 0.30* 0.31** 0.36** –
Belonging 0.25** 0.09 0.20* 0.23** 0.59** 0.14 0.29** 0.12 –

Note. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Interview Participants
The final survey question asked if participants would be willing to participate in a follow-
up interview to discuss their thoughts on mentoring and share their experiences with mentoring
while working at ATEPS. A positive response provided a separate link where employees
interested in being interviewed could register. A total of 62 employees registered to participate in
an interview. A random sample of 12 employees, six who indicated that they had a positive
mentoring experience and six who indicated they had a negative one, were contacted and invited
to participate in an interview. Each person who was interviewed was assigned a pseudonym to
help ensure anonymity. The first letter of the pseudonym identifies the interviewee’s gender (F =
Female, M = Male), the second letter identifies the nature of their mentoring experience (P =
71

Positive, N = Negative), and the number identifies the order in which they were interviewed.
Table 14 provides the interviewees’ demographic information.

Table 14
Interview Participant Demographic Data
Pseudonym Race Career field Age Time at ATEPS
FP1 African American Engineer 44 3.5 years
FP2 Hispanic/Latina Engineer financial
manager
32 3 years 10 months
FP3 Two or more not
Hispanic
Engineer 29 3 years
FN1 Asian American Engineer 24 1 year
FN2 Caucasian/White Procurement 39 3 years
FN3 Caucasian/White IT/cyber 26 4 years
MP1 African American Engineer 36 4 years
MP2 African American Test and evaluation 46 3 years
MP3 Caucasian Logistics 27 4 years
MN1 Caucasian IT/cyber program
management
57 2 years
MN3 Caucasian Test and evaluation 25 4 years
MN4 Two or more not
Hispanic
Engineer 29 5 years

72

Results and Findings for Knowledge
The results and findings for employee knowledge are reported using the knowledge
categories described by Krathwohl (2002). Knowledge categories are divided into factual
knowledge, procedural knowledge, and conceptual knowledge. Survey questions sought to
identify gaps in employee knowledge regarding mentoring, while interview questions were
designed to explore how knowledge gaps impacted the initiation or maturation of a positive
mentoring relationship. The following sections provide the results and findings for the three
types of knowledge assessed. Each section begins with survey results and findings, followed by
interview results and findings, and concludes with a summary.
Factual Knowledge: What Do ATEPS Employees Know About Mentoring and
Advancement?
The following section presents the quantitative and qualitative results and findings related
to ATEPS employees’ factual knowledge of mentoring and career advancement. Quantitative
findings, including significant statistical differences and results from relevant survey instrument
questions, are provided. The section concludes with a discussion of the qualitative findings,
including the presentation of relevant themes in the data.
Factual Knowledge Quantitative Findings
The fundamental elements of an effective mentoring dyad, as well as the specific actions
required for employees to advance their careers at ATEPS, were assessed to determine ATEPS
employees’ factual knowledge about mentoring and the organization’s advancement process.
Significant differences in factual knowledge were noted for age f(332) = 22.19, p < .000, career
field t(339) = 10.03, p < .001, has a mentor f(340) = 73.58, p < .003, and date of latest degree
73

f(330) = 14.94, p <.000. Table 15 provides descriptive statistics and ANOVA for factual
knowledge.

Table 15
Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA, Factual Knowledge
Comparison n M SD df t F D p*
Sample 343 3.26 1.13
Age
under 35
35 or older

147
186

3.59
3.03

0.90
1.21
1 4.71 22.19 .000
Career field
Engineer
Non-engineer

136
204

3.49
3.09

1.03
1.17
1 –3.17 10.03 .001
Has a mentor
Yes
No

149
192

3.80
2.84

0.64
1.25
1 8.58 73.58 .003
Latest degree
2017 or later
Before 2017

148
183

3.54
3.07

0.95
1.19
1 –3.86 14.94 .000

Note. 95% CI utilized for calculating p values.

74

Evaluation of employees’ factual knowledge identified several gaps that could contribute
to low enrollment in the mentoring program and delays in employee advancement. Employee
awareness of the ATEPS mentoring website and advancement process is poor, with 46.8% of
respondents (n = 333) unaware the website existed and 27% of employees indicating that they
did not know how to advance in the organization. Of 39 respondents with a mentor who
indicated that finding a mentor was either extremely or somewhat difficult, 32 attributed this to
not knowing whom to ask. With regard to employee preparedness to succeed in a mentoring
relationship or navigate the advancement process, a self-assessment of essential skills identified
gaps in employee communication, collaboration and goal setting as well as a limited ability to
utilize career-enhancing information (Table 16).

Table 16
Mentoring Skill Self-Assessment

Skill Mean Standard deviation Count
Communication skills 78.17 17.74 315
Collaboration skills 80.86 17.3 318
Goal setting skills 72.4 21.52 315
Ability to use career-enhancing information 7.19 2.34 309
75

Factual Knowledge Qualitative Findings
Similar to the survey results, interviewees expressed a lack of factual knowledge
regarding the mentoring program. The themes were a lack of knowledge regarding how to be a
protégé (including availability of training, course content and how to establish a mentoring dyad)
which nine interviewees cited as a roadblock to their participation, and lack of goal setting as a
component of mentoring, which eight interviewees cited. Within the broader mentoring
construct, there were also comments regarding a perceived lack of factual knowledge
demonstrated by mentors, which current protégés believed required remediation. Although
interviewees commented on and offered several examples of what they perceived to be barriers
to advancement (this information is addressed in the organizational barrier section), FN3 was the
only person to address a lack of factual knowledge of the advancement process as an area that
required attention. Reflecting on her experience, she offered, “You just have to have the
knowledge, degrees and experience in order to move up, and this is something which I
personally don’t know.”
How to Be a Protégé. FN1, MP1, MP2 and MP3 mentioned a lack of knowledge about
available training, and each indicated a desire to address their lack of mentoring knowledge.
MP2 remarked that he “didn’t remember hearing about or seeing a specific program that I could
go to and get a mentor.” MN4 provided a similar recounting of his onboarding experience,
remembering that “in orientation, they talk about how you need to have a mentor, but provided
no factual knowledge on how to be a protégé.” He also admitted to a lack of factual knowledge
about whom to contact to get a mentor.
Similar to MN4, MP3 expressed his desire to learn how to be a better protégé, adding that
“if a class existed, I’d take it.” In regard to course content, FN2 indicated that she lacked
76

knowledge on how to select a mentor and would benefit from this type of class, calling the lack
of factual information “a barrier to participation.” MN3 shared his lack of knowledge regarding
the differences between formal and informal mentoring, calling this out as a specific area he
would like to address in a class, along with “how to pick a mentor and how they can help you.”
Lack of Goal Setting. As a component of their current mentoring relationships, eight
interviewees indicated that they did not include goal setting because they were either (a) unaware
that goal setting should be included as a part of mentoring or (b) did not think it was important
for where they were in their careers. Specifically, about goal setting, MP1 believed that “goal
setting was too formal for what he wanted from mentoring.” MP2 felt he was “too senior for goal
setting,” and FP3 responded that she and her mentor did not set any goals because they “just
forget to do it.” FP1 and her mentor “did not establish goals or objectives for their relationship or
her career,” although she did have an agenda with specific goals for each mentoring session. She
did not provide a further explanation regarding why each meeting with her mentor had goals and
objectives, but her overall mentoring relationship did not.
Summary of Factual Knowledge
Both quantitative and qualitative data suggest a lack of factual knowledge about
mentoring among ATEPS employees. Analysis of survey data uncovered gaps in knowledge
regarding how to advance in the organization or establish a mentoring relationship, while themes
developed from analysis of the interview transcripts centered on a lack of knowledge regarding
how to be a protégé or set goals. The low self-assessment scores for mentoring skills reported in
Table 16 identify specific areas where a structured intervention program could help address
specific knowledge gaps. Collectively, this data helps address research question one regarding
what knowledge is required to support employee engagement in the ATEPS mentoring program.
77

Procedural Knowledge: What Do ATEPS Employees Know About Mentoring and the
Career Advancement Processes?
The following section presents the quantitative and qualitative results and findings related
to ATEPS employee procedural knowledge of mentoring and career advancement. Quantitative
findings, including significant statistical differences and results from relevant survey instrument
questions, are provided. The section concludes with a discussion of the qualitative findings,
including the presentation of relevant themes.
Procedural Knowledge Quantitative Findings
Successful engagement in a mentoring program requires knowledge of how to register,
identify a mentor, and use the various tools available to protégés. Career advancement requires
that employees have functional knowledge of how to register for and receive organizational and
competency-specific training as well as identify and apply for positions that provide increased
scope and responsibility. The degree to which ATEPS employees know the procedures required
to participate in the mentoring program and advance in the organization was assessed in the
survey. Significant differences in procedural knowledge were observed for age, f(309) = 9.45,
p < .002, most recent degree, f(309) = 10.59, p < .001, and length of employment at ATEPS,
f(306) = 7.73, p < .005. Table 17 provides descriptive statistics and ANOVA for procedural
knowledge.

78

Table 17
Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA, Procedural Knowledge
Comparison n M SD df t F D p*
Sample 319 75.76 16.38
Age
under 35
35 or older

139
171

72.40
78.10

15.67
16.68
1 –3.07 9.45 .002
Latest degree
2017 or later
Before 2017

139
171

72.23
78.27

17.07
15.55
1 3.25 10.59 .001
Employ length
3 years or less
4 years or more

157
150

73.21
78.35

17.75
14.57
1 2.78 7.73 .005

Note. 95% CI utilized for calculating p values.

Survey data suggests that ATEPS employees lack the procedural knowledge to initiate a
mentoring relationship or navigate the advancement process. Of the 174 ATEPS employees who
were aware that the organization had a mentoring website and tools, 49 indicated that they did
not understand how to use the tool (an additional 47 employees neither agreed nor disagreed),
while 78 indicated that they did not believe the tool had provided them with career-enhancing
information. Of the 39 ATEPS employees with a mentor who indicated that finding a mentor was
either extremely or somewhat difficult, 17 indicated that they did not know how to ask for a
mentor. In response to questions about the ATEPS advancement process, 27% of respondents
(n = 343) indicated that they did not know how to advance in the organization.
Procedural Knowledge Qualitative Findings
Interview data support the survey data that reflected a lack of procedural knowledge
regarding mentoring. “I don’t know how” emerged as a central theme, with seven interviewees
reporting that they did not have the requisite procedural knowledge to participate in mentoring.
79

In addition to comments regarding how to participate in mentoring, one employee, FN3,
indicated that she “personally did not know” the procedural aspects of the ATEPS advancement
process.
I Do Not Know How. Fundamental to participation in mentoring is an understanding of
the processes and procedures the prospective protégé needs to know. Neither FN1 nor MN4
understood the process to become a protégé, indicating that this was “not part of any training”
they took, and “no one ever discussed it” with them. While recalling his orientation training,
MN4 noted that “they did talk about you need to have a mentor, but there was no factual or
procedural knowledge on how to be a protégé or how to interact with a mentor.” Three of the
interviewees (FP3, FN3, and MN1) indicated that they did not know how to use the ATEPS
mentoring tool and were unable to access any mentoring-related information. FP3 believed that
“the procedural knowledge new employees need to have to be successful with the mentor tool”
needed to be added to the onboarding class. Remembering her experience, FN3 recalled hearing
about a website; however, no one showed her or taught her how to access and use the mentoring
website to find a mentor or gain access to mentoring information. When asked about his
knowledge of how to use the mentoring website, MN1 stated, “Maybe I did something wrong,
but it didn’t work out,” further explaining that he was unable to use the tool to find a mentor.
With regard to participation in the speed mentoring events, FN2 summarized her lack of
procedural knowledge as the reason she had not participated, stating, “I didn’t know how it
worked.” Although not specifically related to finding a mentor, two interviewees did mention
that they wanted to be more involved in the organization, learn how to advance in the
organization, and build their professional networks but did not know how.
80

Summary of Procedural Knowledge
Both quantitative and qualitative data suggest a lack of procedural knowledge about
mentoring among ATEPS employees. Analysis of survey data uncovered specific gaps in
knowledge regarding using the mentoring website and associated tools to initiate a mentoring
relationship. The “I do not know how” theme, reflecting a lack of knowledge regarding how to
be a protégé or use the ATEPS mentoring website and associated tools to find a mentor, emerged
from analysis of the interview transcripts. Collectively, this data helps address research question
one regarding what knowledge is required to support employee engagement in the ATEPS
mentoring program.
Conceptual Knowledge: Do ATEPS Employees Understand the Benefits of Mentoring?
The following section presents the quantitative and qualitative results and findings related
to ATEPS employees’ conceptual knowledge of mentoring and career advancement. Quantitative
findings, including significant statistical differences and results from relevant survey instrument
questions, are provided. The section concludes with a discussion of the qualitative findings,
including the presentation of relevant themes.
Conceptual Knowledge Quantitative Findings
The criticality of having a mentor, the attributes of a successful mentoring relationship,
and the criticality of the mentor’s gender, race and ethnicity were assessed to determine
employee conceptual understanding of mentoring. Conceptual knowledge of the organization’s
advancement process was also evaluated. Significant differences in conceptual knowledge were
noted for gender f(334) = 8.42, p < .00, race f(322) = 53.42, p < .0001, has a mentor
f(340) = 9.25, p < .00, and wants a mentor f(188) = 14.0, p <.000. Table 18 provides descriptive
statistics and ANOVA for conceptual knowledge.
81

Table 18
Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA, Conceptual Knowledge
Comparison n M SD df t F D p*
Sample 343 1.97 0.47
Gender
Male
Female

168
167

1.60
1.77

0.04
0.04
1 –2.90 8.42 .003
Race
Caucasian
Non-Caucasian

237
86

1.57
2.02

0.03
0.05
1 –7.31 53.42 .000
Has a mentor
Yes
No

149
192

1.78
1.61

0.51
0.51
1 3.04 9.25 .002
Wants a mentor
Yes
No

130
59

1.71
1.42

0.53
0.40
1 3.77 14.04 .000

Note. 95% CI utilized for calculating p values.

In assessing the importance of having a mentor, 62.1% of respondents indicated that they
believed mentoring is critical to their career development (n = 343); however, they do not appear
to consider gender, ethnicity, or race important factors when selecting a mentor. When asked to
identify the attributes of a mentoring relationship from a list (Table 19), only 53.4% believed that
a mentoring relationship should include common goals, and less than 80% believed that a
mentoring relationship should include collaboration and clear expectations. In regard to
understanding the organization’s advancement process, 27% of respondents indicated that they
were unaware of the advancement process, and 31.8% indicated that they did not have a
conceptual understanding of the advancement process (n = 343).

82

Table 19
Attributes of a Positive Mentoring Relationship
Attributes of a mentoring relationship Count Percent of responses (n = 335)
Open communication 335 100
Feedback 326 97.3
Exchange of ideas 316 94.3
Common goals 179 53.4
Clear expectations 264 78.8
Collaboration 266 79.4
Trust 324 96.7
Meeting on a regular basis with your mentor 268 80.0

Conceptual Knowledge Qualitative Findings
Of the three knowledge domains assessed, employee conceptual knowledge of mentoring
appeared to be the area with the largest deficit. Individual descriptions were limited in scope and
did not reflect an understanding of the various components of mentoring or the integration of
more than two components into any of the existing mentoring relationships. A common theme in
the interview data was questioning what it was all about, which reflected a lack of understanding
about the benefits a protégé should receive from mentoring. Since the lack of goal setting as a
component of mentoring was addressed in a previous section, it was not included here.
What Is It All About? FP1, FN1, FN2, FN3, and MN1 discussed the focus of a mentor
serving as a “career guide” or “someone to go to for advice.” In response to the question
inquiring about conceptual knowledge of mentoring, FN1 responded that mentoring was about
“someone who guides your career, but I could be wrong,” while FN3 replied that she “wanted
training to learn what the purpose of a mentor is.” Both MN3 and MN4 expressed their belief
that mentoring was about disseminating technical knowledge, with MN3 offering that a mentor
should “provide very job specific knowledge,” while MN4 added, “Even if a mentor doesn’t
83

have a direct technical knowledge within your field, as a member of the organization, they are
capable of contributing a lot in that way.” Only MP1 appeared to have a strong conceptual
knowledge of mentoring, offering that a mentor should provide “networks to build connections,
access to information, different perspectives, job opportunities and resources.”
Summary of Conceptual Knowledge
Although quantitative data appeared to indicate a stronger conceptual knowledge of
mentoring, with knowledge gaps centering around the importance of common goals,
collaboration and regular meetings in a mentoring relationship, qualitative data suggests ATEPS
employees lack a conceptual understanding of what a mentor should provide a protégé. The lack
of conceptual knowledge of mentoring was apparent in the confusion about what mentoring
should provide and was most evident in the pervasive focus on mentoring as a vehicle for
acquiring career advice or technical knowledge. With regard to advancement, survey data
indicated a larger gap in employees’ conceptual understanding of the advancement process
compared to data harvested from interview responses. Collectively, quantitative and qualitative
data help address research question one regarding what knowledge is required to support
employee advancement and engagement in the ATEPS mentoring program.
Summary of Results and Findings for Knowledge
In the aggregate, quantitative and qualitative data suggest that ATEPS employees have
significant gaps in factual, procedural, and conceptual knowledge of both advancement and
mentoring. Central to the gaps in knowledge about mentoring was a lack of awareness about the
ATEPS mentoring website, how to initiate a mentoring relationship, what a mentoring
relationship should provide a protégé and fundamental skills required to participate in a
mentoring relationship. In the area of advancement, the data suggest that ATEPS employees
84

have a limited understanding of the advancement process, which hinders their ability to apply to
and be selected for positions that provide increased scope or responsibility.
Results and Findings for Motivation
The following sections provide the results and findings for motivation. Survey questions
sought to identify if motivational issues among ATEPS employees impacted employee
participation in mentoring activities. Interview questions were designed to explore how
employee self-efficacy and perceptions of value impacted the initiation or maturation of a
positive mentoring relationship or engagement in mentoring-related career-enhancing
opportunities. Each section begins with survey results and findings, followed by interview results
and findings and concludes with a summary.
Self-Efficacy: Do ATEPS Employees Believe That They Will Be Successful as Protégés?
The following section presents the quantitative and qualitative results and findings related
to ATEPS employees’ beliefs in their ability to succeed in a mentoring relationship. Quantitative
findings, including significant statistical differences and results from relevant survey instrument
questions, are provided. The section concludes with a discussion of the qualitative findings,
including the presentation of relevant themes.
Self-Efficacy Quantitative Findings
Employee self-efficacy was assessed to determine if ATEPS employees believed in their
ability to succeed in establishing a mentoring relationship and if existing mentoring tools
positively or negatively impacted their ability to establish a mentoring relationship. The only
significant differences noted were among employees who currently had a mentor, f(321) = 12.42,
p < .000, and employees who had completed a graduate degree f(321) = 8.87, p <. 003. It is
worth noting that there was near statistical significance among employees who did not have a
85

mentor but who desired one (f(177) = 3.85, p < .051)). Table 20 provides descriptive statistics
and ANOVA for self-efficacy.

Table 20
Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA, Self-Efficacy
Comparison n M SD df t F D p*
Sample 322 82.10 17.56
Has a mentor
Yes
No

143
179

85.89
79.01

1.44
1.29
1 3.52 12.42 .000
Highest degree
Graduate
Undergrad or
less

114
208

84.24
78.21

14.60
21.48
1 2.98 8.87 .003

Note. 95% CI utilized for calculating p values

86

Employees need to feel confident in their ability to navigate the mentoring program and
believe that the use of the organizations mentoring tools will improve their ability to establish a
positive mentoring relationship. Self-assessment questions regarding ATEPS employee beliefs in
their ability to have a positive experience with mentoring, build their professional network or use
mentoring to remove barriers to advancement indicate a lack of confidence in these areas (Table
21). Furthermore, employees who indicated that they had some level of difficulty finding a
mentor (n = 39) identified a lack of motivation (n = 14) or fear (n = 10) as their reason. In
assessing the impact of existing ATEPS mentoring tools, 45% (n = 174) of survey respondents
either disagreed (n = 39) or strongly disagreed (n = 40) that the organization’s mentoring tools
improved their ability to establish a positive mentoring relationship. It should be noted that
ATEPS employees did not indicate any issues with being mentored by someone of a different
gender or race.

Table 21
Self-Efficacy Self-Assessment
Mean Standard deviation Count
Belief I will have a positive mentoring
experience
72.16 23.71 316
Confidence that mentoring will help build
professional network
72.27 23.14 317
Confidence in my ability to be mentored by
someone who is a different gender
85.24 22.86 317
Confidence in ability to be mentored by
someone who is a different race
90.60 18.10 318

87

Self-Efficacy Qualitative Findings
In assessing employee confidence in their ability to participate in mentoring, no clear
theme emerged regarding employee self-efficacy. Employees who reported having a positive
mentoring experience were more likely to express confidence in their ability to participate in
mentoring, whereas employees who reported having had a negative mentoring experience were
more likely to lack confidence in their ability to participate in mentoring. Although there were no
common responses regarding why interviewees believed they would be successful, MN3 and
MN4 did not believe that they would be successful because of “a lack of motivation,” and FN3
and MN1 cited “a lack of mentoring knowledge” as their reason for doubting their ability to be
successful.
Summary of Self-Efficacy
The quantitative and qualitative results appear to align with the findings for self-efficacy.
Employees who had a mentor were more likely to believe that they would succeed in mentoring
than employees who were not involved in mentoring. Quantitative findings suggest a deficiency
in underlying skills required to participate in a mentoring relationship, which would contribute to
low self-efficacy. Qualitative findings among employees who had a negative experience with
mentoring support the quantitative findings regarding the impact of low self-confidence on
participation in mentoring.
Utility Value Findings
The following section presents the quantitative and qualitative results and findings related
to ATEPS employees’ beliefs regarding the value of participating in mentoring. Quantitative
findings, including significant statistical differences and results from relevant survey instrument
88

questions, are provided. The section concludes with a discussion of the qualitative findings,
including the presentation of relevant themes.
Utility Value Quantitative Findings
Utility value was assessed to determine if ATEPS employees believed that their
participation in workplace mentoring would help them achieve their career goals. Significant
differences in utility value were noted for age, f(319) = 4.38, p <. 03, race, f(309) = 11.76,
p<.000, currently has a mentor, f(327) = 35.91, p <. 000, and highest degree earned,
f(327) = 14.95, p <. 000. Table 22 provides descriptive statistics and ANOVA for utility value.

Table 22
Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA, Utility Value
Comparison N M SD df t F D p*
Sample 327 58.09 18.33
Age
Under 35
35 or older

143
176

66.17
61.40

1.69
1.53
1 2.09 4.38 – .04
Race
Caucasian
Non-Caucasian

227
82

61.15
70.06

20.74
18.50
1 –3.43 11.76 – .000
Has a mentor
Yes
No

273
54

66.50
49.37

18.54
22.24
1 5.99 35.91 – .000
Highest degree
Graduate
Undergrad or less

115
212

57.93
66.78

19.90
19.70
1 3.86 14.95 – .000

Note. 95% CI utilized for calculating p values.

89

Employees need to feel they are receiving value from their participation in the mentoring
program. They must also believe that their participation in mentoring will help remove barriers
to advancement and improve their advancement opportunities. However, the data suggest that
younger employees, employees from underrepresented groups, and employees who do not have
mentors do not perceive value in participating in the mentoring program. Self-assessment
questions regarding employee beliefs about the value of mentoring indicate there is a low value
placed on participation in workplace mentoring (Table 23). The fact that only 10% (n = 174) of
respondents agreed that they had received career-enhancing information from the mentoring
program supports the value proposition assessment.

Table 23
Utility Value Self-Assessment
Mean Standard deviation Count
Belief that participation in mentoring will
help advance career
67.91 25.42 313
Belief that participation in mentoring will
help remove barriers to advancement
57.12 28.51 306

90

Utility Value Qualitative Findings
Although there was agreement among interviewees regarding the value of mentoring, six
people noted that the value of participating in the ATEPS mentoring program would be greater if
the program were better. Several themes, including having a shoulder to lean on and building a
network, emerged from the participants’ stories. Recommendations for improving the program’s
value included improved guidance on how to be a mentor or a protégé, navigate speed mentoring
events, and find a mentor. However, within the larger context of mentoring, interviewees
believed that significant value was derived from the support a positive mentoring relationship
can provide.
A Shoulder to Lean On. Healthy mentoring relationships may provide the protégé with
psychosocial support to help mitigate work-related stressors (although depending on the depth of
the relationship and the protégés level of comfort, personal stress factors may also be discussed).
Evaluating the impact of her mentor, FP1 noted the knowledge she received from her mentor and
the support her mentor provided her. She discussed the benefits of “just having someone in your
corner” as a new employee. MP1 noted the support he received from his mentors during a
particularly stressful time for his family, recalling how his mentors “reached out just to talk and
to listen” and helped him “stay in alignment.” He credits this support with his decision to remain
at ATEPS. For FP3, the support she received, “both personal and professional,” from her
network of mentors made her more comfortable when she needed to ask for help. She described
a typical mentoring session as a time to discuss “personal stuff, family stuff, how’s life going,
and then discuss work stuff.” Although he does not currently have a mentor, MN4 commented
on the social aspect of mentoring and the support it provided, noting that he would ask to speak
to a mentor “on an as-needed basis” when he felt “over his head” or didn’t feel like he was where
91

he needed to be. FN1 commented on the personal nature of the support she had received,
referring to mentoring as “super useful” and describing how her mentor was able to relate similar
life experiences to help her work through different stages of her career and professional
development. While addressing the value provided by mentoring, FN2 explained that for her, it
was “more than just a person to ask questions too,” noting “the encouragement I received,
especially when applying for a new job or promotion.”
Building a Network. A second area where ATEPS employees believed that mentoring
provided value was in developing their professional networks. Nine interviewees commented on
the role their mentors played in helping to develop their personal or professional networks, while
one person indicated that they had not asked their mentor for help in this area, and another
acknowledged the negative impact the COVID-related telework posture had on network
development. Only one of the interviewees was able to describe more than one or two benefits
derived from a large network, indicating a lack of factual knowledge. However, interviewees did
recognize the role their mentors played in helping develop professional networks and how
networks helped them be successful at work.
Interviewees focused on how networking had helped them secure new positions at work
and gain access to information. Reflecting on her experience, FN1 refused to believe that “people
who apply online get jobs, that’s never worked out for me” and acknowledged the help she
received from her mentor in securing her current position. FP3, FN3, MP1, MP3, and MN4
described similar experiences obtaining jobs or rotational assignments, with MP1 noting that
“networks are vital” to gaining access to job opportunities. The other major benefit interviewees
credited to their mentor-enabled networks was access to information. MN1 and MP3 shared
similar stories of tapping into their networks, explaining that “the more people you know, the
92

quicker you can find answers.” FN1, FN3, and MN4 shared comparable experiences, as each
explained how they had increased access to information as a direct result of their networks.
Perhaps the strongest endorsements were provided by MP1, who summarized his experience by
stating, “nobody ever got ahead in life working alone,” and from MP3, who added, “you are only
as good as your Rolodex.”
Summary of Result and Findings for Utility Value
Both quantitative and qualitative findings suggest that ATEPS employees do not believe
that there is value in participating in the ATEPS mentoring program, although it should be noted
that interviewees overwhelmingly supported participating in mentoring. The value associated
with participation in the ATEPS mentoring program appears to be undermined by a belief that it
will not help employees advance their careers or remove barriers to advancement. The perceived
value received through participation in mentoring was associated with network development and
the psychosocial support a mentor provided.
Summary of Results and Findings for Motivation
Collectively, quantitative and qualitative data suggest that ATEPS employees do not find
value in participating in the ATEPS mentoring program despite an overarching agreement on the
value of mentoring. Although employees attributed participation in mentoring with providing
psychosocial support and helping to build their professional networks, it appears that a
deficiency in the underlying skills required to participate in mentoring undermines employee
self-efficacy. Low motivation, especially among employees who previously had a negative
mentoring experience, appears to inhibit participation and restricts the transfer of benefits
associated with a positive mentoring relationship.
93

Results and Findings for Organizational Influences
The following sections provide the results and findings for organizational influences.
Survey questions sought to identify if there were any organizational barriers associated with
policies, culture, or training and associated resources (collectively referred to as organizational
factors) that impacted employee participation in mentoring, while interview questions were
designed to explore and explain employee beliefs on the existence and impact of the
organizational factors on the development of a mentoring relationship. The following sections
provide the results and findings for each of the organizational factors assessed. Each section
begins with survey results and findings, followed by interview results and findings, and
concludes with a summary.
Policy: Do ATEPS Policies Support Mentoring?
The following section presents the quantitative and qualitative results and findings on
how organizational policies influence ATEPS employee participation in mentoring. Quantitative
findings, including significant statistical differences and results from relevant survey instrument
questions, are provided. The section concludes with a discussion of the qualitative findings,
including the presentation of relevant themes.
Quantitative Findings for Organizational Policy
The impact of existing organizational policies was assessed to determine if ATEPS
employees perceived them to be barriers or catalysts to participation in workplace mentoring.
Significant differences in organizational policy were noted for age, f(333) = 13.26, p <. 000,
gender, f(335) = 5.36, p <. 021, career field., f(340)=4.16, p < 0.42, currently has a mentor,
f(3341) = 75.01, p <. 000, and highest degree earned, f(343) = 5.82, p <. 016. A near-significant
difference was noted among employees who desired a mentor, f(189) = 3.37, p < 0.068 and along
94

racial lines, f(323) = 3.16, p < 0.07. Table 24 provides descriptive statistics and ANOVA for
organizational policy.

Table 24
Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA, Organizational Policy
Comparison n M SD df t F D p*
Sample 343 3.08 0.92
Age
Under 35
35 or older

147
186

3.30
2.93

0.85
0.94
1 3.64 13.26 – .000
Gender
Male
Female

168
167

3.21
2.98

0.92
0.91
1 2.31 5.36 – .021
Career field
Engineer
Non-engineer

204
136

2.99
3.19

0.94
0.88
1 –2.04 4.16 – .042
Has a mentor
Yes
No

149
192

3.53
2.74

0.66
0.95
1 8.66 75.01 – .000
Highest degree
Graduate
Undergrad or less

119
224

2.92
3.17

0.91
0.92
1 2.41 5.82 – .016

Note. 95% CI utilized for calculating p values.
95

Survey data suggests that ATEPS employees believe the current organizational policies
support participation in mentoring. Almost 75% (n = 146) of survey respondents indicated that
they somewhat agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “organizational policies support
participation in mentoring at work,” with only 9.5% indicating they somewhat or strongly
disagreed.
Qualitative Findings for Organizational Policy
Interviewees discussed an ATEPS requirement for new employees to find a mentor
during their first year at the organization. The theme that emerged from their narrative was the
perception that employees do not see participation in mentoring as a requirement but rather as a
check in the box/block. Whereas the requirement to have a mentor could be seen as a positive
reinforcement of the organization’s commitment to mentoring, seven of the interviewees
expressed the belief that finding a mentor was nothing more than a check in the block/box that
was not enforced, and which carried no negative consequences for employees who failed to
comply.
Describing the requirement for new employees to have a mentor, FP2 shared her
experience with employees registering but having no meetings with their mentor, adding that
employee workload does not support participation and is often the cause of inactivity. FP3 and
FN1 cited the check-in-the-box mentality in describing their participation in the ATEPS
mentoring program. FP3 admitted that she “probably would not do the official mentoring thing if
it wasn’t a requirement but might do unofficial mentoring,” adding that some people consider the
requirement to get a mentor “a check in the box that they just try and check off as soon as
possible.” FN1 discussed how she started to “put effort into finding a mentor” only after she
learned about the requirement. For MP3, the mentoring requirement “seemed like it was just a
96

check in the box, kind of a thing to say you had a mentor, and then document it in some
database,” adding that “it was never like someone checked back up on it.” MN3 offered a
slightly different perspective, believing that the requirement and process to get a mentor were
“essentially a check in the box to get promotions.”
Summary of Results and Findings for Organizational Policy
There was a dichotomy between the quantitative and qualitative findings for
organizational policy. Whereas survey results supported the belief that organizational policies
encouraged participation in mentoring, the narrative that developed from analysis of interview
transcripts told a different story, with employees describing the process of identifying a mentor
as nothing more than a check in the box.
Culture: Does the ATEPS Culture Support Participation in Mentoring?
The following section presents the quantitative and qualitative results and findings related
to how organizational culture influences ATEPS employee participation in mentoring.
Quantitative findings, including significant statistical differences and results from relevant
survey instrument questions, are provided. The section concludes with a discussion of the
qualitative findings, including presenting relevant themes.
Quantitative Results and Findings for Organizational Culture
The impact of cultural influences on participation in the organization’s mentoring
program was assessed to determine if ATEPS employees perceived organizational culture as
supporting or undermining their participation. There were no significant differences identified
for this organizational factor. Survey data suggests that ATEPS employees believe the current
organizational culture supports participation in mentoring. Almost 79% (n = 147) of survey
respondents indicated that they somewhat agreed or strongly agreed with the statement
97

“organizational culture supports participation in mentoring at work,” with only 6.0% indicating
they somewhat or strongly disagreed.
Qualitative Findings and Results for Organizational Culture
Considering the impact of organizational culture on workplace mentoring, there was a
strong agreement among interviewees that there is a supportive culture at ATEPS. Eight
interviewees indicated they believed that, at the macro level, the ATEPS culture supported
participation in mentoring, and three interviewees expressed a less enthusiastic endorsement of
the organizational culture qualifying their answers with “yes and no” and “it kind of depends.”
The primary artifacts cited as indicators of a supportive culture were a mentoring website and
occasional speed mentoring events intended to introduce prospective mentors to prospective
protégés. However, several qualifiers and barriers to participation that ran counter to the macro
culture emerged during the interviews. The qualifiers and barriers have been aggregated into a
theme to reflect counter-cultural factors that employees believe undermine their participation in
mentoring.
Qualifiers and Barriers. Whereas MN3, MP1, FP1 and FP3 all expressed strong
opinions regarding a supportive mentoring culture, the other interviewees provided more
qualified responses. MN4 indicated that although the organization emphasizes mentoring, he
feels “there is a culture of it being ignored.” In describing his experience, MP2 shared his belief
that “there is support for mentoring from the active-duty and retired military members of the
organization, but not from the civilian members” of the organization. Four interviewees
expressed their concerns about the impact of workload on employee participation in mentoring.
A lack of time to identify a mentor and schedule regular meetings relegated participation in
mentoring to an extracurricular activity that could only be pursued after an employee’s regular
98

duties were complete. Reflecting on his experience, MN1 shared that participation in mentoring
was limited because “expectations and workload was high, and people were stretched thin.” FP3
reflected that “when workload gets a lot, that becomes the priority and those other things become
an afterthought.” FN1 provided a comparable narrative, responding that “It kind of depends.
Sometimes I feel we get engrossed in our work, and [mentoring] becomes an afterthought.” This
prevented her from following up on a potential mentor she met at a speed mentoring event. FN1
also relayed the experience of a friend who was questioned regarding taking time to “participate
in personal growth initiatives, including mentoring” and other new employee training
opportunities. In considering the impact of workload on the availability of time to participate in
mentoring, FN3 provided a summative reflection that “not having time to get mentoring reflects
an organizational culture that doesn’t support mentoring.” She added her perspective that
“mentoring relationships don’t seem very common.”
Summary of Results and Finding for Organizational Culture
There appears to be alignment between survey respondents and interviewees, with both
groups agreeing that the ATEPS organizational culture supports participation in mentoring at
work. However, the inclusion of qualifiers and barriers that interviewees perceive as limiting
employee participation challenges the macro-level belief regarding the organizations mentoring
culture.
Training: Do ATEPS Training Classes and Tools Support Mentoring?
The following section presents the quantitative and qualitative results and findings on
how organizational training and tools impact ATEPS employee participation in mentoring.
Quantitative findings, including significant statistical differences and results from relevant
99

survey instrument questions, are provided. The section concludes with a discussion of the
qualitative findings, including the presentation of relevant themes.
Quantitative Findings and Results for Organizational Training and Tools
The impact of organization-sponsored mentor and protégé training was assessed to
determine if employee participation in training supported their participation in a mentoring
relationship. The benefits of related tools, including the mentoring website, were also assessed to
understand how they impacted employee participation in mentoring. The only significant
difference noted was for employees who were currently involved in mentoring relationships,
f(68) = 4.99, p < .028. However, there was near statistical significance between employees with
3 or fewer years working at ATEPS compared to employees who had worked at ATEPS for 4
years or more, f(36) = 2.97, p < .08. Table 25 provides descriptive statistics and ANOVA for
training.

Table 25
Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA, Training
Comparison n M SD df t F d p*
Sample 69 3.79 1.10

Has a mentor?
Yes
No

33
36

4.09
3.51

0.92
1.19
1 2.23 4.99 .028

Note. 95% CI utilized for calculating p values.

100

An effective training program that provides the foundational procedural, factual and
conceptual knowledge required to be successful in a mentoring relationship is fundamental for
protégé success. Survey data suggests that the ATEPS mentoring training and tools are
underutilized, with 78.7% of survey respondents (n = 365) indicating that they had not
participated in work-sponsored mentoring training and 46.8% (n = 333) unaware the
organization had a mentoring website. Among the 69 employees who had taken training, only 29
agreed that the training was beneficial, although 59 indicated that they would recommend it to a
co-worker. Among the 177 employees who indicated that they were aware there was a mentoring
website, 50% (n = 87) had not used it, and 26.4% (n = 46) had only used it one time. The ATEPS
employees who have used the mentoring website and associated tools appear not to believe that
the website or tools have helped with their mentoring relationship or provided career-enhancing
information (Table 26).

Table 26
Mentoring Tool
Question Strongly
agree
Agree Neither
agree
nor
disagree
Disagree

Strongly
disagree

Total
count
The mentoring tool has helped
my mentoring relationship.
3 12 80 39 40 174
The mentoring tool has
provided me with career-
enhancing information.
2 16 78 43 35 174

101

Qualitative Findings and Results for Organizational Training and Tools
Exploration of employee impressions on ATEPS mentoring training revealed that none of
the interviewees had taken any mentor or protégé training classes. Various reasons were
provided for not taking any of the ATEPS mentoring classes. The main themes that emerged
were a lack of time to take training, awareness of what classes were available, and an inadequate
mentoring tool.
Time and Awareness. Four interviewees indicated that they were aware that training
was available; however, they identified time constraints as their reason for not taking any
mentoring training. Whereas MP1, MN3 and MN4 did not offer any amplification on what the
cause of their time constraints might be, FP1 conveyed that due to other required training she
needs to take, “I don’t feel that I can take on anything else right now.” Although lack of time as a
root cause for not participating in training is concerning, the fact that four interviewees, FN1,
FN3, MP2, and MP3, indicated that they were unaware that training was available is more so.
Elaborating on her mentoring experience, FN3 shared her opinion,
It’s not great. There’s no training, so basically, anyone who wants to do it could do it.
The mentors themselves don’t seem to actually know what they are doing, and neither did
the protégés, so it’s a free for all. It’s not effective.
Although no interviewees had first-hand experience with ATEPS mentor or protégé
training or were aware of what the curriculums included, several offered input on what type of
information they would like to receive. This included communication skills (FP1, MN3, MN4),
how to be a mentor (FP3, MP1), how to find/select a mentor (FP3, FN2, FN3, MP3), goal setting
(FN1), how to form a mentoring relationship (MP1, MP3, MN4), how to be a protégé (MP3,
MN4), and how to use ATEPS mentoring tools and resources (MN1, MN3). A review of the
102

current mentoring curriculum revealed that while prospective mentors and protégés are
introduced to the mentoring website, none of the other proposed topics are included.
Mentoring Website and Tools. Although the presence of a mentoring website was cited
as a primary artifact indicative of the organization’s supportive culture toward mentoring, half of
the interviewees indicated that they had not used it to find a mentor and five of the six who had
used it reported significant problems navigating it. The website hosts a database where
prospective mentors and protégés can register and enter demographic information, skills, and
interests, similar to an online dating site. Protégés can search the database to try and find a
mentor who matches whatever search parameters they entered. None of the respondents
indicated that they were ever taught or shown how to navigate or use the tool, and no
interviewees who had used the tool reported receiving helpful or career-enhancing information.
Issues that created a negative impression of the website included outdated user information and
its design.
FP1 shared her experience using the mentoring website to try and find her first mentor.
She recalled that “there were a lot of people registered in the tool who were either no longer with
the organization or no longer in that department.” Although she eventually found her first
mentor, she bypassed the tool altogether to find her second mentor. FN3 and MN3 shared similar
experiences with outdated information impacting their ability to find a mentor, adding that they
“never received any information from the tool.” Neither MN4 nor MP3 recalled anything
positive about the website, calling it just “a place to register and find mentor,” with MN4 adding
that he did not “think there are any tools to help with being a protégé.”
MN1 commented that he “tried using the tool but was not successful.” He added, “maybe
I did something wrong, but it didn’t work out.” He recognized that ATEPS having a mentoring
103

tool is a good thing, but “it needs to be improved; there is no feedback loop built into the
system.” He explained that there is no way to know if someone has been requested to be a
mentor, leaving prospective protégés waiting indefinitely for a response. He summarized his
experience by concluding,
It seems that your chances of getting mentored are better if you just go to someone and
say, “Hey, would you consider mentoring me?” And then hope that they will accept. If
they do, you are one of the lucky ones.
Referencing the website’s construction, FP1 commented that it was “an outdated tool on a
browser that was being phased out,” while FN1 recollected that her attempt to use the website
“did not go as well as I wanted,” focusing her comments on the user interface: “I was not happy
with it, it was not great.”
Summary of Results and Finding for Organizational Training and Tools
Both quantitative and qualitative results support an underutilization of the ATEPS
mentoring website and associated tools, as well as low participation in available training. The
lack of awareness of a mentoring website and low participation in training would help explain
gaps in employee factual, procedural, and conceptual knowledge about mentoring. The various
website issues which the interviewees identified provide insight into why the website and its
associated tools have not received better acceptance or utilization among the ATEPS workforce.
Other Organizational Influences
The following section presents additional qualitative results and findings related to other
organizational influences not specifically related to culture or policies. The themes presented in
this section emerged during interview data analysis. The themes provide additional insight into
104

ATEPS employee perspectives on the organization and reflect factors that might influence
employees’ participation in mentoring.
Qualitative Findings and Results for Other Organizational Influences
Listening to ATEPS employees describe their experiences with onboarding and
attempting to identify a mentor led to the discovery of two themes not related to a specific
organizational policy or element of the organization’s culture but which appear to have an impact
on participation in mentoring. These themes were the lack of someone to help the new employee
acclimate to the organization, referred to as a navigator buddy, and an inadequate pool of
potential mentors from which prospective protégés could choose.
Navigator Buddy. Interviewees used the phrase “navigator buddy” to describe a more
senior or experienced employee assigned to help new employees find their way through the
confusion associated with their first few weeks or months on the job. Navigator buddies were
described as people who could facilitate the onboarding experience and help establish a firm
foundation to support the new employee’s transition to the organization. In this capacity,
navigator buddies were described as providing informal mentoring to the new employees,
connecting the new employee to required resources, building networks and providing required
factual or procedural knowledge during the new employee’s first few weeks or months on the
job. However, not all interviewees shared this positive initial mentoring experience.
Nine interviewees indicated they did not have a navigator buddy to help them. These
employees reported experiencing various levels of frustration as they struggled with basic
administrative functions required to fully work as productive members of their team. FN1
recalled that, as a new employee, she was “just so lost at everything” that her efforts seemed
inadequate. Several participants shared that they would “ask a teammate for help” if they had a
105

question, and, in most cases, they received the information that they needed. MP1 reflected that
had he not spent several years at ATEPS as a contractor and known whom to go to for help, “it
probably would have been a very different experience.”
MP2 compared the military and civilian models for onboarding new employees at
ATEPS. In his assessment, MP2 offered that “the civilian side should model its program after the
military, where someone is assigned to each new employee to mentor them.” The lack of
guidance and support was noted by MP3, who recalled wondering when he would be provided
the training and information he needed to do his job. Several people commented on the impact
that COVID had on their onboarding experience, noting that a navigator buddy might have
helped them overcome the additional hurdles caused by the organization’s pandemic-induced
telework posture. Two participants who were assigned a navigator buddy shared that, in their
opinions, it did not help much. FP2 recalled that “the person was more focused on outside work
stuff and less focused on work-related business,” while FP3 described the experience as “helpful
for the first few days, but of no benefit beyond that.”
Pool of Potential Mentors. The size and composition of the pool of available mentors
affect prospective protégés’ ability to enter into a meaningful mentoring relationship. To
understand what ATEPS employees think about the pool of potential mentors, interviewees were
asked to comment on the size and composition of the ATEPS mentoring pool and if it impacted
their ability to find a mentor. Eight interviewees responded that the pool of possible mentors
registered on the mentoring website was inadequate, citing a lack of breadth, depth, and
diversity.
Despite the organization’s size, a lack of adequate representation from each functional
area was noted as a limitation. FN1 relayed that she searched the database of potential mentors
106

but was unable to find anyone whose career path aligned with hers. FN3 shared a similar
experience, noting that there was “a limited number of people from my functional area to choose
from.” The relative seniority of the registered mentors and the lack of mid-grade employees who
were willing to serve as mentors intimidated several interviewees. FP2 recalled, “all I could find
was a senior executive or people who were pretty high up, not someone I could relate to.” MN4
shared a similar experience, expressing his opinion that “most of the senior people can’t relate to
being a new employee,” which is why he has not looked for a mentor. FN2 commented that
although a lot of great people worked at ATEPS, she also found the seniority of people who
show up as potential mentors to be intimidating. With regard to diversity, employees noted the
lack of people of color (FN1, MP2) and women (FN3) who were registered to serve as mentors
as an area the organization needed to address. In offering his assessment of the pool, MN1
described it as “muddy and murky,” further explaining that “you have people to ask, but you
don’t know what you are getting.”
Summary of Results and Finding for Other Organizational Influences
Qualitative data appears to support the presence of other organizational influences that
negatively impact employee participation in the ATEPS mentoring program. The absence of
someone to help new employees navigate their first few months at the organization slows their
transition into the organization by delaying access to information and resources. Although survey
results indicated that the ATEPS workforce did not have an issue being mentored by someone of
a different gender or race, interviewees expressed their concerns about the size, depth, and
composition of the pool of potential mentors.
107

Summary of Results and Findings for Organizational Influences
Analysis of quantitative and qualitative data suggests that despite the belief that the
ATEPS culture supports mentoring, barriers inhibit participation. The perception that finding a
mentor is nothing more than a check in the block/box and the use of qualifiers to describe the
perceived support from supervisors for participation in mentoring activities undermines the
organization’s efforts to promote mentoring. These themes support a counter-narrative to the
perspectives on organizational culture, which may erode the credibility of ATEPS efforts to
support employee growth and development. It appears that employee growth and development
and participation in mentoring are negatively impacted by the ATEPS mentoring website and
associated tools, as well as a limited pool of prospective mentors. Compounding the effects of
culture, policy, training, and tools is the absence of someone to help new employees navigate
their first few months at ATEPS.
Results and Findings for Sense of Belonging
The following section provides the results and findings for sense of belonging. Survey
questions sought to identify if participation in the ATEPS mentoring program helped employees
assimilate into the organization. Interview questions were designed to explore and explain the
role that mentoring played in assisting employees with their transition to the organization. Each
section begins with survey results and findings, followed by interview results and findings, and
concludes with a summary.
Quantitative Results and Findings for Sense of Belonging
The impact of mentoring on new employee transition to ATEPS and employee
development of organizational ties were assessed to determine what impact, if any, mentors had
on new employees’ sense of belonging. The only significant difference was noted among
108

employees who had earned graduate degrees, f(145) = 5.68, p<.01. Table 27 provides descriptive
statistics and ANOVA for sense of belonging.

Table 27
Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA, Sense of Belonging
Comparison N M SD df t F d p*
Sample 146 3.62 0.96
Highest degree
Graduate
Undergrad or less

47
99

3.35
3.25

0.99
0.93
1 2.38 5.68 0.01

Note. 95% CI utilized for calculating p values.

109

In assessing the impact of mentoring on employee sense of belonging, 64.8% of
respondents (n = 145) indicated that mentoring helped them feel like they belong at the
organization. When asked to assess their mentors’ support for their transition to ATEPS, 56.1%
of employees with a mentor (n = 146) believed that their mentor was either very important or
extremely important in facilitating their transition to the organization, while 21.9% indicated that
their mentor was moderately important in facilitating their transition.
Qualitative Results and Findings for Sense of Belonging
Although nine interviewees indicated they felt they belonged at the organizations, no
specific theme emerged to help explain employee sense of belonging. Only MP1 and MN1
attributed their sense of belonging to their mentor. Although MP1 did not provide a specific
reason, action, or example of what his mentor had said or done to influence his sense of
belonging, MN1 recalled a time when he was new to the organization and “the call I received
from my mentor prevented me from quitting.” He further explained that he was “frustrated and
needed someone to talk to,” and his mentor was there to help him. Although not currently in a
mentoring relationship, MN4 commented that “mentoring absolutely impacts someone’s sense of
belonging,” adding that “the social aspect of mentoring helps you feel connected.”
FP2, FN1, FN3, and MP2 credited their team or a teammate with helping them develop
their sense of belonging. FP2 cited the members of her team as being “warm and always there to
help her,” while FN1 acknowledged that although she was not happy with the work she was
doing, her new team lead “helped me feel more like I belonged.” MP2 noted that his team helped
with “the transition from the military to the civil service,” which influenced his sense of
belonging. Although he did not specifically mention his team or teammates as influencing or
helping to inform his sense of belonging, MN3 added that he equates sense of belonging with “a
110

sense of camaraderie” that he associated with “working towards a common goal and achieving
shared success.” Reflecting on her time at ATEPS, FP3 recalled not feeling a sense of belonging
as a new employee, but this feeling “slowly changed as a function of the type of work being
assigned” and her “level of knowledge” within her functional areas.
It is worth noting that a factor that negatively impacted employee sense of belonging for
four interviewees was the COVID-19 remote work/telework posture that ATEPS adopted during
the pandemic. Remote work/telework was identified as a barrier that prevented these employees
from developing personal and professional relationships with their co-workers and exchanging
information. FP3 commented, “it was hard to feel a sense of belonging when you are the only
person in the building.” FN2 believed that “COVID induced a reduced sense of belonging” in her
current team than in previous teams “due to remote work.” MN4 offered a slightly different
perspective on sense of belonging, describing what he felt was a “loss of inclusivity,” which he
associated with “people not knowing what was going on or being kept aware of what other
people are working on.”
Summary of Results and Findings for Sense of Belonging
The was no alignment between the quantitative and qualitative results and findings for
sense of belonging. Whereas survey data indicated that ATEPS employees believed mentoring
could help build a connection to the organization, only two interviewees provided supporting
commentary describing the influence mentoring had on their sense of belonging. For a few
interviewees, the support they received from their team or a specific team member had a greater
influence on their sense of belonging.
111

Summary of Results and Findings
Analysis of demographic data from the survey indicates that the composition of the
respondents closely reflected the broader ATEPS population with regard to the composition of
underrepresented communities. However, the percent of female respondents was higher than the
actual composition of the ATEPS workforce. A total of 343 completed surveys were used in the
quantitative analysis, with responses binned according to demographic categories to determine if
there were differences within or among groups. Data for the qualitative analysis were obtained
via interviews with 12 ATEPS employees who were randomly selected from a group of 62
volunteers. Interview responses were coded using a priori and emerging themes, with a minimum
of six common responses required to establish a theme or code.
Results and findings generated from analysis of the quantitative data reflected broad gaps
in ATEPS employee procedural, factual and conceptual knowledge regarding mentoring as well
as advancement. The gaps in mentoring related knowledge could be attributed to low awareness
and utilization of the ATEPS mentoring website as well as low participation in mentoring
classes. Gaps in procedural knowledge appear to inhibit both employee advancement and
participation in mentoring, despite the recognition that engagement in a mentoring relationship
may help overcome barriers to advancement. Gaps in employee knowledge related to the
attributes required for a successful mentoring relationship were also noted.
In the area of employee motivation, survey results uncovered deficits in employee self-
efficacy in relation to having a positive mentoring experience or believing that mentoring would
help employees build a professional network, despite an acknowledgement of the importance of
a professional network for career success. Data also suggest that employees do not value
participation in the ATEPS mentoring program, despite acknowledging the importance of
112

mentoring. With regard to organizational influences, survey data suggests that ATEPS
employees believe that current policies and culture support participation in mentoring. The data
also supports the assertion that having a mentor increases employee sense of belonging.
The narrative that emerged from the interviews generally supported the quantitative
findings for knowledge; however, there were differences in the motivation and organizational
influence domains. Emergent themes related to employee knowledge included not knowing how
to be a protégé, not possessing the requisite skills, or not understanding what mentoring was
about. In the area of motivation, ATEPS employees valued the psychosocial support derived
from a positive mentoring relationship and perceived value in the ability of a mentoring
relationship to help build a professional network. However, interviewees were unable to provide
more than one or two benefits that a professional network can enable. Employees engaged in a
positive mentoring relationship reported greater self-efficacy toward success in mentoring than
employees who had had a negative mentoring experience or who were not currently involved in
a mentoring relationship.
With regard to organizational influences, ATEPS employees described the existing
mentoring policy as a check in the block, without consequences for people who did not comply,
and provided qualifiers to describe supervisor or work center-imposed limitations on
participation in mentoring, challenging the strong quantitative findings for organizational culture.
Interviewees indicated they lacked awareness of available training and expressed dissatisfaction
with the existing mentoring website and associated tools. Additional findings related to
organizational influences included new employees not having support to help navigate the
organization and an inadequate pool of prospective mentors.
113

Chapter Five will present proposed solutions to address the gaps in knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences suggested by the data. The output of Clark and Estes’s
(2008) gap analysis will be used to develop an organizational scorecard to monitor and track
progress toward achieving the organization’s goals. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) new
world model will be introduced and used as a framework for developing an intervention program
to address the respective KMO gaps. Specific recommendations for ATEPS leadership are also
provided.
114

Chapter Five: Discussion, Recommendations and Evaluation
Chapter Four presented the results and findings from the survey and interviews to address
the first research question. The first research question sought to identify the knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences required to support employee engagement in the
ATEPS mentoring program. Chapter Five addresses the second research question: “What are the
recommendations associated with employee knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences required to achieve the stated organizational goals?” This chapter provides specific
solutions to address the gaps identified within an organizationally specific construct. Finally, the
chapter will conclude with a proposed implementation and evaluation plan to address each of the
proposed recommendations to address the identified gaps.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine barriers to establishing work-based mentoring
relationships and the impact they have on the retention and advancement of employees from
underrepresented populations who work in the federal government. The study addressed two key
questions:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences required to support
employee engagement in the ATEPS mentoring program?
2. What are the recommendations associated with employee knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences required to achieve the stated organizational goals?
Organizational Goal
The specific organization goal supported by this study is achieving 75% employee
participation in the ATEPS mentoring program. However, involvement in the program supports
broader ATEPS goals, including improving organizational diversity by addressing retention and
115

advancement of employees from underrepresented populations. Participation in mentoring
programs and improved retention and advancement of employees from underrepresented
communities aligns with goals established by President Biden in Executive Order 14035 (The
White House, 2021a), as well as the government-wide Strategic Plan to Advance Diversity,
Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce (The White House, 2021b).
Discussion, Solutions and Recommendations
This study utilized Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis model to help identify gaps that
prevent ATEPS from achieving its organizational mentoring goal. The model provided a
framework to assess individual and organizational influences in relation to achieving this goal.
Output from the model was utilized to develop recommendations to address the identified gaps.
Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Framework
This study employed Clark and Estes’s (2008) approach to gap analysis to determine if
there were knowledge or motivation deficits among ATEPS employees or organizational barriers
that reduced employee participation in the ATEPS mentoring program. Clark and Estes asserted
that deficits in knowledge or motivation, organizational barriers, or a misalignment between
these three factors could prevent an organization from achieving established performance goals
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Tracing overarching organizational goals to specific performance goals
facilitates the identification of performance gaps. These gaps can then be analyzed to determine
which of the three influences, or which combination of them, is responsible for the
underperformance.
The scope of evaluation and analysis for the knowledge component was limited to
employee factual, procedural, and conceptual knowledge of mentoring and advancement. The
scope of evaluation and analysis for the motivation component was limited to the evaluation and
116

analysis of employee self-efficacy for, and utility value of, participation in the ATEPS mentoring
program. The scope of evaluation and analysis for the organizational barrier component was
limited to the influences of policy, culture, training and associated resources on employee
participation in mentoring. Consistent with the method described by Clark and Estes (2008), the
systematic approach to root cause analysis utilized in this study facilitated the identification of
strategies to address and remediate the respective gaps in employee knowledge and motivation
and address the organizational barriers which are preventing ATEPS from achieving the
organization’s mentoring goal.
Optimized Organizational Scorecard
Figure 3 provides a notional organizational scorecard based on Clark and Estes’s (2008)
framework, depicting the interactions among and between the individual and organizational
components evaluated in this study. The notional scorecard reflects an optimized condition in
which there are no gaps in individual or organizational components. In the optimized scorecard,
it is conceptualized that the research literature supports the interactions among and between
components to achieve the overarching organizational goal.

117

Figure 3
Optimized Organizational Scorecard

Current ATEPS Organizational Scorecard
Figure 4 provides the current ATEPS organizational scorecard, depicting the interactions
among and between the individual and organizational components evaluated in this study. The
ATEPS scorecard reflects a sub-optimum condition, with gaps identified in each of the
individual and organizational components evaluated. In the ATEPS scorecard, the interaction
among and between components negatively impacts the attainment of the organization’s
mentoring goal. This suggests that achieving the goal of 75% participation in the mentoring
program requires remediating the gaps.

118

Figure 4
Current ATEPS Mentoring Scorecard

Learning, Motivation, and Organizational Theories
The following section provides an overview of the theories used to support the
development of targeted interventions to address the gaps in knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences presented in Chapter Four. It leverages Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap
analysis framework and incorporates specific theories to explain how a gap in a particular
component of the mentoring scorecard (Figure 4) impacts ATEPS’s ability to achieve its
organizational goal for mentoring program participation. A brief overview of each theory is
provided, along with an explanation of how the theory relates to specific study findings and how
the theory can be used to help address the specified gap.
119

The following section provides component-specific theories that support the knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences included in the ATEPS mentoring scorecard (Figure 4).
A brief explanation of the theory and how it relates to the respective component is provided.
Each section concludes by connecting the theory to an identified gap and explains how ATEPS
can apply the theory to help achieve the mentoring goal.
Knowledge
In describing the importance of employee knowledge in relation to achieving an
organizational goal, Clark and Estes (2008) asserted that employees must have the prerequisite
knowledge to achieve the established goal or neither the individual nor, subsequently, the
organization will be successful. To achieve a desired level of performance, employees must
know what needs to be done (factual knowledge), how to do it (procedural knowledge) and how
their performance relates to overarching organizational goals (conceptual knowledge). When
gaps in employee knowledge are identified, organizations must implement appropriate, targeted
interventions designed to address the specific knowledge gaps to change performance outcomes.
Factual Knowledge
Study findings indicate that ATEPS employees possess a suboptimal level of factual
knowledge about mentoring. Krathwohl (2002) addressed the impact of factual knowledge on
learning outcomes in his revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of learning. According to Krathwohl,
factual knowledge consists of the foundational information, including terminology and details,
that a person must know and be able to recall to be successful in a given domain. A person with
the required factual knowledge will be able to apply the information and achieve positive results.
Based on the study findings, ATEPS must work to improve employee factual knowledge about
mentoring to improve their participation in the ATEPS mentoring program. Information
120

processing theory (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006) suggests that to develop mastery, individuals
must acquire component skills, practice integrating them, and know when to apply what they
have learned. To realize the full benefits of meaningful learning, individuals must be provided an
opportunity to connect learning to their individual interests. This would suggest that providing
ATEPS employees with dedicated training on the components of effective mentoring and
demonstrating how mentoring can help individuals achieve career goals would help increase
employee participation in the ATEPS mentoring program.
Procedural Knowledge
Study findings indicate that ATEPS employees possess a suboptimal level of procedural
knowledge about mentoring, including how to use the mentoring website and associated tools.
Krathwohl (2002) described the impact of procedural knowledge on learning outcomes in his
revision of Bloom’s taxonomy. According to Krathwohl, procedural knowledge addresses how
to do something and includes subject-specific skills, techniques, and understanding when to use a
specific procedure. A person with the required level of procedural knowledge will be able to
identify and execute the appropriate procedure required to accomplish a specific task. Based on
this study’s findings, ATEPS must improve employee procedural knowledge regarding the
mentoring website and associated tools to address the gap and improve employee participation in
the ATEPS mentoring program. As a function of social cognitive theory, modeling to-be-learned
strategies or behaviors improves self-efficacy, learning, and performance (Denler et al., 2014).
Organizations that implement demonstrations and modeling can help learners acquire the new
behaviors required to achieve an established goal (Denler et al., 2014). This would suggest that
including demonstrations of how to use the ATEPS mentoring tool to access information and
121

engage in a mentoring relationship would help increase employee participation in the ATEPS
mentoring program.
Conceptual Knowledge
Study findings indicate that ATEPS employees possess a suboptimal level of conceptual
knowledge about the attributes of a healthy mentoring relationship and what benefits mentoring
should provide a protégé. Krathwohl (2002) described the impact of conceptual knowledge on
learning outcomes in his revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of learning. According to Krathwohl,
conceptual knowledge reflects the cognitive process through which an individual integrates
various types of knowledge of a subject in a manner that enables them to use the totality of
information learned. A person with a strong conceptual knowledge of mentoring would be able
to engage in a positive mentoring relationship and realize the intended benefits. Based on this
study’s findings, ATEPS must improve employee conceptual knowledge regarding mentoring to
address the gap and improve employee participation in the ATEPS mentoring program.
Motivation
Describing the importance of employee motivation in relation to achieving an
organizational goal, Clark and Estes (2008) asserted that employee motivation determines which
goals they will pursue, how hard they will work to achieve them, and their level of persistence.
To achieve a desired level of performance, employees must believe that there is value in
pursuing the goal and that they are capable of reaching it. When gaps in employee motivation are
identified, organizations must implement appropriate, targeted interventions designed to improve
employee self-efficacy and utility value to change performance outcomes.
122

Self-efficacy
Study findings indicate that ATEPS employees without a mentor or employees who had a
negative mentoring experience possess suboptimal levels of confidence in their ability to
participate in mentoring successfully. Bandura (1977) described the importance of self-efficacy
in relation to achieving established goals. According to Bandura, the perceived degree of
difficulty of a goal and the associated level of effort an individual is willing to put forth to
achieve it depend on the individual’s belief that they can accomplish the goal. A person who
believes they can succeed in mentoring will be more willing to participate in activities that help
identify a potential mentor and perform the follow-up actions required to develop and mature a
long-term mentoring relationship. ATEPS must improve employee self-efficacy regarding
mentoring to address the gap and improve participation in the ATEPS mentoring program.
Utility Value
Study findings indicate that although ATEPS employees believe there is value in
mentoring, they do not believe that there is value in participating in the ATEPS mentoring
program. Pintrich (2003) described the importance of the perceived value of an activity in
relation to an individual’s motivation to participate in it. According to Pintrich, individuals are
more motivated to participate in activities they believe will provide them benefits or help them
achieve a specific goal. Employees who see the benefits of participating in ATEPS-sponsored
mentoring activities in relation to achieving their career goals will be more motivated to
participate. Thus, ATEPS must improve employee utility value regarding participation in the
mentoring program to address this gap.
123

Organizational Influences
Describing the importance of organizational influences in relation to achieving an
organizational goal, Clark and Estes (2008) asserted that an organization with a positive culture
that supports employee growth and development, provides required resources, and eliminates
barriers such as outdated or conflicting policies and procedures will increase the likelihood of
achieving overarching performance goals. However, a misalignment between an organization’s
goals, culture, policies, and resources might decrease employee performance. When gaps in
employee performance associated with organizational influences are identified, organizations
must implement appropriate, targeted interventions designed to address the root cause to change
performance outcomes.
Culture
Although study findings indicate that ATEPS employees generally agree that the
organizations culture supports participation in mentoring, the presence of qualifiers in survey
responses is an indicator of a suboptimal condition. Bolman and Deal (2017) addressed the
importance of organizational culture in accomplishing organizational goals. According to
Bolman and Deal, organizational culture helps employees resolve confusion and find common
ground and purpose. Employees who see disparities in organizational support regarding how the
mentoring program is implemented across an organization will be less likely to participate in
mentoring-related activities. To address this gap, ATEPS must ensure the shared beliefs and
assumptions regarding participation in mentoring support employee participation.
Policy
Study findings indicate a disparity in employee beliefs regarding how organizational
policy impacts employee participation in mentoring. Bolman and Deal (2017) identified the
124

importance of establishing and maintaining policies and procedures to define and standardize
organizational behaviors and performance. According to Bolman and Deal, failure to conform to
established standards may negatively impact communication, retard growth and development,
and prevent the organization from executing its mission. Employees who do not see alignment
and consistent application of policies intended to promote mentoring will be less likely to
participate in the mentoring program. Therefore, ATEPS must ensure the consistent application
of policies intended to promote mentoring to address this gap.
Resources
Study findings indicate that the ATEPS mentoring website and training do not provide
employees with the information they require to successfully engage in mentoring activities.
Clark and Estes (2008) addressed the importance of training and tools in relation to achieving
organizational goals. According to Clark and Estes, inadequate training and tools are a barrier
that may prevent employees from acquiring the necessary knowledge and skills required to
achieve a desired level of performance. Employees who are unaware of existing training
opportunities or unable to access and utilize existing tools will not acquire the knowledge and
information necessary to engage in the mentoring program. Therefore, ATEPS must improve
employee awareness and utilization of mentoring-related training and tools to address this gap.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The following section provides an integrated approach to address the gaps in employee
knowledge and motivation as well as the organization influences that were responsible for the
suboptimal conditions identified in the ATEPS organizational scorecard for mentoring (Figure
4). The Kirkpatrick new world model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) is introduced and used
as a framework to present an implementation and evaluation plan to help ATEPS achieve its
125

organizational goal for participation in the organization’s mentoring program. Specific indicators
or actions with associated metrics, methods of data collection, and reporting periodicity, which
ATEPS can use to evaluate progress in each phase of the implementation and evaluation plan,
are also provided.
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The mission of ATEPS is to design, develop, test and evaluate, acquire and sustain
weapon systems and associated support equipment for the military. A mentoring program was
implemented as a component of its strategic plan to support employee growth and development.
However, poor participation by both junior and senior members of the organization undermined
efforts to facilitate the transfer of knowledge and expertise required to optimally execute
ATEPS’s mission. Additionally, the lack of career development and support associated with
effective mentoring has been cited by employees from underrepresented communities as a
primary reason for leaving the organization. To promote employee growth, development, and
retention, ATEPS established an organizational goal of participation by 75% of the workforce in
the mentoring program.
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The implementation and evaluation framework proposed for this effort is based on the
Kirkpatrick new world model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Based on the original model
proposed in the 1950s, the revised model provides a four-level approach to assessing a training
program’s effectiveness in relation to achieving an organization’s goal. The new model reverses
the order of the original model’s four levels and adds the element of leading indicators to help
assess progress toward achieving established goals (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Beginning
with the end in mind, Level 4 focuses on achieving the desired results that are most important to
126

the organization. Leading indicators that incorporate performance metrics related to the desired
outcome are used to monitor progress after providing training. The leading indicators help
identify areas where additional support or intervention may be required. Level 3 of the model
focuses on the behaviors required of both the employee and the organization to achieve the
desired results. The model refers to employee behaviors required to achieve the desired outcome
as “critical behaviors,” while the term “required drivers” is used to describe those behaviors
(including monitoring, reinforcing, encouraging, and rewarding) that support the critical
behaviors (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The second level of the model focuses on the
training content and includes the knowledge and skills required to achieve the outcomes
identified in Level 4. The final level of the model, Level 1, reflects the participants’ assessment
of and reaction to the training provided.
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) new world model provides multiple layers of
accountability. Starting with identifying the organization’s goals and incorporating a behavioral
focus that spans the entire organization (how participants apply the behaviors, knowledge and
skills learned in training and how the organization supports implementing the learned behaviors,
knowledge and skills and remediates identified barriers), the framework supports attaining the
desired goals while providing ample opportunities to demonstrate to stakeholders the value of the
training effort.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
It is important that organizations establish short-term and mid-term goals to assist in
assessing progress toward achieving the overarching long-term goal. The short and mid-term
goals serve as leading indicators and provide the organization with important information
regarding the effectiveness of the training program on employee performance (Kirkpatrick &
127

Kirkpatrick, 2016). Leading indicators also provide a means to assess the impact of actions taken
by the organization to eliminate barriers or address other resource constraints preventing the
achievement of desired outcomes. Table 28 shows the proposed results and leading indicators
(Level 4) in the form of outcomes, metrics and methods for both external and internal outcomes
for ATEPS. If the proposed training and associated organizational support lead to achieving the
internal outcomes, then the identified external outcomes should also be realized.

128

Table 28
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metrics Methods
External outcomes
Recognition by OPM for achieving
federal goals for organizational
diversity
ATEPS workforce
composition represented
by demographic
percentages
Annual OPM workforce
survey report
Recognition by Secretary of the Navy
for achieving Department of the
Navy goals for Organizational
Diversity
ATEPS workforce
composition represented
by demographic
percentages
Annual Department of
the Navy EEO Report
Recognition by Department of
Defense Diversity and Inclusion
Board
ATEPS workforce
composition represented
by demographic
percentages
Department of Defense
Diversity and
Inclusion Board
annual report
Internal outcomes
Increased participation in the ATEPS
mentoring program

Number of enrolled
mentors and protégés
Mentoring program
office quarterly report
Decreased annual attrition rate of
employees from underrepresented
communities
ATEPS workforce
composition represented
by demographic
percentages
Semi-annual human
resource report
Increased organizational diversity ATEPS Workforce
composition represented
by demographic
percentages
Semi-annual human
resource report

Level 3: Critical Behaviors
Critical behaviors are the specific observable and measurable on-the-job actions required
of the stakeholders of focus to bring about the desired outcome (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). At ATEPS, the stakeholders of focus for the critical behaviors are the employees who
have been at the organization for less than 5 years, are not involved in mentoring, have not taken
any mentoring skills training classes, or are not using the existing mentoring website and tools.
129

The first critical behavior they must learn relates to the knowledge and skills required to be a
protégé. The second critical behavior they must learn is using the mentoring website to identify
and select a mentor and obtain career-enhancing information. The third critical behavior required
is participation in a regularly scheduled mentoring session with their mentor. As ATEPS updates
course content to incorporate knowledge and skills essential for protégé success and updates its
mentoring website with mentor contact and career-enhancing information, data collected
throughout Level 3 will allow the mentor program manager and human resource officer to
monitor progress toward achieving the mid-term and long-term goals. Leaders can use the data to
take specific actions to correct, reinforce and reward behaviors as required. The specific metrics,
methods, and timing for each of these critical behaviors appear in Table 29.

Table 29
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical behavior Metrics
Methods
Timing
Complete two ATEPS-sponsored
mentoring skills training classes
within 6 months of completing new
employee orientation.
Percentage of new
employees
completing training
Mentoring site
lead report
Quarterly
Use the ATEPS mentoring tool at
least once a month.
Monthly log-in info Mentoring site
lead report
Monthly
Identify a personal mentor within 6
months after completing the
ATEPS-sponsored mentoring skills
training classes.
Number of mentoring
dyads registered in
the ATEPS
mentoring tool
Self-reporting
in mentoring
tool
Quarterly
Participate in a monthly mentoring
session with their mentor.
Log in info Self-reporting
in mentoring
tool
Monthly

130

Required Drivers
Required drivers are the specific actions that “reinforce, monitor, encourage and reward
performance of the critical behaviors” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 53). To maximize the
potential for success of an organization’s change initiative, it is imperative that leadership fully
support the efforts of their subordinates, provide timely feedback and encouragement, and, when
required, course correction. To achieve its goals, the ATEPS mentoring program will need the
help of work center supervisors to promote training completion and participation in mentoring
activities. Table 30 identifies the recommended drivers for ATEPS leadership to incorporate to
help reinforce, encourage, and support the critical behaviors of the new employees.

Table 28
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Methods Timing
Critical behaviors
supported
1, 2, 3, etc.
Reinforcing (knowledge)
Work center supervisor includes a discussion of the
individual’s progress completing training or engaging
in mentoring activities during semi-annual
performance reviews.
Every 6
months
1, 2, 3, 4
Mentoring program manager provides each protégé with
a job aid explaining how to access the mentoring
website and tools.
Ongoing 1, 2
Mentoring program manager provides each protégé with
a job aid explaining the critical information and skills a
protégé requires to successfully participate in
mentoring.
Ongoing 1, 2
Mentoring program manager sponsors monthly brown
bag lunches to provide refresher training on critical
skills.
Ongoing 1
Reinforcing (motivation)
Mentoring website recognizes new protégés who have
completed training.
Ongoing 1
131

Methods Timing
Critical behaviors
supported
1, 2, 3, etc.
Mentoring program manager highlights employees’
mentoring success stories on the ATEPS mentoring
website.
Ongoing 2, 3, 4
Encouraging (knowledge)
Work center supervisors informally follow up with direct
reports to assess progress made to complete training.
Ongoing 1
Work center supervisors informally follow up with direct
reports to assess progress made engaging in mentoring
activities.
Ongoing 2, 3, 4
Work center supervisors provide coaching to direct
reports who report having difficulty accessing the
mentoring tools.
Ongoing 2
Encouraging (motivation)
Work center supervisors discuss value of participating in
mentoring activities during informal follow-ups.
Ongoing 2, 4
Work center supervisors offer to help direct reports who
are not participating in mentoring activities.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3, 4
Rewarding (knowledge)
Mentoring program manager presents coffee shop gift
cards to four protégés who completed mentoring skills
training.
Quarterly 1
Rewarding (motivation)
Mentoring program manager presents coffee shop gift
cards to four protégés who have participated in three
mentoring program activities (including mentoring
sessions or mentoring program-sponsored brown bag
lunches) in a quarter.
Quarterly 2, 4
Monitoring
Mentoring program manager informally follows up with
work center supervisors to assess level of employee
engagement in training and mentoring activities.
Monthly 1, 2, 3, 4
Mentoring program manager uses a mentoring dashboard
to track new employee participation in training,
website access and participation in mentoring
activities.
Monthly 1, 2, 3, 4
Mentoring program manager reviews the mentoring
dashboard and scorecard with ATEPS leadership team.
Quarterly 1, 2, 3, 4

132

Organizational Support
Improving participation in the mentoring program will be challenging in addressing
employees’ knowledge and motivation gaps and eliminating organizational barriers to their
participation in mentoring while managing a large and diverse portfolio of programs and
projects. Thus, ATEPS leaders must communicate a clear vision of why mentoring program
changes are being made and define the roles and responsibilities of each member of the
organization in relation to how they can improve the mentoring program. This must specifically
include the work center supervisors’ role in the day-to-day monitoring, reinforcing, encouraging,
and rewarding of their employees’ efforts to participate in mentoring training and related
activities. Leadership’s failure to (a) clearly communicate its support of the mentoring program
during all phases of the change initiative, (b) provide the necessary resources, (c) set reasonable
and realistic goals, (d) hold itself accountable to its action plan, and (e) provide timely
recognition for achieving the established goals will erode employee trust and, ultimately,
negatively impact the critical behaviors required to achieve the desired outcomes.
Level 2: Learning
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) discussed the value that learning provides an
organization in terms of improved individual job performance, improved organizational results,
and achievement of organizational goals. In the new world model, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick
(2016) described learning (Level 2) as the extent to which participants acquire the intended
knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment from a learning or training program.
Within the context of mentoring, a learning program that addresses the specific gaps on the
ATEPS mentoring scorecard will support changes in employee behaviors required to increase
133

mentoring participation and help eliminate the organizational barriers that restrict employee use
of mentoring tools and engagement in career-enhancing mentoring activities.
Learning Goals
This section presents specific learning goals to help ATEPS implement a change
initiative to increase participation in its mentoring program. The learning goals reflect the
knowledge and skills required to remediate the gaps in employee knowledge and motivation and
form a framework to support the development of an organization-specific training program.
Starting with the end in mind, learning goals represent the results that should be expected from
each ATEPS employee following training completion. After completion of the mentoring
training, ATEPS employees will be able to
• Demonstrate how to access the ATEPS mentoring website and tools,
• Demonstrate how to sign up for ATEPS mentoring classes,
• Provide a conceptual understanding of the benefits of mentoring and explain how
mentoring can positively impact a protégés career,
• Identify the components of a mentoring relationship,
• Explain the traits and attributes required to be a successful protégé,
• Explain what traits a protégé should consider when selecting a mentor,
• Identify specific skills they need to improve to increase their likelihood of success
with mentoring, and
• Explain the value that participation in mentoring provides.
Program
The following section provides an implementation plan to address employee knowledge
and motivation gaps and mitigate the organizational influences preventing ATEPS from
134

achieving its mentoring participation goal. The first part of the implementation plan provides
specific actions required to support a protégé training program aligned with the eight learning
goals. The second part provides specific actions to address organizational influences, including
updates to the mentoring website and tools, enhancing mentor knowledge, expanding the pool of
mentors, eliminating negative cultural influences, and establishing a peer mentoring program.
Protégé Training
The learning goals identified in the previous section will be achieved through
participation in two separate training events designed to (a) introduce ATEPS employees to the
organization’s mentoring program and tools and (b) provide them with the factual and procedural
knowledge required to engage in the full spectrum of mentoring activities. Training will be
conducted in person and provide 8.5 hours of instruction. Employees will be asked to bring their
computers to facilitate and promote the exploration of the mentoring website and tools.
The first training session will replace the current mentoring overview class, which is
conducted as part of the new employee orientation program. This class will last 30 minutes and
provide participants with a conceptual understanding of what mentoring is, review the benefits
that a mentoring relationship can provide, and conclude with an overview of the mentoring
website. Using the first class to address the first three learning goals will ensure that ATEPS
employees have a strong foundation to support their future mentoring activities. Introducing new
employees to the mentoring program during their indoctrination will establish mentoring as an
organizational priority and instantiate participation in mentoring as a cultural norm.
The ATEPS mentoring program manager will schedule each employee for the second
training session 5–6 months after completion of the new employee orientation program. The
focus of the second class will be learning the components of a mentoring relationship, the traits
135

and skills required to be a successful protégé, how to select a mentor, and ways to increase the
value of a mentoring relationship. The class will include an individual skills assessment, online
practice locating and selecting a pool of potential mentors from the online mentoring tool, role-
play exercises to simulate a mentor-protégé interview and a discussion of additional training
classes and resources available to ATEPS employees and how to register for them. Employees
will be encouraged to bring their computers to this class to facilitate the online practice sessions
and gain experience navigating the mentoring website and tools.
To help reinforce the material taught during each class, the mentoring program office will
work with the public affairs department to produce and upload to the mentoring website a series
of short videos called Mentoring Minutes, which will be developed around and based upon the
learning goals. Each mentoring minute video will address a specific protégé skill or knowledge
area and include a self-check feature employees can use to assess their learning. Protégés or
mentors will be able to access the Mentoring Minute videos at any time, supporting
individualized learning at a time that is most convenient for the learner. Additional videos will be
created and added to the library based on feedback from the ATEPS workforce.
Organizational Components
Separate from efforts to address gaps in protégé and mentor knowledge, ATEPS must
address issues with the mentoring website, mentor knowledge, the size and composition of the
pool of mentors, perceived organizational support for mentoring and utilization of other
resources to promote employee participation in mentoring activities. Employees cited these
issues as barriers that limit or restrict participation in mentoring activities and are associated with
a component of the mentoring scorecard. Remediation of each issue will help close one of the
current gaps and help ATEPS achieve its organizational goal.
136

Addressing the knowledge and skill gaps of ATEPS employees will help improve the
metrics reported on the mentoring scorecard; however, to close the gaps preventing ATEPS from
achieving its organizational goal, action is required to address knowledge gaps among the pool
of mentors. Although mentor knowledge was not directly assessed in this study, based on
analysis of qualitative data, there appear to be gaps in knowledge among mentors regarding the
components of a mentoring relationship, how a mentor can help a protégé, and steps that can be
taken to increase the likelihood of a successful mentor-protégé relationship. A complimentary
course designed around the protégé learning goals would ensure that prospective mentors gain an
understanding of how they can best engage with, encourage, and support their protégés efforts to
participate in mentoring activities and would serve to reinforce the organization’s cultural
commitment to mentoring.
The organization has a robust leadership development continuum designed to provide
junior, mid-grade and senior employees interested in expanding their leadership skills and
pursuing positions of increased responsibility with advanced training in critical leadership skills
and tools. Therefore, ATEPS can leverage the existing leadership training programs to address
the apparent lack of institutional knowledge regarding mentoring by incorporating the
aforementioned complementary mentoring course into the leadership training continuum. Since
the participants in the leadership training programs are actively seeking positions and
opportunities that will provide increased responsibility and influence, providing them with the
knowledge and tools required to become successful mentors will encourage their participation in
mentoring activities and help address concerns regarding the mentoring pool’s size and
composition.
137

Mentoring website issues included out-of-date contact information, incomplete or out-of-
date resumes of registered mentors, a poor user interface, and an inconsistent feedback loop
intended to provide protégés with a confirmation email acknowledging their prospective mentor
received their request. A poorly constructed website with inaccurate or incomplete information
will undermine employee motivation to participate in mentoring. Thus, ATEPS must address the
user interface issue to ensure that information on classes and mentoring activities is easily
accessible. It must also implement an auto-update feature for the mentoring website that requires
registered mentors to log into the system annually to update their contact and career information.
Additionally, it must identify and incorporate a feature into the mentoring tool to provide a
confirmatory email to the protégé acknowledging receipt of their mentoring request and the
action the prospective mentor took to accept or reject the request.
Employees identified a shallow pool of potential mentors as a barrier. In addition to a low
number of mentors from underrepresented communities, interviewees described being
intimidated by the relative seniority of the mentors in the pool, citing this as a reason for not
attending speed mentoring events or reaching out for a mentoring session. The organization can
address the size and composition of the mentoring pool, as well as the seniority of available
mentors, by encouraging mid-grade employees (employees with 15–20 years of service in the
GS-14 or equivalent pay series) to register to serve as mentors. As many of these employees
serve in upper-level leadership positions, ATEPS can add mentoring to each employee’s
performance objectives and annual performance plan to promote participation.
Aside from helping subordinates navigate the early phases of their careers, additional
benefits could be realized from introducing or reintroducing mid-grade employees to mentoring.
Mid-grade employees who aspire to compete for senior leadership positions would be
138

encouraged to seek out and establish a mentoring relationship with a senior leader who could
help prepare the mid-grade employees for the next phase of their careers. In this respect, the GS-
14 mentors become role models for their protégés, demonstrating the behavior that ATEPS needs
to instill in the employees with less than 5 years at the organization. Increasing the number of
mid-grade employees involved in mentoring would serve to expand networking opportunities, a
significant career-enhancing component of mentoring. Placing mid-grade employees in a
position to bridge the gap between senior leaders and junior employees will open additional
channels for two-way communication across the organization, help eliminate perceived barriers,
and create additional opportunities for cross-functional career-enhancing mentor-protégé
engagements.
ATEPS employees reported getting mixed messages regarding participation in mentoring
activities from their work center supervisors. The cultural conundrum created by the belief that
mentoring is nothing more than a check in the box and not a valuable use of time and resources
undermines the organization’s efforts to promote participation in mentoring activities, leaving
junior employees to question the value of mentoring in comparison to other activities that are
also advertised as career-enhancing. The organization’s commitment to mentoring as an
important component of employee growth and development must be unequivocal. ATEPS must
take appropriate action to eliminate the misperception regarding mentoring by educating first-
level supervisors about the full spectrum of mentoring opportunities available, the importance of
mentoring for new employees, the supervisors’ role in helping new employees embrace
mentoring and how supervisors can best support employee efforts to participate in mentoring
activities. Information on mentoring, including the supervisors’ role in promoting mentoring, can
139

be incorporated as a module in the annual refresher training that ATEPS supervisors are required
to complete.
Although the focus of the study was mentoring relationships between senior and
subordinate staff, qualitative findings support developing a navigator buddy program to provide
an opportunity for peer mentoring. Younger ATEPS employees described being intimidated by
the thought of engaging with more senior members and suggested that having a younger
employee to whom they could better relate would be advantageous. A navigator buddy program
that recruited employees with 3 to 5 years of experience and provided training in how to
facilitate a new employee’s transition to the organization would provide ATEPS with a cadre of
peer mentors who could help inculcate the organization’s values and culture while facilitating
new employee participation in mentoring activities.
Resource allocation considerations and decisions can affect organizational change
initiatives. Identifying required resources can support full implementation at pace, whereas
resource constraints can limit scope or cause schedule delays, and the absence of required
resources can completely prevent the implementation of desired changes. For ATEPS to
implement the recommendations presented in this study, leadership will need to commit to fully
resourcing the mentoring program, including developing Mentoring Minute videos, updates to
the mentoring website, and expanding the number and duration of training classes. ATEPS will
also need to provide funding to pay for the coffee shop gift cards that will be used to incentivize
employee participation in training and mentoring activities. Training budgets can be reallocated
to pay for the recommended training programs and Mentoring Minute videos; however, this
investment will benefit the entire organization as employees will use the new training materials
to satisfy continuous learning requirements. Coffee shop gift cards can be funded by reallocating
140

some existing awards and recognition program money used to provide mid-year and end-of-year
performance-based awards. ATEPS will need to identify funding to pay for the recommended
website upgrades based on industry responses to a detailed statement of work released as part of
a request for proposal.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning
Throughout the employee training sessions, facilitators will assess the participants’
learning using various tools and methods. These assessments will help identify issues with
cognition and application of the information and may serve as gauges to help evaluate participant
attitude, motivation, confidence, and commitment. Table 31 provides information regarding how
and when these areas will be evaluated.

141

Table 29
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Methods or activities Timing
Declarative knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks through discussion Throughout in-person training
Knowledge checks through formative quizzes Upon completion of each training module
Demonstration during role-play exercise During in-person training
Procedural skills “I can do it right now.”
Successful login and registration in the
mentoring tool
During in-person training
Successful search and identification of
potential mentors
During in-person training
Demonstration during role-play exercise During in-person training
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Pre- and post-class survey about importance of
mentoring
Before and after in-person training
Discussion about the value of mentoring During in-person training
Observation of instructor During in-person training
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Discussion following completion of individual
training modules
During in-person training
Post-training survey to assess self-efficacy After completion of in-person training
Work center supervisor check-ups After completion of in-person training
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Discussion with work center supervisor After completion of in-person training
Participation in mentoring activities After completion of in-person training
Observation by work center supervisor After completion of in-person training
Observation by mentor After completion of in-person training

Level 1: Reaction
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) identified the value of receiving participant feedback
after training, specifically in the areas of training quality, relevance to their job, and the
instructor’s effectiveness. Participant feedback was referred to as the reaction (Level 1) in the
new world model. Because participant feedback can be enhanced or harmed by the duration of
142

the training, the timing of the request for feedback, and the length of the survey tool, it is
important to consider when and how participant feedback will be requested and received. Table
32 provides the timing for capturing that data and information on the methods, tools, and timing
used to evaluate engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction.

Table 32
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Methods or tools Timing
Engagement
Observation by instructor During in-person training
Participation in group exercises During in-person training
Course evaluation At the conclusion of in-person training
Relevance
Pulse-check discussions with students During in-person training
Course evaluation At the conclusion of in-person training
Customer Satisfaction
Pulse-check discussions with students During in-person training
Course evaluation At the conclusion of in-person training

143

Evaluation Tools
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) identified the need to assess the effectiveness of
training, defining a two-phased approach to collect meaningful evaluation data. The first phase
utilizes a survey instrument administered immediately after completion of training to assess
reaction (Level 1) and learning (Level 2). The second phase is delayed for a specified time to
allow the learners an opportunity to return to work and implement the knowledge and skills
taught during training to assess the training’s impact on performance.
Immediately following both training sessions, a survey will be administered to the
participants to assess their perceptions of the training program. Questions will include a self-
assessment of each participant’s knowledge and skills regarding mentoring and their confidence
in applying their newly acquired knowledge and skills about mentoring when they return to
work. Questions will also seek to determine participants’ perceptions of the relevance of the
training and overall satisfaction with the didactic and dynamic components. The post-training
assessment surveys for the Introduction to Mentoring and Foundations of Mentoring courses,
which use a 7-point Likert-type scale for all questions, are provided in Appendices E and F.
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) recommended reevaluating the program after
participants have returned to the job and applied the learned knowledge, skills and behaviors.
Thus, a post-training assessment will be administered 90 days after the participants return to
work at ATEPS (Appendices G and H). The assessment will use a survey tool consisting of
open-ended questions with a 7-point Likert scale to determine participants’ reaction to training
(Level 1), their learning (Level 2), changes in critical behaviors (Level 3) and resultant outcomes
(Level 4).
144

Data Analysis and Reporting
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) suggested that data analysis and reporting should
focus on metrics relevant to the training objectives that reflect the training’s impact on
organizational performance and achievement of established goals. Metrics selected for
assessment and reporting to ATEPS leaders reflect the program’s learning goals. Figure 5
provides reporting dashboards to report post-course assessment results and progress made toward
achieving the ATEPS goal for participation in mentoring. The post-course assessment dashboard
will provide the average score for each question for each class as well as cumulative data
reflecting the average score for each question for all classes taught. This dashboard will track
progress and identify trends to help explain continued gaps in employee knowledge or
motivation. The numbers 1 through 7 correspond to the 7-point Likert-type scale used on the
post-course surveys. The organizational goal dashboard will be used to report progress toward
achieving the mentoring participation goal and will reflect data obtained from the ATEPS
mentoring website. This dashboard can be tailored to reflect results for specific demographic
segments of the ATEPS workforce, including race, gender, and age.

145

Figure 5
Reporting Dashboards

Summary of the Implementation and Evaluation
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) new world model was utilized to develop a training
program to help ATEPS achieve its long-term goal of improving participation in its mentoring
program as a component of an overall strategy to address retention and advancement of
employees from underrepresented populations. With a focus on the desired outcomes (Level 4
results), the program captured and addressed the Level 3 required behaviors needed to support,
monitor, encourage and reinforce the Level 2 learning that occurred during the two training
courses and the associated Level 1 reactions to training (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Starting with the end in mind and working backward through the model’s levels, the program,
which was developed to reflect the organization’s specific needs, incorporates leading indicators
to monitor progress toward achieving its long-term goals.
The proposed plan reflects the data-driven emphasis of Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s
(2016) model. Data from four post-course assessments (Appendices E, F, G, and H), along with
146

performance data collected from work center supervisors after the participants returned to work
and implemented their new knowledge and skills, provides information regarding the training
program’s value and success in relation to achieving the ATEPS long-term goals. The advantage
of the model’s integrated implementation and evaluation framework includes a clear alignment
of desired outcomes, behaviors, learning, and customer satisfaction.
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) noted a return on expectations (ROE) as “the ultimate
indicator of value” of the training program (p. 33). In this regard, clearly defining stakeholder
expectations and understanding their vision of success is essential for establishing criteria for this
ROE. Defining and understanding expectations provides the information to develop an execution
plan that includes Level 3 actions and activities specific to the organizational goals, supporting
the achievement of the desired ROE. The proposed program was designed to incorporate and
reflect ATEPS-specific ROE, which included increased employee participation in mentoring,
increased retention of employees from underrepresented populations, and improved
organizational diversity.
Recommendations for Future Research
Future research should initially focus on identifying gaps in knowledge or motivation or
organizational barriers preventing other stakeholders from participating in mentoring activities,
including mid-grade and senior-grade ATEPS employees. Since this study focused on a small
subset of employees, expanding the aperture to include the rest of the organization will provide
ATEPS leaders with a more comprehensive and complete gap analysis. The following sections
describe additional recommendations.
Given the interviewees’ perceptions regarding the pool of potential mentors at ATEPS,
the first recommendation is for a follow-on study to assess current mentors’ knowledge and
147

motivation and organizational barriers to their participation in the mentoring program to
determine if there are gaps requiring intervention or remediation.
This study examined the experience of employees with 5 or fewer years at the
organization. Assessment of other members of the ATEPS workforce with greater than 5 years of
experience would help understand the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on
more senior members of the organization who are not involved in mentoring.
This study focused on employees who worked at the same location; however, ATEPS has
offices in several locations. It would be worthwhile to evaluate employee perspectives,
knowledge, and motivation regarding mentoring and assess the impact of organizational
influences on employees at different locations to determine if regional or geographic differences
affect employees’ participation in mentoring.
Respecting the different constraints and factors that influence senior leaders’
participation, it would be worthwhile to survey and interview them to determine their
knowledge, motivation, and perspectives on mentoring to understand barriers to their
participation in the ATEPS mentoring program.
Conclusion
A 2016 OPM report identified a significant gap between the percentage of federal
employees who self-identified as members of underrepresented populations and the percentage
of these employees who advance to the SES level. The 2016 GIDSP addressed this disparity and
highlighted the recruitment of minorities and women for SES positions as an area of particular
interest. President Biden addressed the need to increase the federal workforce’s diversity in a
2021 executive order calling for strategies to advance diversity and eliminate barriers to equity
148

by promoting retention and professional development, including mentoring programs and
sponsorship initiatives.
The purpose of this study was to determine if there were gaps in ATEPS employee
knowledge and motivation or organizational barriers preventing employees from participating in
the organization’s mentoring program and these gaps’ impact on employee retention and
advancement. Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework was used to develop quantitative
and qualitative instruments for data collection. Data analysis identified gaps in employee
knowledge and motivation as well as organizational barriers preventing employee participation
in mentoring. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) new world model was used to develop a
change initiative with specific recommendations to eliminate the gaps and provide ATEPS
leaders with specific short-term, mid-term and long-term actions and indicators to evaluate the
program’s success and progress being made toward achieving the organization’s overarching
goal.
Based on the literature review, gaps in employee knowledge and motivation or
organizational barriers may hinder participation in mentoring programs by employees from
underrepresented communities. Without the suggested changes, gaps in ATEPS employee
knowledge and motivation will persist, and organizational barriers to participation in the
mentoring program will not be removed. The recommendations provide ATEPS leaders with an
evidence-based approach to address organizational diversity by improving retention and
advancement of employees from underrepresented populations through mentoring and align with
the goals set forth by President Biden’s executive order.

149

References
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. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 567–578.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.567
Ambrose, S. A. (2010). How learning works: seven research-based principles for smart
teaching. Jossey-Bass.
The American Presidency Project. (1961). Executive Order 10925: Establishing the President’s
Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-10925-establishing-the-
presidents-committee-equal-employment-opportunity
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Baranik, L. E., Roling, E. A., & Eby, L. T. (2010). Why does mentoring work? The role of
perceived organizational support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 366–373.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.07.004
Betts, S. C., & Pepe, L. J. (2006). The perceived value of mentoring: Empirical development of a
five-factor framework. Journal of Organizational Culture. Communications and Conflict,
10(2), 105–115.
Beyene, T., Anglin, M., Sanchez, W., & Ballou, M. (2002). Mentoring and relational mutuality:
Proteges’ perspectives. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and
Development, 41, 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2164-490X.2002.tb00132.x
150

Blake-Beard, S., Bayne, M. J., Crosby, F. J., & Muller, C. B. (2011). Matching by race and
gender in mentoring relationships: Keeping our eyes on the prize. The Journal of Social
Issues, 67(3), 622–643. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01717.x
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing Organizations. Jossey-Bass.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119281856
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.
Bulut, C., & Culha, O. (2010). The effects of organizational training on organizational
commitment. International Journal of Training and Development, 14(4), 309–322.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2419.2010.00360.x
Bynum, Y. P. (2015). The power of informal mentoring. Education, 136(1), 69–73.
Campbell, D. E., & Campbell, T. A. (2000). The mentoring relationship: Differing perceptions of
benefits. College Student Journal, 34(4), 516–523.
Carrell, M. R., & Mann, E. E. (1995). Defining workforce diversity in public sector
organizations. Public Personnel Management, 24(1), 99–111.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009102609502400108
Carrell, M. R., Mann, E. E., & Sigler, H. (2006). Defining workforce diversity programs and
practices: A longitudinal study. Labor Law Journal, 57(1), 5–12.
Choi, S. (2013). Demographic diversity of managers and employee job satisfaction. Review of
Public Personnel Administration, 33(3), 275–298.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X12453054
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing, Inc.
151

Coates, W. C. (2012). Being a mentor: What’s in it for me? Academic Emergency Medicine, 19,
92–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01258.x
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Dawley, D. D., Andrews, M. C., & Bucklew, N. S. (2007). Mentoring, supervisor support, and
perceived organizational support: What matters most? Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, 29(3), 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730810861290
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2014). Social cognitive theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/
Dobbin, F., Kim, S., & Kalev, A. (2011). You can’t always get what you need. American
Sociological Review, 76(3), 386–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122411409704
Eby, L. T., Allen, T. D., Evans, S. C., Ng, T., & DuBois, D. (2008). Does mentoring matter? A
multidisciplinary meta-analysis comparing mentored and non-mentored individuals.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(2), 254–267.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.04.005
Eby, L. T., Durley, J. R., Evans, S. C., & Ragins, B. R. (2006). The relationship between short-
term mentoring benefits and long-term mentor outcomes. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 69, 424–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2006.05.003
Eby, L. T., Lockwood, A. L., & Butts, M. (2006). Perceived support for mentoring: A multiple
perspectives approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 267–291.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.07.003
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
152

Ehrich, L. C., Hansford, B., & Tennent, L. (2004). Formal mentoring programs in education and
other professions: A review of the literature. Educational Administration Quarterly,
40(4), 518–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X04267118
Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1986). Perceived organizational
support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
82, 812–820. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.812
Eller, L. S., Lev, E. L., & Feurer, A. (2014). Key components of an effective mentoring
relationship: A qualitative study. Nurse Education Today, 34, 815–820.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.07.020
Feeney, M. K., & Bozeman, B. (2008). Mentoring and network ties. Human Relations, 61(12),
1651–1676. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726708098081
Feldman, D. M., Steinauer, J. E., Khalili, M., Huang, L., Kahn, J. S., Lee, K. A., Creasman, J., &
Brown, J. S. (2012). A mentor development program for clinical translational science
faculty leads to sustained, improved confidence in mentoring skills. Clinical and
Translational Science, 5(4), 362–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-8062.2012.00419.x
Friday, E., & Friday, S. S. (2002). Formal mentoring: Is there a strategic fit? Management
Decision, 40(2), 152–157. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740210422820
Gandhi, M., & Johnson, M. (2016). Creating more effective mentors: Mentoring the mentor.
AIDS and Behavior, 20, S294–S303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-016-1364-3
Giscombe, K., & Mattis, M. C. (2002). Leveling the playing field for women of color in
corporate management: Is the business case enough? Journal of Business Ethics, 37, 103–
119. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014786313354
153

Gonzáles-Figueroa, E., & Young, A. M. (2005). Ethnic identity and mentoring among Latinas in
professional roles. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 11(3), 213–226.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.11.3.213
Hagerty, B. M., Williams, R. A., Coyne, J. C., & Early, M. R. (1996). Sense of belonging and
indicators of social and psychological functioning. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing,
10(4), 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9417(96)80029-X
Hagerty, B. M. K., Lynch-Sauer, J., Patusky, K. L., Bouwsema, M., & Collier, P. (1992). Sense
of belonging: A vital mental health concept. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 6(3), 172–
177. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9417(92)90028-H
Hannay, M., & Northam, M. (2000). Low-Cost Strategies for Employee Retention.
Compensation and Benefits Review, 32(4), 65–72.
https://doi.org/10.1177/08863680022097920
Hemming, J. J., Baez, A., Hall, M., Thompson, W., Stiles, J., & Ofili, E. (2019). Advancing
health equity through organizational mentoring policies at minority serving institutions.
Ethnicity & Disease, 29(2, Supp2), 371–376. https://doi.org/10.18865/ed.29.S2.371
Herring, C. (2009). Does diversity pay? Race, gender, and the business case for diversity.
American Sociological Review, 74, 208–224.
https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400203
Hewlett, S. A., Marshall, M., & Sherbin, L. (2013). How diversity can drive innovation. Harvard
Business Review, 91(12), 30.
Hezlett, S. A. (2005). Protégés learning in mentoring relationships: A review of the literature and
an exploratory case study. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(4), 505–526.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422305279686
154

Hezlett, S. A., & Gibson, S. K. (2007). Linking mentoring and social capital: Implications for
career and organizational development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9(3),
384–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422307304102
Holley, K. A., & Caldwell, M. L. (2012). The challenges of designing and implementing a
doctoral student mentoring program. Innovative Higher Education, 37, 243–253.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-011-9203-y
Holloway-Friesen, H. (2021). The role of mentoring on Hispanic graduate students’ sense of
belonging and academic self-efficacy. The Journal of Higher Education, 20(1), 46–58.
Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. L., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Enhancing interest
and performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology,
102(4), 880–895. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019506
Illies, M. Y., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2018). The effect of value similarity on mentoring
relationships and outcomes. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and
Mentoring, 16(1), 20–34. https://doi.org/10.24384/000468
Jin, M., Lee, J., & Lee, M. (2017). Does leadership matter in diversity management? Assessing
the relative impact of diversity policy and inclusive leadership in the public sector.
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 38(2), 303–319.
https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2015-0151
Johnson, D. R., Soldner, M., Leonard, J. B., Alvarez, P., Inkelas, K. K., Rowan-Kenyon, H. T.,
& Longerbeam, S. D. (2007). Examining sense of belonging among first-year
undergraduates from different racial/ethnic groups. Journal of College Student
Development, 48(5), 525–542. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2007.0054
155

Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.
Johnson, W. B. (2002). The intentional mentor: Strategies and guidelines for the practice of
mentoring. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 33(1), 88–96.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.33.1.88
Jyoti, J., & Sharma, P. (2015). Impact of mentoring functions on career development:
Moderating role of mentoring culture and mentoring structure. Global Business Review,
16(4), 700–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150915581110
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation.
Association for Talent Development.
Knouse, S. B., & Moody, B. I., III. (2013). Mentoring for Hispanics. Review of Business, 33(2),
80–90.
Kolars, J. C. (2010). Principles, techniques and practical suggestions for mentoring residents. In
H. Humphrey (Ed.), Mentoring in academic medicine (pp. 105–126). American College
of Physicians.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Laddha, A., Singh, R., Gabbad, H., & Gidwani, G. D. (2012). Employee retention: An art to
reduce turnover. International Journal of Management Research and Reviews, 2(3), 453–
458.
Lankau, M. J., & Scandura, T. A. (2002). An investigation of personal learning in mentoring
relationships: Context, antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal,
45(4), 779–790. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069311
156

Liang, B., Tracy, A., Kauh, T., Taylor, C., & Williams, L. M. (2006). Mentoring Asian and
Euro-American college women. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development,
34, 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1912.2006.tb00034.x
Liang, C. T. H., Lee, S., & Ting, M. P. (2002). Developing Asian American leaders. New
Directions for Student Services, 2002(97), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.41
Lin, N. (2000). Inequality in social capital. Contemporary Sociology, 29(6), 785–795.
Mathews, P. (2006). The role of mentoring in promoting organizational competitiveness.
Competitiveness Review, 16(2), 158–169. https://doi.org/10.1108/10595420610760743
McCallum, C., Libarkin, J., Callahan, C., & Atchison, C. (2018). Mentoring, social capital and
diversity in earth science. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering,
24(1), 17–41. https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2017018878
McClure, J. P., & Brown, J. M. (2008). Belonging at work. Human Resource Development
International, 11(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678860701782261
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Nemanick, R. C., Jr. (2000). Comparing formal and informal mentors: Does type make a
difference? The Academy of Management Perspectives, 14(3), 136–138.
https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2000.4474567
Office of Personnel Management. (2016). Governmentwide inclusive diversity strategic plan.
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/diversity-and-
inclusion/reports/governmentwide-inclusive-diversity-strategic-plan-2016.pdf
Olson, D. A., & Jackson, D. (2009). Expanding leadership diversity through formal mentoring
programs. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(1), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.20095
157

Orpen, C. (1997). The effects of formal mentoring on employee work, motivation, organizational
commitment and job performance. The Learning Organization, 4(2), 53–60.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09696479710160906
Page, S. E. (2007). Making the difference: Applying the logic of diversity. The Academy of
Management Perspectives, 21(4), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2007.27895335
Palgi, M., & Moore, G. (2004). Social capital: Mentors and contacts. Current Sociology, 52(3),
459–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392104043087
Palmer, G. A., & Johnson-Bailey, J. (2008). The impact of mentoring on the careers of African
Americans. Canadian Journal of Career Development, 7(1), 45–51.
Parker, V. A., & Kram, K. E. (1993). Women mentoring women: Creating conditions for
connections. Business Horizons, 36(2), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-
6813(05)80037-0
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed). Sage Publications.
Pfund, C., Byars-Winston, A., Branchaw, J., Hurtado, S., & Eagan, K. (2016). Defining
attributes and metrics of effective research mentoring relationships. AIDS and Behavior,
20, S238–S248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-016-1384-z
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T. & McKeachie, W.J. (1991). A manual for the use of
the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ) (Technical Report No. 91-B-
004). University of Michigan.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
158

Pitts, D. & Jarry, E. (2007). Ethnic diversity and organizational performance: Assessing diversity
effects at the managerial and street levels. International Public Management Journal,
10(2), 233-254. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967490701323738
Pitts, D. (2009). Diversity Management, Job Satisfaction, and Performance: Evidence from U.S.
Federal Agencies. Public Administration Review, 69(2), 328–338.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.01977.x
Polikoff, M. S., Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., & Hochberg, E. D. (2015). Mentor policy and
the quality of mentoring. The Elementary School Journal, 116(1), 76–102.
https://doi.org/10.1086/683134
Ragins, B. R. (1997). Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations: A power perspective.
Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 482–521. https://doi.org/10.2307/259331
Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and
women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. The Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84(4), 529–550. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.529
Ragins, B. R., & Scandura, T. A. (1999). Burden or blessing? Expected costs and benefits of
being a mentor.. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 493–509.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199907)20:4<493::AID-JOB894>3.0.CO;2-T
Robinson, D. M., & Reio, T. G., Jr. (2012). Benefits of mentoring African American men.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(4), 406–421.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941211220207
Robinson, S. B., & Firth Leonard, K. (2018). Designing quality survey questions (1st ed.). SAGE
Publications.
159

Salkind, N. J., & Frey, B. B. (2020). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Sage
Publications.
Sambunjak, D., Straus, S. E., & Marusic, A. (2009). A systemic review of qualitative research on
the meaning and characteristics of mentoring in academic medicine. Journal of General
Internal Medicine, 25(1), 72–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-009-1165-8
Samuel, M. O., & Chipunza, C. (2009). Employee retention and turnover: Using motivational
variables as a panacea. (2009). African Journal of Business Management, 3(8), 410–415.
https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM09.125
Santillan-Jimenez, E., Duan, Q., Dariotis, J. K., & Crocker, M. (2020, June 22–26). Enhancing
graduate education by fully integrating research and professional skill development
within diverse, inclusive and supportive academy [Paper presentation]. American Society
for Engineering Education Virtual Conference. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--34569
Santos, S. J., & Reigadas, E. T. (2005). Understanding the student-faculty mentoring process: Its
effects on at risk university students. Journal of College Student Retention, 6(3), 337–
357. https://doi.org/10.2190/KGVC-7218-DPER-RMBC
Scandura, T. A. (2004) Mentoring functions questionnaire. Selected works of Terri A. Scandura.
http://works.bepress.com/terri_scandura/21
Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Schmidt, S. W. (2007). The relationship between satisfaction with workplace training and overall
job satisfaction. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18(4), 481–498.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1216
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-proccessing-theory/
160

Schroyer, C. C., Zellers, R., & Abraham, S. (2020). Increasing registered nurse retention using
mentors in critical care services. The Health Care Manager, 39(2), 85–99.
https://doi.org/10.1097/HCM.0000000000000293
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success.
Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 219–237. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069452
Senge, P. M. (1990). The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan
Management Review, 32(1), 7–23.
Sosik, J. J., & Godshalk, V. M. (2000). The role of gender in Mentoring: Implications for
diversified and homogenous mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57,
102–122. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1999.1734
Strayhorn, T. L., Lo, M. T., Travers, C. S., & Tillman-Kelly, D. L. (2016). Assessing the
relationship between well-being, sense of belonging and confidence in the transition to
college for Black male collegians. Spectrum: A Journal on Black Men, 4(1), 127–138.
Stum, D. L. (2001). Maslow revisited: Building the employee commitment pyramid. Strategy
and Leadership, 29(4), 4–9. https://doi.org/10.1108/10878570110400053
Thurston, P., Jr., D’Abate, C., & Eddy, E. (2012). Mentoring as an HRD approach: Effects on
employee attitudes and contributions independent of core self-evaluation. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 23(2), 139–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21130
Tillman, R. E., Jang, S., Abedin, Z., Richards, B. F., Spaeth-Rublee, B., & Pincus, H. A. (2013).
Policies, activities, and structures supporting research mentoring: A national survey of
academic health centers with clinical and translational service awards. Academic
Medicine, 88(1), 90–96. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182772b94
161

Timberlake, S. (2004). Social capital and gender in the workplace. Journal or Management
Development, 24(1), 34–44.
Traut, C. A., Larsen, R., & Feimer, S. H. (2000). Hanging out or fading out? Job satisfaction and
the long-term worker. Public Personnel Management, 29(3), 343–351.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009102600002900304
Underhill, C. M. (2006). The effectiveness of mentoring programs in corporate settings: A meta-
analytical review of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 292–307.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.05.003
Valdez, B. (2018). Overcoming persistent barriers to broadening participation in the federal
workforce. A De Grazia. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218768863
Vinales, J. J. (2015). The mentor as a role model and the importance of belongingness. British
Journal of Nursing, 24(10), 532–535. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2015.24.10.532
Washburn-Moses, L. (2010). Rethinking mentoring: Comparing policy and practice in special
and general education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(32), 1–21.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. The Free Press.
Welch, J. L., Jimenez, H. L., Walthall, J., & Allen, S. E. (2012). The women in emergency
medicine mentoring program: An innovative approach to mentoring. Journal of Graduate
Medical Education, 4(3), 362–366. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-11-00267.1
Weldy, A. C. (2010). Let’s make it official: The mentor-mentee network. Journal of College and
Character, 11(3), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.2202/1940-1639.1727
The White House. (2021a). Executive Order 14035: Executive Order on Diversity. Equity,
Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce.
162

The White House. (2021b). Government-wide strategic plan to advance diversity, equity,
inclusion, and accessibility in the federal workforce. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2021/11/Strategic-Plan-to-Advance-Diversity-Equity-Inclusion-and-
Accessibility-in-the-Federal-Workforce-11.23.21.pdf
The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2011). Executive Order 13583: Establishing a
coordinated government-wide initiative to promote diversity in the federal workforce.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/18/executive-order-
13583-establishing-coordinated-government-wide-initiativ
Wilson, J. A., & Elman, N. S. (1990). Organizational benefits of mentoring. The Academy of
Management Executive, 4(4), 88–94.
Wyatt-Nichol, H., & Antwi-Boasiako, K. (2012). Diversity management: Development,
practices, and perceptions among state and local government agencies. International
Personnel Management Association. https://doi.org/10.1177/009102601204100409
163

Appendix A: Quantitative Survey Instrument
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this survey. This survey is being administered as
part of a research effort to gain insight into employee thoughts on mentoring, including beliefs
on the benefits of mentoring and how mentoring may impact employee retention and
advancement. The answers and information you provide for this survey will be combined with
the answers and information provided by other respondents ensuring that no individual is
identifiable based on their responses. Question 1 of the survey asks for you to acknowledge that
you understand that taking the survey is voluntary, and there is no monetary award or
compensation for participating in this survey. You also acknowledge that you received a copy of
the information sheet for exempt research.
For the purpose of this survey, mentoring is defined as a positive workplace relationship
between a senior member of the organization (mentor) and a subordinate (protégé).
The name “ATEPS” is used in place of the real name of the organization.
Informed Consent
Q 1 - By clicking the button below you acknowledge: You are 18 years of age. You are aware
that you may choose to terminate your participation at any time for any reason. You are aware
your participation in the study is voluntary, and you will not receive any monetary award or
compensation for your participation.
I consent to participate.
A yes response will automatically direct the participant to Q 2
I do not consent to participate.
A no response will automatically take the participant to the Thank You Page

164

Demographic Information
Q 2 – How old are you?
Q 3 – What gender do you identify with?
Male
Female
Transgender male
Transgender female
Non-binary
Prefer not to answer
Q 4 – Do you identify as:
African American/Black, not Hispanic
Native American, not Hispanic
Alaskan Native, not Hispanic
Asian American, not Hispanic
Pacific Islander, not Hispanic
Hispanic/Latino(a)
Caucasian/White, not Hispanic
Two or more races, not Hispanic
Prefer not to answer

Q 5 – What is your primary career field?
Engineering
Test and evaluation
IT/Cyber security
Logistics
Program management
Financial management
Procurement management
Other (please specify)

Q 6 – What is the highest level of education you have completed?

High school
Some college
Associate degree
Bachelor’s degree
Master’s degree
Doctorate

165

Q 7 – When did you earn your most recent degree?

2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
Before 2017

Q 8 – How long have you worked at ATEPS?

Less than 12 months
13–24 months
25–36 months
37–48 months
49–60 months
Greater than 60 months

The following questions seek to understand your knowledge of mentoring.

Q 9 – A mentoring relationship should provide (check all that apply):
a. Transfer of knowledge
b. Network development
c. Information on training opportunities
d. Information on organizational resources
e. Psychosocial support
f. Goal setting
h. Information on how to advance in the organization
i. Information on career-enhancing opportunities

Q 10 – Mentoring relationships should include (check all that apply):
a. Open communication
b. Feedback
c. Exchange of ideas
d. Common goals
e. Clear expectations
f. Collaboration
g. Trust
h. Meeting on a regular basis with your mentor

166

The following questions seek to understand your opinion on mentoring.
Q 11 - How critical is receiving mentorship to you?
Extremely critical
Very critical
Critical
Somewhat critical
Not critical

Q 12 - How critical is it for your mentor to be of the same gender as you?

Extremely critical
Very critical
Critical
Somewhat critical
Not critical

Q 13 - How critical is it that your mentor be of the same ethnicity as you?

Extremely critical
Very critical
Critical
Somewhat critical
Not critical

Q 14 - How critical is it that your mentor be of the same race as you?

Extremely critical
Very critical
Critical
Somewhat critical
Not critical

The following questions ask about the organization’s advancement process.

Q22 – I am aware of the organization’s advancement process.

Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree

167

Q 23 – I understand the organization’s advancement process.
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree

Q 30 - There are organizational barriers that slow my advancement.

Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree

If the response is strongly agree or somewhat agree, they will be directed to Q 31.

If the response is neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree,
they will directed to Q 15.

Q 31 – Please list the organizational barriers that are slowing your advancement
After responding will be directed to question 15.

The following questions seek to understand your experience with mentoring at work.

Q 15 – I am currently involved in a mentoring relationship at work? Yes No
If yes, respondent will be directed to Q 17
If no, respondent will be directed to Q 16

Q 16 – Would you like to be involved in a mentoring relationship at work? Yes No
With either answer, respondent will automatically be directed to Q 45

Q 17 How many mentors do you currently have?

Q 18 – How was your current mentoring relationship initiated?

The organization assigned me my current mentor (respondent will automatically be
directed to Q 21)
I selected my current mentor/I asked my current mentor if they would work with me
(respondent will automatically be directed to Q 19)

168

Q 19 – Please select the word below that best describes your experience finding your own
mentor. “Finding my own mentor was _______________.”

Extremely difficult
Somewhat difficult
Somewhat easy
Extremely easy

A difficult response will automatically direct the respondent to Q 20
An easy response will automatically direct the respondent to Q 21

Q 20 – What difficulties did you encounter finding your own mentor (select all that apply)

a. I did not know who to ask to be my mentor.
b. I did not know how to request someone to be my mentor.
c. I was not motivated to ask someone to be my mentor.
d. I was afraid to ask someone to be my mentor.
e. I asked someone to be my mentor, but they said no.
f. My department or work center does not support mentoring.
g. Other (please explain)

Q 21 – How often do you meet with your mentor?
1 time per year
2 times per year
3 times per year
4 times per year
5–6 times per year
7–8 times per year
9–10 times per year
11 or more times per year

Q 24 - How important has your mentor been in your transition to the organization?
Extremely important
Very important
Moderately important
Slightly important
Not at all important

169

Q 25 - Mentoring helps me feel like I belong at the organization.

Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree

Q 26 – There are barriers that prevent me from participating in mentoring at work.

Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree

If the response is strongly agree or somewhat agree, they will be directed to Q 27.

If the response is neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree,
they will directed to Q 28.

Q 27 – Please list the barriers that are preventing you from participating in mentoring at work

Q 28 – The organizations culture supports participation in mentoring at work.

Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree

Q 29 – Organizational policies support participating in mentoring at work

Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree

170

Q 32 - Mentoring helps remove organizational barriers to advancement.

Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree

Q 33 - The organization has enough mentors who are the same gender as I am.

Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree

Q 34 - The organization has enough mentors who are the same race as I am.

Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree

Q 35 – My mentor has helped me grow my professional network.

Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree

The following questions seek to understand the support provided by your mentor. Please
indicate to what extent you or agree or disagree with each statement.

**NOTE: questions 36–44 are adopted from Scandura’s (2004) Mentoring Functions
Questionnaire. Q 36–38 address career support, Q 39–41 address psychosocial support,
and Q 42–44 address role modeling)**

Q 36 – My mentor takes a personal interest in my career.

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
171

Q 37 – My mentor helps me coordinate professional goals.

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree

Q 38 – My mentor has devoted special time and consideration to my career.

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree

Q 39 – I share personal problems with my mentor.

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree

Q 40 – I exchange confidences with my mentor.

Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree

Q 41 – I consider my mentor to be a friend.

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree

172

Q 42 – I try to model my behavior after my mentor.

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree

Q 43 – I admire my mentor’s ability to motivate others.

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree

Q 44 – I respect my mentor’s ability to teach others.

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree

The following questions seek to understand your experience with mentoring related
training you have participated in while working at ATEPS.

Q 45 - Have you participated in any work-sponsored mentoring training? Yes No

If yes, respondent will be directed to Q 46
If no, respondent will be directed to Q 48

Q 46 - To what extent do you agree with the following statement? Work-sponsored mentoring
training has helped my mentoring relationship.

Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

Q 47 - Would you recommend a co-worker take work-sponsored mentoring training? Yes No

173

The following questions seek to understand your experience and feelings about the
organization’s mentoring website and tools.

Q 48 – I am aware that the organization has a mentoring website. Yes No

If yes, respondent will automatically be directed to Q 49
If no, respondent will automatically be directed to Q 53

Q 49 - I understand how to use the organization’s mentoring tools.

Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

Q 50 - How often in the past year have you used the organization’s mentoring tool?

I have not used the mentoring tool
1 time
2–3 times
4–5 times
6 times or more

Q 51 – I believe that using the organization’s mentoring tool has helped my mentoring
relationship.’

Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

Q 52 - The organization’s mentoring tool has provided me with career-enhancing information.

Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

174

The following questions seek to understand how you feel about your ability to be successful
in a mentoring relationship. Each question uses a sliding scale where “0” = not at all
confident, and “100” = totally confident. Move the slider to the number that corresponds
with your level of confidence.

Q 53- I believe that I will have a positive experience with mentoring.

Q 54 - I am confident that mentoring will help me build my professional network.

Q 55 - I believe that my participation in mentoring will help me advance my career.

Q 56 - I believe that participation in mentoring will help remove barriers to advancement.

Q 57 - I am confident in my ability to be mentored by someone who is a different gender.

Q 58 - I am confident in my ability to be mentored by someone who is a different race.

The following questions seek to understand how you feel about your current skill level in
specific areas related to mentoring. On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not proficient, and 10 is
highly proficient, please rate yourself in the following areas. Move the slider to the number
that corresponds with your level of skill.

Q 59 - My ability to use career-enhancing information which has been provided to me:
(insert scale from 1 – 10)

Q 60 - My communication skills:
(insert scale from 1 – 10)

Q 61 - My collaboration skills:
(insert scale from 1 – 10)

Q 62 - My goal-setting skills:
(insert scale from 1 – 10)

175

The following questions seek to understand your interest in participating in additional
mentoring related research.

Q 63 – Would you be willing to participate in a follow-up interview to discuss your thoughts on
mentoring and share your experiences with mentoring? Yes No

Yes answer will receive the following message:

A random sample of all survey participants who have indicated their willingness to
participate in a follow-on interview will be selected. Please cut and paste the following link into
your browser to be added to the pool of interview candidates. (insert link here)
No answer will automatically redirect the respondent to the end of the survey.
Thank you for your participation in this survey. As a reminder, your answers will be
combined with the answers provided by other employees to protect your privacy and ensure your
anonymity.

176

Appendix B: Qualitative Interview Participation Survey Instrument
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this survey. This survey is being administered as
part of a research effort to gain insight into employee thoughts on, and experiences with,
workplace mentoring, including beliefs on the benefits of mentoring and how mentoring may
impact employee retention and advancement. The answers and information you provide for this
survey will be used to identify employees who will be invited to participate in a 1-hour
interview. You have the right to refuse to participate in the survey. If you choose to take the
survey, you may stop at any time without penalty. There is no monetary award or compensation
for participating in this survey. To protect anonymity, this survey will not record your IP Address
or location data.
For the purpose of this survey, mentoring is defined as a positive workplace relationship
between a senior member of the organization (mentor) and a subordinate (protégé).
The name “ATEPS” is used in place of the real name of the organization.
Informed Consent
Q 1 - By clicking the button below you acknowledge: You are 18 years of age or older. You are
aware that you may choose to terminate your participation at any time for any reason. You are
aware that your participation in the study is voluntary, and you will not receive any monetary
award or compensation for your participation. You also acknowledge that you have received a
copy of the Information Sheet for Exempt Research.
I consent to participate.
A yes response will automatically direct the participant to Q 2
I do not consent to participate.
A no response will automatically take the participant to the Thank You Page
Q 2 – Please rate your personal experience with mentoring while working at this organization:
I have had a positive mentoring experience
Positive response will skip to Question #3
I have had a negative mentoring experience
177

Negative response will skip to Question #4
Q 3 – Please enter your name and work email in the space provided.
After submitting response, each participant will be automatically directed to
Question 5

Q 4 – Please enter your name and work email in the space provided.
After submitting response, each participant will be automatically directed to
Question 5

Demographic Information
(NOTE: Since the two surveys are not connected, demographic information is collected in this
survey for the purpose of comparative analysis).
Q 5 – How old are you?
Q 6 – What gender do you identify with?
Male
Female
Transgender Male
Transgender Female
Non-binary
Prefer Not to Answer
Q 7 – Do you identify as:
African American/Black, not Hispanic
Native American, not Hispanic
Alaskan Native, not Hispanic
Asian American, not Hispanic
Pacific Islander, not Hispanic
Hispanic/Latino(a)
Caucasian/White, not Hispanic
Two or more races, not Hispanic
Prefer not to answer

Q 8 – What is your primary career field?
Engineering
Test and evaluation
IT/Cyber security
Logistics
Program management
Financial management
Procurement management

178

Other (please specify)

Q 9 – What is the highest level of education you have completed?

High school
Some college
Associate degree
Bachelor’s degree
Master’s degree
Doctorate

Q 10 – When did you earn your most recent degree?

2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
Before 2017

Q 11 – How long have you worked at ATEPS?

Less than 12 months
13–24 months
25–36 months
37–48 months
49–60 months
Greater than 60 months

Thank you for your participation in this survey. Responses to this survey will be grouped into
two categories: employees who have had a positive mentoring experience, and employees who
have had a negative mentoring experience. A random sample of employees will be selected from
each group and invited to participate in a follow-up interview.

179

Appendix C: Interview Protocol
Hello, my name is Joe Essex, and I would like to thank you for agreeing to participate in
this interview which is part of my doctoral dissertation research. The focus of my research is
learning about employee participation in mentoring at ATEPS and how it may impact decisions
they make about their careers. During today’s interview, I will be asking you questions about
your experiences with mentoring, your thoughts about the ATEPS mentoring program and
training, and how you feel it has impacted your career. I would like to remind you that our
conversation is confidential, and your identity will be protected. Can you please confirm that I
have your permission to record our conversation? I will be using the recording to download an
accurate transcript of our conversation. This will ensure that I do not mis-state or misrepresent
anything you say. May I record this session? (wait for a response). Thank you. The recording is
now on (state the day, time, my name, and the name of the subject). Before we start the
interview, do you have any questions? (answer any questions the participant has before
proceeding with the interview).

Table C1
Interview Protocol
Interview questions Potential probes
Demographic info
How long have you been working at
ATEPS?

What functional area or competency are
you assigned to?

Can you describe your onboarding
experience?
Was there information not provided during the new
hire process that you wish had been included?
Did anyone offer to help you get adjusted to
working here?
Were you assigned a “navigator buddy” to assist
you in getting acclimated to the organization?
180

Interview questions Potential probes
What program or team do you support
now?

How long have you been assigned to this
team/program?
How did you get assigned to this team?
Can you please describe your current role and
responsibilities?
Transition to workplace learning
Can you please describe the relationship
you have with your teammates?
Do you feel you could ask them for help if needed?
Can you describe your relationships with
your functional discipline lead?

Do you feel you could ask them for help if you
needed?
Are they available for you to speak with if you need
any help?
Is there anyone whom you go to if you
have questions?

Can you describe a time when you asked for help?
Is this typically how things go when you ask for
help?
Transition to mentoring
What personal experience have you had
with mentoring?

Can you describe your involvement with
mentoring before you joined this
organization?

How did you feel when you met your
first mentor?
What were you doing when you met this person
(ex: in school, at work?)
Can you describe how this person impacted your
career?
What is your opinion about how much
influence mentoring has on a person’s
career?

Do you have a mentor now? How did you meet your current mentor?
Can you describe your relationship with your
current mentor?
What is your goal for your current mentoring
relationship?
IF NOT, WHY NOT?
Can you describe a typical mentoring
session you have been in?
Where did you meet (location)?
What did you discuss?
How long did it last?
How did you feel after the mentoring session?
What is your impression about the
organization’s mentoring program?

How did you learn about the organization’s
mentoring program?
Do you think the organization’s culture supports
mentoring?
Do you think the organization’s policies support
mentoring?
181

Interview questions Potential probes
What do you think about the pool of
potential mentors you can select from?
Can you describe it?
Can you describe your efforts to find a mentor
here?
What is your impression about the
organizations mentoring training?
How many classes have you taken?
What changes do you think the organization should
consider making to the mentoring training?
What information do you wish the classes
included?
Why do you think this information is not provided?
Do you think the tools will help your mentoring
relationship?
Are there any changes you would like to
see implemented to the organization’s
mentoring program?
What are they?
How do you think the changes would impact your
career?
How has the organization’s mentoring
program impacted your career?

What information would you like to have
but haven’t received from your
mentor?
Have you asked your mentor about this?
Why do you think your mentor hasn’t provided this
information?
Do you feel you belong at the
organization?
Do you feel supported at work?
What experiences have you had that have
influenced your sense of belonging?
Wrap Up
Is there any other information you would
like to share?

182

Appendix D: Theoretical Framework Alignment Matrix
Research question Theoretical framework Data instrument
questions
What are the knowledge,
motivation and
organizational constructs
required to support
employee engagement in
the ATEPS mentoring
program?
Gap analysis
(Clark & Estes, 2008)

Self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1977)
Survey questions: 9–
12, 34–36, 37–41

Interview protocol
questions:
14, 16, 17, 19, 20
How do ATEPS employees
define social capital and its
relevance to career
development and
advancement as a function
of participation in a
mentoring dyad?
Social capital theory
(Bourdieu, 1986; Feeney &
Bozeman, 2008; Seibert et al., 2001)
Survey questions: 25–
33

Interview protocol
questions:
8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 18
How do employees overcome
barriers which prevent the
development of networks
and the transfer of career-
enhancing information and
opportunities?
Social capital theory
(Bourdieu, 1986; Feeney &
Bozeman, 2008; Seibert et al., 2001)

Self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977)
Survey questions: 13–
24, 42–48

Interview protocol
questions: 5, 6, 7,
12, 15, 17
What are the
recommendations
associated with employee
knowledge, motivation, and
organizational constructs
required to achieve the
stated goals?
Gap analysis
(Clark & Estes, 2008)

Demographic questions Survey questions: 2–8

Interview protocol
questions: 1–4

183

Appendix E: Introduction to Mentoring 90-Day Post-Training Assessment
The following questionnaire is provided to assess your experience with the Introduction to
Mentoring course. Please use the following scale to answer each question:

1 = Highly disagree 5 = Somewhat agree
2 = Somewhat disagree 6 = Agree
3 = Disagree 7 = Highly agree
4 = Neither agree nor disagree

L1: Reaction What I learned in the Introduction to Mentoring
course continues to help me with participation in
mentoring activities.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
L2: Learning I am able to register for ATEPS mentoring after
the Introduction to Mentoring course.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
L3: Behavior I continue to use the ATEPS mentoring website.

I continue to participate in ATEPS mentoring
activities.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
L4: Results I am confident in my ability to participate in
ATEPS mentoring activities.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

184

Appendix F: Foundations of Mentoring 90-Day Post-Training Assessment
The following questionnaire is provided to assess your experience with the Foundations of
Mentoring course. Please use the following scale to answer each question:

1 = Highly disagree 5 = Somewhat agree
2 = Somewhat disagree 6 = Agree
3 = Disagree 7 = Highly agree
4 = Neither agree nor disagree

L1: Reaction What I learned in the Foundations of Mentoring
course prepared me to participate in a mentoring
relationship.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
L2: Learning I have the skills required to successfully engage in
a mentoring relationship.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
L3: Behavior I continue to use the knowledge and skills learned
in class to participate in ATEPS mentoring
activities.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

L4: Results I have a mentor
I meet with my mentor on a regular basis.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

185

Appendix G: ATEPS Introduction to Mentoring Post-Course Assessment
The following questionnaire is provided to assess your experience and learning with today’s
Introduction to Mentoring course. Please use the following scale to answer each question:

1= Highly disagree 5 = Somewhat agree
2 = Somewhat disagree 6 = Agree
3 = Disagree 7 = Highly agree
4 = Neither agree nor disagree

The instructor presented the material in a
clear manner that I understood.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I understand the benefits of participating in
mentoring.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I understand how participation in mentoring
activities can benefit my career.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I know how to access the ATEPS mentoring
website.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I know how to register for ATEPS
mentoring classes and activities.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I will be able to use what I learned in this
course to participate in ATEPS mentoring
activities.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am motivated to get involved with
mentoring and apply the new knowledge
and skills I have learned.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I believe there is value in participating in
ATEPS mentoring activities.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

186

Appendix H: ATEPS Foundations of Mentoring Post-Course Assessment
The following questionnaire is provided to assess your experience and learning with today’s
Foundations of Mentoring course. Please use the following scale to answer each question:

1= Highly disagree 5 = Somewhat agree
2 = Somewhat disagree 6 = Agree
3 = Disagree 7 = Highly agree
4 = Neither agree nor disagree

The instructor presented the material in a
clear manner that I understood.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I understand the components of a mentoring
relationship.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I understand the traits and attributes
required to be a successful protégé.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I understand what traits and attributes I
should look for when selecting a mentor.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I know how to use the ATEPS mentoring
website to find a mentor.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I know how to register for mentoring
classes and activities.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am confident in my ability to use the
ATEPS Mentoring Website.

I will be able to use what I learned in this
course to participate in ATEPS mentoring
activities.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am motivated to get involved with
mentoring and apply the new knowledge
and skills I have learned.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I believe there is value in participating in
ATEPS mentoring activities.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

187

Appendix I: Information Sheet for Exempt Research

188

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Elevating mentees leads to organizational success

PDF

The importance of mentoring in leadership self-efficacy for women in supply chain: a qualitative study

PDF

Procedural justice and the impact on African Americans: an evaluation study

PDF

A case study of promising practices mentoring K-12 chief technology officers

PDF

The importance of mentoring in leadership self-efficacy for women in supply chain: a qualitative study

PDF

A framework for customer reputation evaluation: an innovation study

PDF

Middle-management's influence on employee engagement in the ambulatory practices

PDF

Key factors for successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact driven grantmaking practices

PDF

Improving veterans employment outcomes through increasing enrollment in vocational rehabilitation and employment program

PDF

Faculty’s influence on underrepresented minority (URM) undergraduate retention

PDF

The mentorship of instructors and its impact on computer science interest among middle school girls: an evaluation study

PDF

Leadership and the impact on organizational citizenship behaviors: an evaluation study

PDF

Improving transfer of leadership training from the classroom to the corporate environment within the private sector in Saudi Arabia

PDF

Factors impacting the effectiveness of mentor teachers in a national teacher residency

PDF

An in‐depth look at leadership in creating a diverse and inclusive culture for African‐American employees

PDF

Understand how leaders use data to measure the effectiveness of leadership development programs

PDF

The effects of organizational culture on millennial engagement and turnover in start-ups: an innovation study

PDF

An analysis of influences to faculty retention at a Philippine college

PDF

Information technology architects’ shift to remote work: an exploration of collaboration challenges

PDF

Lack of Latinx senior executive service members in a federal government agency

Asset Metadata

Creator Essex, Joseph Brian (author)

Core Title Identification of barriers to mentoring and their impact on retention and advancement of underrepresented populations in the federal government

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 10/20/2023

Defense Date 12/19/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag diversity,Knowledge,mentor,mentoring,Motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational influences,protégé

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Maddox, Anthony (committee member), Yates, Kenneth (committee member)

Creator Email essexlje@aol.com,jessex@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113065001

Unique identifier UC113065001

Identifier etd-EssexJosep-11681.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-EssexJosep-11681

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Essex, Joseph Brian

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230421-usctheses-batch-1028 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu