Download Sexual Dynamics in Mentoring Relationships

British Journal of Management, Vol. 19, S120–S129 (2008)
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00577.x
Sexual Dynamics in Mentoring
Relationships – A Critical Review
Lynn M. Morgan and Marilyn J. Davidson
Centre for Equality and Diversity at Work, Manchester Business School, University of Manchester,
Booth Street West, Manchester M15 6PB, UK
Corresponding author email: [email protected]
This paper considers the nature of the interpersonal dynamic in mentoring relationships
and the correlation between a close mentoring relationship and the possibility of that
relationship becoming romantic or sexual. In considering this issue we have reviewed the
literature that is pertinent to this context; this includes research on the workplace as a
sexualized environment, the criteria considered to be desirable for an effective
mentoring relationship and issues of gender and sexual orientation in the workplace. In
highlighting these issues we suggest that organizations, mentees and mentors should be
made aware of the potential risks before embarking on a mentoring relationship, and
suggest this is an area that clearly needs more research.
Introduction
In the last 30 years there has been a great deal of
research on the subject of mentoring; however,
whilst there has been some research which
specifically covers interpersonal dynamics in mentoring relationships, there has been very little that
looks into the sexual dynamics of these relationships, and even less looking at sexuality from
anything other than a heteronormative approach.
This suggests that the whole area of sexuality in
mentoring relationships is an area which merits
further investigation, particularly given that there
is now a greater recognition of the workplace as a
sexualized environment (Anderson and Hunsaker,
1985; Bleske and Buss, 2000; Bordwin, 1994; Eyler
and Baridon, 1992; Gruber and Morgan, 2005;
Hearn and Parkin, 1987, 1995; Hearn et al., 1989;
Kakabadse and Kakabadse, 2004; Skidmore, 2004;
Williams, Giuffre and Dellinger, 1999). We are
currently undertaking research into interpersonal
dynamics, including issues around sexuality, in
mentoring relationships, and this is drawn on in
the later discussion.
When considering sexuality in the workplace it
is of course important to consider it from more
than a heterosexual perspective. Skidmore (2004)
in his study of sexuality and organization in
relation to lesbian women and gay men suggests:
The workplace has become recognized as an
important locus in organizational and spatial terms
for sexualized performances by individual subjects.
This approach argues that ‘work’ – here taken to be
labour, usually paid and outside the household,
whether in terms of task to be performed or the
function of workers in the production process – can
be better understood when sexuality is taken into
account, a perspective which additionally opens up
new insights into the power relation of gender.
(Skidmore, 2004, p. 229)
Recognition of the workplace as a sexual
environment, from the heterosexual perspective,
has long been recognized and Spruel as far back
as 1985 was urging that the situation be actively
managed:
Sexual attraction can’t be stopped and it can
enhance the organization. It should be managed
so it has a positive, not negative effect on the
organization and its people. (Spruel, 1985, p. 22)
In the range of relationships that occur within
an organization, mentoring relationships in
r 2008 British Academy of Management. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford
OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.
Sexual Dynamics in Mentoring Relationships
particular tend, by their nature, to be very
personal and have a power dynamic. We believe
that by understanding the dynamics, it is possible
to plan to avoid potential pitfalls such as the risks
of relationships developing in the workplace in a
way which is over familiar and possibly even
sexualized.
It would be pertinent at this point to define
what is meant by mentoring. For the purposes of
this review we adopt the following definition of a
mentor:
A mentor is a senior person who has an emotional
investment in the development of a junior person.
Interpersonal trust and emotional attachment exists
on both sides. The mentor may or may not be able
to effect much instrumental help for the protégé in
the organization but the mentor holds the protégé’s
interests at heart and provides socioemotional
support to the protégé. (Murrell, Crosby and Ely,
1999, p. 15)
The aim of this paper is therefore to present a
critical review of the largely unexplored topic of
the sexual dynamics inherent in mentoring
relationships in the workplace. First, it is
important to review the literature relating to the
workplace as a sexualized environment. This is
followed by a discussion of the sexual/romantic
dynamics in heterosexual cross-gender mentoring
and the criteria needed for an effective mentoring
relationship. The next section emphasizes the
negative effects of sexual relationships in heterosexual cross-gender mentoring and finally we
then explore the sexual dynamic in gay and
lesbian mentoring relationships. Based on the
findings of this review, our conclusion proposes
that organizations, mentees and mentors should
be made aware of the highlighted potential risks
associated with a sexualized dynamic before
embarking on a mentoring relationship, and
suggest this is an area which clearly needs more
research.
The workplace as a sexualized
environment
According to Quinn and Lees (1984):
Sexual feelings are a natural phenomenon and at
least an implicit issue in human groups. When
people walk through the office door, their sexual
r 2008 British Academy of Management.
S121
feelings are not extinguished. (Quinn and Lees,
1984, p. 35)
To what degree this is generally true is perhaps
debatable. Most people would probably say that
regardless of whether they perceived themselves
to be a sexual being, their understanding of what
is acceptable in the work environment would act
as a constraint in terms of how they behave in the
workplace. There has been little research specifically about romance or sexuality in the mentoring
relationship and therefore it is useful to look at
the broader context. Numerous authors have
stated that as a subject of academic research little
had been done until relatively recently (Hearn
et al., 1989; Kakabadse and Kakabadse, 2004;
Mainiero, 1986; Powell and Foley, 1999; Williams, Giuffre and Dellinger, 1999). Williams,
Giuffre and Dellinger (1999) suggested that, of
the research that had been done, much of it had
numerous shortcomings because most of the
research had focused on purely heterosexual
relationships, and in many of the research studies
the evidence is from a third party. However, there
do appear to have been more surveys on this
subject in recent years that have produced some
interesting statistics. For example, WorldWIT
(women in technology), an online community for
professional women, polled 35,000 members and
found 61% had been romantically involved with
a colleague and 20% claimed to have been
intimate in the office (Gurchiek, 2005).
If the incidence of office romance is so high, it
begs the question – what impact is this having on
the working environment? Mainiero (2003)
clearly thought the impact to have been judged
as a negative one:
Office romances are here to stay, but love, lust and
labour have long been strange bedfellows. It has
long been accepted that personal relationships may
compromise otherwise objective business decisions.
(Mainiero, 2003, p. 2)
Perhaps not surprisingly, given that the workplace has traditionally been dominated by men in
senior positions, research has suggested that the
career risks associated with sexual relationships
in the workplace have been greater for women
than they have for men – in that women have
tended to be more negatively evaluated regarding
their competence and motivations than men
(Anderson and Hunsaker, 1985; Collins, 1983;
Mainiero, 1986; Quinn, 1977).
S122
It would also seem that the degree to which a
relationship is accepted, or not, is likely to be
linked to the culture of the organization. Williams,
Giuffre and Dellinger (1999) found that US
organizations varied widely in their acceptance of
office romance. At one end of the spectrum they
found organizations that prohibited and monitored all intimate involvement among employees –
this category might include, for example, religious
organizations. At the other end of the spectrum
were organizations which were very tolerant,
almost encouraging workplace romances – this
category included high tech companies (Apple,
Microsoft, Xerox, Oracle and Borland Computers)
and natural food companies (Ben and Jerry’s and
Odwalla) (Williams, Giuffre and Dellinger, 1999).
Whilst the sexualized culture of an organization
may increase the incidence of social sexual behaviour in the workplace, other factors may be
relevant too. For instance, some studies have
revealed that employees who are closer in rank
and status are likely to be higher in functional
proximity and are therefore more likely to be
attracted to each other (Dillard and Whitteman,
1985); and physical proximity has been shown to be
an important factor in the likelihood of a romance
developing (Anderson and Hunsaker, 1985; Mainiero, 1986; Quinn, 1977). It is suggested that the
intensity of the work relationship – e.g. when
workers are both very focused on completing a
complex project – is a significant contributory
factor in terms of the likelihood of a romantic
attachment developing (Clawson and Kram, 1984;
Mainiero, 1986; Quinn, 1977). Byrne (1971) and
later Byrne and Neuman (1992) defined the
‘similarity–attraction paradigm’, i.e. individuals
who are more similar in attitude to each other will
like each other more.
In the next section we explore the similarity
between the circumstances which have been referred
to here as being possible factors in romantic or
sexual attraction in the workplace and the criteria
needed for an effective mentoring relationship.
L. M. Morgan and M. J. Davidson
Sexual and romantic relationships in
heterosexual cross-gender mentoring
Whatever the catalyst, two people being paired
together for mentoring, either formally or informally, enter into a relationship which falls
within a range in terms of intensity and attachment. The continuum would start in non-sexual,
psychologically intimate relationships but end at
something that could be sexual harassment
(Hurley and Fagenson-Eland, 1996). This model
has also been used to define cross-gender
relationships in the office (Williams, Giuffre and
Dellinger, 1999). Lobel et al. (1994) in a study of
cross-gender relationships in the workplace
found that 968 of 1044 respondents reported
non-sexual, psychologically intimate relationships with opposite gender co-workers. A cynic
might remember Oscar Wilde’s assertion in Lady
Windermere’s Fan that ‘Between men and women
there is no friendship possible. There is passion,
enmity, worship, love but no friendship.’1 Because the perception of the ‘office romance’ has
historically been between male and female, much
of the research is based on heterosexual relationships, but there is an interesting dimension to be
explored as to how, if at all, this differs for nonheterosexual workers.
With the potential risk to individuals and the
wider organization, examination of the scope for
the mentoring relationship to develop in this way
is quite an important consideration for both
participants and organizations. In many studies
on the subject, the personality of the mentor and
the way the mentee relates to the mentor have
been found to be a key factor in the success of the
mentoring relationships (Bozionelos, 2004; Chao,
1997; Kram, 1985; Rogers, 1951). Byrne (1971)
asserted that comfort zones are based on the
‘similarity–attraction paradigm’ (as mentioned
earlier), which essentially holds that people we
are attracted to, and tend to like, are people like
ourselves. Clutterbuck (2002) developed this line
of thought further, whilst also referring to the
‘similarity–attraction paradigm’. He suggested
two other theories: the ‘social comparison theory’
which asserts that successful relationships tend to
be where people share a common perspective and
understanding of cultural issues, and the ‘reinforcement-effect model of attraction’, which
People choose a mentor for different reasons as
we shall discuss, but Gilbert (1985) found that
women tended to care more about the lifestyle
and values of their role models than men.
1
In the same vein Shere Hite wrote that men and women
have traditionally been taught to ‘meet and mate’ and
she advocated a creating of new ‘workable relationships’
(Hite, 2000, p. 11).
r 2008 British Academy of Management.
S123
Sexual Dynamics in Mentoring Relationships
proposes that people like those who have similar
attitudes to their own (Clutterbuck, 2002, p. 116).
Other elements found to be crucial in an effective
mentoring relationship are trust, focus, empathy,
congruence and empowerment (Rogers, 1951).
With all these theories it is interesting to
consider how similar the criteria are to the
elements in the development of sexual or romantic
relationships in general. Given this potential risk
it is perhaps not surprising that getting the nature
of a mentoring relationship right can be a real
dilemma; whilst clearly a relationship that is too
close is inappropriate, there is evidence to suggest
that the mentor who does get close to their mentee
is likely to create a much more effective mentoring
relationship (Clawson and Kram, 1984). However, power can be sexy. Quinn and Lees (1984)
reported that in 74% of romantic relationships
which occur at work, the male is in a more senior
position to the female.
In cross-gender mentoring relationships, the
dearth of women in senior positions means that
the most likely scenario is a male mentor and
female mentee (Burke and McKeen, 1990, 1997).
There is of course scope for the relationship to be
female mentor–male mentee, but to date this
combination tends to be less common2 (Burke
and McKeen, 1990; Davidson and Burke, 2000;
Kram, 1985; Ragins and Cotton, 1996; Woolnough et al., 2006). Unfortunately there is little
published research indicating the incidence or
consequences of the development of sexual
relationships in this scenario, although our own
ongoing qualitative interview research has revealed a number of female mentor–male mentee
relationships which have resulted in sexual
relationships.
Our article therefore proposes that it is
important to find a way of managing mentoring
relationships by limiting the number of opportunities for them to go wrong. It has also been
suggested that men may think, when they become
a mentor to a female mentee, that they are ‘acting
gender blind’ (Ragins, 2002) but in fact this may
not necessarily be beneficial to the woman – a
2
In fact one of the earliest references to mentoring is in
Homer’s Odyssey – where he wrote about Athena, the
goddess of wisdom, taking on the form of a man named
Mentor, in order to give Odysseus advice. Clearly the
fact that Athena had to disguise her gender suggests that
the gender issue around mentors is not a new thing!
r 2008 British Academy of Management.
male mentor may need to acknowledge the
differences in the situation of a female employee
and the differences in approach between men and
women.
Despite concerted efforts by women to achieve
career parity with men, the reality is that there
are still substantially fewer women in positions of
power than there are men. Fewer women in
senior management positions and in the boardroom means that it can be harder for women
to find appropriate role models (Woolnough,
Davidson and Pederit, 2007). Unfortunately, in
the absence of appropriate role models other less
satisfactory approaches may be used, e.g. the
tendency for there to be ‘sex-role spillover’. As
early as 1981, Nieva and Gutek (1981) defined the
sex-role spillover model as carrying into the
workplace assumptions about gender which are
irrelevant to the workplace. Gutek (1985, 1989)
described how men may ascribe to women
behaviours or roles which, from their personal
lives, they feel familiar with. So for example they
may view women as sex object, lover, wife,
daughter or mother. Three decades later, there is
still evidence that this type of ‘sex-role spillover’
continues, particularly in traditionally male-dominated occupations and industries (Clawson and
Kram, 1984; Powell and Graves, 2003; Scandura
and Baugh, 2002). Thus a female mentee may slip
into one of these designated roles or may choose
to exploit the situation, but Kram suggested that
both careers suffer from this approach:
The woman who colludes in playing a helpless and
dependent role forfeits the opportunity to demonstrate her skills and competence. The male mentor
who maintains the role of tough, invulnerable
expert forfeits the opportunity to ask for help when
it would be useful. (Kram, 1985, p. 109)
A relationship based on these outdated stereotypes is likely to give neither party satisfaction
and is limiting in the opportunities it gives both
the mentee and the mentor to grow.
The negative effects of sexual
relationships in heterosexual
cross-gender mentoring
It is perhaps not surprising, given the research
findings cited in the previous sections of this
paper, that mentoring relationships do, some-
S124
times, become romantic attachments or take on a
sexual dimension. Kakabadse and Kakabadse
(2004, p. 33) suggest that more and more workplaces encourage employees to feel themselves to
be part of a unit. They refer to this as the ‘weness’ that is promoted in many workplaces and
increasingly team members are encouraged to
bond and consider each other’s welfare rather
than being focused on their own self-satisfaction
(Bowes-Sperry and Tata, 1999). This should be
considered in the context of the research referred
to earlier which suggests that proximity is a
potential catalyst for a relationship. Given that it
has also been found that pursuit of similar
workplace goals, performing similar tasks and
the feeling of excitement when a project is
successful can be contributory factors it is
perhaps not surprising that romantic or sexualized relationships develop from time to time.
When relationships do develop in this way
there may often be regret at a later stage. In one
study carried out by Collins (1983) the results
showed that 25% of the female participants had
had a sexual relationship with their mentors, but
looking back at their situation many of the
women felt that the sexual liaisons had been
harmful to them, and none of them felt that those
relationships had been helpful. When relationships develop between a couple where one
participant occupies a more powerful position
in the organization or the business relationship,
other people within the organization are likely to
question the judgement and objectivity of the
senior participant (Anderson and Hunsaker,
1985; Clawson and Kram, 1984; Collins, 1983;
Kram, 1985; Mainiero, 1986; Quinn, 1977).
A cross-gender mentoring relationship is not just
a risk in terms of a relationship developing between
the participants, but also a risk that the relationship
will be perceived as romantic or sexual by others.
Fitt and Newton (1981) found that close relationships with members of the opposite sex were often
regarded suspiciously by colleagues or partners.
Furthermore, if a woman has a male mentor who is
at a higher level within the organization, she may be
unfairly charged with ‘sleeping her way to the top’
(Quinn and Lees, 1984). Clawson and Kram (1984)
refer to these two dimensions as the ‘internal
relationship’, the relationship between the two
individuals, and the ‘external relationship’, the
relationship between the mentoring pair, the public
and the wider organization. The nature of the
L. M. Morgan and M. J. Davidson
mentoring relationship – whether actual or the way
it is perceived by others – will affect the outcome of
the overall relationship (Bennetts, 1994; Clawson
and Kram, 1984; Devine and Markiewicz, 1990; Fitt
and Newton, 1981; Kakabadse and Kakabadse,
2004; Kram, 1985; Quinn and Lees, 1984; Ragins,
1989; Ragins and Cotton, 1991).
The possibility of negative perceptions of the
mentoring relationship can cause mentor and
mentee to keep their distance and perhaps avoid
further mentoring opportunities or not use the
mentoring opportunity as usefully as they could
(Chao and O’Leary, 1990; Clawson and Kram,
1984; Hurley and Fagenson-Eland, 1996). It is
interesting to note that recent US research has
highlighted obstacles to cross-sex friendships at
work as being ‘the glass partition’ (Elsesser and
Peplau, 2006). Specifically, both male and female
professionals were worried that cross-sex friends
in the workplace may misinterpret friendliness
for a romantic or sexual interest, or indeed sexual
harassment. The authors emphasized the potential impact that this glass partition may be
placing on both men’s and women’s career
development (Elsesser and Peplau, 2006).
Some workplaces discourage socializing between male mentors and female mentees because
of the potential problems of sexuality in the
workplace (O’Neill, 2002). Employers may well
fear the repercussions of mentoring relationships
that develop beyond a professional relationship.
Certainly sexual liaisons can create problems for
the organization (O’Neill, 2002). Incidence of
sexual harassment is not uncommon – the Equal
Opportunities Commission published a report in
2002 which suggested that 50% of women and
14% of men had been sexually harassed in some
way at work (EOC, 2002).
Research in progress on the interpersonal dynamic in mentoring relationships that we have
carried out, to date, has included over 50 interviews
with UK professional men and women who have
had a mentor. A common finding has been for
respondents to openly acknowledge that they used
flirting with a powerful senior to gain advice,
promotions and sponsorship. One heterosexual
respondent spoke frankly about how she benefited
from her male mentor’s affection for her:
Our relationship was always very flirty, I acted very
girly and he was very macho. I was aware that he
held me in high esteem and not just because of my
r 2008 British Academy of Management.
Sexual Dynamics in Mentoring Relationships
capabilities. I think he felt something like love for
me and I think the relationship was also about his
ego. In the short to medium term it had a positive
effect [on my career]. I was convinced and assured
of his desire to make me happy and help me
constructively with my career. When I achieved the
next step I broke away, I felt that the relationship
would have hindered my longer term career and it
was beginning to affect my personal relationships.
(Morgan and Davidson, 2007)
It is interesting to note that Clawson and Kram
(1984) found in their research that, whilst
extreme intimacy or distance in developmental
relationships may be dysfunctional, a balance of
intimacy and distance is needed for the relationship to be more productive and those partners
who have appropriate boundaries in their personal and organizational roles in the workplace
may be less likely to suffer dysfunctional effects.
Whilst considering these issues, it is important to
remember that neither romantic nor sexual
relationships nor even sexual harassment is
confined to heterosexual employees.
The impact of gay and lesbian sexual
orientation on the workplace experience
and the mentoring relationship
Whilst it is evident that there has been very little
academic research into the field of heterosexual
mentoring relationships in this context (also see
Hearn and Parkin, 1987, 1995; Hearn et al.,
1989), it is also true to say there has been even
less on gay, lesbian or bisexual sexual relationships within organizations. According to one
source, lesbian women and gay men probably
make up between 5% and 7% of the UK
population, representing a total of approximately
3 million (totaljobs.com 2004). Despite various
initiatives both in the USA and the UK to create
more diverse and equitable workforces, inequality still exists (Creed, 2005). However, research
findings on the impact of sexual orientation on
career success show that the situation is quite
complex. Whilst discrimination may flourish in
some quarters (Outright, 2006), according to
some research gay men and women’s earnings
outstrip heterosexual earnings by up to d10,000 a
year (Diva and Gay Times, November 2005).
In 2000 the EU issued an Employment Equality Directive requiring EU member states to
r 2008 British Academy of Management.
S125
protect employees from discrimination based on
their sexual orientation. This was followed in
December 2003 by a change in UK law also
making it illegal to discriminate against someone
on the grounds of their sexual orientation. It is a
given that the introduction of legislation outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation is clearly to be welcomed, but it is
too early to say that this will significantly change
the workplace experience for people who are gay,
lesbian or transsexual (Skidmore, 2004).
Studies have shown that being gay, lesbian or
bisexual can have a negative impact on career
advancement because development resources,
such as mentoring or networking opportunities,
may be fewer for this group of people (Creed,
2005; Croteau and von Destinon, 1994; Croteau
and Lark, 1995; Friskopp and Silverstein, 1996;
Powers, 1996; Ragins and Cornwell, 2001; Ward
and Winstanley, 2006; Woods, 1994). It is not
necessarily the case, of course, to say that for
everyone sexual orientation will be the most
important aspect of their identity; people may
belong to many different social groupings, i.e.
Afro-Caribbean, female and lesbian, and their
ethnicity or gender may be of more importance to
them. However, Clutterbuck and Ragins (2002)
suggest a hypothesis that identification in mentoring relationships will be optimized when
parties share stigmatized social identity, in other
words the greater the stigmatization of the
protégé’s social identity, the greater the role
modelling involved when having a mentor who
shares that social identity. Bech (1997) summarizes the key points about the role of gay
friendship:
Being together with other homosexuals allows one
to mirror oneself in them and find self-affirmation.
It allows one to share and interpret one’s experiences. It allows one to learn in more detail what it
means to be homosexual: how to act, what to think,
thus lending substance to one’s proclaimed identity,
as well as assimilating certain techniques that may
help bridge the gap between the identity and one’s
actual experiences and conduct. (Bech, 1997, p. 116)
For gay and lesbian employees the workplace
is potentially hostile and therefore the tendency
may well be not to disclose non-heterosexual
identity (Day and Schoenrade, 2000; Konrad,
Prasad and Pringle, 2005; Ward and Winstanley,
2006); thus the opportunities to mentor or be
S126
mentored by someone of the same sexual
orientation will be limited. Trust and acceptance
are critical criteria in a mentoring relationship
and the concealing of sexual orientation may set
up hidden barriers. Furthermore, if the true
situation is revealed later, in a same sex mentoring relationship, there may be concerns or
questions raised around ulterior motives. According to Clutterbuck and Ragins (2002) many
gay and lesbian mentees are uncomfortable
coming out to heterosexual mentors, and many
heterosexual mentors are not comfortable with
having a gay or lesbian protégé.
Nardi (1999) maintains that given the absence
of comfort and of mechanisms for identity
maintenance that many gay men find in a
predominantly heterosexual workplace, for them
the workplace rarely becomes a source of friends
that are more than acquaintances. Nardi also
reports that ‘Gay men in my study regularly
emphasized how similar they were to their friends
and how important this homophily of shared
values, status, and interests was for their identity
and self-esteem’ (Nardi, 1999, p. 27).
Powell and Foley (1999) remarked in their
review of literature about romantic relationships
in organizations:
Silence on same-sex romances is exhibited in the
literature on workplace romances in general. All of
the theoretical and empirical treatments of workplace romances in the scholarly literature which
were identified for our review have been restricted
to opposite-sex romances. (Powell and Foley, 1999,
p. 302)
Almost a decade has elapsed since Powell and
Foley’s comments on the dearth of literature on
same-sex romances in the workplace; yet today,
there is still very little literature or research to be
found on this subject.
Conclusion
There is no question that mentoring relationships
can be of great benefit to individuals, but the
range of factors that can affect the relationship –
either positively or negatively – is vast. In
addition to this, the relationship is usually
developed in a workplace environment and
evidence would suggest that the office environment is often sexually charged (Human and Legal
L. M. Morgan and M. J. Davidson
Resources, 2004; Kakabadse and Kakabadse,
2004; Mainiero, 2003). This review has sought
to provide a broad context of issues that can arise
and then examine the existing research on how
the sexual dynamic can impact on a mentoring
relationship. A mentoring relationship which
results in the mentor and the mentee having a
sexual relationship is not a healthy one. Issues
ranging from exploitation, sexual harassment,
job loss and demotivated colleagues are just some
of the potential negative consequences, and
whilst these are risks for all concerned, the
evidence would suggest that the career risks
associated with sexual or romantic relationships
in the workplace are greater for women than they
are for men, in that women tend to be more
negatively evaluated regarding their competence
and motivations than men (Anderson and
Hunsaker, 1985; Collins, 1983; Mainiero, 1986;
Quinn, 1977). Nevertheless, the line between a
positive, empathetic and dynamic mentoring
relationship and a relationship which is, or is at
risk of, developing into a sexual or romantic
relationship is a fine one. Without doubt, it has to
be worth the effort to try to ensure that
appropriate parameters and boundaries are
established at an early stage in the mentoring
relationship and continuously monitored in order
to reduce the likelihood of the mentoring
relationship being compromised in this way.
The other end of the spectrum is a mentoring
relationship which is disengaged and typified by
the absence of genuine care or concern for the
mentee – at best this type of relationship is likely
to be ineffectual, at worst it could be very
damaging for the mentee who may perceive
themselves as being not worth the effort.
In reviewing the research to date, the criteria
considered important in the development of a
good mentoring relationship are often perilously
close to the circumstances in which romantic or
sexualized relationships flourish (Anderson and
Hunsaker, 1985; Mainiero, 1986; Quinn, 1977).
When it comes to choosing a mentor, there is
agreement that people tend to choose a mentor
with whom they can identify (Bozionelos, 2004;
Chao, 1997; Kram, 1985). And where do we find
‘people like us’? Eyler and Baridon (1992)
pointed out that the workplace flourishes as a
source of romantic pairings because the players
have to some extent been pre-selected, i.e. it is
quite likely that they will have a range of
r 2008 British Academy of Management.
S127
Sexual Dynamics in Mentoring Relationships
similarities in terms of age, academic background, interests and values which will have led
them to be working in their present organization.
To date there is little research on how this impacts
on gay, lesbian and bisexual workers although
undoubtedly in some sectors such as the fashion
industry there is a higher concentration of workers
with these sexual orientations and therefore a degree
of self-selection is occurring. Rogers (1961) found
that the essential elements of a good mentoring
relationship are trust, focus, empathy, congruence
and empowerment. Kakabadse and Kakabadse
(2004) defined this as the promotion of ‘we-ness’ in
organizations and Waring et al. (1980) suggested it is
just this sense of nurturing and being nurtured
which engenders intimate relationships. Given this
context, we would suggest that it is good practice for
participants in a mentoring relationship to be made
aware of the risks of attachment, and mentors need
to be guarded against the possibilities.
The prevalence of unhelpful sexual or romantic
feelings in cross-gender relationships has prompted
some scholars and activists to advocate relationships which differ from the traditional ones
(O’Neill, 2002). This has resulted in mentoring
circles or action learning sets being advocated in
some organizations. We would not dispute the
value of mentoring circles or action learning sets,
but they do provide a different form of development support and it would be unfortunate to lose
the potential benefits that mentoring can bring.
With appropriate preparation the issues discussed
in this article could be avoided but, whilst this
review is intended to highlight some of the potential
issues, we would urge against ill-considered solutions. The approach adopted by individuals, in
terms of whether they treat subordinates differently
because of their gender or sexual orientation, needs
to be very carefully thought through in the light of
equality of opportunity legislation and good
practice.
It is true to say that many male mentors feel
concerned about the situation – they are unclear
as to what is acceptable, they worry that something they say will be misconstrued (Elsesser and
Peplau, 2006; Hurley and Fagenson-Eland, 1996) –
and it is unlikely that it is only heterosexual men
who feel this concern.
We believe that clearly the whole subject of the
sexual dynamics in mentoring relationships is one
that requires further research. In particular,
research questions could be centred around
r 2008 British Academy of Management.
a longitudinal study evaluating whether effective preparatory training of mentors and
mentees affects the way that the mentoring
relationships develop in terms of the level of
intimacy established;
a longitudinal study evaluating the impact of
clear and well-publicized relationship policies;
gay/lesbian/bisexual mentoring relationships –
both the degree to which such opportunities are
available and to what extent the relationship
issues reflect those of heterosexual pairings;
the sexual dynamics and risks associated with
the female mentor/male mentee pairing.
In addition, organizations would benefit from
developing and communicating good policies on
romantic involvement in the workplace and
raising awareness, particularly for mentors, as
to some of the problems that may arise. Studies
have shown that intimate relationships are more
likely to develop in workplace environments that
are to some degree ‘sexualized’ or certainly more
tolerant of these situations (Gutek, 1985; Williams, Giuffre and Dellinger, 1999). With this in
mind, organizations may be well advised to
consider the culture of their organization. Indeed
our ongoing research has revealed that less than
10% of interviewee respondents were aware of a
policy within their own organization dealing with
romantic or sexual relationships between staff. In
the final analysis, companies may be reluctant to
become involved in establishing such policies or
raising the subject because of the sensitivity of
these issues but, in the light of the potential
damage to business, this should be progressed in
just the same way that they would carry out risk
analysis on all other aspects of their business.
References
Anderson, C. and P. Hunsaker (1985). ‘Why there’s romancing
at the office and why it’s everyone’s problem’, Personnel, 62,
pp. 57–63.
Bech, H. (1997). When Men Meet: Homosexuality and
Modernity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bennetts, C. (1994). ‘Mentors, mirrors and reflective practitioners: an inquiry into informal mentor/learner relationships’. M.Ed. Dissertation, DACE Library, University of
Sheffield.
Bleske, A. L. and D. M. Buss (2000). ‘Can men and women just
be friends?’, Personal Relationships, 7, pp. 131–151.
Bordwin, M. (1994). ‘Containing Cupid’s arrow’, Small
Business Reports, 19 (7), pp. 53–58.
S128
Bowes-Sperry, L. and J. Tata (1999). ‘A multi-perspective
framework of sexual harassment: reviewing two decades of
research’. In G. Powell (ed.), Handbook of Gender and Work,
pp. 263–280. New York: Sage.
Bozionelos, N. (2004). ‘Mentoring, provided: relation to
mentor’s career success, personality, and mentoring received’,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, pp. 24–46.
Burke, R. J. and C. A. McKeen (1990). ‘Mentoring in
organizations: implications for women’, Journal of Business
Ethics, 9, pp. 317–332.
Burke, R. J. and C. A. McKeen (1997). ‘Not every managerial
woman who makes it has a mentor’, Women in Management
Review, 12, pp. 136–139.
Byrne, D. (1971). The Attraction Paradigm. New York:
Academic Press.
Byrne, D. and J. H. Neuman (1992). ‘The implication of
attraction research for organizational issues’. In K. Kelley
(ed.), Issues, Theory and Research in Industrial/Organizational
Psychology, pp. 29–70. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Chao, G. T. (1997). ‘Mentoring phases and outcomes’, Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 51, pp. 15–28.
Chao, G. T. and A. M. O’Leary (1990). ‘How others see sameand cross-gender mentoring’, Mentoring International, 6 (3),
pp. 3–12.
Clawson, J. G. and K. E. Kram (1984). ‘Managing cross-gender
mentoring’, Business Horizons, 27 (3), pp. 22–31.
Clutterbuck, D. (2002). ‘Building and sustaining the diversity –
mentoring relationships’. In D. Clutterbuck and B. R. Ragins
(eds), Mentoring and Diversity: an International Perspective.
Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Clutterbuck, D. and B. R. Ragins (eds) (2002). Mentoring and
Diversity: an International Perspective. Oxford: Butterworth
Heinemann.
Collins, N. W. (1983). Professional Women and Their Mentors:
A Practical Guide to Mentoring for the Woman Who Wants to
Get Ahead. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Creed, W. E. D. (2005). ‘Seven conversations about the same
thing – homophobia and heterosexism in the workplace’. In
A. M. Konrad, P. Prasad and J. K. Pringle (eds), Handbook
of Workplace Diversity. London: Sage.
Croteau, J. M. and M. von Destinon (1994). ‘A national survey
of job experiences of lesbian, gay and bisexual student affairs
professionals’, Journal of College Student Development, 35,
pp. 40–45.
Croteau, J. M. and J. S. Lark (1995). ‘On being lesbian, gay or
bisexual in student affairs: a national survey of experiences on
the job’, NASPA Journal, 32, pp. 189–197.
Davidson, M. J. and R. J. Burke (eds) (2000). Women in
Management: Current Research Issues II. London: Sage.
Day, N. E. and P. Schoenrade (2000). ‘The relationship among
reported disclosure of sexual orientation, anti-discrimination
policies, top management support and work attitudes of gay
and lesbian employees’, Personnel Review, 29, pp. 346–363.
Devine, I. and D. Markiewicz (1990). ‘Cross-sex relationships
at work and the impact of gender stereotypes’, Journal of
Business Ethics, 9, pp. 333–338.
Dillard, J. P. and H. Whitteman (1985). ‘Romantic relationships at work: organizational and personal influence’, Human
Communication Search, 12 (1), pp. 99–116.
Elsesser, K. and L. A. Peplau (2006). ‘The glass partition:
obstacles to cross-sex friendships at work’, Human Relations,
59 (8), pp. 1077–1100.
L. M. Morgan and M. J. Davidson
EOC (2002). ‘Sexual harassment: an EOR survey’, Equal
Opportunities Review, No. 102, February, pp. 8–21.
Eyler, D. R. and A. P. Baridon (1992). ‘Far more than
friendship – sexual attraction in the workplace’, Psychology
Today, May–June.
Fitt, L. W. and D. A. Newton (1981). ‘When the mentor is a
man and the protégé is a woman’, Harvard Business Review,
58 (2), pp. 56–60.
Friskopp, A. and S. Silverstein (1996). Straight Jobs, Gay Lives,
the Harvard Business School and the American Workplace.
New York: Touchstone, Simon and Schuster.
Gilbert, L. A. (1985). ‘Dimensions of same-gender student–
faculty role-model relationships’, Sex Roles, 12, pp.
111–123.
Gruber, J. E. and P. Morgan (eds) (2005). In the Company of
Men: Male Dominance and Sexual Harassment. Boston, MA:
Northeastern University Press.
Gurchiek, K. (2005). ‘Be ready for slings, arrows of Cupid in
the cubicles’, HR Magazine, 50, pp. 36–37.
Gutek, B. A. (1985). Sex and the Workplace. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gutek, B. A. (1989). ‘Sexuality in the workplace: key issues in
social research and organizational practice’. In J. Hearn, D. L.
Sheppard, P. Tancred-Sheriff and G. Burrell (eds), The
Sexuality of Organization. London: Sage.
Hearn, J. and W. Parkin (1987). ‘Sex’ at ‘Work’: The Power and
Paradox of Organization Sexuality. Brighton: Wheatsheaf.
Hearn, J. and W. Parkin (1995). ‘Sex’ at ‘Work’: The Power and
Paradox of Organization Sexuality, revised and updated.
Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall, Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Hearn, J., D. L. Sheppard, P. Tancred-Sherriff and G. Burrell
(eds) (1989). The Sexuality of Organization. London:
Sage.
Hite, S. (2000). Sex and Business. London: Pearson Education.
Human and Legal Resources (2004). Work–Love Balance:
Romantic Relationships in the Workplace. A research report by
Human and Legal Resources, Colette Hill Associates, London,
February.
Hurley, A. E. and E. A. Fagenson-Eland (1996). ‘Challenges in
cross-gender mentoring relationships: psychological intimacy, myths, rumours, innuendoes and sexual harassment’,
Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 17, pp.
42–49.
Kakabadse, A. and N. Kakabadse (2004). Intimacy: International Survey of the Sex Lives of People at Work. New York:
Palgrave.
Konrad, A. M., P. Prasad and J. K. Pringle (eds) (2005).
Handbook of Workplace Diversity. London: Sage.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at Work: Developmental
Relationships in Organizational Life. Glenville, IL: Scott,
Foresman.
Lobel, S. A., R. E. Quinn, L. St Clair and A. Warfield (1994).
‘Love without sex: the impact of psychological intimacy
between men and women at work’, Organizational Dynamics,
23 (1), pp. 5–16.
Mainiero, L. A. (1986). ‘A review and analysis of power
dynamics in organizational romances’, Academy of Management Review, 11, pp. 750–762.
Mainiero, L. (2003). ‘On the ethics of office romance:
developing a moral compass for the workplace’. In R. J.
Burke and M. C. Mathis (eds), Supporting Women’s Career
Advancement. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
r 2008 British Academy of Management.
Sexual Dynamics in Mentoring Relationships
Morgan, L. and M. Davidson (2007). ‘Sexual dynamics in
mentoring relationships – a critical review’. Paper presented at
the European Academy of Management Conference, Paris, May.
Murrell, A. J., F. J. Crosby and R. J. Ely (1999). Mentoring
Dilemmas: Developmental Relationships within Multicultural
Organizations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Nardi, P. M. (1999). Gay Men’s Friendships – Invincible
Communities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Nieva, V. F. and B. A. Gutek (1981). Women and Work: A
Psychological Perspective. New York: Praeger.
O’Neill, R. M. (2002). ‘Gender and race in mentoring relationships: a review of the literature’. In D. Clutterbuck and B. R.
Ragins (eds), Mentoring and Diversity: An International
Perspective. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Outright (2006). Research jointly commissioned by Channel 4,
OMD Insight and Gaydar Radio.
Powell, G. N. and S. Foley (1999). ‘Romantic relationships in
organizational settings: something to talk about’. In G. N.
Powell (ed.), Handbook of Gender and Work. New York: Sage.
Powell, G. N. and L. M. Graves (2003). Women and Men in
Management, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Powers, B. (1996). ‘The impact of gay, lesbian and bisexual
workplace issues on productivity’, Journal of Gay and Lesbian
Social Services, 47, pp. 79–90.
Quinn, R. (1977). ‘Coping with Cupid: the formation, impact
and management of romantic relationships in organizations’,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, pp. 30–45.
Quinn, R. E. and P. L. Lees (1984). ‘Attraction and harassment:
dynamics of sexual politics in the workplace’, Organizational
Dynamics, 13, pp. 35–46.
Ragins, B. R. (1989). ‘Barriers to mentoring: the female
manager’s dilemma’, Human Relations, 42, pp. 1–23.
Ragins, B. R. (2002). ‘Understanding diversified mentoring
relationships: definitions, challenges and strategies’. In D.
Clutterbuck and B. R. Ragins (eds), Mentoring and Diversity:
An International Perspective. Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann.
Ragins, B. R. and J. M. Cornwell (2001). ‘Pink triangles,
antecedents and consequences of perceived workplace
discrimination against gay and lesbian employees’, Journal
of Applied Psychology, 86 (6), pp. 1244–1261.
S129
Ragins, B. R. and J. L. Cotton (1991). ‘Easier said than done:
gender differences in perceived barriers to gaining a mentor’,
Academy of Management Journal, 34, pp. 939–951.
Ragins, B. R. and J. L. Cotton (1996). ‘Jumping the hurdles:
barriers to mentoring for women in organizations’, Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 17 (3), pp. 37–
41.
Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centred Therapy. London: Constable.
Rogers, C. (1961). On Becoming a Person. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
Scandura, T. A. A. and S. G. Baugh (2002). ‘Mentoring and
development relationships’. In R. J. Burke and D. L. Nelson
(eds), Advancing Women’s Careers. Oxford: Blackwell.
Skidmore, P. (2004). ‘Legal perspective on sexuality and
organization: a lesbian and gay case study’, Gender, Work
and Organization, 11 (3), pp. 229–253.
Spruel, G. R. (1985). ‘Love in the office’, Training and
Development Journal, 39, pp. 21–23.
Ward, J. and D. Winstanley (2006). ‘Watching the watch: the
UK Fire Service and its impact on sexual minorities in the
workplace’, Gender, Work and Organization, 13 (2), pp. 193–
219.
Waring, E. M., M. P. Tillman, L. Frelick, L. Russell and G.
Weisz (1980). ‘Concepts of intimacy in the general population’, Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 4, pp. 471–474.
Williams, C. L., P. A. Giuffre and K. Dellinger (1999).
‘Sexuality in the workplace: organizational control, sexual
harassment, and the pursuit of pleasure’, Annual Review of
Sociology, 25, pp. 73–93.
Woods, J. D. (1994). The Corporate Closet: The Professional
Lives of Gay Men in America. New York: Free Press.
Woolnough, H. M., M. J. Davidson and S. L. Fielden (2006).
‘The experiences of mentors on a career development and
mentoring programme for female mental health nurses in the
UK NHS’, Health Service Management Research Journal, 19,
pp. 186–196.
Woolnough, H. M., M. J. Davidson and K. Pederit (2007). ‘The
role of mentoring as a career tool for women in business and
management’. In D. Billimoria (ed.), Handbook of Women in
Business and Management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Lynn Morgan is currently completing her research into interpersonal dynamics in mentoring
relationships for a PhD at Manchester Business School. Her interests are in the fields of mentoring,
women in management and different management approaches. She has considerable personal
experience of developing people through having delivered management training, mentoring and
coaching.
Marilyn J. Davidson is Professor of Work Psychology and Co-Director of the Centre for Equality and
Diversity at Work, Manchester Business School, University of Manchester. Her research interests are in
the fields of occupational stress, the management of diversity, equal opportunities, women in management
and female entrepreneurs. She has published over 150 academic articles and 19 books.
r 2008 British Academy of Management.