Seeds of doubt: How the source of mentorship initiation influences mentoring expectations

Jean Rhodes

A substantial body of research, including meta-analyses, has demonstrated that informal mentoring relationships tend to yield stronger outcomes compared to their formal counterparts. This advantage persists across various educational and professional contexts, suggesting a fundamental difference in how these relationships function and develop.

The reason for informal mentors’ relatively stronger influence may lie in a psychological concept known as reflected appraisal. Reflected appraisal refers to an individual’s perception of how they are viewed by others, essentially, what we believe others think of us. This process is related to what Cooley (1902) described as the looking-glass self, wherein significant people in children’s and adolescents’ lives can become social mirrors into which the young people look to form opinions of themselves. The opinions that they see reflected back at them then become integrated into their sense of self. Sociologist George Mead (1934) similarly posited that individuals can incorporate the reflected appraisal of others’ views of them, imagining how they are perceived by significant people in their lives. As the mentor’s perceived positive appraisal becomes incorporated into the mentee’s sense of self, it may evem modify the way the youth thinks that others see him or her.

This brings us back to formal versus informal mentoring. When a mentoring relationship is initiated by the mentor themselves ,as often occurs in informal mentoring , mentees may experience what could be described as being “chosen.” This selection process sends a strong signal of value and worth, leading the mentee to believe that the mentor is genuinely interested in their development rather than simply fulfilling an obligation. This can also happen when mentees initiate a connection with a mentor and the mentor responds positively. Conversely, when organizations formally assign mentoring relationships, mentees may question the sincerity of their mentor’s investment. And when a formal mentor skips meetings or seems unresponsive, they may project insecurities about whether the mentor truly wants to help them or is merely completing a required task.

In a recent study, Godfrey and Benson (2023) conducted an experimental investigation to test these theoretical propositions about reflected appraisal in mentoring relationships. The researchers recruited 392 participants, manipulating two key variables: the source of mentorship initiation (mentor-initiated versus organization-initiated) and the mentor’s level of interpersonal responsiveness (higher versus moderate levels). Participants were randomly assigned to read fictional personality profiles of potential mentors that varied along these dimensions, then completed measures assessing their perceptions and expectations of the mentoring relationship.

The researchers measured reflected appraisal through two complementary constructs: perceived obligation (the extent to which participants believed their mentor felt obligated to help them) and genuine interest (the degree to which participants perceived their mentor as authentically invested in their development). Additionally, they assessed participants’ expectations for mentoring functions, including both vocational support (coaching, sponsorship, challenging assignments) and psychosocial support (friendship, counseling, acceptance).

The results support the reflected appraisal hypothesis. Participants in mentor-initiated conditions perceived their mentors as significantly less obligated to mentor them compared to those in organization-initiated conditions. This finding suggests that the source of relationship initiation fundamentally shapes mentees’ interpretations of their mentor’s motivations.

More importantly, the study revealed a crucial boundary condition: the mentor’s interpersonal responsiveness moderated these effects. When mentors were described as having moderate levels of interpersonal responsiveness, the source of initiation mattered considerably. Mentees in mentor-initiated relationships perceived their mentors as more genuinely interested in their development and subsequently held higher expectations for both vocational and psychosocial mentoring functions. However, when mentors were described as highly responsive, the initiation source became less consequential. Jighly responsive mentors were perceived as genuine regardless of how the relationship began. This suggests that mentor responsiveness can override structural skepticism.

In addition to ensuring that formal mentors are responsive, programs might emphasize creating opportunities for organic relationship development while providing training to both mentors and mentees on how to initiate and maintain meaningful connections. The research suggests that giving mentors agency in choosing their mentees, combined with structures that ensure broad access, could optimize relationship quality. The findings highlight the importance of interpersonal responsiveness as a key mentor characteristic. Organizations should prioritize training potential mentors in responsive behaviors and communication skills, as highly responsive mentors can overcome the potential negative effects of formal assignment processes.

The findings demonstrate that being “chosen” by a mentor creates a fundamentally different psychological experience than being assigned to one, leading to enhanced perceptions of genuine interest and ultimately better relationship outcomes. Settings that encourage caring adults to reach out and that empower students with the skills and confidence to build their own networks of support not only leverages the psychological benefits of choice and genuine interest but also creates sustainable skills that students can use throughout their academic and professional careers.