|dc.description.abstract||The purpose of this study was to examine the characteristics consisting of attitudes, behaviors, and competencies of protégés in a mentoring relationship. The study examined the presence or absence of a protégé mentoring mindset from the mentor’s viewpoint. It also examined the presence or absence of a protégé mentoring mindset from the protégé’s viewpoint. The mentoring mindset consists of five major categories: 1) takes initiative/lacks initiative [behavior], 2) learning orientation/lacks learning orientation [attitude], 3) skillful & organized/lacks skill and organization [competency], 4) relational skills/lacks relational skills [behavior, competency], and 5) reflective/unreflective [attitude, behavior]. The framework indicators of the presence of a protégé mentoring mindset are that the protégé takes initiative, has a learning orientation, has a goal orientation, is relational, and is reflective. The research questions were:
1. What are the mentoring mindset characteristics of protégés, as identified by mentors?
2. What are the mentoring mindset characteristics of protégés, as identified by protégés?
3. What are the differences, if any, between mentor and protégé mentoring mindset characteristics?
The established mentoring mindset framework (Searby, 2014) provided the background for testing relevant variables existing in the natural relationship between mentor (faculty) and protégé (PhD candidate). The faculty and students recruited to test the framework were members of two national organizations closely associated with one another. An analysis of online survey data was performed using Repeated Measure ANOVA and mixed method ANOVA, and Cronbach alphas.
The mixed ANOVA results showed three significant effects. First, there was an overall effect. The groups consisting of mentors and protégés differed on average within all five mentoring scales. This overall effect yielded an F ratio of F(165) = 13.78, p < .001. Second, there was an overall effect for mentoring factors as there were differences among all five factors. This overall effect yielded an F ratio of F(165) = 28.92, p < .001. Third, there was an interaction effect. There was an indication that the interaction differences among the five factors may be different for each group (mentor and protégé). This interaction yielded an F ratio of F(110) = 32.159, p < .001 for research question one. The simple effects interaction yielded an F ratio of F(55) = 7.401, p < .001 for research question two.||en_US