Invited Reaction: Setting the Stage for Further Study of Developmental Relationships

Laura L. Bieremu

Christina Douglas and Cynthia McCauley explore an important and neglected area of HRD in their study of formal developmental relationships. They define formal developmental relationships as “initiatives that pair up employees with peers, senior managers, or outside consultants for the purposes of learning and development.” Examples of formal developmental relationships include men- toring, apprenticeships, team coaching, peer coaching, executive coaching, action learning, and structured networks. A major contribution of this study is its expansion of formalized development from mentoring to a host of other rela- tionships that potentially foster learning and development in the work context.

Douglas and McCauley randomly selected three hundred US. for-profit companies with at least five hundred employees from the Dun’s Market Identi- fiers. They conducted telephone interviews to investigate these companies’ use of formal developmental relationships as a management development strategy. They measured frequency of formal developmental relationship programs, expectations about future utilization of these relationships, and program char- acteristics, visibility, and effectiveness. They made comparisons between orga- nizations with programs to those without programs on the basis of organization size, sales volume, employee trends, sales trends, and organizational age. They found 52 companies sponsoring programs among the 246 participating orga- nizations in the study. They also found that companies using formal develop- mental relationships tended to have more employees and higher sales volumes than organizations not using such developmental programs.

Douglas and McCauley’s effort should be applauded for both raising this issue and moving it beyond traditional mentoring programs. They have also set the stage for further research. This invited reaction reflects on the method- ological issues raised by this study In the study, Bonferroni-adjusted t tests were used to compare organizations with formal developmental relationship programs to organizations without them, according to five questions. This type of analysis was appropriate for comparing the first four research questions: (1) To what degree are organizations utilizing formal developmental relationships?;

~~~

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 10, no. 3 , Fall 1Y99 0 Jossey-Bass Publishers 22 1

222 Bierema

(2) What differentiates organizations that are using them from organizations that are not?; (3) What forms do these programs take?; and (4) What are the purposes/goals of the initiatives? The fifth question, How effective are these initiatives? is an investigation of causality that cannot be answered with a cross- sectional survey design. A more appropriate approach might have been to examine organizational sales growth rates in the companies sponsoring formal developmental relationships, both before and after implementing the relation- ships.

An eyebrow-raising finding was that no significant differences were found between companies that sponsored formal developmental programs and those that did not, other than for size and sales volume. This analysis essentially compares apples and oranges. Douglas and McCauley have made comparisons between companies with and without formal developmental rela- tionship programs in place. The discrepancy in sheer size between compa- nies that have such programs and those that do not is also troubling. The mean size of companies with programs was 7,289 employees versus 1,840 employees in companies without programs. It could be inferred that larger companies have more resources to implement formal developmental rela- tionship programs. These resources could be either the sheer numbers of people to participate in formal relationships (both mentors and proteges) or financial resources. A matched comparison of similar-sized companies might have been a more convincing approach. Conducting an ANOVA or a multi- variate analysis for growth and sales volume adjusted for size of the company would be one strategy, and I recommend that this be done. The sample of companies actually engaged in formal developmental relationship programs was relatively small (N = 52). It would be worthwhile to find additional com- panies that are actively engaged in formal developmental relationship pro- grams and replicate the study with a larger sample.

Formal developmental relationships have special promise for developing a diverse workforce, and 1 was disappointed that the study addressed this casu- ally Neither the design nor the discussion considered diversity Nor did Doug- las and McCauley describe who participated in these programs. Yet the authors express surprise that “so few initiatives had this purpose [development of women and minorities] as an explicit goal.” A scan of the research questions and telephone interview schedule reveals that not one question related to diversity The only question that might have yielded information was, “Does your organization have any formal management development initiatives in place that match up employees with peers, senior managers, or outside con- sultants for the purposes of learning and development?” All other questions were follow-up questions to this one. Developmental relationships are more difficult for women and employees of color to develop and sustain, and they are critical to the retention and advancement of diverse employees. Given these workplace dynamics, it seems a major oversight that the study did not more aggressively pursue this issue.

Invited Reaction 223

Another quibble is that Douglas and McCauley did not seek data on the results of the formal developmental relationships in the companies that reported sponsoring them. Although they asked why the participants thought the initiative was effective (or why it was not), the insights gained from the question are not presented in this paper. As mentioned, this question could not be effectively measured using the statistical instruments applied.

The authors have stepped out of the box to consider the process of formal developmental relationships instead of simply focusing on mentoring. This is important and timely in light of the trend toward creating learning environ- ments in organizations. The article also offers some good examples of what activities encompass formal developmental relationships. That only 20 percent of the responding companies have formal developmental relationship programs could be cause for despair, but I tend to agree with the authors that this is an encouragmg sign and is worth watching to see if it increases. Yet no significant differences were found between companies with programs and those without them, other than size and sales volume. This finding makes me wonder how effective formal developmental relationships are in the development of employ- ees. What role do informal developmental relationships play? Previous studies have found that considerable learning happens through informal relationships (Marsick and Watkins, 1990), especially for women (Bierema, 1994; Hoy, 1989; Van Velsor and Hughes, 1990). A recent study also found that the major- ity of informal learning transpires through routine social and individual work activities where employees interact, share ideas and resources, and perform their jobs (Leslie, Aring, and Brand, 1999). A discussion of this phenomenon would have perhaps shed light on why there were no significant differences. Another study of the influence of race on proteges’ experiences of forming developmental relationships found that white proteges rarely form develop- mental relationships with persons of another race, yet black proteges form 63 percent of their developmental relationships with whites (Thomas, 1990). Future examination of formal developmental relationships should explore the experiences of women and people of color.

Who should care about formalized developmental relationships? I would expect this process to be useful for employees, management, and human resource development professionals. Should this study change HRD practice? The preliminary nature of it gives me pause, but I believe it introduces this issue as one that warrants further practical and scholarly investigation.

Although Douglas and McCauley have done a commendable job of pro- viding a descriptive study of what organizations are doing regarding formal developmental relationships, they should not over-reach their conclusions by trylng to attribute causality for effectiveness of these programs. They have pro- vided a launch pad for research and practice, but further investigation is needed to responsibly implement formal developmental relationships.

I’d like to expand on the implications drawn and questions raised by Douglas and McCauley. Based on the findings of little difference between

224 Bierema

organizations that had formal developmental relationships and those that did not (other than size and sales volume), what would the pre- and post-implementa- tion differences of a formal developmental relationship program be? What role do informal developmental relationships play in employee development and orga- nization performance? How do informal relationships interface with formal ones? The learning link was hinted at with the attribution of action learning to the def- inition of formal developmental relationships, but it was never developed in the article. How do formal developmental relationships differ in organizations that strive to become learning organizations? Would learning organizations be more inclined to support formal developmental relationships? Are certain formal devel- opmental relationships more productive than others? Do certain strategies (for example, peer mentoring or action learning) work better than others? What about developmental relationships for nonmanagerial employees? This approach holds promise for total workplace development.

This study focused on management, but I would infer that the whole orga- nization would be rich ground for such a developmental intervention. How do developmental relationships work, based on race and gender? How can com- panies better implement formal developmental relationships?

In summary, Douglas and McCauley have raised an important issue and set the stage for continued exploration of formal developmental relationships. They are to be commended for conducting an important study that capably illustrates what some companies are doing about formal developmental pro- grams for management employees. This initial effort is imperfect, but its short- comings can be resolved with future research on formal developmental relationships. Advancing our understanding about the application and effec- tiveness of formal developmental relationships holds promise for improving workplace learning for both employees and organizations.

References

Bierema, L. L. (1994). How executive businesswomen develop and function in male-dominated orga- nizational cuiture. Unpublished doctoral dissertation: University of Georgia.

Hoy, J C. (1989). Learning in the workplace: A study ofthe settings and resourcesJor the learning or executive women. Unpublished doctoral dissertation: Columbia University Teachers College.

Leslie, B., Aring, M . K., & Brand, B. (1999). Informal learning: The new frontier of employee & organizational development. Economic Development Review, 15 (41, 12-18.

Marsick, V. J . , & Watkins, K. (1990). Informal and incidental learning in the workplace. London: Routledge.

Thomas, D. (1990). The impact of race on managers’ expenences of developmental relationships (mentoring and sponsorship): An intra-organizational study. Journal of Organizational Behav- ior, I 1 (6), 479-493.

Van Vekor, E., & Hughes, M. W. (1990). Gender d$ferences in the development ojmanugers: How women managers learnjrorn experience. (Tech. Rep. No. 145). Greensboro, NC: Center for Cre- ative Leadership.

@ Laura L. Bierema is assistant professor of labor a n d industrial relations a t Michigan State University, East Lansing.