Exploring the Importance of Mentoring for New Scholars: A Social Exchange Perspective.

Abstract

1. INTRODUCTION Mentoring can take many forms. In some cases, a senior member of the organization is assigned to show the ropes to a new employee or junior faculty member; in other settings, it can be a senior faculty member that a younger, junior faculty member is comfortable with when needing advice on decisions or problems they are faced with; or it can take the form of a conversation (or series of conversations) that took place early in an individual's career. In each instance, the mentor provides advice, direction, and serves as a role model for the younger individual. These relationships can be ongoing, irregular, or of very short duration; however, these interactions have a profound impact on the future direction and decisions of the younger individual. Many times these interactions provide a roadmap for the success or failure of the younger individual. In an academic setting, mentoring requires that a senior faculty member be willing to take the time to listen and provide direction to students and/or junior faculty members. Mentoring can be a rewarding, sometimes frustrating, and time consuming process; but it is a role that should be embraced by senior faculty. It is posited that through the mentoring process senior faculty members can make their most significant contribution to future generations. There are many instances where an individual's greatest legacy is not the number of publications that he or she achieved, but their influence on the future generations through listening, providing advice, serving as a role model, and helping students or junior faculty understand what it takes to be successful. Over the past decade, there has been considerable discussion that the Information Systems (IS) academic community is facing an identity crisis. Benbasat and Zmud (2003), Agarwal and Lucas (2003), Wu and Saunders (2003), Alter (2003) and Robey (2003) have provided opinions as to whether this identity crisis actually exists, and recommendations on how the crisis can be overcome. The common theme from these discussions seems to be that faculty within the IS field must undertake research that reverberates across the business community and society in general (Agarwal and Lucas, 2003). Without this type of research, the IS discipline will not be able to achieve legitimacy within the academic community or with other important external stakeholders. Identifying and completing this type of research is difficult, especially for junior faculty members. Junior faculty members are pressured by the tenure and promotion decision that typically occurs during their sixth year of employment. These junior faculties must perform well to succeed in the academic profession. We believe the productivity of these junior faculty members typically is highly affected by their academic training and by the relationship they have developed with a senior faculty member (a mentor). A mentor who has been successful in academia and who has published can generally provide direction on topic selection, method of study, possible outlets for manuscripts, and help with the review process. This type of relationship with a mentor helps the junior faculty member produce research that has the necessary rigor and relevance to be publishable in the top-tier journals of the IS discipline. Studies have examined many factors that contribute to the success of junior faculty members and have attributed their success, failure, and productivity to a complex combination of individual, institutional, and social factors (Blackburn, Chapman, and Cameron, 1981; Bowen and Rudenstien, 1992; Cook and Swanson, 1978; de Velero 2001; Golde and Dore, 2001; Hunter and Kuh, 1987). One factor that has been overlooked, particularly in the study of business schools, is the role that mentoring can have in the productivity of the junior faculty member. The few studies that have addressed this issue have reported mixed results (Blackburn et al. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 58 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.