Godshalk Pennsylvania State University, USA ABSTRACT E-mentoring, also known as online mentoring or virtual mentoring, is changing the way that traditional mentor and protégé dyad member
Trang 1Differing Challenges and Different Achievements
TXDOL¿FDWLRQVZLOOUHPDLQWKHVHFRQGEHVWRSWLRQ
in terms of quality assurance A new framework
is necessary now before there is a proliferation of
e-learning offerings claiming to be of
university-degree standard, when they are not
There are a number of factors that could be
contributing to the failure of anyone developing
quality standards for e-learning Firstly, there are
GLI¿FXOWLHVVXUURXQGLQJWKHGH¿QLWLRQRIHOHDUQ-ing itself The term is used to refer to many
differ-ent approaches, from an electronically delivered
training material to more advanced media-rich
content, such as video-streaming, and
sophisti-FDWHG³FODVVURRPWRROV´6HFRQGO\WKHUHDUHWKH
GLI¿FXOWLHVVWHPPLQJIURPPHGLDK\SHWKDWUDLVHV
expectations unrealistically Early e-learning, in
particular, often took the form of text on screen,
rather than text in a textbook The education and
training sector have been slow to integrate the
creative opportunities that e-learning affords
them Learning could be made as exciting as a
PlayStation game, but so far, it hasn’t been
Thirdly, in many universities and
organzia-tions, it was taken for granted that if the e-learning
system was provided, people would use it This
has not turned out to be the case It is like taking a
horse to water but not being able to make it drink
E-learning needs to be marketed and introduced
to students, rather than being thrust in front of
them with them being left to get on with it
There have also been problems with the
tech-nology itself Despite efforts at standardization,
compatibility between all courseware and
learn-ing-management systems is far from achieved,
making collaborations such as Univesitas21
and the Global University Alliance partnerships
in principle, rather than in practice This has
meant that purchasers have had to narrow down
course selection to single platforms (Gold, 2003)
Once standardization has been achieved, Singh
and Reed (2002) see content becoming portable
between university courses and
learning-man-agement systems, allowing different learning
applications to share content and track data,
giving greater variety in e-learning offerings and combinations
The future for e-learning is uncertain If uni-versities continue to try and introduce it within their current structures and frameworks, they ZLOO IDLO DV WKH\ DUH WU\LQJ WR ¿W D VTXDUH SHJ into a round hole If, on the other hand, they em-brace and exploit the differences that e-learning can offer, then they will expand the sphere of higher education beyond current expectations However, they must address the issue of social interaction within e-learning, be it between tutor and student, or amongst students, as this appears
to be a critical factor in e-learning success This
is a challenge both for the e-learning providers and the e-learners themselves The demand for e-learning is increasing Evans and Haase (2000) surveyed more than 2,500 people and found that 42% would be very likely to participate in online higher education if a particular course or pro-gram was offered that is not currently available This could signal that the market is ready for a massive expansion and change in the provision Recognizing the differences that e-learning offers E\FDWHJRUL]LQJHTXDOL¿FDWLRQVVHSDUDWHO\ZLWK their own process for assuring quality could be D¿UVWVWHSGRZQWKLVURDG,WZRXOGEULQJWRWKH forefront the challenges that e-learning poses, ensuring that students have a much more realistic idea of the additional challenges they will face when undertaking their studies to those taught in
a more traditional, social environment
REFERENCES
Abeles, T P (2005) Institutional change in The
Academy On the Horizon—The Strategic
Plan-ning Resource for Education Professionals, 13(2), 63-68.
Alexander, S (2001) E-learning developments
and experiences Education and Training,43(4/5),
240-248
Trang 2Differing Challenges and Different Achievements
Anderson, L (2003, March 24) Fresh ways of
OHDUQLQJDWWKHWRXFKRID¿QJHUFinancial Times
Special Report: Business Education, p I.
Baldwin-Evans, K (2004) Employees and
e-learning: What do the end-users think? Industrial
and Commercial Training, 36(7), 269-274.
Barnett, R (2000) Realizing the university in an
age of supercomplexity Buckingham, UK: SRHE
and Open University Press
Birchall, D., & Smith, M (2002) Scope and scale
of e-learning delivery amongst UK Business
Schools London: CEML.
Bourne, J R., McMaster, E., Reiger, J., &
Camp-bell, J O (1997) Paradigms for on-line learning
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
1(2), 38-56.
Canning, R (2002) Distance or dis-stancing
education? A case study in technology based
learning Journal of Further and Higher
Educa-tion, 26(1), 29-42.
Crook, C., & Barrowcliff, D (2001) Ubiquitous
computing on campus: Patterns of engagement
by university students International Journal of
Human-Computer Interaction, 13(2), 245-256.
De Boer, W., & Collis, B (2002) A changing
pedagogy in e-learning: From acquisition to
contribution Journal of Computing in Higher
Education, 13(2), 87-101.
Delahaye, B L., Limerick, D C., & Hearn, G
(1994) The relationship between andragogical
and pedagogical orientations and the implications
for adult learning Adult Education Quarterly.
44(4), 187-200.
Diebold, J (1996) The next revolution in
comput-ers In E Cornish (Ed.), Exploring your future:
Living, learning and working in the information
age (pp 42-45) MD: World Future Society.
Dupuis, E A (1998, Fall/Winter) The times
structional services Reference Services Review,
11-16, 32
Evans, J R., & Haase, I M (2000) What’s ahead for online higher education: A consumer
perspec-tive Futures Research Quarterly, 16(3), 35-48.
)RQWDLQH * 3UHVHQFH LQ ³WHOHODQG´ ,Q
K E Rudestam & J Schoenholtz-Read (Eds.),
Handbook on online learning: Innovations in higher education and corporate training (pp
23-52) London: Sage Publications
Gibbons, H S., & Wentworth, G P (2001) An-drological and pedagogical training differences
for online instructors Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4,(3) Retrieved from
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall43/ gibbons_wentworth43.html
Gold, M (2003) Eight lessons about e-learning
IURP ¿YH RUJDQLVDWLRQV American Society for Training and Development, 57(8), 54.
Hines, A (1996) Jobs and infotech In E Cornish
(Ed.), Exploring your future: Living, learning and working in the information age (pp 7-11) MD:
World Future Society
Hudson, B (2002) Critical dialogue online: Personas, covenants and candlepower In K E
Rudestam & J Schoenholtz-Read (Eds.), Hand-book on online learning: Innovations in higher education and corporate training (pp 53-90)
London: Sage Publications
Julien, A (2005) Classifying e-trainer standards
The Journal of Workplace Learning, 17(5/6),
291-303
Keisler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T W (1987) Social psychological aspects of computer-medi-ated communication In R Finnegan, G Salaman,
& K Thompson (Eds.), Information technology:
Social issues—a reader (pp 247-2626) UK: Open
University and Hodder & Stoughton
Trang 3Differing Challenges and Different Achievements
Kerker, S (2001) Confessions of a learning
pro-gram dropout The New Corporate University
R eview, 9(2)2-3, 10-11.
Lawther, P M., & Walker, D H T (2001) An
evaluation of a distributed learning system
Edu-cation and Training, 43(2), 105-116.
London, S (2003, March 24) The networked world
changes everything Financial Times Special
Report: Business Education, p VI.
Manicas, P (2000) Higher education at the brink
In S Inayatullah & J Gidley (Eds.), The university
in transformation: Global perspectives on the
futures of the university (pp 31-40) Westport,
CT: Bergin & Garvey
Margules, D (2002) University teaching and
OHDUQLQJ :K\ D PRUH ÀH[LEOH DSSURDFK"
Re-trieved from http://www.ioe.ac.uk/schools/leid/
oet%20html%20docs/Margules_D.htm
Mazone, J G (1998) The essentials of effective
online instruction Campus-Wide Information
Systems, 16(3), 104-110.
Miller, M M., & Dunn, S L (1996) From the
industrial to the virtual university Futures
Re-search Quarterly, 12(4), 71-84.
Moshinskie, J (2001, August) Tips for ensuring
effective e-learning HR Focus, 78(8), 6-8.
Murray, S (2003, March 24) Web based systems
change the MBA landscape Financial Times
Special Report: Business Education, p III.
3RQG:. 7ZHQW\¿UVWFHQWXU\HGXFD-tion and training: Implica3RQG:. 7ZHQW\¿UVWFHQWXU\HGXFD-tions for quality
assur-ance The Internet and Higher Education, 4(3/4),
185-192
Rooney, D., & Hearn, G (2000) Of minds, markets and machines: How universities might WUDQVFHQG WKH LGHRORJ\ RI FRPPRGL¿FDWLRQ ,Q
S Inayatullah & J Gidley (Eds.), The university
in transformation: Global perspectives on the futures of the university (pp 91-104) Westport,
CT: Bergin & Garvey
Rovai, A A P (2002) A preliminary look at the structural differences of higher education classroom communities in traditional and ALN
courses Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 41-56
Salmon, G (2002, April) Hearts, minds & screens: Taming the future Keynote speech
presented at the EduCAT Summit: Innovation in E-Education, Hamilton, New Zealand
6FKR¿HOG1 5\ODQFH:DWVRQ( Man-agement and leadership training and development delivered through e-learning outside the business schools London: CEML.
Schrum, L., & Hong, S (2002) Dimensions and strategies for online success: Voices from
experienced educators Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 57-67.
Schrage, M (1999) Sorry, no keg parties here
This university is on the desktop Fortune, (11),
224
Singh, H., & Reed, C (2002) Demystifying
e-learning standards Industrial and Commercial Training, 34(2), 62-65.
Williams, C (2002) Learning on-line: A review RIUHFHQWOLWHUDWXUHLQDUDSLGO\H[SDQGLQJ¿HOG
Journal of Further and Higher Education, 26(3),
263-272
This work was previously published in Social Implications and Challenges of E-Business, edited by F Li, pp 15-27, copyright
2007 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).
Trang 41617
Chapter 5.15
Social Implications
of E-Mentoring:
Development of an E-Mentoring Model
Veronica M Godshalk
Pennsylvania State University, USA
ABSTRACT
E-mentoring, also known as online mentoring
or virtual mentoring, is changing the way that
traditional mentor and protégé dyad members
interact with each other Mentoring has been
widely known for its ability to enhance the career
development, and to provide psychosocial support,
for more junior organizational members Through
the use of computer-mediated communication
technology, e-mentoring may allow individuals
to bridge geographic and time differences
How-ever, there is still much we do not know about
e-mentoring and its social effects This chapter
focuses on whether or not computer-mediated
communication (CMC) technology will allow for
true mentoring relationships to develop, as well as
what personal characteristics may be necessary
to grow these virtual relationships A model and
proposition for future research are offered
INTRODUCTION
It is indisputable that computer-mediated commu-nication technology (CMC), that is the Internet, e-mail, instant messaging and related technologies,
is changing the social landscape and the process
of how we communicate with one another Harris Interactive reported that more than 156 million adults, or 73% of the U.S population age 18 and older, were communicating online in 2004 The Harris Interactive study characterized online users DVUHSUHVHQWDWLYHRI³PDLQVWUHDP´$PHULFDLQWKDW 30% of users reported having a college degree or greater, and 48% noted annual household incomes
of $50,000 or greater (Harris Interactive, 2004) Eurostat reports that close to 54% of European Internet users link up every day or almost every day, and 82% link up weekly In Europe, student use is particularly high (ranging from 42 to 96%)
on a daily basis as is use by people educated at a
Trang 5Social Implications of E-Mentoring
As these individuals continue to use CMC,
Kock (2004) suggests that this new digital media is
creating new social situations and communication
behaviors Social scientists cannot entirely agree
on what these social changes may be (DiMaggio,
Hargittai, Neuman, & Robinson, 2001; Nie &
Ebring, 2000; Lin, 2001) or if computer-mediated
WHFKQRORJ\FDQVXEVWLWXWHVXI¿FLHQWO\IRUface-to-face (FtF) communication (Daft & Lengel, 1986;
Daft, Lengel, & Trevino, 1987; Short, Williams,
& Christie, 1976) Given the social implications
of CMC use and the challenges facing the
e-busi-ness environment, it is agreed that investigating
these phenomena during the early stages of the
new medium’s diffusion and institutionalization
is incredibly important research (DiMaggio et
al., 2001)
E-mentoring is a recent social construction
using CMC Whether it is called e-mentoring, or
online mentoring, telementoring, cybermentoring
or virtual mentoring (Single & Muller, 2001),
e-mentoring can be characterized as an ongoing,
computer-mediated relationship that involves the
receipt of mentoring functions between junior
(inexperienced) and senior (more experienced)
partners E-mentoring relationships are evolving
from traditional mentoring relationships due to
CMC Traditional, FtF mentoring involves the
mentor providing psychosocial and vocational
support functions The setting and pursuit of
goals for personal and professional development
is an important element in the transfer of
learn-ing in mentor-protégé relationships, and mentors
often offer feedback and information to help the
protégé attain his or her goals (Godshalk & Sosik,
2003; Kram, 1985) Through the use of CMC,
e-mentoring relationships are changing social
patterns and communication styles, and allowing
e-mentors to provide similar support functions
for e-protégés
Mentors provide protégés with three broad
functions: career development (i.e., exposure
and visibility, coaching, protection, sponsorship,
challenging assignments), psychosocial support
LH DFFHSWDQFH DQG FRQ¿UPDWLRQ FRXQVHOLQJ friendship) and role modeling (demonstrating, articulating and counseling regarding appropriate behaviors implicitly or explicitly) (Kram, 1985; Scandura, 1992) The career development func-tions provide vocational support and are associ-ated with protégé outcomes, including enhanced knowledge, skills and abilities, opportunities for promotion, and increased compensation Vocational support also is provided through role modeling, which allows protégés to understand appropriate interpersonal behavior and culture within the organizational context, and aids pro-tégés in performing tasks and communicating well with superiors, peers and subordinates The psychosocial functions provide socio-emotional (social) support and are associated with protégé outcomes, such as job and career satisfaction, career balance, and increased expectations of career success (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004; Dreher & Cox, Jr., 1996; Scandura, 1992; Wanberg, Welsh, & Hezlett, 2003)
E-mentoring appears to be a necessary form
of relationship, given the technology-dependent environment within which we work and the need
to interact using CMC Increased use of com-munication technology expands opportunities for individuals to obtain information that will con-tribute to successful career advancement Relying solely on FtF mentors may become impossible given the globalized workforce and geographi-cally dispersed subject matter experts In fact, Hamilton and Scandura (2003) stated that the key distinction between e-mentoring and traditional mentoring is in the amount of face-time between mentor and protégé Many researchers have sug-gested that savvy professionals would be well advised to establish a network of developmental relationships (Baugh & Scandura, 1999; Higgins
& Kram, 2001) This network can include indi-viduals within and outside a person’s organization
or industry The network allows the individual
to consult experienced professionals, who might aid in navigating complex organizational, subject
Trang 6Social Implications of E-Mentoring
matter and career path issues E-mentoring has
the potential to provide individuals with such a
developmental network, since many e-mentors
may not be located within one’s organization or
even physically located close by Students, too,
may be aided by e-mentoring in that support can
be given in understanding career and
discipline-VSHFL¿FDUHDVRIVWXG\ 6LQJOH 0XOOHU
Single & Single, 2005) E-mentoring allows
for an increase in the protégé’s network
struc-tural diversity, that is, the range and density of a
professional’s network (Higgins, 2004)
Ensher and Murphy (2005) suggest that
e-PHQWRULQJ LV D PXWXDOO\ EHQH¿FLDO UHODWLRQVKLS
in which learning, career and emotional support
occur primarily through computer-mediated
means Sproull and Kiesler (1999) note that given
the rapid rise of the Internet and e-mail, it is likely
that CMC will aid in developing relationships
like e-mentoring relationships Single and Single
(2005) concluded that e-mentoring is an alternative
mode of relationship that facilitates the expansion
of mentoring opportunities However, no research
to date has investigated the possibility of whether
or not CMC users are able to develop highly
in-terpersonal relationships, like mentoring
relation-ships Also, we need to understand what personal
characteristics and environmental conditions are
necessary to support such relationships This is
because even traditional mentoring relationships
can become dysfunctional (Eby & McManus,
2004; Scandura, 1998), and e-mentoring must
deal with the environmental CMC distance and
personal issues, such as a lack of nonverbal cues,
informal and misunderstood communications and
delayed feedback, that might cause e-mentoring
relationships to fail
Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to
investigate whether or not CMC technology will
allow for the development of e-mentoring
rela-tionships, and what personal characteristics are
necessary on the part of the e-mentor and
e-pro-tégé A model will be developed and propositions
be garnered from the mentoring literature, com-munication media and business comcom-munication literatures, and sociology Since e-mentoring is a new avenue by which individuals are transform-ing their careers via the Internet, an investigation
of the social implications of this phenomenon is warranted Given our technology-driven home, school and work environments, understanding who might adopt, pursue and gain from e-mentor-ing relationships seems an appropriate research GLUHFWLRQWKDWZLOOPDNHDVLJQL¿FDQWFRQWULEXWLRQ
to our literature
CAN CMC USERS DEVELOP AN ENVIRONMENT TO SUPPORT HIGHLY INTERPERSONAL, E-MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS?
Since the advent of CMC, the development and emergence of the Internet in the early 1980s and widespread use over the last decade, researchers KDYHEHHQUHÀHFWLQJRQ ³$JHQHUDOTXHVWLRQUDLVHG
by the diffusion of CMC systems is the extent to which human communication is altered by such media” (Rice & Love, 1987, p 86) Communica-tion technologies are transforming the nature, form and temporal aspects of work Compared
to traditional means, electronic-communication technology carries more information faster, at
a lower cost and to more people However, the process of how we communicate with each other has been altered, that is, no longer FtF, creating a variety of social issues in many settings
6SHFL¿FDOO\ VRFLDO LPSOLFDWLRQV UHJDUGLQJ the use of technology can be found impacting human relations in organizational settings (Ge-phart, 2002) CMC shortens the time between events and their consequences, reduces internal and external organizational buffers, increases the number and variety of people involved in decision making, increases vertical and hori-zontal communication, and allows or increases
Trang 7Social Implications of E-Mentoring
Kiesler, 1995; Huber 1990; Sproull & Kiesler,
1999; Rice & Gattiker, 2001) The emergence of
virtual relationships and communities, which are
distinct from social communities, highlights the
diffuse, globalized and digitized nature of today’s
CMC-based organizations (Gephart, 2002)
Com-munication technologies affect the potential for
and dynamics of information exchange as well as
interpersonal relationships (Flanagin & Waldeck,
2004) Communication-technology use, therefore,
has the potential to reduce uncertainty about the
organization, develop positive connections with
others, and give novice employees the ability to
OHDUQ³WKHURSHV´IURPH[SHULHQFHGLQGLYLGXDOV
who may or may not be organizational members
(Flanagin & Waldeck, 2004)
:KLOHWKHPDQ\EHQH¿WVRI&0&KDYHEHHQ
noted extensively, CMC technology is not without
GUDZEDFNV&0&KDVEHHQLGHQWL¿HGDVDOHVVSHU-sonal, less socio-emotional or more task-oriented
medium by some researchers (Connolly, Jessup,
& Valacich, 1990; Hiltz, Johnson, & Turoff, 1986;
5LFH /RYH &0& VSHFL¿FDOO\HPDLO LV
FRQVLGHUHGDYHU\³OHDQ´FRPPXQLFDWLRQFKDQQHO
because nonverbal cues are not present Media,
such as videoconferencing or the telephone, are
considered richer because of the inclusion of sound
or expression, which encourages paralanguage
cues Two theories, social presence theory (Short
et al., 1976) and media richness theory (Daft et
al., 1987), are aligned with these descriptions
RI&0&6RFLDOSUHVHQFHWKHRU\FODVVL¿HVFRP-munications media along a continuum according
WR YDULRXV GHJUHHV RI ³DZDUHQHVV´ RI WKH RWKHU
person This theory posits communication is
effec-tive when the medium has the appropriate social
presence required for the level of interpersonal
involvement necessary for the task Media
rich-ness theory categorizes communications media
DORQJDFRQWLQXXPRI³ULFKQHVV´ZKHUHWKHPHGLD
is able to transmit nonverbal cues, provide
feed-back, convey personality traits and support the
use of natural language Daft and Lengel (1986)
note that FtF communication is considered the
³ULFKHVW´PHGLDDQGLVPRVWHIIHFWLYHIRUUHGXFLQJ discussion ambiguity E-mail, on the other hand,
is not considered very rich because of inherent limitations in offering nonverbal cues and pro-viding immediate feedback Thus, the general FRQFOXVLRQRIHDUO\&0&UHVHDUFKLVWKDW³&0& because of its lack of audio or video cues, will be perceived as impersonal and lacking in normative reinforcement, so there will be less socio-emo-tional content exchanged” (Rice & Love, 1987,
p 88)
Contrasting these perspectives, other research-ers suggest that more enhanced use of CMC has given rise to new theories and models to explain media-use behavior Walther (1996) has posited that CMC users are able to develop highly inter-personal, online relationships His model, using social information processing theory, assumes that communicators using CMC, like other communicators, are driven to develop social relationships
To do so, previously unfamiliar users become acquainted with others by forming simple impres-sions through textually conveyed information
… The key difference between … CMC and FtF communication has to do not with the amount of social information exchanged but with the rate
of social information exchanged [his italics].
(Walther, 1996, p 10)
CMC communications take longer to decipher because of the lack of nonverbal cues, hence these relationships make take longer to develop Walther suggests that when users have time to exchange information, build impressions, compare values and provide timely feedback, CMC allows for highly interpersonal relationships to develop Walther states that when users expect to have a long term association, CMC is no less personal than FtF
While Walther (1996) suggests that CMC PD\ EH LQHI¿FLHQW ZKHQ FRPSDUHG ZLWK )W) communications, there is less reason to think
Trang 8Social Implications of E-Mentoring
that as was once thought Empirical studies are
supporting his claims Studies have found that
GXHWRLQVXUPRXQWDEOHIDFWRUVOLNHVRFLDOLQÀX-ences or geographic distances, users may choose
³OHDQ´FRPPXQLFDWLRQVPHGLD OLNHHPDLO DQG
then modify their behavior to make up for the
ODFNRI³VRFLDOSUHVHQFH´RU³ULFKQHVV´DVVRFLDWHG
with the media’s use (Fulk, Schmitz, & Steinfeld,
1990; Lee, 1994; Markus, 1994; Ngwenyama &
Lee, 1997) Researchers purporting theories of
VRFLDO LQÀXHQFH )XON HW DO )XON
and social construction of reality (Lee, 1994)
VWUHVV WKDW WKH G\DG¶V VRFLDO LQÀXHQFHV SHHU
cultural or communication schema similarity)
have a stronger affect on the individual’s use of
communication media, than does the media’s
traits (social presence or richness) That is, when
LQGLYLGXDOVH[SHULHQFHLQÀXHQFHVIURPSHHUVRU
superiors to use CMC or when the organization’s
culture embraces CMC as a primary mode of
communication, individuals with these social
LQÀXHQFHV ZLOO VLPLODUO\ HPEUDFH DQG XVH WKH
dominant communication schema Also, when
individuals understand that geographic and time
differences are commonplace in their
global-ized work environments, they are motivated to
use the communication technology available to
them to develop relationships that may assist in
their completion of assignments (Hammer &
Mangurian, 1987; Dimmick, Kline, & Stafford,
2000) Therefore, it appears that group norms
DQGVRFLDOLQÀXHQFHVPD\KDYHJUHDWHULPSDFWRQ
the individual and his choice of communication
technology than the richness of the media’s traits
The following propositions are hence offered
regarding these environmental conditions:
Proposition 1: E-mentoring dyad members, who
H[SHULHQFHKLJKOHYHOVRIVRFLDOLQÀXHQFHUHJDUG-ing the use of communication technology, such as
SHHURUVXSHUYLVRULQÀXHQFHRUWKHRUJDQL]DWLRQ¶V
FXOWXUDOLQÀXHQFHZLOOEHPRUHOLNHO\WRXVH&0&
and more actively engaged in an e-mentoring
relationship than those who do not experience VRFLDOLQÀXHQFH
Proposition 2: E-mentoring dyad members who
experience greater geographic distance and time differences will be more likely to use CMC and more actively engaged in an e-mentoring relationship than those who do not experience geographic distance and time differences.
WHAT PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS ARE NECESSARY TO SUPPORT E-MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS?
Other theories are available to inform our notions
of how CMC may allow for highly interpersonal, HPHQWRULQJUHODWLRQVKLSVDQGVSHFL¿FFKDUDFWHU-istics potential e-mentors and e-protégés should demonstrate Walther’s (1992) relationship devel-opment theory and Carlson and Zmud’s (1999) channel expansion theory emphasize that it is the user’s knowledge and experience base that allows the individual to participate in increasingly rich communication over time Dyad members reach out (even using CMC), and may go out of their way,
to develop relationships CMC users may invoke knowledge-building experiences, that is, previous experience with the communication technology, the discussion topic, the organizational context or the dyad coparticipant, to enhance their relation-ship Carlson and Zmud found strongest support for CMC-channel experience and experience with the communications partner, as well as some support for organizational context experience,
as indicators of perceived media richness Based RQWKHVH¿QGLQJVHPHQWRULQJSDUWQHUVVKRXOG build their relationships on previous experiences with CMC use, the organizational context and previous FtF communication (if possible) with the partner
Kock (2004) suggests that the higher the
Trang 9Social Implications of E-Mentoring
the lower the degree of cognitive effort required,
hence the more effective the e-mentoring
com-munications While individuals may differ on how
they choose to communicate with others due to
cultural or other learned behaviors, fundamental
differences affect communication negatively (Tan,
:DWVRQ :HL 6SHFL¿FDOO\ZKHQVFKHPD
misalignment exists, Kock suggests an increase
LQ³WKHDPRXQWDQGLQWHQVLW\RIFRPPXQLFDWLRQ
necessary to accomplish collaborative tasks and
reach a shared understanding of concepts and
ideas needed to complete tasks” (2004, p 337) A
communication schema misalignment (i.e.,
com-munication verbiage or contextual
misunderstand-ings, differences in rate of feedback response or
even humor misinterpretations) will detract from
the e-mentoring relationship, since dyad
mem-bers will experience a more task-oriented focus
and less personal communications and therefore
identify less with the e-mentor (Postmes, Spears,
& Lea, 2001)
The more the e-mentor and e-protégé have
cognitively adapted to the CMC medium, the
lower the degree of cognitive effort required and,
therefore, the more effective the relationship
The individual’s use of knowledge-building
ex-periences permit the user to perceive the media
channel as increasingly rich (while the media’s
traits remain constant) and allow for effective
interpersonal communication These theories
ar-gue that the participants’ knowledge, experience,
communication schema similarity and informed
use of the communication technology enhances
the relationship, more so than the richness or
complexity of the technology itself Therefore,
Proposition 3: E-mentoring dyad members who
have greater knowledge-building experience,
such as experience with e-mail use (CMC), the
communication partner or organizational
con-text, will be more likely to use CMC and more
actively engaged in an e-mentoring relationship
than those who have low levels of knowledge and
communication experience.
Proposition 4: E-mentoring dyad members with
similar communication schema will be more likely
to use CMC and more actively engaged in an e-mentoring relationship than dyads with more diverse communication schema.
Further, evidence is available to suggest other individual personality characteristics may enhance the e-mentoring relationship Recent studies on online communities have found that these communities provide their participants with social support (Rheingold, 1993) Social support
is gained from participants interacting with each RWKHUDQG¿QGLQJFRPPRQLQWHUHVWVVLQFHPRVW interaction between online actors is cognitively and affectively based Compared to real-life social networks, online communities are more often based on participants’ shared interests, rather than shared demographic characteristics (Well-man & Gulia, 1999) Perceived similarity, that is shared attitudes and values, has been found to be more positively related to effective e-mentoring relationships than actual demographic similarity (Ensher, de Janasz, & Heun, 2004) Chicoat and DeWine (1985) found that audioconferencing partners produced higher ratings of their partner’s attitude similarity, social attractiveness and physi-cal attractiveness than did those partners using video or FtF communications So it may be that perceptions of similarity, regardless of the type
of media used, are more important in establish-ing and maintainestablish-ing CMC-based e-mentorestablish-ing relationships Hence,
Proposition 5: E-mentoring dyad members with
high levels of perceived similarity will be more likely to use CMC and more actively engaged in
an e-mentoring relationship than dyads with low levels of perceived similarity.
Two other individual-level variables, self-monitoring and communication apprehension, have been suggested as important factors in the socialization process because of their focus on
Trang 10Social Implications of E-Mentoring
self-presentation and interpersonal
communica-tion competence (Flanagin & Waldeck, 2004)
These variables are core concepts related to the
uncertainty reduction theory that postulates
that individuals engage in interactive strategies,
such as direct communication, to obtain relevant
information from others (Berger, 1979)
Self-monitoring is related to one’s interest in
obtain-ing information from others in the environment
6HOIPRQLWRULQJLVGH¿QHGDVDSUDJPDWLFVHOI
presentation that assists individuals in identifying
RQHVHOIZLWKUHJDUGWRWKHVSHFL¿FVRFLDOVLWXDWLRQ
and roles that are present (Snyder, 1987) High
self-monitors pay close attention to the social
situation and adapt their behavior accordingly
High self-monitors strive to understand the
dy-namics of their environment and behave in a way
that is acceptable to those around them, all while
causing minimal disruption to others (Snyder &
Coupland, 1989) In order to reduce uncertainty in
WKHLUHQYLURQPHQWKLJKVHOIPRQLWRUVZRXOG¿QG
the most inconspicuous mechanism by which to
gather information Flanagin and Waldeck suggest
that high self-monitors would readily use CMC
to gather the necessary information that would
DOORZWKHPWR¿WLQWRDQGIHHOFRPIRUWDEOHDERXW
their environment These researchers state that
KLJKVHOIPRQLWRUV³PD\UHJDUGHPDLODVDZD\
of obtaining information from trusted others in
an unobtrusive manner” (Flanagin & Waldeck,
2004, p 150) Low self-monitors, on the other
hand, may be more apt to rely on traditional
FtF channels of communication, since they are
less selective and socially adept in
understand-ing when, how and why to ask for information
(Sypher & Sypher, 1983) and are less afraid to
reveal their uncertainties (Flanagin & Waldeck,
2004) Therefore:
Proposition 6: E-mentoring dyad members who
are high self-monitors will be more likely to use
CMC as a primary mode of communication and
will become more actively engaged in an
e-men-Communication apprehension (CA) can be GH¿QHGDV³DQLQGLYLGXDO¶VOHYHORIIHDURUDQ[LHW\ associated with either real or anticipated commu-nication with another person” (McCroskey, 1997,
p 82) Individuals with high CA tend to respond to situations in which they feel anxious by avoiding
or withdrawing from communication In work settings, high CAs are perceived as less compe-tent, less attractive, potentially less successful, SURGXFWLYHDQGVDWLV¿HGRQWKHMREDQGDVKDYLQJ PRUHGLI¿FXOW\LQHVWDEOLVKLQJUHODWLRQVKLSVZLWK co-workers than their more verbal counterparts High CAs are less likely to receive supervisory positions and are more likely to be dismissed from their jobs than low CAs (Richmond, 1997) How-ever, given CMC advantages in providing a forum for information sharing without the discomfort
of FtF interaction and other characteristics, such
as anonymity and absence of status differences, (Postmes et al., 2001; Weisband, Schneider, & Connolly, 1995), high CAs will more readily use CMC to establish relationships and gather necessary information than would their low CA counterparts In fact, low CA individuals may relish and miss the FtF interactions that allow them to differentiate themselves from high CAs While it is acknowledged that low CAs will prob-ably engage in e-mentoring relationships at the same rate (or possibly at a greater rate) as high CAs, it is believed that high CAs will use CMC
as a primary mechanism for communication due
to their inherent apprehension towards FtF com-munication Hence,
Proposition 7: E-mentoring dyad members who
have high CA will be more likely to use CMC as
a primary mode of communication than individu-als low in CA.
Future Research Opportunities
Taken together, these propositions support Walther’s (1996) and Carlson and Zmud’s (1999)
... online: Personas, covenants and candlepower In K ERudestam & J Schoenholtz-Read (Eds.), Hand-book on online learning: Innovations in higher education and corporate training (pp... appropriate interpersonal behavior and culture within the organizational context, and aids pro-tégés in performing tasks and communicating well with superiors, peers and subordinates The psychosocial... the globalized workforce and geographi-cally dispersed subject matter experts In fact, Hamilton and Scandura (2003) stated that the key distinction between e-mentoring and traditional mentoring