Mentoring Alternatives The Role Of Peer Relationships

MENTORING ALTERNATIVES: ТНЕ ROLE OF PEER RELATIONSHIPS IN CAREER DEVELOPMENT Little is known about work relationships, other than mentoring relation­ ships, that contribute to adult and career growth. А blographical inter­ view study of 25 relationship pairs indicated that relationships with peers offer important alternatives to those with conventionally defined mentors. This study identifies types ot· peer relationships, highlights various enhancing functions these relationships provide, and shows the unique manner in which these relationships сап support psychosocial and career development at every career stage. Both adult development and career theorists have described the mentoring relationship as having great potential to enhance the development of individu­ als iв both early and middle career stages (Dalton, Thompson, & Price, 1977; Hall, 1976; Levinson, Daпow, Кlein, Levinson, & МсКее, 1978). Studies of this relationship suggest that it сап Ье instrumental in supporting both career advancement and personal growth (Clawson, 1979; Kram, 1985; Levinson et al., 1978; Phillips-Joвes, 1982). The purpose of this paper is to con­ sider how other adult relationships in work settings-relationships with peers-can offer both similar and unique opportunities for personal and professioвal growth. А brief review of recent research highlights the ad­ vantages and the limitations of the conventional mentoring relationship, and iвdicates why it is essential to begin iштestigation of other developmental relationships in organizations. RELAТIONSHIPS WIТH MENTORS Levinsoв et al. (1978) state that relationships with mentors епаЫе youвg adults to successfully enter the adult world and the world of work Ьу simulta­ neously assisting in career growth and the estaЫishment of separate identities. Studies of mentoring have further delineated specific developmental func- tions provided Ьу these relationships (Clawson, 1979; Kram, 1985; Phillips, 1977). Mentors provide young adults with career-enhancing functions, such as sponsorship, coaching, facilitating exposure and visibllity, and offering clшllenging work or protection, all of which help the younger person to estaЫish а role in the organization, learn the ropes, and prepare for advance­ ment. In the psychosocial sphere, the mentor offers role modeling, counseling, confirmation, and friendship, which help the young adult to develop а sense of professioпal identity and competence. In providing these functions, an experienced meпtor gains technical and psychological support, finds inter­ nal satisfaction in enaЬling а younger colleague to learn how to navigate in the organizational world, and gains respect from colleagues for successfully developing younger talent for the organization. The fact that both individuals benefit from the relationship makes it vital and significant. Complementarity of needs solidifies а mentor relation­ ship during the initiation phase, and propels it forward to the cultivation phase when the range of functions provided Ьу the relationship expands to its maximum (Kram, 1983). Eventually, changes in organizational circum­ stances or in the individuals' needs cause the relationship to move to а new phase. For example, organizational changes like transfers, promotions, and demotions, as well as individual changes like а sense of increased confi­ dence or а growing need for independence, have been found to alter the context of the mentoring relationship. The outcome is often feelings of anger, loss, or anxiety as the pair of individuals enters the separation phase of the relationship. As а mentoring relationship moves into the separation and redefiпition phases, it ceases to provide many of the central functions that previously gave it such importance. The predictabllity of the phases of а mentoring relationship demonstrates that inevitaЬly this special kind of val­ ued sнpport ends (Kram, 1983; Levinson et al., 1978; Phillips-Jones, 1982). PEER RELAТIONSHIPS This paper assнmes that а wider range of developmental relationships that shoнld Ье investigated exists. The premise that тапу relationships аге important to development has а long and rich history (Neugarten, 1975; Storr, 1963; Sullivan, 1953). Over the years, social psychologists have enriched tlie idea that the self or personality develops within а social nexus of relatioпships, at tl1e center of which there is а саге group from which the individнal learns пеw belшviors and gains а positive sense of self (Ziller, 1963). Most recently, Leviнson et al. (1978) developed а concept of the life strнcture, wblch effectively describes an individual's relationship with dif­ ferent parts of the world. They also state that individuals selectively use and are used Ьу their worlds through evolving relationships. Each of these social scientists lшs maintained the importance of relationships in enaЬling indi­ vidнal developmeпt and growth throughout successive life and career stages. Yet, while we know the general importance of relationships, we know little about adult relationships other than the mentoring relationship that directly encourage, support, and contribute to progress in life and career. In work settings, it appears that there are many relationships that could meet developmental needs. Relationships with bosses, subordinates, and peers offer alternatives to the mentoring relationship, а relationship that is rela­ tively unavailaЫe to many individuals in organizations (Кram, 1985; Levinson et al., 1978). А first step in the investigation of other developmental relationships in organizations is а systematic study of the nature of relationships with peers. А previous study of mentoring relationships strongly suggested the potential significance of peer relationships (Kram, 1980). In that intensive interview study of 18 pairs of junior and senior managers involved in mentoring re­ lationships with each other, many individuals referred to the importance of relationships with peers when а mentoring relationship v.тas changing or ending, or when а particular relationship failed to meet critical develop­ mental needs. Peer relationships appear to have the potential to serve some of the same critical functions as mentoring, and also appear more likely to Ье availaЫe to individuals. Ву definition, in а hierachical organization the individual is likely to have more peers than bosses or mentors. Furthermore, the lack of the hierarchical dimension in а peer relationship might make it easier to achieve communication, mutual support, and collaboration than it would Ье in а mentoring relationship. The primary purpose of this study, therefore, was to understand the nature of peer relationships among managers and other professionals in one organizational setting. The research design was guided Ьу three primary questions: 1. For what purposes do individuals form and maintain peer relationships? 2. Сап distinctive kinds of peer relationships Ье identi­ fied? 3. What are the functions of peer relationships at differ­ ent career stages? RESEARCH METHODS This exploratory study was designed to examine the nature of support­ ive and significant peer relationships at early, middle, and late career stages. Three researchers, two women and one man, composed the research team. The research was conducted in а large, northeastern manufacturing сатрапу. Members of the human resource staff facilitated our introduction into the organization. This staff provided an initial list of potential research partici­ pants, selected according to four criteria estaЬlished in advance Ьу the research team. Participants The first criterion for selection of participants was age. Extant litera­ ture suggested that individuals work on different developrnental tasks at different ages and career stages in the context of their relationships (Erikson, 1963, 1968; Levinson et al., 1978). Therefore, it seerned irnportant that we allow such differences to Ье rnanifested, lest what we discover about peer relationships represent only one age or career-stage group. Three age groups of 25-35, 36-45, and 46-65 were identified as rnost likely to represent individuals in early, rniddle, and late career stages. While career stage and adult life stage are not always synonyrnous, as when, for instance, an individ­ ual at rnidlife launches а new career, our sarnple consisted of rnanagers for whorn life stage and career stage were highly correlated. Gender of participant was the second criterion for participation in the study. Since our research was to focus on expanding our knowledge of adult relationships with peers at work, we believed it was irnportant to have as rnany fernale participants as rnale. While this balance rnay not reflect the dernographics of the organization, we decided that we could rnake the rnost valuaЫe contribution to an understanding of adult relatioпships if both rnale апd fernale perspectives were equally represented. The final two criteria involved tenure in the organization and willing­ ness to participate. The hurnan resources staff saw all individuals who appeared on our iпitial list as genuinely iпterested in sharing their perspec­ tives and as cornfortaЫe with doing so in interviews. Iп addition, three years tenure in the organization was required. We felt that this period was suffi­ cient to give an opportuпity for а peer relationship to develop. Frorn the original list, the research tearn randornly selected five people frorn each age category. We sent letters to these individuals inviting thern to participate in the study and then called thern on the phone to answer ques­ tions they rnight have and to forrnally request their participation. Two indi­ viduals frorn the original sarnple declined, both because of curreпt tirne pressures, апd were replaced Ьу contacting others on the origiпal list. In all, the final sarnple coпsisted of six people iп early-career (25-35), five iп rniddle-career (36-45), and four frorn late-career (46-65) stages (see ТаЫе 1). The research strategy was to let the 15 focal people select up to two individuals with whorn they had supportive relationships and to theп iпter­ view those significant others. Because the research itself encouraged the dis­ cussion of "special" irnportant relationships, it was irnperative to build in а сhапсе for "less special" relationships to ernerge. Allowiпg up to two rela­ tioпships to Ье explored for each focal person iпcreased the possibllity that different types of relationships would Ье discussed. This sarnpling strategy resulted in 25 pairs. Eleveп focal people wished to talk about two relation­ ships, three people cited опе relationship, апd one individual narned no significaпt peer relationship. TABLE 1 Research Participants Focal Person Significant Others Organizational Status• Age Gender Early сагеег: Subsectioп шапаgеr 32 F Uпit шапаgеr 32 м Uпit шапаgеr 32 м Iпdividual coпtributor Iпdividual coпtributor 31 29 l<' l<' Iпdividual coпtributor 27 м Middle сагеег: Sectioп maпager 45 м Sectioп maпager 43 м Uпit maпager Uпit шапаgеr 43 36 м l<' Iпdividual coпtributor Late сагеег: Sectioп maпager 42 l<' 58 F Subsectioп шапаgеr Uпit maпager 61 63 м м Iпdividual coпtribнtor 55 F Gender Age Organizational Status• 1" м м м 35 55 36 32 32 40 38 34 29 36 32 Subsectioп шапаgеr Uпit шапаgеr Iпdividual coпtributor Iпdividual coпtributor Subsectioп шапаgеr Sectioп шапаgеr Iпdividual coпtributor Subuпit maпager Iпdividual coпtributor Iпdividual coпtributor Iпdividual coпtributor м м м м 48 52 38 39 42 34 55 Subsectioп maпager Sectioп шапаgеr Sectioп шапаgеr Sectioп шапаgеr Nопе Subsectioп шапаgеr Uпit maпager Uпit maпager 42 53 59 63 57 57 63 Subsectioп maпager Subsectioп maпager Subsectioп maпager Iпdividual coпtributor Uпit maпager Iпdividual coпtributor Iпdividual coпtributor м м м м м м l<' м м F' l<' м м м м f<' м •The orgaпizatioпal hierarchy progresses from iпdividual coпtributor to uпit шапаgеr to subsectioп maпager to sectioп шапаgеr. Interviews The interviewing sequence with the 15 focal people consisted of two 1 ½ to 2 hour sessions. During the first session, the primary task was to estaЬlish rapport with the focal person and to review the individual's сагеег history. Ву the end of that first interview each focal person was asked to identify "those two relationships with colleagues whicl1 you feel support your personal ог professional growth." During the second interview, the significant relationships were explored at length Ьу focнsing оп reconstruct­ ing the history of tl1e relationship, the participant's emergent thougl1ts and feeliпgs at different times about the relationship, and the гоlе that the rela­ tionship was perceived to have in сагеег growtl1. At the end of the second interview, we obtained permission to contact the significant other(s). We subsequently invited each significant other to participate in а similar inter­ view sequence; all of them agreed to participate. The interviewing methods were similar to the Ьiographical interviewing method that Levinson et al. (1978) used in their study of adult development. The method comblnes elements of а structured research interview, а clinical interview, and а conversation between friends. Such an interview is both sufficiently structured to insure that certain topics are covered and suffi­ ciently flexiЬle to allow the interviewee to focus on what is of special and particular importance. Because the study involved interviews with pairs of managers or professionals, both individuals were assured complete con­ fidentiality; that is, no information from either's interview was shared with the other. Each interview was guided Ьу а detailed set of interview questions for­ mulated Ьу the research team. While each researcher had the flexibllity to ask any one question in а number of different ways, depending upon the emerging tone of the interview and the style of the interviewer, the research team agreed in advance to cover broad topic areas in generally the same order. All interviews were tape recorded and transcribed so that the raw data could Ье systematically analyzed. Prior to beginning the data collection, the research team met on several occasions to discuss and articulate the particular ideas and concepts which each had formed in regard to peer relationships. This articulation of our а priori assumptions (Post & Andrews, 1982) was а critical process in the research. It insured that we understood the Ьiases we brought to the research as individuals and as а team. We could, therefore, take care to minimize the impact of our Ьiases on the data collected. The research team also met weekly during the interviewing phase to talk about any difficulties or concerns any interviewer had experienced. These meetings helped keep individual interviews as free of interviewer Ьias as possiЬle and provided an awareness of the effects of each interviewer on the data collected. А second function of these conferences was to douЫe-check that the relationships which were emerging were, in fact, peer relationships and not conventional mentoring relationships. From previous research, we knew that mentors tended to Ье much older and several organizational levels higher, and that the mentoring relationship was characterized as а one-way helping relationship. We used these criteria to evaluate the emerging peer relationships; none of the emerging relationships met the mentoring criteria. Data Analysis Our analysis of peer relationships followed the grounded theory approach of Glaser and Strauss (1967) as described Ьу Post and Andrews (1982). We reviewed the transcripts for concepts and themes that might illuminate the nature of peer relationships and their role in career development. Through­ out the data collection process, researchers were developing their own emer­ gent hypotheses, which were constantly shared and compared with the ideas of the others. Once all the data were collected, we met for several full day sessions at which we jointly analyzed the data, paying special attention to similarities and differences across relationships. The process of data analysis, conducted in the manner described Ьу Post and Andrews (1982) and Sanders (1982), involved searching the data for initial categories that seemed to reflect similarities across cases (e.g., inten­ sity of relationship, level of commitment, age-organizational level comЬina­ tion, issues worked оп, needs satisfied). We derived these preliminary cate­ gories from the hypotheses that emerged throughout the data collection. Cases which appeared to fit the category under examination were grouped together. This process served to verify the usefulness of each category, to estaЬlish its basic properties, and to delineate when and to what extent the category existed (Post & Andrews, 1982). When even one particular relation­ ship did not effectively illustrate а concept, we concluded that the concept was inadequate. While placement into initial categories maximized similarities and mini­ mized differences, the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) requires that differences Ъе maximized as well. According to Post and Andrews (1982), diversity is sought to stretch а concept to its limits and its depths, an effort that insures that the categories and theory developed are well integrated. The final concepts and themes developed were those that revealed both the similarities and the differences across cases, accounted for all relationships studied, and were accepted as doing so Ьу all members of the research team. While achieving such а consensus was not easy, it insured that the resultant conceptualization of peer relationships would Ье both comprehensive and compelling (lsabella, 1983). CHARACТERISТICS OF PEER RELAТIONSHIPS The results of this study suggest that peer relationships offer an impor­ tant alternative to conventional mentoring relationships Ьу providing а range of developmental supports for personal and professional growth at each career stage. Through systematic analysis of the 25 relationship pairs, we identified а range of career-enhancing functions similar to those found in mentoring relationships (Kram, 1980). In addition, the analysis indicated that some peer relationships only provide one career-enhancing function, while others provide а wide range of career-enhancing and psychosocial functions. As а consequence, we defined а continuum of relationships that highlights several different types of peer relationships. Finally, interviews with in­ dividuals at different career stages suggested that not only are there different types of peer relationships, but that these types may Ье modified and shaped Ьу the age and career concerns of both individuals. Therefore, we present speculations about how age and career stages shape different peer relation­ ships. Developmental Functions Peer relationships function so as to provide а variety of developmental benefits. Many of these are similar to the career-enhancing functions and psychosocial functions that are observed in conventional mentoring rela­ tionships (Kram, 1985; Levinson et al., 1978; Phillips, 1977). ТаЫе 2 displays the developmental functions of peer relationships that were derived from analysis of the interview data, and compares them with the developmental functions found in mentoring relationships. TABLE 2 Developmental Functions-Comparison of Mentoring and Peer Relationships Mentoring Relationships Peer Relationships Career-enhancing functions • sponsorship • coaching • exposure and visibllity • protection • challenging work assignrnents Career-enhancing functions • information sharing • career strategizing • job-related feedback Psychosocial functions • acceptance and confirrnation • counseling • role modeling • friendship Psychosocial functions • confirmation • emotional support • persoпal feedback • friendship Special attribute • complementarity Special attribute • mutuality In providing career-enchancing functions, а peer relationship сап aid in organizational advancement: Basically, it was the type of relationship, 1 think, 1 was always ahead of her one assignment. 1 would feed back to her about the other assignments that I've heard of and how the assignments were. Mainly, what I was trying to do was have her benefit from my experience and recommend jobs that I thought were better or worse for her to go after. 1 think we developed а career counseling relationship. Within the context of а relationship of this kind, information sharing gives both individuals technical knowledge and perspective оп the organization that better епаЫе them to get their work done. In addition, through career strategizing, individuals сап discuss their career options and dilemmas, find­ ing in а peer а medium for exploring their own careers. Finally, peers give and receive feedback concerning work-related matters that lets them evalu­ ate their own experiences. In providing psychosocial functions, а peer relationship сап support an individual's sense of competence and confidence in а professional role. Psychosocial functions are more frequently observed in peer relationships that are more intimate, of longer duration, and characterized Ьу higher self­ disclosure and trust: Не is one of my closer friends right now .... I'll just walk into his office and bounce off gripes that I have or things that I am doing or ask advice that I need and he'll do the same thing. 1 think а lot of sounding board stuff. Our careers are kind of parallel in that we're about the same age, we're both single, we both like to go out and party а lot and are а little less serious about work than some other people. And we're doing similar types of jobs at work. Within the contexts of these relationships, peers are аЫе to provide confirma­ tion to each other through sharing perceptions, values, and beliefs related to their lives at work and through discovering important commonalities in their viewpoints. Secondly, peers can provide emotional support Ьу listen­ ing and counseling each other during periods of transition and stress. Third, in discussing areas that exteпd beyond the specific job-related concerns addressed Ьу career functions, peers offer each other а personal level of feedback that can Ье an invaluaЫe aid to their (а) learning about their own leadership style, (Ь) learning how they affect others in the organization, (с) seeing how they are managing work and family commitments. Finally, peer relationships can provide friendship, encompassing concern for each other that extends beyond work itself to the total human being. While many of these functions are similar to those characteristic of mentoring relationships (see ТаЫе 2), one special attribute makes them unique. Peer relationships offer а degree of mutuality that enaЫes both indi­ viduals to experience being the giver as well as the receiver of these functions. In contrast to а mentoring relationship, where one individual specializes in the role of guide or sponsor (Kram, 1980; Levinson et al., 1978), in а peer relationsblp both assнme both kinds of roles. This mutuality appears to Ье critical in helping individuals during their careers to develop а continuing sense of competence, responsibllity, and identity as experts. In fact, peer relationships can endure far longer than relationships with mentors. Whereas а mentoring relationsblp generally lasts between three and six years (Кram, 1983), some peer relationships seen in our study began in early career and continued through late career, lasting as long as 20 or 30 years. А Continuum of Peer Relationships In the research sample of 25 relationships, there was consideraЬle varia­ tion in the comblnations of the developmental functions described above. We identified three types of peer relationships, each type characterized Ьу а particular set of developmenta1 functions, а unique level of trust and self­ disclosure, and а particular context in which the relationship had evolved. We will describe the primary functions, tone, and context of the peer relationship we observed as three distinct points on а continuum (Figure 1), since these best illuminate the three major types of relationships in our sample. However, we offer them as points of reference rather than the only variations that may exist. Criteria used for placement along the continuum, and how these are related to initial organizing concepts used in the data analysis, are illustrated in ТаЫе 3. FIGURE 1 А Continuum of Peer Relationships Information Peer Collegial Peer Special Peer Primary Function Primary Functions Primary Functions Information-sharing Career strategizing Job-related feedback Friendship Confirmation Emotional support Personal feedback Friendship Information peer. The information peer is so called because individuals in this kind of relationship benefit most from the exchange of information about their work and about the organization. This peer relationship is charac­ terized Ьу low levels of self-disclosure and trust. As а result of the focus on information exchange and infrequent contact, individuals receive only occa­ sional confirmation or emotional support. While an information peer might receive а small amount of job-related feedback, there is insufficient trust or commitment to allow for personal feedback: I think it's just а friendly exchange, very little giving back and forth. It's primarily informational .... That's рrоЬаЫу what he gives to me and I think that's what he would say I give to him.I don't think he would look at me as giving him апу insight into how he's running his business - we don't get into shop in that regard. From the career histories of the participants, we learned that the informa­ tion peer relationship appears to Ье а common one in organizations. Prelimi­ nary evidence suggests that individuals are likely to maintain large numbers of these relationships. Such relationships demand little, and appear to offer а number of benefits derived from the information shared. While this kind of peer relationship may serve а limited social function in providing some degree of familiarity or friendship, it offers little of the ongoing career or psychosocial support characteristic of the other two types. Exhiblt 1 displays how individuals in information peer relationships characterized those relationships. Collegial peer. The collegial peer relationship is typified Ьу а moderate level of trust and self-disclosure and is distinguished from the information peer relationship Ьу increasingly complex individual roles and Ьу widening boundaries (see Exhiblt 1). In this kind of relationship, the information shar­ ing function is joined Ьу increasing levels of emotional support, feedback, and confirmation. Individuals are likely to participate in more intimate dis­ cussions of work and family concerns. With greater self-expression in the TABLE 3 Criteria for Placement Along Continuum of Peer Relationships Initial Organizing Categories Special Peer Information Peer Collegial Peer Level of commitment Demands little, but offers many ben­ efits. Information sharing joined Ьу in­ creasing levels of self-disclosure and trust. Equivalent of best friend. Intensity of relationship Social but limited in sharing of per­ sonal experience. Allows for greater self-expression. Strong sense of bonding. Issues worked оп Increases individual's eyes and ears to organization (work only). Limited support for exploration of family and work issues. Wide range of support for farnily and work issues. Needs satisfied Source of infшmation regarding ca­ reer opportunities. Provides direct honest feedback. Offers chance to express one's per­ sonal and professional dilernmas, vulnerabllities, and individuality. context of the relationship, there is greater opportunity for confirmation and validation of self-worth: Nathan and I, oh, he's ten feet away. I see him many times. When one of us has а tough thing we'll wander over to the other's office and Ьitch а little Ьit and commiserate. There's а lot of give and take - on а professional basis and on а social basis. Professionally we're both learning at the same time. He's а manager а little less thaв а year more than me. So he had а Ьit of an advantage, Ьнt I think we're growing and experiencing things simнltaneously. There's а lot of sharing about experiences with our people and about different situations arising. So we reinforce one another in that respect. Our сагеег histories of participants indicate that individuals may have а limited number (2-4) of such relationships. These tend to Ъе with people who at one time worked within the same department where ongoing work contact encouraged the formation of а relationship. The primary functions provided Ьу the collegial реег relationship аге сагеег strategizing, job-related feedback, and friendship, as well as some information sharing, confirmation, and emotional support. These distinctions аге best highlighted when set against the unique offerings of the special реег relationship (see Exhiblt 1). Special peer. The point farthest right on the continuum represents the special реег, the most intimate form of реег relationship. Becoming а special реег often involves revealing central amblvalences and personal dilemmas in work and family realms. Pretense and formal roles аге replaced Ьу greater self-disciosure and self-expression. Through the widest range of career­ enhancing and psychosocial support, individuals find support, confirmation and an essential emotional connection that enaЫes profound work on salient developmental tasks: I can say anything to Art and he will Ье understanding. I am аЬ!е to get frнstration and anger out in а more constructive fashion talking to him. We do that for each other. It's relatively intangiЬ!e .... I think we enjoy one another's com­ pany .... It is nice to have somebody to talk to about certain things that you might not Ье аЬ!е to talk about, perhaps, with the person next to you. We are genнinely lырру for each other's successes, and we try to help each other with major decisions .... The thought that would Ье depressing is if either one of us leaves. Friends of different levels соте and go, but we've had much more of а sustained re­ lationship. I generally always have one close friend, and this has been tl1e longest. The сагеег histories suggested that the special реег relationship is гаге. Individuals in this sample typically mentioned а small number (1-3), ог none at all. Special реег relationships generally take several years to develop and tend to endure through periods of change and transition. Thus, they offer not only intimacy and confirmation, but continuity and stability as well.In addition to the advantages that information peers and collegial peers gain in their relationships, special peers often have а sense of bonding with ЕХНIВIТ 1 Examples of Participants' Descriptions of Three Types of Peer Relationships Information Peer Collegial Peer Special Peer "Most important of our relationship is the interchange or discussions about work. We talk about what management and bud­ get proЬ!ems mean to us, to the organiza­ tion, and to the people we work with." "! consider him а friend, 1'11 call if I have а question, whether business or personal, when I need to compare what would Ье the right thing to do.He's one of the first people I call." "She's the one person that I can open up with and know 1'11 Ье accepted, that she isn't going to Ье shocked with things I say and that а lot of them she'II understand because she shares similar values." "It's а relationship in which we look to each other to provide certain kinds of informa­ tion." "He's just the kind of person who always comes in and says: Hi, how are you doing, how was your weekend or your evening? How are you doing today? He's just а good, supportive, open, wonderful person and I really look forward to seeing him every day." "We're pretty open and trustful of one another and we'II give а valued judgment even if it's wrong. 1 think the other is willing to accept that." "We exchange technical ideas.We talk about work and technical proЬlems. His prob­ lems and mine. 1 contribute ideas to him and he contributes to те." "We talk about all sorts of things ... from business to personal. It is always helpful to talk about those with someone you can trust." "! do see our relationship as а need that each of us have for someone and making the best of things that are similar and liking each other and recognizing that there are differences." ЕХНIВIТ 1 (continued) Information Peer Collegial Peer Special Peer "Не calls me periodically during work to talk about some technical issue, if he's looking for some information and I would do the same. vVe look to each other to provide certain kinds of information оп technical issues." "It's а workiпg relationship.We do very little socializing outside of work.We might go grab а couple of beers опсе а month or go to the Mexican restaurant and see if ,ve сап run the marguerita bill as high as the food bill .... We just chum around at work." "Our relationship is mostly frieпdship and trust and coпfidence, but that is trie under­ lyiпg thing we feed оп. It's much more than just work." "He's someone I've done things with, like take breaks, and I епjоу that.Оп the other haпd, I would assume that other people fill that role too." "Не helps me out, particularly оп adminis­ trative stuff.We share experieпces.We do that several times а day wheп we waik back and forth to each other 's offices." "She's the опе person in my Ше with whom I сап talk about anything. S!ш knows much тоге about те, ту thiпking, and my life than most people do." 'Tve seen him а couple of times when I've gопе across the street to lunch.It's easy to sit down апd talk with him. That's ргоЬ­ аЬ!у three times а year." "The organization was new to her, people were пеw to her, and I kпew she would have а period of time until she got to know the organization. I helped her along Ьу just beiпg there when she needed help." ''We have по family responsiЬilities.We've gone оп vacations together, gone away for weekends together, party together. He's my closest friend." one another, which can provide both with а strong sense of security, comfort, and belongingness on the job. The special peer relationship provides reliaЫe and candid personal feedback, emotional support, career strategizing, and ongoing confirmation of each individual's competence and potential (see ExhiЬit 1). While the information peer, collegial peer and special peer relationships reflect different comЬinations of developmental functions, each also seemed to encompass what the individual brought to the relationship in terms of expectations and developmental tasks. We clarified how individuals' expec­ tations and developmental tasks may have shaped each type of peer relation­ ship Ьу examining dominant themes of these relationships at different career stages, and Ьу speculating beyond the limits of our sample of 25 relationships. The following discussion of peer relationships at different career stages, therefore, while grounded in our data, also represents an extension of that data. Relationships at Different Career Stages The three types of peer relationships on the continuum seem to Ье per­ ceived somewhat differently Ьу individuals at different career stages. These variations appear to Ье related to the particular developmental tasks that each person brings to the relationship. Since developmental tasks involve salient concerns about self, career, and family that characterize each career stage, it is not surprising that these tasks might shape what is brought to а peer relationship (Dalton et al., 1977; Levinson et al., 1978; Schein, 1978). Thus, while the primary functions of each type of relationship do not change, the content of what is discussed and the process through which that content is shared are different at successive career stages. These differences in the content of peer relationships at successive career stages are captured in the dominant themes of each type of relationship at each major career stage (see ТаЫе 4). Differences that seemed to Ье related to individuals' developmental tasks clustered roughly around early, middle, and late career stages, with one exception. In order to adequately account for the spread of developmental tasks in early career, we have separated early career into estaЬlishment and advancement. The estaЬlishment stage is com­ prised of people in their 20s, the advancement stage of people in their 30s, middle career of people in their 40s to early 50s, and late career with people in their mid-50s and beyond. Dominant themes in the estaЫishment stage. Concerns about compe­ tence and professional identity often characterize the developmental needs of а person in the estaЬlishment phase of early career (Hall, 1976; Levinson et al., 1978; Schein, 1978; Super, 1957). Two themes seemed to Ье common to all people in their 20s in our sample: (1) concern for their professional identity­ for defining who they were as managers and professionals-and (2) desire to feel self-confident and competent as they went about learning the ropes of organizational life. TABLE 4 Dominant Themes of Peer Relationships at Successive Career Stages Information Peer Stages Collegial Peer Special Peer Late Career Maintaining knowledge Assuming consultive role Seeing others as experts Preparing for retirerneнt Reviewing the past Assessing оне's career and life Middle Career Networking Maintaining visibllity Developing subordinates Passing оп wisdorn Threats of obsolescence Reassessrnent анd redirection Work/family conflicts Advancernent Preparing for advancement Gaining visibllity Gaining recognition Identifying advancement opportunities Sense of competence and potential Commitment Conforrnity vs. individuality Work/family coпflicts EstaЫishment Learning the ropes Getting the job done Dernonstrating performance Defining а professional role Sense of competeнce Commitment Work/faшily coпflicts Dominant themes for each type of peer relatioнship in the estaЬlishment stage reflect these developmental сонсеrнs (see ТаЫе 4). The iнformation peer relationship-in providing information sharing - is characterized Ьу the exchange of information that helps the novice learn the ropes of the organiza­ tion and get the job dоне. The collegial peer relationship-through career strategiziнg, job-related feedback, and friendship-is characterized Ьу coн­ versations about evolviнg professional roles and job performance. The spe­ cial peer relationship-in providing confirmation, emotional support, per­ sonal feedback, and friendship-is characterized Ьу intimate discussions about making а commitmeнt to the неw career, managing the stresses of work and family, and anxieties about competence. The process of а peer relatioнship iн the estaЬlishment stage seems to Ье similar to that which might characterize а meнtoring relationship. Ву this we mеан that the other is viewed as haviнg more wisdom or expeiience and is described as а model анd as а career guide, even though а peer: Terry struck те to Ье very intelligent, career oriented, knowing where she wanted to go. Those were all the kinds of things that I need to look up to .... Terry was really leading me around. It was virgin territory we were getting into. Terry was really а good one to get in there and plow and pioneer it. I think Terry has а better way of dealing with some situations than I do. She says she is going to do something and she does it. Whereas I tend to procrastinate а little more, not so willing to take а risk that she will take. She has guided me in that sense. Thus, this special реег relationship iп the estaЬlishment stage, Ьу providiпg coпfiпnatioп, emotioпal support, persoпal feedback, апd friendship, helped the individual to define а pгofessional гоlе and to acquiгe competence and confidence. То the extent that these relationships, especially the collegial реег and the special реег, involve а scnse of "looking нр to" peers for gнidance, they offeг an alternative to conventional mentoring. Dominant themes in the advancement stage. As individнals become estaЬlished in the�r chosen professions and begin to internalize feelings of competence and masteгy, needs and concerns associated with advancement in tl1e organization and in а pгofcssion take оп пеw importaпce (Hall, 1976; Schein, 1978; Sнрег, 1957). No longer l1шgeoning novices, individнals in the сагеег advaпcement stage in ош sample seemed to waпt to dig in, get ahead as they defined it, work throнgh coпflicts aгising betweeп work and family commitmeпts, апd most of аН "settle down" (Levinsoп et al., 1978) into their lives and build specialized сагеег пiches. Dominaпt themes for реег гelatioпships iп this сагеег stage арреаг to Ье shaped Ьу these developmeпtal tasks (see ТаЫе 4). Tlшs, the informatioп реег relationship сап pгovide infoгmation than enaЫes individuals to сгеаtе opportнnities fог fнtше advaпcement thгoнgh iпcreased knowledge of the organization as well as throнgh iпcreased visibllity to those who шаkе pro­ motional decisions. Siшilarly, the collegial peer relationship, in providing сагеег strategizing ог feedback, сап fшtheг the individнals' attempts to gain recognition and to identify realistic advancement options. Finally, ongoing haring with special peers сап help individuals to grapple with work/family conflicts and with concerns about their potential and the extent to which they аге wiliing to make commitments and conform to the demands of the organization. The elevation of one member to а sнрегiог plane по longer characterizes relationships at this time. All peгsons in their 30s tended to perceive them­ selves as eqнal to the other, even if that other person was older ог at а different сагсег stage ог organizationa1 level, and еvеп if the other person did not share this peгception. There seeшed to Ье а геаl need among people in the advaпcement stage to peгceive and expcrience this sense of equality: I don't consider him like а boss. It's more like а peer relationship. I don't feel equal in responsibllity, but I feel equal in abllity to infJuence his thought.I mean I wШ go and deal with him more оп an equal basis than I did with other supervisors. In fact, it's the first time that I've felt this way. I've always felt really subservient to the people that I worked for, whether it was true or not .... МауЬе it's just getting older and maturing that had done that. Several other individuals, who formerly saw themselves as novices taking advice, spoke of this eqнality as а matter of being аЫе to influence the other person in work-related ог technical matteгs. Others describe а flexibllity of roles; they say they сап Ье thc giveг of advice at one time and the recipient another time; at one moment, tlie sнpportш and at another moment, the person in need of professional ог personal support. Реег relationships at this stage seemed especially malleaЫe and the individuals especially receptive to differences in day-to-day needs. Dominant themes in middle career. During the 40s and early 50s, people in our sample appeared to Ье concerned with reworking old issues ог learn­ ing new ways to approach situations in life and сагеег through their relation­ ships (Hall, 1976; Hall & Kram, 1981; Levinson et al., 1978). Individuals in middle сагеег have substantial histories estaЬlished, histories shaped Ьу the choices made and passed up, situations dealt with effectively ог ineffectively. Midcareer is known to Ье а time for re-evaluation and rethinking of those choices and events. Midcareer is also а time when individuals increasingly depend on others to help them accomplish the tasks of the organization. These developmental tasks арреаг to shape the dominant themes for реег relationships in this сагеег stage (see ТаЫе 4). Thus, а collegial реег relationship, Ьу providing сагеег strategizing and job-related feedback can help individuals learn how to develop subordinates and how to effectively depend on, as well as to coach, junior colleagues. Similarly, а special реег relationship, in providing several psychosocial functions, might offer а way to manage fears of obsolescence and processes of reassessment and redirec­ tion that tend to occur at some time during this period. The social processes in the relationships in middle сагеег years, particu­ larly in collegial реег and special реег relationships, seemed somewhat remi­ niscent of mentors' views of mentoring relationships (Ki-am, 1983). In our research sample, реег relationships for individuals in this сагеег stage were generally witl1 younger people. Individuals in their 40's and early 50's seemed to get а chance to see а younger реег dealing with the issues and choices they themselves had experienced at earlier stages in development. The other peers seemed to live out vicariously alternative ways of confronting and solving those issues and concerns: 1 think I envy а lot of ... some of her characteгistics. She, 1 think, is more dedicated to her job, and to things than I am.The job, people, and principles. I could fluctuate. Му interests can change. I would tend to do the thing that appeals to me more, and let something else slide. She's тоге organized, тоге on top of things .... I think maybe too that she ргоЬаЫу felt that she had seen my growth as а manager, and maybe she liked that and tried to follow through in those footsteps. While the difference in age creates some of the dynamics reminiscent of а mentoring relationship, the similarity in level creates шаге of а two-way exchange and the mutuality characteristic of а реег relationship. Dominant themes in late career. As individuals progress through life and enter late adulthood and сагеег, реег relationships may take on а unique role, aiding the gradual movement into retirement. Individuals in late сагеег begin to acquire an understanding and appreciation for the selves that have accomplished so much in life and in their careers (Levinson et al., 1978). In terms of career development especially, most individuals are facing the real­ ity of moving out of the work force and into new endeavors through retire­ ment (Hall, 1976; Schein, 1978). The individual's own fallibllity and vulnera­ bllity take on greater significance. Dominant themes for peer relationships at this stage in our sample seemed to reflect the impendiпg move out of the organizatioп (see ТаЫе 4). Thus, information peers, in providing information, may do so with the implicit beпefit of enaЬliпg an individual to stay соппесtеd enough with the organiza­ tion to contiпue to work effectively. The collegial peer relationship апd the special peer relationship, through tl1e various functions that they provide, may become mechanisms that епаЫе the iпdividual to assume а more con­ sultative role, to pass on major respoпsibllities to youпger colleagues, and to prepare psychologically for retirement. The special peer relationship in late career stood out in this reseach sample as both гаге and very valuaЫe. Few individuals сап provide emo­ tioпal support and confirmation to ап individual in late career without their haviпg had similarly long career histories. Thus, peers of the same age with similar organizational histories may offer unique opportunities for intimate sharing about immediate developmeпtal tasks: During the conversation, а lot of times it will соте up, where do you think we сап go from here, at our age ... ? I think prob­ aЬly I could feel тоге comfortaЫe with Ted talking about things that have happened, and making an analysis of it, and being аЫе to both uпderstand what's happened. I think that's pretty impor­ tant because we сап relate to each other much better than I could relate to Sara [who is а much younger peer]. First of all, she wouldn't know what the hell I'm talking about because unless you've experienced it, you really can't talk about it. While participants relished and appreciated differences as sources of learniпg at this career stage, they appeared to find similarities to Ье great sources of security as they experieпced the loneliness of anticipating move­ ment out of their organizations and careers. Collegial peer and special peer relationships in late career provide, in some instances, а home away from home-a chance to Ье uпderstood and liked Ьу someone who has been through it all too. IMPLICAТIONS As а result of this study, we have delineated а continuum of peer rela­ tioпships апd outlined the developmeпtal functions provided Ьу those relationships. Furthermore, we have suggested the manner in which those relatioпships may fulfill different individual needs at different career stages. This exploratory research has implications for individuals and for the direc­ tion of future research on adнlt relationships at work. This study suggests that there are а variety of peer relationships - infor­ matioп peer, collegial peer, and special peer - that сап support individual development of successive career stages. Each. type of relationsl1ip offers а range of opportunities for growth through the distinctive functions it provides. Some of these functions resemЫe those seen in mentoring relationships; at the same time, however, they tend to involve greater reciprocity and mutuality. The comЬination of various fuпctions and types of relationships would seem to offer almost all individuals some means for growth and support at any time in their careers. This potential for meeting the needs of many people at every career stage truly makes peer relationships more uni­ versally availaЫe than conventional mentoring relationships and an exciting alternative to them. Peers as Mentors This study, in conjunction with previous studies of mentoring, indicates that mentoring and peer relationships have several common attributes. They both have the potential to support development at successive career stages. In addition, they both provide а range of career-enhancing and psychoso­ cial functions, some of which are found in both kinds of relationships (see ТаЫе 2). There are, however, several important differences between these two types of relationships. First, in conventional mentoring relationships there are significant differences in age and in hierarchical levels, while in peer relationships one of these attributes is usually the same for both individuals. Second, the clearest distinctions between mentoring and peer relationships are found in the functions provided and the quality of the exchange. While а few of the developmental functions of the two types of relationships overlap, mentoring relationships involve а one-way helping dynamic while peer re­ lationships involve а two-way exchange. А comparison of the complemen­ tarity found in а mentoring relationship with the mutuality found in а peer relationship best summarizes this difference (see ТаЫе 2). Previous research оп managerial and professional careers has urged indi­ viduals to seek mentors (Halcomb, 1980; Missirian, 1982; Phillips-Jones, 1982; Roche, 1979; Schein, 1978). The current study suggests that peer relation­ ships may offer unique developmental opportunities that should not Ье over­ looked or underestimated. They provide а forum for mutual exchange in which an individual сап achieve а sense of expertise, equality, and empathy that is frequently absent from traditional mentoring relationships. In addition, peer relationships appear to have а longevity that exceeds that of most mentoring relationships. Several of the peer relationships we studied had lasted almost 30 years. Thus, these 1·elationships сап provide continuity over the course of а career, seeing individuals through change and transition, as well as through the day-to-day tasks of work life. For individuals who do not have or want mentors, peers seem essential (Shapiro, Hazeltine & Rowe, 1978). They сап coach and counsel; they can provide critical information; and they сап provide support in handling per­ sonal proЬlems and attaining professional growth. Even those who have mentors may want to consider the unique possiЬilities found in relationships with peers. There may Ье times during an unfolding career, when it makes more sense to consult with а peer instead of а mentor. Indeed, the results of this study and previous research оп mentoring (Kram, 1980, 1983) suggest that the relative importance of relationships with mentors and peers may change over the course of а career. While conventional mentors are most important in early career, peers seem to Ье important at all stages. Further research is needed in order to identify the unique constellations of relation­ ships that may exist at each career stage to support individuals' development. Questions for Future Research This research, taken in conjunction with research оп mentoring, sug­ gests а number of intriguing questions for further exploration. In reconstruct­ ing the histories of peer relationships, it became obvious that there were consideraЫe shifts in some relationships over time and little change in others. Some of our relationships actually seemed to progress from left to right оп the continuum; others did not. It seems important, therefore, to ask why one relationship grows into а special peer relationship, while another remains constant. А better grasp of the psychological and organizational factors which encourage or inhiЬit progress needs to Ье developed. Such insights would provide individuals with an increased understanding of their own peer relationships, and would еnаЫе organizations to create conditions that encourage the formation of supportive peer relationships among its members. It will also Ье necessary to delineate how individual differences in devel­ opmental tasks, self concepts, and attitudes toward intimacy and authority, as well as other individual attributes, shape the nature of relationships that are needed and maintained. For example, individuals with а particular pos­ ture toward authority may well Ье more inclined to develop relationships with peers, and to find these kinds of relationships of greater value than hierarchical relationships. Or, individuals who feel in competition with peers for jobs or resources may Ье inhiblted from forming а more intimate type of peer relationship. Increased understanding of how individual attributes shape the nature of peer relationships and relationship constellations will signifi­ cantly add to our understanding of adult relationships at work. Since we studied relationships in one organization, we forfeited the opportunity to examine how variations in the organizational setting affect the nature of peer relationships. Interview data, however, suggests that cer­ tain characteristics of the work environment, such as the number of years in the company, differences in the culture of the work group, nature of the reward system, nature of task design, and availabllity of training programs, may have affected the relationships that were studied. For example, а num­ ber of the relationships we studied began in job-orientation programs. Sys­ tematic research across organizations is needed to determine the extent to which relationships are affected Ьу such features of an organization. We wonder especially about the effects companies quite different from this particular research site--for instance, fast growing, highly competitive firms with rapid turnover of technical professionals-might have оп relationships. It would Ье useful to investigate how these vastly different conditions facili­ tate or inhiblt the opportunities to develop supportive peer relationships. This study has expanded our insights into the nature of peer relationships, and it has identified several new, potentially fruitful lines of research. The field of adult relationships is one that deserves greater attention. Investigation of relationships with peers, mentors, and subordinates at different career stages and in diverse organizational settings are preliminary steps toward а better understanding of adult relationships at work.