Beyond Boomer Meets NextGen: ExaminingMentoring Practices among PennsylvaniaAcademic Librariansby Linda Neyer and Kathryn YelinekAvailable online 1 April 2011

A survey to assess mentoring experiencesand attitudes towards work of Pennsylvania

academic librarians was conducted inSeptember 2006 with questions concerningmentoring experiences, work experiences,and attitudes towards work. Results of thesurvey are analyzed for differences among

those librarians responding, especiallygenerational differences, and implications

for professional associations whendeveloping mentoring programs are

discussed.

Linda Neyer is Health Sciences/Sciences Librarian,Assistant Professor, Andruss Library,

Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, Bloomsburg, PA 17815, USA.<lneyer@bloomu.edu>;

Kathryn Yelinek is Coordinator of Government Documents,Assistant Professor, Andruss Library,

Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, Bloomsburg, PA 17815, USA.<kyelinek@bloomu.edu>.

The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 37, Number 3, pages 215–2

INTRODUCTIONMentoring is a well-established practice in the library profession thatcontinues to grow in popularity. One of its traditional aims has been toserve as a bridge between generations. In the conventional mentoringrelationship, an older and more experienced mentor passes on skills,advice, and institutional knowledge to a younger and less experiencedmentee. This standard mentoring narrative dovetails with anotherissue that has gained attention in the library profession: the need toovercome generational conflict in the workplace.

There is a large body of professional literature that takesgenerational differences and conflict in the workplace as a given.Mosley goes so far as to suggest the generations require differenttypes of professional development and management styles.1 Whilethe generations unquestionably have different frames of reference,2

the evidence is contradictory as to whether there are in fact significantdifferences between the generations in terms of work goals and needs.Some studies suggest that the generations are more alike thandifferent, which implies that other factors, such as length of time inthe profession and graduate school curriculum, may have morebearing on a person's career path than his or her generation.

The radical changes in the library profession that have occurredover the last 20 years—including the centralization or outsourcing ofservices and the proliferation of technology—require that librarians,regardless of age or length in the workplace, continually learn newskills. Mentoring can be an important part of this professionaldevelopment, and it is important that mentoring programs adequate-ly meet the needs of their members. Generation may or may not beone factor to take into consideration.

The authors of this study hope to offer insight into the mentoringpractices and needs of academic librarians by presenting informationtaken from a survey of the actual mentoring practices of Pennsylvaniaacademic librarians. The preliminary results of the study wereoriginally presented at the Annual Conference of the PennsylvaniaLibrary Association (PaLA) in 2006 in a session titled, “Boomer MeetsNextGen: Mentoring in the NewMillennium.” The study's findings areexplored here in depth to assist professional organizations at the local,state, regional, and national levels in developing effective mentoringprograms for their academic librarian members.

LITERATURE REVIEW

MentoringThe mentoring literature is voluminous both inside and outside of

the library literature. Kirchmeyer noted that the number of articlespublished on mentoring in the social science and education literaturehad increased “exponentially” in the last 20 years, much of it focusing

21 May 2011 215

on the benefits ofmentoring to the individual and to the organization.3

It seems reasonable to assume that mentoring has become moreprevalent over time as it has become more “fashionable.”

Kirchmeyer found that 65% of the academics she surveyed in 2001had had traditional mentors, compared to 82% who said they had hadnon-traditional mentors or “developers.” She defined a mentor assomeone who actively helped develop a mentee's career (asdistinguished from a passive supporter) and who was “a high rankingmember of the profession… committed to facilitating the career of aless experienced person by providing support and guidance andserving as a role model,”while developers were those at a lower rank.She examined the effects of both formal and informal mentors inacademia over the career path from early tomiddle stages of the careerand found that in an academic's early career (seven or less years aftergraduation) having a larger number ofmentorswas equatedwith laterhigher rank and higher salary regardless of the number of publicationsby an academic.4

In one of the few studies done of an association's mentoringprogram, Kwaski, Fulda, and Ishe studied the Medical LibraryAssociation's South Central Chapter's mentoring initiative, andfound that 81% of librarians reported having had a mentor in theircareer, while 60% reported having been a mentor; no distinction wasmade between mentor and developer. The majority of thoseresponding felt that the most important activity desired in amentoring relationship was the improvement of current job perfor-mance. Advancement of career, while also singled out as important,was a secondary consideration.5

Mosley noted that NextGen librarians moving into managerialpositions need a specific type of mentoring to help them understandthe differences between their generation and the Boomer generation:“The role of the mentor is to help Generation X managers understandwhy older employees have the perspective on change that they do…Generation Xers often need to be coached on listening to olderemployees so as to better understand their fears and concerns.”6

While a laudable goal, Mosley does not substantiate her assertionwithany data.

“…Van Eck Peluchette and Jeanquart found thatearly stage professors who had mentors withintheir organizations were most productive interms of research and scholarly activities.Middle stage professors who had multiple

mentors were most productive, and those whosought mentors outside of their workplace were

the most productive in terms of scholarlyactivity.”

Many studies identified the benefits of mentoring to both partnersin the relationship. The presence of a mentor has been shown byWright andWright to be beneficial to both thementor and thementeein such areas as career and professional development, networking,increased job performance, and added self-worth, although thepossibility of damage to one or both careers is possible.7 In theirstudy of the role of different mentors throughout an academic'scareer, Van Eck Peluchette and Jeanquart found that early stageprofessors who had mentors within their organizations were mostproductive in terms of research and scholarly activities. Middle stageprofessors who had multiple mentors were most productive, andthose who sought mentors outside of their workplace were the mostproductive in terms of scholarly activity. Late stage professorsfrequently did not have mentors, but of those who did, the ones

216 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

with mentors within their organization were the most productive.8

Osif gives a thorough summary of successful library mentoringprograms and stresses the importance of mentoring to both thementor and mentee on their continued professional growth.9

The exact nature of the mentoring relationship has also beenstudied. As mentioned, Kirchmeyer made note of mentors bothwithin and outside one's institution.10 Allen, Eby, and Lentz studiedformal mentoring programs, identifying factors that contributed toa successful mentoring relationship.11 While often the term“mentor” brings to mind a formal relationship established withina workplace or organization in which one person serves as thementor and one as the mentee, much has also been written aboutother forms of mentoring and of some problems with thetraditional model of mentoring. Mavrinac enumerates the differenttypes of mentoring: “peer mentoring, co-mentoring, developmentalalliances, situational or spot mentoring that is short term and goalspecific, ‘mentoring up’ in which senior employees are mentored byjunior employees, team and group mentoring, and e-mentoring.”12

Most recently, Henrich and Attebury describe the University ofIdaho library's using a “community of practice” to mentor newlibrarians, which draws from the best practices of multiplementoring models.13

Co-mentoring, peer mentoring and “mentoring up” run counter tothe traditional definition of mentoring, which assumes thementor hasmore experience and higher rank than the mentee. Most recentlyMurphy has suggested that traditional hierarchal mentoring relation-ships are ineffective in today's climate.14 McGuire and Reger alsocritique the traditional view of mentoring as hierarchical andobjective and instead argue for the role of co-mentoring, whichemphasizes the commitment to and value derived by both parties in amentoring relationship.15 Thomas points out the different careertracks that whites and minorities often take and argues for differenttypes of mentoring to assist these different career tracks.16 One term,“antimentoring,” has been suggested to describe the practice,deliberate or otherwise, of denying women the skills necessary toadvance within the field of library science.17 Hansman urgesorganizations to be aware of and to take steps to correct the tensionsand unhelpful situations that may arise in cross-gender and cross-cultural mentoring relationships.18

Munde notes that mentoring within the field of librarianship hasbeen both received with enthusiastic endorsement and regarded withsuspicion. She discusses the various types of mentoring relationshipsfound in libraries and library schools, including peer mentoring ofstudents, peer mentoring of employees in the same position,hierarchical mentoring of untenured faculty by tenured faculty, andcross-organizational mentoring via email. She criticizes the professionfor offering mentoring systems that focus on one individual's currentcareer goals without focusing on the needs of the entire organizationin terms of retention and promotion or on the needs of the individualfor long-term advancement.19 In a similar vein, Eldredge notes theimportance of mentoring to the profession when he describes the useof “virtual peer mentoring” to facilitate evidence-based librarianshipto further the profession's knowledge base.20

Hines identifies some difficulties experienced with the AmericanLibraries Association New Member Committee's online mentoringprogram. Noting that ultimately the experience was a “rewarding butalso frustrating experience for both the committee and theparticipants,” she describes problems matching mentor and menteeappropriately, finding enough mentors, and ensuring that partici-pants had realistic goals and spent enough time on the mentoringrelationship.21

Generational DifferencesAccording to Strauss and Howe, the “peer personality” for every

generation in America has been shaped by certain events occurring

during the generation's lifecycle and is fully developed over time asthe generation matures.22 Other researchers have come to similarconclusions. For example, Finkelstein, Gonnerman, and Foxgroverfound that a person's identification with his or her generationremained constant over time, and that such identification may bedue more to consistent traits in the individual than to any particularcurrent situation.23

The potential for conflict in the workplace seems obvious, andaccordingly, the literature on generational characteristic differenceswithin the workplace is voluminous, both within and outside of thelibrary literature. Within the library literature, perhaps the most well-known article is “What Will GenNext Need to Lead?” by Young,Hernon, and Powell. This article presented the results of a study inwhich 70 library directors and assistant and associate directors ofAssociation of Research Libraries (ARL), ALA's Association of Collegeand Research Libraries (ACRL), and medium and large-sized publiclibraries were asked to rank attributes that they felt were required ofnewer librarians moving into management positions.24 A rebuttalarticle published a few months later allowed younger librarians toexpress their disagreement over the qualities selected by their oldercolleagues and to list what qualities they sought in a new generationof library leaders and directors.25 These differences were furtherexplored by Young, Hernon, and Powell when they replicated theirstudy of attributes required for library leadership using ten Gen Xrespondents. The results showed that the Gen X respondents ranked64% of the attributes similarly to the ARL directors but only 25% of theattributes similarly to the non-ARL directors. While Young, Hernon,and Powell acknowledge that their findings indicate “significantdifferences between the attributes most highly valued by a number ofacademic library directors and by the Gen X librarians,” they alsocaution that leadership is a complex concept that defies purelygenerational boundaries.26

Outside of library science, a myriad of articles have presenteddiffering views on how, or even if, the generations differ in termsof attitudes towards work. Jurkiewicz surveyed Boomer and Gen Xemployees in a Midwestern metropolitan area in terms of whatthey wanted in a job. Of fifteen work-related motivational factors,only three were ranked in significantly different order by the twogenerations.27 Such results suggest that the two generations aremore alike than different. In contrast, Smola and Sutton surveyedMBA students in 1999 concerning their attitudes towards work,and compared these results to a similar study conducted in 1974.Their results showed that the two generations do have differentattitudes towards work; in particular, there was a general declinein the belief that work should be an important part of a person'slife or that a person becomes a better person by working hard.28 Athird article by Applebaum, Serena, and Shapiro, published in2005, however, found that Boomers and NextGeners were “notdissimilar as employees; they possess more similarities thandifferences.”29

Lancaster and Stillman have written extensively on the topic ofgenerational conflict in the workplace, and have ascribed different‘personalities’ to each of the four generations currently working. Withregard to mentoring, the authors also reported that regardless ofgeneration or experience, their clients repeatedly expressed a desirefor more mentoring.30

Research context and methodologyThe authors developed a questionnaire in three parts, the first

containing 10 demographic questions based on ones used by Henryand Neville31 to elicit information about respondents' currentpositions, their institution's expectations about professional devel-opment for librarians, the number and type of professionalactivities in which they engaged, and the generations to whichthey belonged.

Although the literature uses many different, sometimesconflicting, dates for the generations, the questionnaire used thefollowing dates from Strauss and Howe's seminal work to differen-tiate the generations:32

• ‘Silent’ Generation, 1925–1942 (also known as the ‘Traditionalist’Generation)

• ‘Boom’ Generation, 1943–1960 (also known as the ‘Boomer’Generation)

• ‘Thirteenth’ Generation, 1961–1981 (also known as the “GenX” or“NextGen” Generation, which is used in this study)

• ‘Millennial’ Generation, born after 1981

The second part contained 14 questions based on Kirchmeyer'sstudy,33 focusing on the respondents' experiences both as a menteeand as a mentor. Respondents were asked to enumerate the numberof mentors and mentees in their careers according to the followingdefinition of ‘mentor’: “Mentors/developers [who] may be eitherwithin or outside your institution or the library profession, and yourrelationship(s) may be either formal or informal. Examples of helpare providing advice and help developing strategies to earn tenure orpromotion; and providing direction or working with you on aresearch project for presentation or publication.” The authors wantedto gather information about the incidence of peer mentors or“mentoring up,” so they purposely did not include the requirementthat the mentor be an older, higher-ranking librarian. In addition,respondents were asked where their mentors/mentees worked inrelation to themselves (in their library or institution or outside of it),if they had met formally (through a mentoring program) orinformally, and the areas in which they received or gave the mosthelp (scholarly development, service, or librarianship). Finally,respondents were asked to describe the factors, including externalcircumstances or personal qualities, which made their mentoringrelationships effective or not effective, to gain insight into successfulmentoring practices.

The final part of the questionnaire consisted of 33 attitudinalstatements about work, which respondents were asked to rate using a5-point Likert scale. Since this was an exploratory study, the authorswere concerned only with the face validity of the statements whichdescribed generational attitudes relating to work as identified byLancaster and Stillman, Jurkewicz, and Smola and Sutton. (See theAppendix for a complete list of the attitudinal questions.) Ten of theattitudinal statements were based on Lancaster and Stillman's “clashpoints,” areas of generational differences and conflict, and 17 werebased on Smola and Sutton's and Jurkewicz's studies. Lastly, theauthors developed 6 questions to test for differences in beliefs aboutmentoring or areas suitable for mentoring.

The questionnaire was developed and piloted during thesummer of 2006 with a group of 10 academic librarians. Thequestionnaire was revised based on their feedback and submitted tothe authors' Institutional Research Board for approval. A list oflibrarian email addresses was compiled for the 123 Pennsylvaniaacademic libraries listed in the 2006 edition of the American LibraryDirectory and on the WebJunction Web site, “Libraries on the Web:USA Academic—Pennsylvania” (http://lists.webjunction.org/libweb/Academic_PA.html). Of these, 10 library Web sites did not identifystaff by name on their Web site and were therefore excluded. Theauthors had difficulty identifying librarians at several libraries thatdid not use the job title ‘librarian’ but instead used designations like“Client Services” or “Access & User Assistance.” When in doubt, thenames and email addresses in question were included. Thequestionnaire was sent as a Word attachment during September2006 to 1,286 email addresses. Respondents were asked to returnthe completed questionnaire either as an attachment or through themail.

May 2011 217

Table 1Demographic Summary for Boomers and NextGens

Gender Ranka Length of work experience⁎ IHE workplace⁎Tenuretrack

2nddegreea

Generation Total M F Hi Lo 0–4 years 5–10 years 11–20 years 21+ years 2 years 4 years 4 + years Y N Y N

Boomers 146 40 106 98 47 9 22 49 66 14 29 103 61 84 33 111

NextGens 99 35 64 35 63 41 32 24 2 15 30 52 33 65 9 88

Total 245 75 170 133 110 50 54 73 68 29 59 155 94 149 42 199

a Indicates a statistically significant difference. Totals for different categories may vary due to respondents not answering every question.

Of the 1,286 people contacted, 342 people responded, for a26.6% response rate. Of these, 72 did not complete the question-naire, 62 replied that they did not have an MLS or equivalent(a requirement for the survey) and 10 stated that they did notwish to participate.

Of the 270 completed surveys, 11 surveys were excluded becausethe respondent did not answer either Question 5 (“To whatgeneration do you belong?”) or Question 11 (“How many profes-sionals… have acted as mentors or developers to help yourcareer?”). The remaining 259 useable surveys included responsesfrom a very small number of Traditionalist and Millennial librarians,which were therefore excluded from the study. Ultimately 245surveys from 146 Boomer librarians and 99 NextGen librarians wereanalyzed using the SPSS program. Specifically, the authors used theCrosstab command to create contingency tables and computePearson Chi-Square test statistics for the demographic and descrip-tive data from the first and second parts of the questionnaire. Theyalso ran an Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) on each of the 33attitudinal statements.

RESULTS

DemographicsRespondents from the Boomer generation (N=146) made up the

largest group, followed by those from the NextGen generation(N=99); as mentioned, the Traditionalist (N=10) and Millennial(N=4) librarians were in too small numbers to include in thestatistical analyses. (See Table 1, Demographic Summary forBoomers and NextGens.) As expected, Boomer librarians heldsignificantly more higher ranking positions than NextGen librarians(pb0.001); high rank status was defined as being a library directoror a full or associate professor, and low rank status as instructor orassistant rank. Boomers also had significantly more work experiencethan NextGen librarians (pb0.001). There was a significantdifference in the type of institutions in which the differentgenerations worked: over 70% of Boomer librarians worked in a4-year-plus university setting compared to 54% of NextGenlibrarians, while 29.5% of Boomer librarians worked in a 2-year or4-year college setting compared to 46.5% of NextGen librarians(pb0.05). There was also a difference between generations in havinga second degree (pb0.05); significantly more Boomers had a seconddegree than NextGens, although the numbers were still relativelysmall for both groups: 22.9% of Boomers and 9.3% of NextGens hadsecond degrees.

Mentoring ExperiencesOverall, 68% of librarians reported having had at least one mentor,

and 32% reported having had none, similar to the academics studiedby Kirchmeyer.34 However, considering that the definition of mentorused in this study was more inclusive than Kirchmeyer's, this number

218 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

is actually lower than expected and lower than found in Kwasik's andFulda's study of medical librarians.35 On the other hand, 83% oflibrarians with mentors reported having more than one mentor,compared to just 33% of the academics in Kirchmeyer's study whoreported multiple mentors. With regard to mentoring others, 82% oflibrarians overall reported they had mentored someone, and of these,88% reported having more than one mentee.

“In terms of the generations’mentoringexperiences, NextGen librarians were statisticallymore likely to have had mentors than Boomer

librarians, 74% of NextGen librarians compared to64% of Boomer librarians…”

In terms of the generations' mentoring experiences, NextGenlibrarians were statistically more likely to have had mentors thanBoomer librarians, 74% of NextGen librarians compared to 64% ofBoomer librarians (pb0.05). Although neither generation reported alarge number of mentors from younger generations, Boomerlibrarians were more likely than NextGen librarians to have a mentorfrom a younger generation (pb0.05).

There was no significant difference between the generations interms of number of mentees; 69% of NextGen librarians compared to78% of Boomer librarians had mentored someone, and Boomerlibrarians were significantly more likely than NextGen librarians tohave mentored someone from a younger generation (pb0.001) aswell as from the same generation (pb0.05). Boomer librarians werealso more likely than NextGens to have mentored someone from thesame library (pb0.001) and more likely than NextGens to have mettheir mentees informally (pb0.001).

There was no significant difference between the generations in thearea in which they had received the primary help from their mentors—scholarship, service, or librarianship. Both Boomer and NextGenlibrarians reported they had received the most help from theirmentors in the area of librarianship. However, Boomers identified thesecond area in which they received the most help as that ofscholarship while NextGen librarians identified their second area asthat of service. On the flip side, NextGen librarians reported givingmore help to their mentees in the areas of service (pb0.05) and inlibrarianship (p=.001) significantlymore than did Boomer librarians.NextGens also reported giving more help in the area of scholarship,but the difference between the generations was not significant.

The authors also tested for differences in mentoring for othergroups besides the generations. With regard to being mentored, therewas no significant difference between men and women, betweenlibrarians with varying length of work experience, between librarians

of varying rank, between librarians working in different types ofinstitutions of higher learning, nor between librarians in tenure-trackand non-tenure-track positions. These groups all had fairly similarrates of being mentored. In contrast (and not surprisingly) librarianswith more work experience, with higher rank, and in tenure-trackpositions were significantly more likely to have mentored others thanwere librarians with less experience (pb0.05), with lower rank(pb0.01), and in non-tenure-track positions (pb0.05).

The authors were also interested in studying the relationshipbetween mentoring and publishing, and tested for differences betweenthose librarians who had published peer-reviewed articles and thosewho had not. Interestingly, they found some significant differencesamong librarians who had published more than one peer-reviewedarticle: 83% of them had had mentors while 17% had not (pb0.05), and93% of them had mentored someone else while 7% had not (p=.001).

“[There were] significant differences amonglibrarians who had published more than onepeer-reviewed article: 83% of them had had

mentors while 17% had not (pb0.05), and 93% ofthem had mentored someone else while 7% had

not (p=.001).”

In order to elicit the qualities and conditions which respondentsthought necessary to a good mentoring relationship, the authorsasked respondents to answer two open-ended questions about theirmentoring experiences. Respondents were asked to identify thefactors, including external circumstances or personal qualities, whichmade their most satisfying mentoring relationship or relationshipseffective and which made their least satisfying relationship orrelationships less than effective.

Comments for these two questions were coded and analyzed forrecurring themes. There were 159 comments from respondents in allgenerations for the first question, and some comments containedmultiple themes. The factors mentioned most frequently as contrib-uting to an effective mentoring relationship were desirable profes-sional and personal qualities. Desirable professional qualities (n=67)included having the knowledge, skills, and experience to give soundadvice; acting professionally; and serving as a good role model.Desirable personal qualities (n=67) contributing to a satisfyingmentoring relationship included being a good listener, providingencouragement, and supporting the mentee while remaining honestand open in their communication to the point of giving constructivecriticism when needed.

Therewere 97 comments for the second question regarding factorscontributing to a “less than effective mentoring relationship,” andthese were also analyzed for recurring themes. The theme mentionedmost frequently as detracting from a mentoring relationship was thelack of accessibility or time (n=29). The second most frequentlymentioned theme was having poor interpersonal skills or attitudes(n=26): the mentor was “cold and aloof,” “nosy,” and “expected heragenda to be my agenda.” Only a few respondents (n=3) mentionedintergenerational differences as being a negative factor.

Attitudinal StatementsFor each of the 33 attitudinal statements, a factorial analysis of

variance (ANOVA)was calculated to determine the effect of generationand length of work experience on attitudes toward work. Theindependent or fixed factors were Generation (Boomer or NextGen)and Experience (0–4 years, 5–10 years, 11–20 years, or 21+ years),and the dependent variable for each ANOVA was the rating of one of

the 33 work-related attitudinal statements on a 5-point Likert scale.While significant main effects for either generation or experiencealone were found on a number of statements, the interactionfor generation and experience combined was significant for only2 statements: Statement 5, “I feel comfortable asking for help atwork,”(F(3, 237)=3.3, pb0.05) and Statement 18, “I want tomake theworlda better place,” (F(3,237)=2.7, pb0.05).

The descriptive statistics for Statement 5, “I feel comfortable askingfor help at work,” indicated that among librarians with less than 5 yearsof experiencemoreBoomers agreedwith this statement thanNextGens.But among librarians with 5–20 years experience, fewer Boomersagreed with it than NextGen librarians. Curiously, the numbers arereversed for librarians with 20+ years of experience; more Boomersagreed with the statement than did NextGens. Based on characteriza-tions of the Boomer generation in the literature as being morecompetitive and less collaborative, the authors had expected that theBoomers would show less agreement with this statement thanNextGens for all levels of experience, and such was not the case.

The descriptive statistics for Statement 18 “I want to make theworld a better place,” indicated that among librarians with less than5 years experience more NextGens agreed with this statement thanBoomers, while among librarians with over 5 years experience moreBoomers agreed with this statement than NextGens. Based on thecharacterizations of NextGens from the literature as being morecynical and less idealistic than Boomers, the authors likewise hadexpected NextGen librarians to show less agreement than Boomerlibrarians with this statement for all levels of experience, and this alsowas not the case.

To sum up, the effect of generation when considered with theeffect of experience had no significant effect on almost all of thestatement ratings; ANOVAs for only 2 of the statements showedsignificant differences, and these differences ran counter to expecta-tion. Overall, librarians from different generations showed moresimilarities than differences in their ratings of the statements.

DISCUSSION

A limitation to this study was the modest response rate to thequestionnaire, which may preclude generalization to other popula-tions. Factors contributing to the modest response rate were thelength of the questionnaire and the use of a Microsoft Word form,which required respondents to save the questionnaire and attach to areturn email. Using a Web survey tool would have simplified the datacollection process and likely increased the response rate. However,despite these shortcomings, the findings provide some interestingperspectives on mentoring and generational differences which mayinform the development of organizational mentoring programs.

Some of the findings from the questionnaire conformed to theauthors' expectations. Not surprisingly, respondents ranked goodinterpersonal skills as a definite prerequisite for a helpful mentor,but solid professional skills and experience were equally important.Respondents also reported that the most effective mentoringrelationships were based on taking the time for the relationship,sharing interests, and having mutual respect for each other. Likewise,it was expected that Boomer librarians would be more likely thanNextGen librarians to have a mentee from their same library, as aresponse to the need to mentor newer coworkers, and this wasreflected in the results. Also, the fact that more NextGen librarianshad mentors than Boomer librarians (74% to 64%), and that more hadmet their mentors through formal programs than Boomer librarians(22% to 12%) may be attributed to the increasing ‘popularity’ andincidence of mentoring programs over time. Likewise the fact thatthe generations were very similar in their rates of mentoring othersis probably due to the increasing popularity and incidence ofmentoring.

May 2011 219

The authors found few differences between other groups besidesgeneration, with some exceptions. Not surprisingly, librarians withlonger work experience and with higher rank all were more likely tohavementees than thosewith less experience, with lower rank, and innon-tenure-track positions. These results seem to reflect moretraditional mentoring practices in which a more experienced, ‘expert’librarian mentors a newer librarian, but the results may also reflectthe fact that these librarians are more engaged in the profession.

In addition to some results that were as expected, there were anumber of results that did not meet the authors' expectations. Forinstance, while the results indicated that the majority of librarianssurveyed had mentors and an even greater percentage had mentoredothers—showing that, for the most part, mentoring is a well-established practice among academic librarians in Pennsylvania—more librarians reported multiple mentors than did the academics inKirchmeyer's study.36 Such a result may reflect a wider range of worktasks that librarians must master (or possibly the changing nature ofwork tasks).

The finding that Boomer librarians were significantly more likelyto have a mentor from a younger generation than NextGen librarianswas also unexpected, but may be due to NextGens having less chanceto bementored by someone from a younger generation. However, thismay also be an encouraging sign that many Boomer librarians areopen to mentoring from younger librarians. And indeed, Boomers'aggregate response to the statement, “I often learn new things frommy coworkers,”which shows no significant difference fromNextGens'response, seems to support this.

While both generations reported receiving the most mentoringhelp with librarianship, Boomers reported receiving more help withscholarship as their second area than NextGen librarians, whoreported receiving more help with service for their second area.NextGen librarians reported giving more help to their mentees in theareas of service and in librarianship than did Boomer librarians. SinceBoomers have significantly more experience as a group thanNextGens, the differences are probably due to the different stages oftheir careers.

One very interesting findingwas that librarians who had publishedmore than one peer-reviewed articles also reportedmuch higher ratesof having both mentors and mentees, which suggests that publishingis an area in which librarians both seek mentoring and providementoring to others, probably since getting published is not a skilltaught in most library science graduate programs.

Finally, while the authors had expected to encounter multipledisparities in the ratings of the attitudinal statements, there were onlytwo significant differences noted in the ratings. The generations weremore similar than they were different in their stated beliefs aboutwork, and the two differences actually ran counter to expectations.Such results suggest that generation is only one factor affectingattitudes and behavior at work; others include previous workexperiences and current career stage, to mention just two.

CONCLUSION

The authors found that mentoring is a well-established practiceamong academic librarians in Pennsylvania, with few differencesbetween the generations that could not be explained by their lengthof time in the workplace. They also found very few significantdifferences in attitudes toward work between groups of Boomer andNextGen librarians as well, illustrating that attitudes cannot bepredicted based on generation. It appears that Boomer librarians maybe as open to peer-mentoring or other non-traditional forms ofmentoring as NextGen librarians and just as likely to use technologyand to like to learn new things as NextGen librarians.

What can professional organizations take from this article whendeveloping and supporting mentoring programs? First, the programs

220 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

need to provide potential mentors and mentees with instruction ongood mentoring practices, whether via a formal program, a Web site,continuing education, or some other means. Mentoring is a skill setthat can be learned, including the interpersonal communicationskills involved. One of Kwasik and Fulda's key findings was that theirmembers wanted continuing education on the topic of mentoring.37

Some people may not volunteer as mentors because they feelunqualified, and a continuing education program can assuage thisfeeling. Developing a reading list (including some of the referenceslisted at the end of this article) and providing continuing educationon interpersonal and professional communication are practicalstrategies.

Second, those running the program can assume that mostlibrarians, regardless of generation, will want and need morementoring. Kwasik and Fulda38 note that most librarians valuementoring to improve their job performance, and this is not likelyto change. Not only new librarians but also more experiencedlibrarians need mentoring to learn new roles and tasks, particularlywhen it comes to applying emerging technology to accomplish thesetasks. And younger librarians, with less work experience on which tobase judgments, can become more confident and savvy aboutacademia with mentoring. Mentoring should be available to everyonewho needs andwants it. A programmay suggest limits to the length ofa time commitment and should probably require members to setgoals, but it should also allow participants the latitude to define theirown relationships, goals, and length of time commitment for thementoring relationship.

“A [mentoring] program may suggest limits tothe length of a time commitment and shouldprobably require members to set goals, but itshould also allow participants the latitude todefine their own relationships, goals, and

length of time commitment for the mentoringrelationship.”

Third, programs should stress the ‘peer’ aspects of mentoring overtraditional, hierarchical aspects of mentoring. Potential mentors canbe those who have the requisite experience and skill, regardless oftheir generation or length of time in the workplace, and a mentor canalso (at times) become a mentee. Stressing more informal “peer-mentoring” collaborations may encourage more mentors to partici-pate. Younger librarians who have grown up in an educational culturepromoting collaboration may be more comfortable with peer-mentoring than they are with a hierarchical system, and Boomerlibrarians, who have grown up in a less collaborative, morecompetitive culture, may feel more comfortable, too. There were alarge number of Boomer librarians—approximately 36%—whoreported in this study that they had never had a mentor. Soemphasizing the collaborative aspect of the mentoring relationshipmay increase participation for these librarians. That said, oversight ofthe mentoring program will be necessary; it is important to establishmentors' expertise, perhaps by asking them to complete an inventoryof their experience and levels of expertise, using a checklist.Candidates for a mentoring relationship will also need to be matchedaccording to the mentees' goals and the mentors' expertise.

Fourth, programs can stress the benefits of mentoring for thementor as well as the mentee. Increased job satisfaction and jobperformance of librarians who have been mentored provides apowerful argument for participation in mentoring programs, but theunexpected benefit to mentors is that mentoring can renew their

commitment and interest in the profession.39 And the finding thatlibrarians who mentor others are significantly more likely to publishpeer-reviewed articles than those who have not certainly bears thisout. Furthermore, mentoring benefits the profession. It is impossiblefor individuals to consider their long-term career goals withoutconsidering the status and future of the profession. The professionwillundoubtedly change in terms of what tasks librarians will do in future,but the values and knowledge that ground the profession—thepreservation, organization, finding, and creating of knowledge—willonly endure if librarians are actively engaged in conversations witheach other, the type that occurs in meaningful, professional,mentoring relationships.

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge Dr.Alicia King Redfern and Dr. Jeffrey Leitzel, Psychology Department,Bloomsburg University, for their invaluable help with the statisticalanalyses.

APPENDIX A. SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

Supplementary materials related to this article can be found online atdoi:10.1016/j.acalib.2011.02.013.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Pixey Ann Mosley, “Mentoring Gen X Managers: Tomorrow'sLibrary Leadership is Already Here”, Library Administration &Leadership 19 (4) (2005): 185–192.

2. Beloit College Mindset, http://www.beloit.edu/mindset/2014.php,accessed August 18, 2010.

3. Catherine Kirchmeyer, “The Effects of Mentoring on AcademicCareers Over Time: Testing Performance and Political Perspec-tives”, Human Relations 58 (5) (2005): 637–660.

4. Ibid., pp. 637-660.5. Hanna Kwasik and Pauline O. Fulda, “Strengthening Professionals:A Chapter-Level Formative Evaluation of the Medical LibraryAssociation Mentoring Initiative”, Journal of the Medical LibraryAssociation 94 (1) (2006): 19–29.

6. Pixey Ann Mosley, “Mentoring Gen X Managers”, pp. 185-192.7. Cheryl A. Wright and Scott D. Wright, “The Role of Mentors in theCareer Development of Young Professionals”, Family Relations 36(2) (1987): 204–208.

8. Joy Van Eck Peluchette and Sandy Jeanquart, “Professionals' Use ofDifferent Mentor Sources at Various Career Stages: Implications forCareer Success”, Journal of Social Psychology 140 (5) (2000):549–564.

9. Bonnie A. Osif, “Successful Mentoring Programs: Examples fromWithin and Without the Academy”, Journal of Business & FinanceLibrarianship 13 (3) (2008): 335–347.

10. Kirchmeyer, “The Effects of Mentoring”, pp. 637-660.11. Tammy D. Allen, Lillian T. Eby, and Elizabeth Lentz, “Mentorship

Behaviors and Mentorship Quality Associated with FormalMentoring Programs: Closing the Gap between Research andPractice”, Journal of Applied Psychology 91 (3) (2006): 567–578.

12.Mary Ann Mavrinac, “Transformational Leadership: Peer Mentor-ing as a Values-Based Learning Process”, portal: Libraries and theAcademy 5 (3) (2005): 391–404.

13. Kristin J. Henrich and Ramirose Attebury, “Communities of Practiceat an Academic Library: A New Approach to Mentoring at the

University of Idaho”, Journal of Academic Librarianship 36 (2)(2010): 158–165.

14. Sarah Anne Murphy, “Developmental Relationships in the Dy-namic Library Environment: Re-conceptualizing Mentoring for theFuture”, Journal of Academic Librarianship 34 (5) (2008): 434–437.

15. Gail M. McGuire and Jo Reger, “Feminist Co-Mentoring: A Modelfor Academic Professional Development”, NWSA Journal 15 (1)(2003): 54–72.

16. David A. Thomas, “The Truth about Mentoring Minorities: RaceMatters”, Harvard Business Review 79 (4) (2001): 98–107.

17. Gail Munde, “Beyond Mentoring: Toward the Rejuvenation ofAcademic Libraries”, Journal of Academic Librarianship 26 (3)(2000): 171–175.

18. Catherine A. Hansman, “Reluctant Mentors and Resistant Protégés:Welcome to the ‘Real’ World of Mentoring”, Adult Learning 14 (1)(Winter 2003): 14–16.

19.Munde, “Beyond Mentoring,” 171-175.20. Jonathan D. Eldredge, “Virtual Peer Mentoring (VPM) May

Facilitate the Entire EBLIP Process”, Evidence Based Library andInformation Practice 5 (1) (2010): 7–16.

21. Samantha Schmehl Hines, “Adventures in Online Mentoring: TheNew Members' Roundtable Career Mentoring Program”, Journal ofWeb Librarianship 1 (4) (2008): 51–65.

22.William Strauss and Neil Howe, Generations: The History ofAmerica's Future, 1584 to 2069 (New York: Quill, 1991), p. 538.

23. Lisa M. Finkelstein, Melvin E. Gonnerman, and Sara K. Foxgrover,“The Stability of Generation Identification Over Time and AcrossContexts”, Experimental Aging Research 27 (4) (2001): 377–397.

24. Arthur Young, Peter Hernon, and Ronald Powell, “What Will GENNEXT Need to Lead?”, American Libraries 35 (5) (2004): 32–35.

25. “Gen X bites back”, American Libraries 35 (8) (2004): 43–45.26. Arthur P. Young, Peter Hernon, and Ronald R. Powell, “Attributes of

Academic Library Leadership: An Exploratory Study of some Gen-Xers”, Journal of Academic Librarianship 32 (5) (2006): 489–502.

27. Carole L. Jurkiewicz, “Generation X and the Public Employee”,Public Personnel Management 29 (1) (2000): 55–74.

28. Karen Wey Smola and Charlotte D. Sutton, “GenerationalDifferences: Revisiting Generational Work Values for the NewMillennium”, Journal of Organizational Behavior 23 (4) (2002):363–382.

29. Steven H. Applebaum, Maria Serena, and Barbara T. Shapiro,“Generation ‘X’ and the Boomers: An Analysis of Realities andMyths”, Management Research News 28 (1) (2005): 1–33.

30. Lynne C. Lancaster and David Stillman, When Generations Collide(New York: Harper Business, 2002).

31. Deborah B. Henry and Tina M. Neville, “Research, Publication, andService Patterns of Florida Academic Librarians”, Journal ofAcademic Librarianship 30 (6) (2004): 435–450.

32. Strauss and Howe, Generations: The History of America's Future.33. Kirchmeyer, “The Effects of Mentoring”, pp. 637-660.34. Ibid, pp. 637-660.35. Kwasik and Fulda, “Strengthening Professionals”, pp. 19-29.36. Kirchmeyer, “The Effects of Mentoring”, pp. 637-660.37. Ibid, pp. 637-660.38. Kwasik and Fulda, “Strengthening Professionals”, pp. 19-29.39. Gail A. Workman, “Mentoring Energizes Mid-Career Centors”, The

Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin 71 (4) (2005): 55–56.

May 2011 221