4.3. ANALYSIS OF THE MAIN STUDY
4.3.5. Indicators of the success of a mentorship programme
4.3.5.1. Career development
4.3.5.1.1. Promotion
The study sought to determine how many times a mentee has been promoted on the job and used this as a measure of successful mentoring.
Table 4.23: Promotion
Promotion N %
Never 12 52.2
Once 8 34.8
Two times 2 8.7
Four times 1 4.3
TOTAL 23 100
In Table 4.23, the participants have been promoted in their positions in the construction industry as follows: 52.2% of the mentees have never been promoted, 34.8% have been promoted once, 8.7% two times and 4.3% have been promoted four times. As the number of female mentees decreases, the more the number of promotion increases. Meaning that there are few women promoted at work.
4.3.5.1.2. On-the-job performance
The study sought to determine the performance of the female mentees.
Table 4.24: Performance
Performance Mentees Mentors
N % N %
High achiever 14 58.0 7 70.0
Average achiever 10 42.0 3 30.0
TOTAL 24 100 10 100
Mentee and mentor participants were asked to rate the performance on-the-job of female mentees, within the last five years. From Table 4.24, 58% of female mentees believe that they are high achievers in their performance; while 42% of female mentee participants believe that they are average. Mentor participants (70%) perceive that their mentees are high achievers, while 30% of them perceived that their mentees are average achievers. It is evident that the majority of female mentees are high achievers.
4.3.5.1.3. Earnings
The study sought to find out the improvement in earnings of female mentees in the last five years, excluding the yearly salary adjustment and union bargaining.
Table 4.25: Earnings of female mentees Earnings
improved Mentees Mentors
Salary Merit pay
Bonus Cash award
Salary Merit pay
Bonus Cash award N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Yes 16 69.1 3 14.3 10 45.5 3 14.3 6 60 3 30 6 60 1 10 No 6 26.1 14 66.7 10 45.5 15 71.4 3 30 4 40 3 30 6 60 Unsure 1 4.3 4 19 2 9 3 14.3 1 10 3 30 1 10 3 30 TOTAL 23 100 21 100 22 100 21 100 10 100 10 100 10 100 10 100
From Table 4.25, female mentee participants were asked to indicate whether the earnings of mentees in the last five years have improved or not (excluding yearly salary adjustments and union bargains). In salary increase, 69.1% female mentees have improved, 26.1% have not improved; while 4.3% of mentees were not sure their salary increase have improved. Findings suggest that most mentees’ salary increase have improved.
In merit pay, 14.3% improved; 66.7% have not; while 19% are not sure. The findings suggest that most mentees’ merit pay were not improved.
In bonus, 45.5% improved; 45.5% have not and 9% are not sure. There is an equal number of female mentees whose bonus had improved and whose had not improved.
In cash award, 14.3% improved, 71.4% did not; while 14.3% are not sure. This therefore shows that the majority of mentees’ cash award did not improve.
From Table 4.25, mentor participants were asked to indicate whether the earnings of female mentees in the last five years have improved or not (excluding yearly salary adjustment and union bargaining). In salary increase, 60% of the mentors observe that the mentees salary increase did not improve; 30% have not; while 10% are not sure. Findings suggest that most mentors perceive that their mentees’ salaries have increased.
In merit pay of mentees, 30% of the mentors perceived that there was improvement; 40%
perceived no improvement; while 30 % were not sure. The findings also suggest that most mentors perceived that there was an improvement in the merit pay of mentees.
In Bonus of mentees, 60% of mentors perceived that there was improvement; 30% perceived no improvement; 10% were not sure. Most of the mentors perceived that the bonus of their mentees was improving.
In cash award of mentees, 10% of mentors perceived that there was improvement; 60% of mentors perceived no improvement; while 30% were not sure. This therefore indicates that the majority of mentors perceive that there was an improvement in the cash awards of mentees.
The findings revealed that 52.2% of the female mentee participants have not been promoted during their post-qualification careers. The findings are supported by Dainty et al. (2001:299).
Blake-Beard et al. (2006:6) complained that few women were promoted into top positions in the workplace. Arguably, Clutterbucks (2002:141) revealed that in cross-race mentorship relationships, mentors are culturally stereotypical, as a result they treat mentees unfairly.
Koberg et al. (1998:61) argued that in organisation, women are perceived to have low status, treated unfairly and are excluded. Furthermore, black women in leadership positions are facing challenges with sexism and racism issues and not being promoted and retained (Koberg et al., 1998:61; Singh, Robinson and Williams-Green, 1995:401). According to Allen, Jacobson and Lomotey (1995:409), race is the major obstacle to career advancement, more than gender. The study of Allen et al. (2004:130), Kram (1985:25), and Scandura and Hamilton (2002:295) contradict the current findings, revealing that female mentees are more promoted than their non-mentored counterparts because mentors recommend their mentees for promotion.
The majority of the respondents perceived that female mentees are high achievers. The findings are aligned with the study of Kahle-Piasecki (2011:48) and Pershing (2006:12), that mentees perform better than their non-mentored conterparts. The findings contradict the results of the study of Lyness and Heilman (2006:777) and Dainty et al. (2000), that the performance rating of women at work was rated according to stricter standards for promotion than men. Tsoka and Mathipa (2001:328) argued that in the work place women are being discriminated against and stereotyped, and as a result women are perceived as poor performers.
In earnings, female mentees are receiving bonuses and salary increases commensurately during their careers in the construction industry, but most female mentees do not receive merit pay or cash awards. Findings of Allen et al. (2004:130) and Murrell and De Zagenczk (2006:119) support the current findings of the study revealing that mentees’ salaries were increasing more rapidly than their non-mentored counterparts because they are more promoted.
The findings of Statistic South Africa (2013a:1) contradict the current findings, revealing that women earn less than their male counterparts. Dreher and Ash (1990:545) found that even though the earnings of female mentees were increasing, the earnings did not reach the level of their male counterparts. Furthermore, women were satisfied with their income and did not take action to complain about the inequality earnings they were receiving.
The findings suggest that most of the mentees had matric qualifications. These findings are supported by the findings of Higher Education South Africa (2014:1) that the country has improved in enrolling students at universities, especially students who are from disadavantaged backgrounds, women and Blacks. This was achieved by the policies and legislations that were implemented, and bursaries that were awarded (HESA, 2014:1). However, 59% of students drop out from universities during undergraduate and postgraduate years due to reasons such as pregnancy, lack of funds, unprepared to enrol in university, poor teaching and learning approaches and students deciding to work because of poverty (HESA, 2014:1). Madikezela and Haupt (2009:128) argued that the low number of qualified women in the construction industry contributed to the shortage of skilled women. Furthermore, female employees are lacking funds to improve their status and qualifications (Madikezela & Haupt, 2009:121). Moreover, women were engaged in the top positions even though they are semi-qualified just to abide with the equality regulations and that their capabilities to perform in the industry were undermined (Madikezela & Haupt, 2009:128). It is evident that the level of education has an impact on career advancement of individuals (NGO Committee on Education, 1990:online).