1614
Differing Challenges and Different Achievements
TXDOL¿FDWLRQVZLOOUHPDLQWKHVHFRQGEHVWRSWLRQ
in terms of quality assurance. A new framework
is necessary now before there is a proliferation of
e-learning offerings claiming to be of university-
degree standard, when they are not.
There are a number of factors that could be
contributing to the failure of anyone developing
quality standards for e-learning. Firstly, there are
GLI¿FXOWLHVVXUURXQGLQJWKHGH¿QLWLRQRIHOHDUQ-
ing itself. The term is used to refer to many differ-
ent approaches, from an electronically delivered
training material to more advanced media-rich
content, such as video-streaming, and sophisti-
FDWHG³FODVVURRPWRROV´6HFRQGO\WKHUHDUHWKH
GLI¿FXOWLHVVWHPPLQJIURPPHGLDK\SHWKDWUDLVHV
expectations unrealistically. Early e-learning, in
particular, often took the form of text on screen,
rather than text in a textbook. The education and
training sector have been slow to integrate the
creative opportunities that e-learning affords
them. Learning could be made as exciting as a
PlayStation game, but so far, it hasn’t been.
Thirdly, in many universities and organzia-
tions, it was taken for granted that if the e-learning
system was provided, people would use it. This
has not turned out to be the case. It is like taking a
horse to water but not being able to make it drink.
E-learning needs to be marketed and introduced
to students, rather than being thrust in front of

them with them being left to get on with it.
There have also been problems with the tech-
nology itself. Despite efforts at standardization,
compatibility between all courseware and learn-
ing-management systems is far from achieved,
making collaborations such as Univesitas21
and the Global University Alliance partnerships
in principle, rather than in practice. This has
meant that purchasers have had to narrow down
course selection to single platforms (Gold, 2003).
Once standardization has been achieved, Singh
and Reed (2002) see content becoming portable
between university courses and learning-man-
agement systems, allowing different learning
applications to share content and track data,
giving greater variety in e-learning offerings and
combinations.
The future for e-learning is uncertain. If uni-
versities continue to try and introduce it within
their current structures and frameworks, they
ZLOOIDLODVWKH\DUHWU\LQJWR¿WDVTXDUHSHJ
into a round hole. If, on the other hand, they em-
brace and exploit the differences that e-learning
can offer, then they will expand the sphere of
higher education beyond current expectations.
However, they must address the issue of social
interaction within e-learning, be it between tutor
and student, or amongst students, as this appears
to be a critical factor in e-learning success. This
is a challenge both for the e-learning providers

and the e-learners themselves. The demand for
e-learning is increasing. Evans and Haase (2000)
surveyed more than 2,500 people and found that
42% would be very likely to participate in online
higher education if a particular course or pro-
gram was offered that is not currently available.
This could signal that the market is ready for a
massive expansion and change in the provision.
Recognizing the differences that e-learning offers
E\FDWHJRUL]LQJHTXDOL¿FDWLRQVVHSDUDWHO\ZLWK
their own process for assuring quality could be
D¿UVWVWHSGRZQWKLVURDG,WZRXOGEULQJWRWKH
forefront the challenges that e-learning poses,
ensuring that students have a much more realistic
idea of the additional challenges they will face
when undertaking their studies to those taught in
a more traditional, social environment.
REFERENCES
Abeles, T. P. (2005). Institutional change in The
Academy. On the Horizon—The Strategic Plan-
ning Resource for Education Professionals,
13(2), 63-68.
Alexander, S. (2001). E-learning developments
and experiences. Education and Training,43(4/5),
240-248.
1615
Differing Challenges and Different Achievements
Anderson, L. (2003, March 24). Fresh ways of
OHDUQLQJDWWKHWRXFKRID¿QJHUFinancial Times
Special Report: Business Education, p. I.

Baldwin-Evans, K. (2004). Employees and e-
learning: What do the end-users think? Industrial
and Commercial Training, 36(7), 269-274.
Barnett, R. (2000). Realizing the university in an
age of supercomplexity. Buckingham, UK: SRHE
and Open University Press.
Birchall, D., & Smith, M. (2002). Scope and scale
of e-learning delivery amongst UK Business
Schools. London: CEML.
Bourne, J. R., McMaster, E., Reiger, J., & Camp-
bell, J. O. (1997). Paradigms for on-line learning.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
1(2), 38-56.
Canning, R. (2002). Distance or dis-stancing
education? A case study in technology based
learning. Journal of Further and Higher Educa-
tion, 26(1), 29-42.
Crook, C., & Barrowcliff, D. (2001) Ubiquitous
computing on campus: Patterns of engagement
by university students. International Journal of
Human-Computer Interaction, 13(2), 245-256.
De Boer, W., & Collis, B. (2002). A changing
pedagogy in e-learning: From acquisition to
contribution. Journal of Computing in Higher
Education, 13(2), 87-101.
Delahaye, B. L., Limerick, D. C., & Hearn, G.
(1994). The relationship between andragogical
and pedagogical orientations and the implications
for adult learning. Adult Education Quarterly.
44(4), 187-200.

Diebold, J. (1996). The next revolution in comput-
ers. In E. Cornish (Ed.), Exploring your future:
Living, learning and working in the information
age. (pp. 42-45). MD: World Future Society.
Dupuis, E. A. (1998, Fall/Winter) The times
they are a changin: Students, technology and in-
structional services. Reference Services Review,
11-16, 32.
Evans, J. R., & Haase, I. M. (2000). What’s ahead
for online higher education: A consumer perspec-
tive. Futures Research Quarterly, 16(3), 35-48.
)RQWDLQH * 3UHVHQFH LQ ³WHOHODQG´,Q
K. E. Rudestam & J. Schoenholtz-Read (Eds.),
Handbook on online learning: Innovations in
higher education and corporate training (pp.
23-52). London: Sage Publications.
Gibbons, H. S., & Wentworth, G. P. (2001). An-
drological and pedagogical training differences
for online instructors. Online Journal of Distance
Learning Administration, 4,(3). Retrieved from
/>gibbons_wentworth43.html
Gold, M. (2003). Eight lessons about e-learning
IURP¿YHRUJDQLVDWLRQVAmerican Society for
Training and Development, 57(8), 54.
Hines, A. (1996). Jobs and infotech. In E. Cornish
(Ed.), Exploring your future: Living, learning and
working in the information age (pp. 7-11). MD:
World Future Society.
Hudson, B. (2002). Critical dialogue online:
Personas, covenants and candlepower. In K. E.

Rudestam & J. Schoenholtz-Read (Eds.), Hand-
book on online learning: Innovations in higher
education and corporate training (pp. 53-90).
London: Sage Publications.
Julien, A. (2005). Classifying e-trainer s
tandards.
The Journal of Workplace Learning, 17(5/6),
291-303.
Keisler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1987).
Social psychological aspects of computer-medi-
a t e d c o m m u n i c a t i o n . I n R . F i n n e g a n , G . S a l a m a n ,
& K. Thompson (Eds.), Information technology:
Social issues—a reader (pp. 247-2626). UK: Open
University and Hodder & Stoughton.
1616
Differing Challenges and Different Achievements
Kerker, S. (2001). Confessions of a learning pro-
gram dropout. The New Corporate University
R
eview, 9(2)2-3, 10-11.
Lawther, P. M., & Walker, D. H. T. (2001). An
evaluation of a distributed learning system. Edu-
cation and Training, 43(2), 105-116.
London, S. (2003, March 24). The networked world
changes everything. Financial Times Special
Report: Business Education, p. VI.
Manicas, P. (2000). Higher education at the brink.
I n S . I n a y a t u l l a h & J . G i d l e y ( E d s .) , The university
in transformation: Global perspectives on the
futures of the university (pp. 31-40). Westport,

CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Margules, D. (2002). University teaching and
OHDUQLQJ :K\ D PRUH ÀH[LEOH DSSURDFK" Re-
trieved from />oet%20html%20docs/Margules_D.htm
Mazone, J. G. (1998). The essentials of effective
online instruction. Campus-Wide Information
Systems, 16(3), 104-110.
Miller, M. M., & Dunn, S. L. (1996). From the
industrial to the virtual university. Futures Re-
search Quarterly, 12(4), 71-84.
Moshinskie, J. (2001, August). Tips for ensuring
effective e-learning. HR Focus, 78(8), 6-8.
Murray, S. (2003, March 24). Web based systems
change the MBA landscape. Financial Times
Special Report: Business Education, p. III.
3RQG:.7ZHQW\¿UVWFHQWXU\HGXFD-
tion and training: Implications for quality assur-
ance. The Internet and Higher Education, 4(3/4),
185-192.
Rooney, D., & Hearn, G. (2000). Of minds,
markets and machines: How universities might
WUDQVFHQG WKH LGHRORJ\ RIFRPPRGL¿FDWLRQ ,Q
S. Inayatullah & J. Gidley (Eds.), The university
in transformation: Global perspectives on the
futures of the university (pp. 91-104). Westport,
CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Rovai, A. A. P. (2002). A preliminary look at
the structural differences of higher education
classroom communities in traditional and ALN
courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning

Networks, 6(1), 41-56.
Salmon, G. (2002, April). Hearts, minds &
screens: Taming the future. Keynote speech
presented at the EduCAT Summit: Innovation in
E-Education, Hamilton, New Zealand.
6FKR¿HOG15\ODQFH:DWVRQ(Man-
agement and leadership training and development
delivered through e-learning outside the business
schools. London: CEML.
Schrum, L., & Hong, S. (2002). Dimensions
and strategies for online success: Voices from
experienced educators. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 6(1), 57-67.
Schrage, M. (1999). Sorry, no keg parties here.
This university is on the desktop. Fortune, (11),
224.
Singh, H., & Reed, C. (2002). Demystifying e-
learning standards. Industrial and Commercial
Training, 34(2), 62-65.
Williams, C. (2002). Learning on-line: A review
RIUHFHQWOLWHUDWXUHLQDUDSLGO\H[SDQGLQJ¿HOG
Journal of Further and Higher Education, 26(3),
263-272.
This work was previously published in Social Implications and Challenges of E-Business, edited by F. Li, pp. 15-27, copyright
2007 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).
1617
Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Chapter 5.15
Social Implications
of E-Mentoring:

Development of an
E-Mentoring Model
Veronica M. Godshalk
Pennsylvania State University, USA
ABSTRACT
E-mentoring, also known as online mentoring
or virtual mentoring, is changing the way that
traditional mentor and protégé dyad members
interact with each other. Mentoring has been
widely known for its ability to enhance the career
development, and to provide psychosocial support,
for more junior organizational members. Through
the use of computer-mediated communication
technology, e-mentoring may allow individuals
to bridge geographic and time differences. How-
ever, there is still much we do not know about
e-mentoring and its social effects. This chapter
focuses on whether or not computer-mediated
communication (CMC) technology will allow for
true mentoring relationships to develop, as well as
what personal characteristics may be necessary
to grow these virtual relationships. A model and
proposition for future research are offered.
INTRODUCTION
It is indisputable that computer-mediated commu-
nication technology (CMC), that is the Internet, e-
mail, instant messaging and related technologies,
is changing the social landscape and the process
of how we communicate with one another. Harris
Interactive reported that more than 156 million

adults, or 73% of the U.S. population age 18 and
older, were communicating online in 2004. The
Harris Interactive study characterized online users
DVUHSUHVHQWDWLYHRI³PDLQVWUHDP´$PHULFDLQWKDW
30% of users reported having a college degree or
greater, and 48% noted annual household incomes
of $50,000 or greater (Harris Interactive, 2004).
Eurostat reports that close to 54% of European
Internet users link up every day or almost every
day, and 82% link up weekly. In Europe, student
use is particularly high (ranging from 42 to 96%)
on a daily basis as is use by people educated at a
graduate level (Eurostat, 2005).
1618
Social Implications of E-Mentoring
As these individuals continue to use CMC,
Kock (2004) suggests that this new digital media is
creating new social situations and communication
behaviors. Social scientists cannot entirely agree
on what these social changes may be (DiMaggio,
Hargittai, Neuman, & Robinson, 2001; Nie &
Ebring, 2000; Lin, 2001) or if computer-mediated
WHFKQRORJ\FDQVXEVWLWXWHVXI¿FLHQWO\IRUface-to-
face (FtF) communication (Daft & Lengel, 1986;
Daft, Lengel, & Trevino, 1987; Short, Williams,
& Christie, 1976). Given the social implications
of CMC use and the challenges facing the e-busi-
ness environment, it is agreed that investigating
these phenomena during the early stages of the
new medium’s diffusion and institutionalization

is incredibly important research (DiMaggio et
al., 2001).
E-mentoring is a recent social construction
using CMC. Whether it is called e-mentoring, or
online mentoring, telementoring, cybermentoring
or virtual mentoring (Single & Muller, 2001), e-
mentoring can be characterized as an ongoing,
computer-mediated relationship that involves the
receipt of mentoring functions between junior
(inexperienced) and senior (more experienced)
partners. E-mentoring relationships are evolving
from traditional mentoring relationships due to
CMC. Traditional, FtF mentoring involves the
mentor providing psychosocial and vocational
support functions. The setting and pursuit of
goals for personal and professional development
is an important element in the transfer of learn-
ing in mentor-protégé relationships, and mentors
often offer feedback and information to help the
protégé attain his or her goals (Godshalk & Sosik,
2003; Kram, 1985). Through the use of CMC,
e-mentoring relationships are changing social
patterns and communication styles, and allowing
e-mentors to provide similar support functions
for e-protégés.
Mentors provide protégés with three broad
functions: career development (i.e., exposure
and visibility, coaching, protection, sponsorship,
challenging assignments), psychosocial support
LHDFFHSWDQFH DQG FRQ¿UPDWLRQ FRXQVHOLQJ

friendship) and role modeling (demonstrating,
articulating and counseling regarding appropriate
behaviors implicitly or explicitly) (Kram, 1985;
Scandura, 1992). The career development func-
tions provide vocational support and are associ-
ated with protégé outcomes, including enhanced
knowledge, skills and abilities, opportunities
for promotion, and increased compensation.
Vocational support also is provided through role
modeling, which allows protégés to understand
appropriate interpersonal behavior and culture
within the organizational context, and aids pro-
tégés in performing tasks and communicating
well with superiors, peers and subordinates. The
psychosocial functions provide socio-emotional
(social) support and are associated with protégé
outcomes, such as job and career satisfaction,
career balance, and increased expectations of
career success (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima,
2004; Dreher & Cox, Jr., 1996; Scandura, 1992;
Wanberg, Welsh, & Hezlett, 2003).
E-mentoring appears to be a necessary form
of relationship, given the technology-dependent
environment within which we work and the need
to interact using CMC. Increased use of com-
munication technology expands opportunities for
individuals to obtain information that will con-
tribute to successful career advancement. Relying
solely on FtF mentors may become impossible
given the globalized workforce and geographi-

cally dispersed subject matter experts. In fact,
Hamilton and Scandura (2003) stated that the key
distinction between e-mentoring and traditional
mentoring is in the amount of face-time between
mentor and protégé. Many researchers have sug-
gested that savvy professionals would be well
advised to establish a network of developmental
relationships (Baugh & Scandura, 1999; Higgins
& Kram, 2001). This network can include indi-
viduals within and outside a person’s organization
or industry. The network allows the individual
to consult experienced professionals, who might
aid in navigating complex organizational, subject
1619
Social Implications of E-Mentoring
matter and career path issues. E-mentoring has
the potential to provide individuals with such a
developmental network, since many e-mentors
may not be located within one’s organization or
even physically located close by. Students, too,
may be aided by e-mentoring in that support can
be given in understanding career and discipline-
VSHFL¿FDUHDVRIVWXG\6LQJOH0XOOHU
Single & Single, 2005). E-mentoring allows
for an increase in the protégé’s network struc-
tural diversity, that is, the range and density of a
professional’s network (Higgins, 2004).
Ensher and Murphy (2005) suggest that e-
PHQWRULQJLVD PXWXDOO\EHQH¿FLDOUHODWLRQVKLS
in which learning, career and emotional support

occur primarily through computer-mediated
means. Sproull and Kiesler (1999) note that given
the rapid rise of the Internet and e-mail, it is likely
that CMC will aid in developing relationships
like e-mentoring relationships. Single and Single
(2005) concluded that e-mentoring is an alternative
mode of relationship that facilitates the expansion
of mentoring opportunities. However, no research
to date has investigated the possibility of whether
or not CMC users are able to develop highly in-
terpersonal relationships, like mentoring relation-
ships. Also, we need to understand what personal
characteristics and environmental conditions are
necessary to support such relationships. This is
because even traditional mentoring relationships
can become dysfunctional (Eby & McManus,
2004; Scandura, 1998), and e-mentoring must
deal with the environmental CMC distance and
personal issues, such as a lack of nonverbal cues,
informal and misunderstood communications and
delayed feedback, that might cause e-mentoring
relationships to fail.
Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to
investigate whether or not CMC technology will
allow for the development of e-mentoring rela-
tionships, and what personal characteristics are
necessary on the part of the e-mentor and e-pro-
tégé. A model will be developed and propositions
will be offered for future research. Theory will
be garnered from the mentoring literature, com-

munication media and business communication
literatures, and sociology. Since e-mentoring is a
new avenue by which individuals are transform-
ing their careers via the Internet, an investigation
of the social implications of this phenomenon is
warranted. Given our technology-driven home,
school and work environments, understanding
who might adopt, pursue and gain from e-mentor-
ing relationships seems an appropriate research
G L U H F W LRQ W K D W Z L O O P D N H D VLJ Q L ¿ F D Q W F R QW U L E XW LRQ
to our literature.
CAN CMC USERS DEVELOP AN
ENVIRONMENT TO SUPPORT
HIGHLY INTERPERSONAL,
E-MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS?
Since the advent of CMC, the development and
emergence of the Internet in the early 1980s and
widespread use over the last decade, researchers
K D YH E H H Q U H À H F W L QJ R Q³$ JH Q H U D O T X H V W L R Q U D L V H G 
by the diffusion of CMC systems is the extent to
which human communication is altered by such
media” (Rice & Love, 1987, p. 86). Communica-
tion technologies are transforming the nature,
form and temporal aspects of work. Compared
to traditional means, electronic-communication
technology carries more information faster, at
a lower cost and to more people. However, the
process of how we communicate with each other
has been altered, that is, no longer FtF, creating a
variety of social issues in many settings.

6SHFL¿FDOO\ VRFLDO LPSOLFDWLRQV UHJDUGLQJ
the use of technology can be found impacting
human relations in organizational settings (Ge-
phart, 2002). CMC shortens the time between
events and their consequences, reduces internal
and external organizational buffers, increases
the number and variety of people involved in
decision making, increases vertical and hori-
zontal communication, and allows or increases
interorganizational interdependence (Hinds &
1620
Social Implications of E-Mentoring
Kiesler, 1995; Huber 1990; Sproull & Kiesler,
1999; Rice & Gattiker, 2001). The emergence of
virtual relationships and communities, which are
distinct from social communities, highlights the
diffuse, globalized and digitized nature of today’s
CMC-based organizations (Gephart, 2002). Com-
munication technologies affect the potential for
and dynamics of information exchange as well as
interpersonal relationships (Flanagin & Waldeck,
2004). Communication-technology use, therefore,
has the potential to reduce uncertainty about the
organization, develop positive connections with
others, and give novice employees the ability to
OHDUQ³WKHURSHV´IURPH[SHULHQFHGLQGLYLGXDOV
who may or may not be organizational members
(Flanagin & Waldeck, 2004).
 :KLOHWKHPDQ\EHQH¿WVRI&0&KDYHEHHQ
noted extensively, CMC technology is not without

G U D ZED FN V&0& K D V E H H Q L G H QW L ¿ H G D V D O H V V S H U-
sonal, less socio-emotional or more task-oriented
medium by some researchers (Connolly, Jessup,
& Valacich, 1990; Hiltz, Johnson, & Turoff, 1986;
5 LF H / RYH  &0&V SHFL¿FDO O\H PDL OLV
F R Q V L G H U H G D YH U \ ³ O H D Q´F RP P X Q L F D W L R Q F K D Q Q H O  
because nonverbal cues are not present. Media,
such as videoconferencing or the telephone, are
considered richer because of the inclusion of sound
or expression, which encourages paralanguage
cues. Two theories, social presence theory (Short
et al., 1976) and media richness theory (Daft et
al., 1987), are aligned with these descriptions
RI&0&6RFLDOSUHVHQFHWKHRU\FODVVL¿HVFRP-
munications media along a continuum according
WRYDULRXVGHJUHHVRI³DZDUHQHVV´RIWKHRWKHU
person. This theory posits communication is effec-
tive when the medium has the appropriate social
presence required for the level of interpersonal
involvement necessary for the task. Media rich-
ness theory categorizes communications media
DORQJDFRQWLQXXPRI³ULFKQHVV´ZKHUHWKHPHGLD
is able to transmit nonverbal cues, provide feed-
back, convey personality traits and support the
use of natural language. Daft and Lengel (1986)
note that FtF communication is considered the
³ULFKHVW´PHGLDDQGLVPRVWHIIHFWLYHIRUUHGXFLQJ
discussion ambiguity. E-mail, on the other hand,
is not considered very rich because of inherent
limitations in offering nonverbal cues and pro-

viding immediate feedback. Thus, the general
FRQFOXVLRQRIHDUO\&0&UHVHDUFKLVWKDW³&0&
because of its lack of audio or video cues, will be
perceived as impersonal and lacking in normative
reinforcement, so there will be less socio-emo-
tional content exchanged” (Rice & Love, 1987,
p. 88).
Contrasting these perspectives, other research-
ers suggest that more enhanced use of CMC has
given rise to new theories and models to explain
media-use behavior. Walther (1996) has posited
that CMC users are able to develop highly inter-
personal, online relationships. His model, using
social information processing theory, assumes
that communicators using CMC, like other
communicators, are driven to develop social
relationships.
To do so, previously unfamiliar users become
acquainted with others by forming simple impres-
sions through textually conveyed information
… The key difference between … CMC and FtF
communication has to do not with the amount of
social information exchanged but with the rate
of social information exchanged [his italics].
(Walther, 1996, p. 10)
CMC communications take longer to decipher
because of the lack of nonverbal cues, hence these
r e l a t i o n s h i p s m a k e t a k e l o n g e r t o d e v e l o p. Wa l t h e r
suggests that when users have time to exchange
information, build impressions, compare values

and provide timely feedback, CMC allows for
highly interpersonal relationships to develop.
Walther states that when users expect to have a
long term association, CMC is no less personal
than FtF.
While Walther (1996) suggests that CMC
PD\ EH LQHI¿FLHQW ZKHQ FRPSDUHG ZLWK )W)
communications, there is less reason to think
1621
Social Implications of E-Mentoring
that as was once thought. Empirical studies are
supporting his claims. Studies have found that
GXHWRLQVXUPRXQWDEOHIDFWRUVOLNHVRFLDOLQÀX-
ences or geographic distances, users may choose
³OHDQ´FRPPXQLFDWLRQVPHGLDOLNHHPDLODQG
then modify their behavior to make up for the
ODFNRI³VRFLDOSUHVHQFH´RU³ULFKQHVV´DVVRFLDWHG
with the media’s use (Fulk, Schmitz, & Steinfeld,
1990; Lee, 1994; Markus, 1994; Ngwenyama &
Lee, 1997). Researchers purporting theories of
VRFLDOLQÀXHQFH)XONHWDO)XON
and social construction of reality (Lee, 1994)
VWUHVV WKDW WKH G\DG¶V VRFLDO LQÀXHQFHV SHHU
cultural or communication schema similarity)
have a stronger affect on the individual’s use of
communication media, than does the media’s
traits (social presence or richness). That is, when
LQGLYLGXDOVH[SHULHQFHLQÀXHQFHVIURPSHHUVRU
superiors to use CMC or when the organization’s
culture embraces CMC as a primary mode of

communication, individuals with these social
LQÀXHQFHVZLOOVLPLODUO\HPEUDFHDQGXVHWKH
dominant communication schema. Also, when
individuals understand that geographic and time
differences are commonplace in their global-
ized work environments, they are motivated to
use the communication technology available to
them to develop relationships that may assist in
their completion of assignments (Hammer &
Mangurian, 1987; Dimmick, Kline, & Stafford,
2000). Therefore, it appears that group norms
DQGVRFLDOLQÀXHQFHVPD\KDYHJUHDWHULPSDFWRQ
the individual and his choice of communication
technology than the richness of the media’s traits.
The following propositions are hence offered
regarding these environmental conditions:
Proposition 1: E-mentoring dyad members, who
H[SHULHQFHKLJKOHYHOVRIVRFLDOLQÀXHQFHUHJDUG-
ing the use of communication technology, such as
SHHURUVXSHUYLVRULQÀXHQFHRUWKHRUJDQL]DWLRQ¶V
F XO WXUDOL Q À XHQ F H Z LOOE HPR UHOL N HO\ WR X VH &0 &
and more actively engaged in an e-mentoring
relationship than those who do not experience
VRFLDOLQÀXHQFH
Proposition 2: E-mentoring dyad members who
experience greater geographic distance and
time differences will be more likely to use CMC
and more actively engaged in an e-mentoring
relationship than those who do not experience
geographic distance and time differences.

WHAT PERSONAL
CHARACTERISTICS ARE
NECESSARY TO SUPPORT
E-MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS?
Other theories are available to inform our notions
of how CMC may allow for highly interpersonal,
HPHQWRULQJUHODWLRQVKLSVDQGVSHFL¿FFKDUDFWHU-
istics potential e-mentors and e-protégés should
demonstrate. Walther’s (1992) relationship devel-
opment theory and Carlson and Zmud’s (1999)
channel expansion theory emphasize that it is the
user’s knowledge and experience base that allows
the individual to participate in increasingly rich
communication over time. Dyad members reach
out (even using CMC), and may go out of their way,
to develop relationships. CMC users may invoke
knowledge-building experiences, that is, previous
experience with the communication technology,
the discussion topic, the organizational context or
the dyad coparticipant, to enhance their relation-
ship. Carlson and Zmud found strongest support
for CMC-channel experience and experience with
the communications partner, as well as some
support for organizational context experience,
as indicators of perceived media richness. Based
RQWKHVH¿QGLQJVHPHQWRULQJSDUWQHUVVKRXOG
build their relationships on previous experiences
with CMC use, the organizational context and
previous FtF communication (if possible) with
the partner.

Kock (2004) suggests that the higher the
similarity in communication schema alignment,
1622
Social Implications of E-Mentoring
the lower the degree of cognitive effort required,
hence the more effective the e-mentoring com-
munications. While individuals may differ on how
they choose to communicate with others due to
cultural or other learned behaviors, fundamental
differences affect communication negatively (Tan,
:DWVRQ:HL6SHFL¿FDOO\ZKHQVFKHPD
misalignment exists, Kock suggests an increase
LQ³WKHDPRXQWDQGLQWHQVLW\RIFRPPXQLFDWLRQ
necessary to accomplish collaborative tasks and
reach a shared understanding of concepts and
ideas needed to complete tasks” (2004, p. 337). A
communication schema misalignment (i.e., com-
munication verbiage or contextual misunderstand-
ings, differences in rate of feedback response or
even humor misinterpretations) will detract from
the e-mentoring relationship, since dyad mem-
bers will experience a more task-oriented focus
and less personal communications and therefore
identify less with the e-mentor (Postmes, Spears,
& Lea, 2001).
The more the e-mentor and e-protégé have
cognitively adapted to the CMC medium, the
lower the degree of cognitive effort required and,
therefore, the more effective the relationship.
The individual’s use of knowledge-building ex-

periences permit the user to perceive the media
channel as increasingly rich (while the media’s
traits remain constant) and allow for effective
interpersonal communication. These theories ar-
gue that the participants’ knowledge, experience,
communication schema similarity and informed
use of the communication technology enhances
the relationship, more so than the richness or
complexity of the technology itself. Therefore,
Proposition 3: E-mentoring dyad members who
have greater knowledge-building experience,
such as experience with e-mail use (CMC), the
communication partner or organizational con-
text, will be more likely to use CMC and more
actively engaged in an e-mentoring relationship
than those who have low levels of knowledge and
communication experience.
Proposition 4: E-mentoring dyad members with
similar communication schema will be more likely
to use CMC and more actively engaged in an
e-mentoring relationship than dyads with more
diverse communication schema.
Further, evidence is available to suggest
other individual personality characteristics may
enhance the e-mentoring relationship. Recent
studies on online communities have found that
these communities provide their participants with
social support (Rheingold, 1993). Social support
is gained from participants interacting with each
RWKHUDQG¿QGLQJFRPPRQLQWHUHVWVVLQFHPRVW

interaction between online actors is cognitively
and affectively based. Compared to real-life social
networks, online communities are more often
based on participants’ shared interests, rather
than shared demographic characteristics (Well-
man & Gulia, 1999). Perceived similarity, that is
shared attitudes and values, has been found to be
more positively related to effective e-mentoring
relationships than actual demographic similarity
(Ensher, de Janasz, & Heun, 2004). Chicoat and
DeWine (1985) found that audioconferencing
partners produced higher ratings of their partner’s
attitude similarity, social attractiveness and physi-
cal attractiveness than did those partners using
video or FtF communications. So it may be that
perceptions of similarity, regardless of the type
of media used, are more important in establish-
ing and maintaining CMC-based e-mentoring
relationships. Hence,
Proposition 5: E-mentoring dyad members with
high levels of perceived similarity will be more
likely to use CMC and more actively engaged in
an e-mentoring relationship than dyads with low
levels of perceived similarity.
Two other individual-level variables, self-
monitoring and communication apprehension,
have been suggested as important factors in the
socialization process because of their focus on
1623
Social Implications of E-Mentoring

self-presentation and interpersonal communica-
tion competence (Flanagin & Waldeck, 2004).
These variables are core concepts related to the
uncertainty reduction theory that postulates
that individuals engage in interactive strategies,
such as direct communication, to obtain relevant
information from others (Berger, 1979). Self-
monitoring is related to one’s interest in obtain-
ing information from others in the environment.
6HOIPRQLWRULQJ LVGH¿QHGDV DSUDJPDWLFVHOI
presentation that assists individuals in identifying
RQHVHOIZLWKUHJDUGWRWKHVSHFL¿FVRFLDOVLWXDWLRQ
and roles that are present (Snyder, 1987). High
self-monitors pay close attention to the social
situation and adapt their behavior accordingly.
High self-monitors strive to understand the dy-
namics of their environment and behave in a way
that is acceptable to those around them, all while
causing minimal disruption to others (Snyder &
Coupland, 1989). In order to reduce uncertainty in
WKHLUHQYLURQPHQWKLJKVHOIPRQLWRUVZRXOG¿QG
the most inconspicuous mechanism by which to
gather information. Flanagin and Waldeck suggest
that high self-monitors would readily use CMC
to gather the necessary information that would
DOORZWKHPWR¿WLQWRDQGIHHOFRPIRUWDEOHDERXW
their environment. These researchers state that
KLJKVHOIPRQLWRUV³PD\UHJDUGHPDLODVDZD\
of obtaining information from trusted others in
an unobtrusive manner” (Flanagin & Waldeck,

2004, p. 150). Low self-monitors, on the other
hand, may be more apt to rely on traditional
FtF channels of communication, since they are
less selective and socially adept in understand-
ing when, how and why to ask for information
(Sypher & Sypher, 1983) and are less afraid to
reveal their uncertainties (Flanagin & Waldeck,
2004). Therefore:
Proposition 6: E-mentoring dyad members who
are high self-monitors will be more likely to use
CMC as a primary mode of communication and
will become more actively engaged in an e-men-
toring relationship than low self-monitors.
Communication apprehension (CA) can be
GH¿QHGDV³DQLQGLYLGXDO¶VOHYHORIIHDURUDQ[LHW\
associated with either real or anticipated commu-
nication with another person” (McCroskey, 1997,
p . 82). I n d i v i d u a l s w i t h h i g h C A t e n d t o r e s p o n d t o
situations in which they feel anxious by avoiding
or withdrawing from communication. In work
settings, high CAs are perceived as less compe-
tent, less attractive, potentially less successful,
SURGXFWLYHDQGVDWLV¿HGRQWKHMREDQGDVKDYLQJ
PRUHGLI¿FXOW\LQHVWDEOLVKLQJUHODWLRQVKLSVZLWK
co-workers than their more verbal counterparts.
High CAs are less likely to receive supervisory
positions and are more likely to be dismissed from
their jobs than low CAs (Richmond, 1997). How-
ever, given CMC advantages in providing a forum
for information sharing without the discomfort

of FtF interaction and other characteristics, such
as anonymity and absence of status differences,
(Postmes et al., 2001; Weisband, Schneider, &
Connolly, 1995), high CAs will more readily
use CMC to establish relationships and gather
necessary information than would their low CA
counterparts. In fact, low CA individuals may
relish and miss the FtF interactions that allow
them to differentiate themselves from high CAs.
While it is acknowledged that low CAs will prob-
ably engage in e-mentoring relationships at the
same rate (or possibly at a greater rate) as high
CAs, it is believed that high CAs will use CMC
as a primary mechanism for communication due
to their inherent apprehension towards FtF com-
munication. Hence,
Proposition 7: E-mentoring dyad members who
have high CA will be more likely to use CMC as
a primary mode of communication than individu-
als low in CA.
Future Research Opportunities
Taken together, these propositions support
Walther’s (1996) and Carlson and Zmud’s (1999)
assertions that CMC allows for highly interper-