Simola 2016

Career Development International
Mentoring the morally courageous: a relational cultural perspective

Sheldene Simola
Article information:
To cite this document:
Sheldene Simola , (2016),"Mentoring the morally courageous: a relational cultural perspective",
Career Development International, Vol. 21 Iss 4 pp. 340 - 354
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CDI-01-2016-0010
Downloaded by California State University Fresno At 01:03 19 September 2016 (PT)
Downloaded on: 19 September 2016, At: 01:03 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 71 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 55 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2016),"Determinants of individuals’ entrepreneurial intentions: a gender-comparative study", Career
Development International, Vol. 21 Iss 4 pp. 318-339 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CDI-10-2015-0135
(2016),"Career profiles in the “new career”: evidence of their prevalence and correlates", Career
Development International, Vol. 21 Iss 4 pp. 355-377 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CDI-05-2015-0066
(2016),"A job demands-resources approach to presenteeism", Career Development International, Vol.
21 Iss 4 pp. 402-418 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CDI-01-2016-0002
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:409465 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1362-0436.htm
CDI
21,4
Mentoring the morally
courageous: a relational
cultural perspective
340 Sheldene Simola
Received 22 January 2016
Department of Business Administration, Trent University, Peterborough, Canada
Revised 14 May 2016
Accepted 20 May 2016
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to elucidate the implications of relational cultural theory (RCT)
for mentoring individuals who have enacted moral courage.
Design/methodology/approach – Overviews of the construct of moral courage, the nature of
work-related mentoring and RCT are provided. Subsequently, the relevance and implications of RCT
for understanding moral courage-related suffering, and for supporting the growth, resilience and
vitality of those who have enacted moral courage are discussed.
Findings – Within RCT, moral courage-related suffering is located in disconnection, invalidation and
isolation for which sufferers also feel held at fault. Self-protective behaviors, including disavowal of
self, can perpetuate this suffering.
Practical implications – Five insights from RCT for supporting the growth, resilience and vitality of
individuals following acts of moral courage are elaborated, including affirming efforts to activate
supportive relationships; demonstrating “radical respect”; facilitating voice; engaging through
mutuality and fluid expertise; and, reframing resilience.
Social implications – The dearth of attention to ways of supporting those who suffer following acts
of moral courage reflects previously documented findings about the short-shrift given to issues of
human health and sustainability in organizations and organizational research. Implications for policy,
practice and education are described.
Originality/value – This paper extends the RCT perspective in mentoring, and addresses an
important gap in the moral courage literature, namely, the identification of a theoretically grounded
approach through which to support the growth, resilience and vitality of individuals who have enacted
moral courage.
Keywords Mentoring, Resilience, Mental health, Moral courage, Relational, Relational cultural theory
Paper type General review
During the last decade, scholars and practitioners have become increasingly interested
in the nature, development and expression of moral courage, which is defined as an act
that occurs when, “despite the substantial and often realized risks of reproach and
rebuff by others, an individual freely chooses to voice ethical concerns, and does so […]
in an effort to respond to apprehensions that could […] negatively impact a range of
[…] stakeholders” (Simola, 2016, p. 1). Although acts of moral courage have significant
potential to help avert, interrupt or remediate serious ethical lapses, thereby
contributing to the ability of organizations to create long-term value for stakeholders,
their substantial risks of social ostracism and censure to actors (Rate, 2010), when
realized, can result in a range of very difficult challenges (Alford, 2001; Armenakis,
2002; Glazer and Glazer, 1999). Yet, despite the difficult circumstances in which those
who have enacted moral courage might find themselves, there has been no
Career Development International consideration of ways to support their growth, resilience and vitality. Given recent calls
Vol. 21 No. 4, 2016
pp. 340-354
for scholarly attention to ways of supporting those suffering from perceived work-
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited related unfairness and distress (Barclay and Skarlicki, 2009; Barclay et al., 2009), such
1362-0436
DOI 10.1108/CDI-01-2016-0010 consideration is especially salient.
In this regard, it is noteworthy that the intersection of mentoring with courage- Mentoring
related experiences, as well as the role of mentoring in fostering growth, resilience and the morally
vitality have been identified as important topics for further scholarly consideration
(Kram and Ragins, 2007). Moreover, recent perspectives on relational orientations
courageous
toward mentoring (Fletcher and Ragins, 2007; Ragins and Verbos, 2007; Ragins, 2011)
are of particular relevance not only because they speak to courage-related
developmental and psychosocial needs, but also, they are likely to be consonant with 341
the relational orientation of morally courageous actors, who respond not simply in a
self-interested way, but also out of concern for the well-being of others (Glazer and
Glazer, 1999; Sekerka and Bagozzi, 2007; Simola, 2015; Worline, 2010). However, though
some consideration has been given to the role of mentoring before acts of moral courage
are undertaken (Kram, 1985; Lester et al., 2010; see also Reardon, 2007), there has been
no consideration of mentoring as a form of support following acts of moral courage.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the role of relational mentoring, and more
specifically, mentoring grounded in relational cultural theory (RCT) (Fletcher and
Ragins, 2007) for supporting individual growth, resilience and vitality following acts of
moral courage. Overviews of the construct of moral courage, the nature of work-related
mentoring, and RCT are provided. Subsequently, the relevance and implications of
RCT for understanding moral courage-related suffering, and for fostering growth,
resilience and vitality are discussed. The contributions of this paper are two-fold. First,
it extends foundational research on the RCT perspective in mentoring (Fletcher and
Ragins, 2007). Second, it addresses an important gap in the moral courage literature,
namely, the elucidation of a theoretically grounded approach for supporting growth,
resilience and vitality following acts of moral courage.
Moral courage
Several scholarly definitions of moral courage have been articulated. Lopez et al. (2010,
p. 23) defined moral courage as “the behavioral expression of authenticity in the face of
the discomfort of dissension, disapproval or rejection.” Putnam (2010, p. 9) described it
as “overcoming fear of social ostracism or rejection in order to maintain ethical
integrity.” Pinalto (2012, pp. 165-166) identified that moral courage “involves facing
other persons while upholding some morally motivated cause and enduring resistance
or […] retaliation.” Moral courage can include the use of principled dissent (Matt and
Shahinpoor, 2011) as well as whistleblowing (Glazer and Glazer, 1999; Kohn, 2011), and
is relevant to a breadth of ethically concerning organizational situations (Serrat, 2010).
Several theoretical perspectives for understanding the development and expression
of moral courage have been offered. These include conceptualizations of moral courage
as a habit that is formed through conscious personal choice and self-regulation
(Sekerka and Bagozzi, 2007); as a mindset that develops when courage-relevant
constellations of cognitive-affective information are repeatedly activated across
different situations and dimensions of self (Hannah et al., 2010); as an act that is more
likely to occur when developmental factors contribute to both an extensive circle of care
for others, and, a moral identity that is highly important to overall concept of self
(Simola, 2015); and, as a two stage, cognitive process involving assessments of personal
responsibility for, and social costs of, taking action (Schilpzand et al., 2015).
Of particular relevance to the current paper are the often substantial and deeply
affecting personal impacts of social ostracism and censure experienced by those who
have enacted moral courage. These include disillusionment, sadness, anxiety,
withdrawal, self-devaluation and even hopelessness and despair (Armenakis, 2002;
CDI Glazer and Glazer, 1999). For example, Bjørkelo (2013) documented the association
21,4 between enactment of moral courage in the form of whistleblowing, and subsequent
experiences of retaliation and bullying. These experiences included unwarranted, poor
performance appraisal, demotion or firing; pressure to resign; social isolation; being
falsely characterized as having been mentally ill; and feeling unable to defend oneself.
Sequalae of these experiences included mental health concerns such as depression,
342 anxiety, withdrawal from family and friends, and, signs and symptoms of post-
traumatic stress such as intrusion of upsetting memories, avoidance of stimuli that
sparked memories and disturbances in concentration and sleep. However, although
consideration has been given to why actors experience retaliation following their acts
of moral courage (Bjørkelo, 2013; Simola, 2016), theoretical exploration of the painful
emotional outcomes of moral courage has been more limited. Consider, therefore,
psychological contracts and organizational justice, which though conceptually similar,

are distinct constructs (Robbins et al., 2012).
Psychological contracts refer to beliefs about reciprocal obligations inhering work
relationships, which due to their perceptual nature, are sometimes but not necessarily
always shared by workers and employers. Although mutual understanding and
reciprocal enactment of psychological contract beliefs are associated with positive
outcomes for both employees and organizations (Dabos and Rousseau, 2004), of
relevance here are situations in which employees perceive breaches or violations of the
psychological contract that can occur across various content dimensions (Morrison and
Robinson, 1997). These include not only transactional and relational dimensions
pertaining to short term, economic issues and longer term social and emotional issues,
respectively; but also, an “ideologically infused” or ethical dimension pertaining to
perceived obligations for ethical treatment of persons (Thompson and Bunderson,
2003); and, dimensions pertaining to the fulfillment of psychological needs related to
motivations and concepts of self (Rousseau, 2003). Although perceived breaches of
psychological contracts involve cognitive interpretations that the organization failed to
meet what was believed to be a reciprocal obligation, perceived violations include deep
and often distressing emotional responses (Morrison and Robinson, 1997). Moreover, a
key factor that has been empirically associated with worker experience of violation
rather than just breach is their attribution of intentionality and unjust treatment on the
part of organizational agents (Robinson and Morrison, 2000).
Indeed, perception of organizational justice is highly important to individuals. This
is thought to be due to the role that justice serves in fulfilling specific yet interrelated
psychological needs similar to those inhering psychological contract dimensions.
In particular, organizational justice fulfills instrumental needs; relational needs for
belonging and positive regard; needs for the moral (e.g. respectful and dignifying)
treatment of persons; and needs for affirmation of one’s identity and self-concept
(see, for reviews, Cropanzano et al., 2001; Rupp, 2011). Unjust treatment, including
social ostracism, has been found to be inconsistent with these needs, and therefore,
experienced by workers as menacing and psychologically distressing. Indeed, meta-
analysis of a large number of studies on the emotional sequalae of perceived injustice
has demonstrated that all types of perceived injustice are significantly associated with
emotional health concerns (Robbins et al., 2012) reminiscent of those experienced by
individuals following enactment of moral courage.
Hence, when workers perceive that contraventions of the economic, relational, ethical,
motivational or self-concept dimensions of psychological contracts are intentional and
unjust, as is often the case for those who are ostracized and censured following
enactment of moral courage (Alford, 2001), then these workers are also more likely not Mentoring
only to experience the contraventions as violation rather than breach, but also, to the morally
experience emotional distress associated both with perceived injustice and with sense of
contract violation (Robbins et al., 2012). Depending on the nature, severity and duration of
courageous
the censure and ostracism, as well as the presence, nature and strength of various other
risk or protective factors, this emotional distress could significantly intensify and become
increasingly difficult for sufferers to manage ( Johnstone and Dallos, 2014). 343
Although individuals facing such challenges might benefit from a range of supports,
including professional care or other forms of assistance, mentoring relationships are an
important part of the broader developmental networks in which individuals are
embedded (Higgins et al., 2007), and important relationships through which individuals
might try to make sense of their experiences or seek support.
Mentoring
Contemporary approaches to mentoring conceptualize it in terms of five fundamental
characteristics (Eby et al., 2007), including that mentoring reflects a unique relationship
between individuals; comprises a learning partnership; is reciprocal, yet primarily
aimed at protégé development; is dynamic over time; and, includes instrumental/career
related and/or emotional/psychosocial functions. Instrumental or career-related
functions are associated with career-advancement, including sponsorship for
valuable opportunities; exposure and visibility to important others; coaching;
protection from potentially damaging situations; and, the provision of challenging
assignments for skill development. Emotional or psychosocial functions include role
modeling; encouragement through acceptance and confirmation; friendship; and
counseling for personal concerns and anxieties (Eby et al., 2007; Kram, 1985).
Mentoring can vary along several dimensions. The structure of mentoring can be
formal when it is officially authorized and planned by the organization, or informal
when it is not (Allen et al., 2006). Mentors can be either internal or external to the
organization (Ragins, 1997). And, though mentor motivation might reflect cost-benefit
analysis; it might instead reflect affiliative motivations to sustain or strengthen
relationships; or, communal motivations involving protection or well-being of others
( Janssen et al., 2014).
Given the painful emotional outcomes for morally courageous actors, mentoring
focussed on psychosocial functions such as acceptance, friendship and counseling
could provide much needed support and encouragement. Also, given that those who
enact moral courage experience ostracism and censure from others within their own
organizations, informal mentoring from an external mentor might be less fettered than
formal, internal mentoring. Similarly, given the ostracism and other emotional
challenges, affiliative or communal mentor motivations that emphasized the
development of relationships or well-being of others would likely be helpful.
Relational perspectives on mentoring

Historically, mentoring was understood as a hierarchical, unidirectional relationship in
which a more experienced individual supported the career development of a less
experienced individual (Kram, 1985). However, a recent research direction is that of
relational mentoring, which refers to “an interdependent and generative developmental
relationship that promotes mutual growth, learning, and development within the career
context” (Ragins, 2011, p. 519). Relational mentoring has become important, due in
part to its ability to address several limitations in more conventional perspectives
CDI (Ragins and Verbos, 2007). These include the potential of relational mentoring to
21,4 provide enhanced focus on the nature and development of high-quality mentoring;
to increase understanding of the ways that mentoring can lead to mutual benefit for
mentors and protégés; and, to provide consideration to an expanded array of outcomes,
such as enhanced relational capacities.
Relational mentoring has particular relevance here for its potential to support the
344 growth, resilience and vitality of those who have enacted moral courage. Specifically,
relational mentoring involves care giving and receiving (Ragins and Verbos, 2007) that
can lead to positive outcomes consistent with the aforementioned needs of those who
are suffering following acts of moral courage. These outcomes include enhanced ability
to manage stress; the development of resilience, hope and vitality; and, the capacity to
envisage new possibilities for one’s life (Fletcher and Ragins, 2007; Ragins, 2011).
Three perspectives on relational mentoring have been developed. The first of these
involved the application of relational cognition theory to mentoring in order to elucidate
cognitive processes associated with positive work relationships (Ragins and Verbos,
2007). It was argued that mentoring schemas formed through observation and experience
of relational and organizational norms represent cognitive maps that interact with
individual difference variables to influence mentoring-related beliefs and actions.
A second perspective focussed on the ways in which relational mentoring episodes
could psychologically empower protégés to establish high-quality relationships with
mentors and others (Fullick-Jagiela et al., 2015). Relationship quality with mentors was
thought to be empowered by perceived fit between protégé developmental needs and
mentor support, as well as protégé ability to affect the mentor. Relationship quality
with others was thought to be empowered by protégé beliefs about their ability to form
new relationships, as well as protégé sense of being able to choose vs passively receive
mentoring episodes.
A third perspective was grounded in RCT (Fletcher and Ragins, 2007). It reflected
the primacy of relationship as the context in which development occurs, and the
reframing of marginalized relational qualities and skills as positive strengths. This
included competencies associated with authenticity; ability to move fluidly between
expert and learner roles; empathic and other emotional skills; holistic thinking through
the synthesis of cognition, emotion and behavior; and, ability to show responsive
engagement with others. Similarly, the use and benefits of “power with” others through
interdependent problem-solving, rather than a reliance on “power over” others that is
often reflected in hierarchical work arrangements was noted (Miller, 1986).
RCT provides substantial insight not only into the nature of courage-related
suffering, but also, into ways of supporting the growth, resilience and vitality of those
who are experiencing such suffering. Consider, therefore, a brief overview of RCT,
followed by discussion of these other areas.
Overview of RCT
During the last 35 years, research by Miller (1986) and colleagues has coalesced into a
theory of human development. RCT originally emerged through critique of then
dominant developmental theories in which the experiences of women had been
marginalized. However, through continued and expanded research, RCT evolved into a
theory of human development, which articulated certain critical concepts and processes
found to be relevant across gender (Gilligan, 2010; Hartling et al., 2004; Jordan, 2010).
In contrast to many conventional theories that identify separation, individuation
and self-sufficiency as markers of health and maturity, RCT asserts the empirically
well supported tenet (Gilligan, 2010; Jordan, 2008a; Way, 2011) that relationship is a Mentoring
fundamental human need and source of growth, resilience and vitality (Miller, 1986). the morally
The source of suffering, therefore, is thought to be chronic disconnection, separation or
isolation that can occur through experiences such as misinterpretation, invalidation,
courageous
exclusion or harm ( Jordan, 2010). These experiences might occur through the influence
of sociopolitical factors such as systemic bias or discrimination (Walker, 2004, 2008),
as well as through other group or interpersonal processes that misinterpret, invalidate 345
or exclude certain individuals or groups. When individuals suffer these forms of
isolation, they also experience decreased energy, lowered sense of self-worth, reduced
productivity, confusion, further withdrawal from relationships and negative affective
states ( Jordan, 2008c). Hence, within RCT, suffering is relieved, and resilience and
vitality are developed through the transformative potential of relationships.
Through interactions characterized by mutuality, individuals can develop greater

relational differentiation, reflected in progressively more intricate and nuanced relational
patterns, insights and capacities ( Jordan, 2010; Miller and Stiver, 1997). Two key types of
mutuality through which relational differentiation occurs are “mutual empathy” and
“mutual empowerment.” Mutual empathy occurs when both parties recognize and
acknowledge the impacts that their unique histories and circumstances have on one
another. It involves realization that each has been affected by the other, and that the
other, therefore makes a difference, or matters. Recognition of this ability to affect and be
affected by the other contributes to mutual empowerment, reflected in an enhanced sense
of relational skills and competence ( Jordan, 2010). Through mutual empathy and
empowerment, level of personal authenticity increases and previous painful experiences
can be brought into conversation. This helps individuals to overcome the effects of earlier
failures in empathy. Additionally, empathic sensitivity and attentiveness to painful
occurrences of systemic bias or discrimination that sufferers might have experienced is
critical, as sensitivity and attentiveness to such issues also supports personal
authenticity and helps individuals to overcome previous failures in empathy.
When applied to helping relationships, the aims of RCT are to increase the capacity of
individuals for self-empathy; to reduce the pain and suffering that has emerged from
ongoing disconnection and isolation; to develop an enhanced appreciation of the role that
systemic bias or discrimination can play in experiences of invalidation and exclusion; and
to facilitate growth, resilience and vitality even in the context of challenging life
circumstances ( Jordan, 2010). It is through growth-fostering relationships characterized
by mutual empathy and empowerment that “five good things” emerge, including
increased vitality and energy; increased ability to take action; greater clarity about one’s
self and others in relationship; enhanced esteem, and greater desire for connection
through additional relationships (Miller, 1986; Miller and Stiver, 1997).
As a final point in this overview of RCT, it is noteworthy that moral courage has long
been of interest within RCT, wherein morally courageous uses of voice are seen to occur
in response to relational concerns that emerge in various “non-relational” contexts,
including organizations (e.g. Fletcher, 2004; Hartling and Sparks, 2008; Walker, 2004).
As indicated, an empirically well supported assumption of RCT is that growth through
relationship is a fundamental and health-sustaining aspect of human life. However, this
contrasts with conventional, individualist models of development, within which
characteristics such as separation, autonomy and self-sufficiency rather than
relationship, mutuality and interdependence are seen as reflective of health and
maturity (Fletcher et al., 2000; Jordan, 2008a). These conventional models have been
privileged, pervasive and prevailing as foundations for understanding not only
CDI individual development and achievement, but also, workplace organization
21,4 (Fletcher, 1999; Fletcher et al., 2000). Moreover, although organizations grounded in
such models often demonstrate systemic forms of social inequality, they simultaneously
espouse inaccurate assumptions of equality among individuals as a basis for fairness in
competitive achievement (Walker, 2004, 2008), and tend to overlook and devalue the
relational practices and skills that are critical to accomplishing work-related tasks and
346 goals (Fletcher, 1999). Hence, it is argued that when individuals within such cultures
voice concerns that are inconsistent with dominant individualist perspectives, including
concerns about relational violation, carelessness or injustice, then “covert or overt
shaming, blaming, silencing, or isolating” results (Hartling and Sparks, 2008, p. 65), which
suppresses and perpetuates those concerns. Additionally, “pseudo-relational” cultures
might exist, which though seeming to encourage and value relational perspectives and
practices, actually discourage authentic discussion of disagreement and difference,

thereby suppressing growth and vitality (Hartling and Sparks, 2008).
Given these factors, it is unsurprising that early in the development of RCT and
consonant relational perspectives, courage was explored and conceptualized as
“the capacity to act meaningfully and with integrity in the face of acknowledged
vulnerability” ( Jordan, 1990, p. 2) and as “the determination to speak truthfully, with
integrity, to tell a story that has not been welcomed by the world” (Rogers, 1993, p. 273).
Within recent relational research, moral courage continues to be understood as acts in
which individuals “speak truth to power” or “resist false authority” (Gilligan, 2010,
pp. 12, 39). Such acts are analogous to examples of moral courage offered in the
business literature in which individuals “speak […] up against a manager or a vice
president or a CEO to say what they know to be true” or “stand up to authority that
violates their integrity or the integrity of others” (Worline, 2010, pp. 210, 214).
Implications of RCT for moral courage-related mentoring

Understanding moral courage-related suffering through RCT
A “critical paradox” associated with the expression of moral courage in organizations
(Simola, 2016) is that although such acts are aimed at promoting collective vitality and
virtue, their initial result is typically one of collective unease and lapse, reflected in the
social ostracism and censure of the morally courageous member. Within RCT, this
ostracism and censure would be understood as a specific exemplar of an underlying
experience associated with disconnection that is believed to be at the root of suffering,
that of “condemned isolation” ( Jordan, 2008b; Miller, 1989). Condemned isolation is said
to occur when individuals experience a profound sense of separation and exclusion from
human community and also feel as though they have been held at fault for their own
exclusion. When individuals have been silenced and disempowered through acts such as
ostracism and censure, they often feel demoralization, shame, sadness, anxiety,
withdrawal, self-devaluation and hopelessness, which are quite similar to the experiences
of those who have enacted moral courage (e.g. Glazer and Glazer, 1999). In such
circumstances, individuals become uncertain about whether others will be able to
respond in authentically empathic ways or whether further disparagement and rejection
will occur. This can result in further inhibition of authentic dialogue about their own
experiences, leading to a cycle of increasing isolation, immobilization and decline.
Individuals facing such challenges will also struggle with the “central relational
paradox” (Miller and Stiver, 1997). Specifically, it is argued that individuals typically
yearn for connection that can lead to the “five good things” associated with growth-
fostering relationships (Miller, 1986). Hence, when they observe or experience profound
disconnection and isolation from others, they try to avert its occurrence or continuance. Mentoring
In efforts to remain in relationship with others, they disavow or are silent about the morally
important aspects of their own knowledge or experience that others might find difficult
to hear, thereby becoming less authentic in the very relationships that they wish to
courageous
maintain. This is paradoxical because in an effort to stay connected in relationships
with others, individuals remove important and authentic aspects of themselves from
those relationships. Hence, the connections that remain are inauthentic, and are 347
therefore not only divested from their potential to promote mutual growth and vitality,
but also associated with weak resilience and a range of negative psychological
outcomes (Gilligan, 2010; Jordan, 2008b).
Fostering growth, resilience and vitality of individuals following acts of moral courage:
practical insights from RCT
As noted, individuals who are suffering as a consequence of having enacted moral
courage are embedded in broader developmental networks (Higgins et al., 2007). Some
who have enacted moral courage might benefit from formal, professional care or other
types of assistance that exceed that which occurs in mentoring. For others, mentoring
might be one of several informal relationships through which individuals attempt to
make sense of their experiences and find support. In either circumstance, an enhanced
understanding of the nature of moral courage-related suffering and the ways in which
resilience and vitality would be expected to develop can be very helpful. Five insights
from RCT are offered below. The purpose is not to advocate that mentoring should
serve as the sole or even primary helping relationship to those who have enacted moral
courage, nor is it to provide a discrete or formulaic set of principles that should be used
in moral courage-related mentoring conversations. Rather, the goal is to enhance
interest in and understanding of the implications and applications of RCT for the
development of resilience and vitality.
Affirm efforts to activate supportive relationships. Given the value placed upon
self-sufficiency in many contexts, talking about personal concerns or asking for
guidance or referral to other helping relationships might well be negatively construed
as personal weakness, immaturity or neediness (Miller, 1986). However, within RCT,
the ability to identify personal needs and to ask for assistance is understood as a
positive strength. In particular, individuals who have enacted moral courage are likely
to have significant fear about the possibility of further disparagement, rejection or pain,
and therefore might engage in self-protective behavior, such as increased social
withdrawal or disavowal of their own experiences ( Jordan, 2010). Movement away
from this sort of self-protective behavior toward growth-fostering connection should be
affirmed as a healthy and health promoting act of self-care.
Begin from a place of “radical respect”. RCT indicates the use of a specific orientation
toward those who are suffering, that of “radical respect” ( Jordan, 2010). Radical respect
occurs through authentic, empathic appreciation of, and presence with the suffering of
another, including that person’s current emotional state, efforts to cope and the
circumstances that might have contributed to these. Unlike discrete or contrived
techniques, radical respect is an orientation reflecting sincere willingness to hear and
be present with information or experiences that might be perceived by some as too
inflammatory, difficult or painful to hear, or that might be misunderstood, dismissed or
trivialized by others. Radical respect is therefore dependent on the capacity of helpers
to recognize and effectively manage their own uncertainty or anxiety, which might
CDI otherwise disrupt the ability of those who are seeking support to speak authentically
21,4 about their experiences ( Jordan, 2010). Radical respect supports those who are
suffering to honor their own experiences, thereby creating possibilities for authenticity
in their relationships with others, and engendering further trust and hope.
Facilitate “voice”. It has been noted that the possibility of someone having a voice is
dependent on another person listening (Brown, 1991). By demonstrating “radical
348 respect” in the ways described above, those who are suffering are “listened back into
voice” about their deeply held, often painful knowledge and experience of the things
that have transpired in their lives ( Jordan, 2008b). Facilitating voice is also critical for
overcoming the suffering associated with the “central relational paradox” (Gilligan,
2010; Jordan, 2008b) in which, in order to stay in relationship with others, individuals
disavow or are silent about important parts of their own lives (Miller and Stiver, 1997).
Engage through mutuality and fluid expertise. As previously alluded, mutuality
refers to a quality in which both parties are open to the possibility of being affected by
the other in ways that promote increased capacity for authentic and empathic
connection. Mutuality might, at times, involve sharing of relevant personal experiences
by the helper. However, if relevant personal experiences are shared, this is done with a
high degree of self-awareness and personal reflection to ensure that it does not
overwhelm or overshadow the needs of the one who is suffering ( Jordan, 2010).
A specific form of mutuality occurs through facilitation of “fluid expertise” involving
flexible movement between the roles of “expert” and “learner” rather than hierarchical
transfer of expertise from expert to learner. The use of fluid expertise demonstrates
respect for the unique history and experience of both parties, and the personal wisdom
and insight that each can contribute to mutual understanding and growth. It therefore
contributes to enhanced relational competence and mutual empowerment (Fletcher,
1999; Jordan, 2010).
Reframe resilience. Resilience often refers to the degree of psychological strength and
endurance that individuals have in the face of life challenges, and their ability to bounce
back from these. In conventional perspectives, resilience has often been understood as an
intra-individual trait (Block and Kremen, 1996; Fredrickson et al., 2003; Rutter, 1990).
However, within RCT, resilience has been understood as a relational capacity, and is
defined as “the ability to connect, reconnect, and resist disconnection in response to
hardships, adversities, trauma, and alienating social/cultural practices” (Hartling, 2008,
p. 56). In contrast to conventional “fight or flight” responses to stress identified in males
of various species, RCT (Hartling, 2008; Jordan, 2008a) notes the protective value of
potential “tend-and-befriend” responses (Taylor et al., 2000; Taylor, 2002) involving
affiliation and care-giving behaviors identified in females of certain species.
Because RCT locates resilience within growth-fostering relationships rather than
within individuals, resilience is not seen as a static entity; but rather, a capacity that can
be strengthened (Hartling, 2008; Jordan, 2004). This can occur through “supported
vulnerability” ( Jordan, 2004), wherein conditions of safety and respect enable individuals
to allow and receive the vulnerability of both self and others. Supported vulnerability is
founded on “relational confidence” or the sense that a particular relationship can be
trusted and depended upon. “Anticipatory empathy” in which helpers are attuned and
sensitive to how their words and actions might affect others is key.
Several other ways of strengthening resilience have been identified. These include
activating relationships that are sensitive and responsive to the particular
characteristics and needs of individuals at given points in time; facilitating sense of
self-worth through relational competence (Fletcher, 1999) rather than solely through Mentoring
competitive achievement; helping individuals to increase their sense of competence the morally
through the empathic provision of constructive feedback and guidance; engaging with
difference and conflict in ways that foster authenticity and relational confidence; and,
courageous
fostering meaningful contributions to broader community needs (Hartling, 2008).
An additional strategy is the deconstruction of disempowering messages and critical
appraisal of the extent to which these are actually supported by evidence. Following 349
this critical appraisal, individuals can be encouraged in their efforts to resist
internalization of false messages and instead replace these with beliefs or actions that
reflect authentic and positive qualities about the self (Ward, 2002, as cited in Hartling
and Sparks, 2008).
Summary, implications and directions for future research

The purpose of this paper was to elucidate the implications of RCT for mentoring
individuals following enactment of moral courage. Moral courage-related suffering was
understood in terms of condemned isolation perpetuated through self-protective
behavior, including disavowal of self through the central relational paradox (Miller,
1989; Miller and Stiver, 1997). Insights for promoting growth, resilience and vitality
included those associated with affirming efforts to activate supportive relationships;
the use of radical respect; engagement through mutuality and fluid expertise;
facilitation of voice; and, the reframing of resilience as a fluid relational capacity that is
strengthened in the context of growth-fostering relationships.
In addition to providing practical insights on mentoring individuals following acts
of moral courage, this paper has important social implications. In particular, the need
for moral courage, the human suffering that follows, and, the dearth of attention to
supporting those who are suffering are all examples of previously documented, broader
tendencies in public policy discussion, management practice, education and research to
give short-shrift to human health and sustainability in organizational realms (Pfeffer,
2010). In regard to moral courage, human sustainability is particularly relevant not
only because of the substantial personal costs to individual actors and their families,
but also because these costs can extend to other employees, the organization itself, and
society. For example, the observed, painful outcomes of morally courageous acts can be
associated with quiescent (i.e. fear based) silence of other employees in ways that not
only diminish information flows and the ability of organizations to take effective action;
but also, that are associated with emotional exhaustion and withdrawal of other
employees (Whiteside and Barclay, 2013), all of which can also impose burdens on the
resources of individuals, families and communities. Hence, research-supported
identification and critique of dominant ideologies that undermine attention to human
health and sustainability is critical. So too is the development of a reliable set
of indicators for various facets of human sustainability, along with the public visibility
of organizational performance data on these indicators to influence policy discussions,
management practices and management education on these issues (Pfeffer, 2010).
Within organizations, managerial consideration of employee psychological contract
beliefs, including those inhering the relational, ethical, motivational and self-concept
need dimensions (e.g. affirmation and support of self-concept, including self-in-relation
to others) is critical, particularly in social contexts involving diverse and multi-
generational workforces. Enhanced understanding of these, combined with an ongoing,
processual orientation toward psychological contract development can strengthen
mutuality and reciprocity between workers and organizational agents, and help to
CDI prevent and even heal the perceived violations (Rousseau, 2003) and injustices that
21,4 can mark the emergence of emotional distress following acts of moral courage.
Additionally, clear expectations and training for the behavior of others in response to
acts of moral courage (Bjørkelo, 2013) and interventions aimed at fostering healthier
collective responses and outcomes (Simola, 2016) are crucial.
Implications also exist for the education and training of prospective and current
350 managers, who during their own careers might well provide some type of mentoring,
even if this involves only informal and occasional mentoring to individuals who are
internal or external to their own organizations, rather than engagement in ongoing
relationships. Given the profound suffering that can occur in organizational life,
including that which occurs following acts of moral courage, consideration should be
given to training prospective and current managers on issues and skills related to
engagement in high-quality mentoring episodes or relationships.

For future research, the elaboration of RCT presented here suggests a path for further
theoretical development of the relational mentoring literature, namely, emerging research
on protégé empowerment (Fullick-Jagiela et al., 2015). In particular, Fullick-Jagiela and
colleagues integrated relational mentoring theory, including RCT, with a more
conventional model of task empowerment to identify characteristics of relational
mentoring episodes associated with protégé empowerment in the formation of high-
quality relationships with each of two groups, including current mentors and those with
whom future developmental relationships might form. However, RCT as elaborated here
suggests that the empowerment of protégés to form high-quality relationships should
include a third and foundational relationship, that of relationship with one’s self.
In particular, RCT emphasizes authentic relationship with self, as achieved through
association with and avowal of one’s own deeply held knowledge and experience, as
foundational to vital relationships with others (Gilligan, 2010; Jordan, 2010). As implied
by the “central relational paradox” (Miller and Stiver, 1997), disconnection from authentic
relationship with self, would by extension, lead to inauthentic relationships with others,
which would also be divested from their potential to promote mutual growth and vitality.
Hence, an important extension of the work of Fullick-Jagiela et al. (2015) might involve
delineation of those characteristics of relational mentoring episodes associated with
protégé empowerment in the foundational relationship with self.
Finally, future research could elaborate specific case studies involving the
application of RCT to moral courage or other work-related situations (e.g. Motulsky,
2010). It could also elaborate or evaluate alternate theoretically grounded methods or
techniques for supporting the growth, resilience and vitality of individuals who have
enacted moral courage (e.g. Barclay and Skarlicki, 2009).
References
Alford, C.F. (2001), Whistleblowers: Broken Lives and Organizational Power, Cornell University
Press, Ithaca, NY.
Allen, T.D., Eby, L.T. and Lentz, E. (2006), “Mentorship behaviors and mentorship quality
associated with formal mentoring programs: closing the gap between research and
practice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 567-578.
Armenakis, A.A. (2002), “Boisjoly on ethics, an interview with Roger M. Boisjoly”, Journal of
Management Inquiry, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 274-283.
Barclay, L.J. and Skarlicki, D.P. (2009), “Healing the wounds of organizational injustice: benefits
of expressive writing”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 2, pp. 511-523.
Barclay, L.J., Skarlicki, D.P. and Latham, G.P. (2009), “Greenberg doth protest too much: Mentoring
application always has been, and victims and morality always will be critical for
advancing organizational justice research”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
the morally
Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 201-204. courageous
Bjørkelo, B. (2013), “Workplace bullying after whistleblowing: future research and implications”,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 306-323.
Block, J.H. and Kremen, A. (1996), “IQ and ego resiliency: conceptual and empirical connections 351
and separateness”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 349-361.
Brown, L.M. (1991), “Telling a girl’s life: self-authorization as a form of resistance”, in Gilligan, C.,
Rogers, A.G. and Tolman, D.L. (Eds), Women, Girls & Psychotherapy: Reframing
Resistance, Harrington Park Press, New York, NY, pp. 1-4.
Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z.S., Bobocel, D.R. and Rupp, D.E. (2001), “Moral virtues, fairness
heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 164-209.
Dabos, G.E. and Rousseau, D.M. (2004), “Mutuality and reciprocity in the psychological contracts
of employees and employers”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 1, pp. 52-72.
Eby, L.T., Rhodes, J.E. and Allen, T.D. (2007), “Definition and evolution of mentoring”, in Allen, T.D.
and Eby, L.T. (Eds), The Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring: A Multiple Perspectives Approach,
Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, pp. 7-20.
Fletcher, J.K. (1999), Disappearing Acts: Gender, Power, and Relational Practice at Work, MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Fletcher, J.K. (2004), “Relational theory in the workplace”, in Jordan, J.V., Walker, M. and Hartling, L.M.
(Eds), Complexity in Connection, The Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp. 270-298.
Fletcher, J.K. and Ragins, B.R. (2007), “Stone center relational cultural theory: a window on
relational mentoring”, in Ragins, B.R. and Kram, K.E. (Eds), The Handbook of Mentoring at
Work: Theory, Research, and Practice, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 373-400.
Fletcher, J.K., Jordan, J. and Miller, J. (2000), “Women and the workplace: applications of a
psychodynamic theory”, The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 243-261.
Fredrickson, B.L., Tugade, M.M., Waught, C.E. and Larkin, G. (2003), “What good are positive
emotions in crises? A prospective study of resilience and emotions following the terrorist
attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2001”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 365-376.
Fullick-Jagiela, J.M., Verbos, A.K. and Wiese, C.W. (2015), “Relational mentoring episodes as a
catalyst for empowering protégés: a conceptual model”, Human Resource Development
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 486-508.
Gilligan, C. (2010), Joining the Resistance, Polity Press, Cambridge, MA.
Glazer, M.P. and Glazer, P.M. (1999), “On the trail of courageous behavior”, Sociological Inquiry,
Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 276-295.
Hannah, S.T., Sweeney, P.J. and Lester, P.B. (2010), “The courageous mind-set: a dynamic
personality system approach to courage”, in Pury, C.L.S. and Lopez, S.J. (Eds),
The Psychology of Courage, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC,
pp. 125-148.
Hartling, L.M. (2008), “Strengthening resilience in a risky world: It’s all about relationships”,
in Jordan, J.V. (Ed.), The Power of Connection, Haworth Press, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 51-70.
Hartling, L.M. and Sparks, E. (2008), “Relational-cultural practice: working in a non-relational
world”, in Jordan, J.V. (Ed.), The Power of Connection, Haworth Press, Philadelphia, PA,
pp. 165-188.
CDI Hartling, L.M., Rosen, W.B., Walker, M. and Jordan, J.V. (2004), “Shame and humiliation: from
isolation to relational transformation”, in Jordan, J.V., Walker, M. and Hartling, L.M. (Eds),
21,4 The Complexity of Connection, The Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp. 103-128.
Higgins, M.C., Chandler, D.E. and Kram, K.E. (2007), “Developmental initiation and
developmental networks”, in Ragins, B.R. and Kram, K.E. (Eds), The Handbook of
Mentoring at Work: Theory, Research, and Practice, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 49-368.
352 Janssen, S., van Vurren, M. and de Jong, M.D.T. (2014), “Motives to mentor: self-focused, protégé-
focused, relationship-focused, organization-focused, and unfocused motives”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 85 No. 3, pp. 266-275.
Johnstone, L. and Dallos, R. (2014), Formulation in Psychology and Psychotherapy: Making Sense
of People’s Problems, 2nd ed., Routledge, New York, NY.
Jordan, J.V. (1990), Courage in Connection: Conflict, Compassion, Creativity, Wellesley Centers for
Women, Wellesley, MA.
Jordan, J.V. (2004), “Relational resilience”, in Jordan, J.V., Walker, M. and Hartling, L. (Eds), The
Complexity of Connection, Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp. 28-46.
Jordan, J.V. (2008a), “Commitment to connection in a culture of fear”, in Jordan, J.V. (Ed.),
The Power of Connection, Haworth Press, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 235-254.
Jordan, J.V. (2008b), “Learning at the margin: new models of strength”, in Jordan, J.V. (Ed.),
Jordan, J.V. (2008c), “Recent developments in relational-cultural theory”, in Jordan, J.V. (Ed.),
Jordan, J.V. (2010), Relational-Cultural Therapy, American Psychology Association, Washington, DC.
Kohn, S.M. (2011), “For the greater good: the moral courage of whistleblowers”, in Comer, D.R.
and Vega, G. (Eds), Moral Courage in Organizations: Doing the Right Thing at Work, M.E.
Sharpe, Inc., Armonk, NY, pp. 60-74.
Kram, D.E. and Ragins, B.R. (2007), “The landscape of mentoring in the 21st century”, in Ragins, B.R.
and Kram, K.E. (Eds), The Handbook of Mentoring at Work: Theory, Research, and Practice,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 659-692.
Kram, K.E. (1985), Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in Organizational Life, Scott,
Foresman and Company, Glenview, IL.
Lester, P.B., Vogelgesang, G.R., Hannah, S.T. and Kimmey, T. (2010), “Developing courage in
followers: theoretical and applied perspectives”, in Pury, C.L.S. and Lopez, S.J. (Eds), The
Psychology of Courage, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 187-207.
Lopez, S.J., Rasmussen, H.N., Skorupski, Koetting, K., Petersen, S.E. and Yang, Y.-T. (2010), “Folk
conceptualizations of courage”, in Pury, C.L.S. and Lopez, S.J. (Eds), The Psychology of
Courage, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 23-46.
Matt, B.F. and Shahinpoor, N. (2011), “The courageous organizational dissenter”, in Comer, D.R.
and Vega, G. (Eds), Moral Courage in Organizations: Doing the Right Thing at Work, M.E.
Sharpe, Inc., Armonk, NY, pp. 157-170.
Miller, J.B. (1986), Toward a New Psychology of Women, 2nd ed., Beacon Press, Boston, MA.
Miller, J.B. (1989), Connections, Disconnections and Violations, Wellesley Centers for Women,
Wellesley, MA.
Miller, J.B. and Stiver, I. (1997), The Healing Connection, Beacon Press, Boston, MA.
Morrison, E.W. and Robinson, S.L. (1997), “When employees feel betrayed: a model of how
psychological contract violation develops”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 226-256.
Motulsky, S.L. (2010), “Relational processes in career transition: extending theory, research, and Mentoring
practice”, The Counseling Psychologist, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 1078-1114.
the morally
Pfeffer, J. (2010), “Building sustainable organizations: the human factor”, Academy of courageous
Management Perspectives, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 34-44.
Pinalto, M. (2012), “Moral courage and facing others”, International Journal of Philosophical
Studies, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 165-184.
Putnam, D. (2010), “Philosophical roots of the concept of courage”, in Pury, C.L.S. and Lopez, S.J. 353
(Eds), The Psychology of Courage, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC,
pp. 9-22.
Ragins, B.R. (1997), “Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations. A power perspective”,
Academy of management Review, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 482-521.
Ragins, B.R. (2011), “Relational mentoring: a positive approach to mentoring at work”, in

Cameron, K.S. and Spreitzer, G.M. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational
Scholarship, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 519-536.
Ragins, B.R. and Verbos, A.K. (2007), “Positive relationships in action: relational mentoring and
mentoring schemas in the workplace”, in Dutton, J.E. and Ragins, B.R. (Eds), Exploring
Positive Relationships at Work: Building a Theoretical and Research Foundation,
Psychology Press, New York, NY, pp. 91-116.
Rate, C.R. (2010), “Defining the features of courage: a search for meaning”, in Pury, C.L.S. and
Lopez, S.J. (Eds), The Psychology of Courage, American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC, pp. 47-66.
Reardon, K.K. (2007), “Courage as a skill”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 58-64.
Robbins, J.M., Ford, M.T. and Tetrick, L.E. (2012), “Perceived unfairness and employee
health: a meta-analytic integration”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 2,
pp. 235-272.
Robinson, S.L. and Morrison, E.W. (2000), “The development of psychological contract breach
and violation: a longitudinal study”, Journal of Organizational Studies, Vol. 21 No. 5,
pp. 525-546.
Rogers, A. (1993), “Voice, play, and a practice of ordinary courage in girls’ and women’s lives”,
Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 265-295.
Rousseau, D.M. (2003), “Extending the psychology of the psychological contract: a reply to
‘putting psychology back into psychological contracts’ ”, Journal of Management Inquiry,
Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 229-238.
Rupp, D.E. (2011), “An employee-centered model of organizational justice and social
responsibility”, Organizational Psychology Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 72-94.
Rutter, M. (1990), “Psychological resilience and protective mechanisms”, in Rolft, J., Master, A.,
Cicchetti, D., Nuechterlein, K.H. and Weintraub, S. (Eds), Risk and Protective Factors in
Development of Psychopathology, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY,
pp. 181-214.
Schilpzand, P., Hekman, D.R. and Mitchell, T.R. (2015), “An inductively generated typology and
process model of workplace courage”, Organization Science, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 52-77.
Sekerka, L. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2007), “Moral courage in the workplace: moving to and from the
desire and decision to act”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 132-140.
Serrat, O. (2010), Moral Courage in Organizations, Asian Development Bank, Washington, DC.
Simola, S. (2015), “Understanding moral courage through a feminist and developmental ethic of
care”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 130 No. 1, pp. 29-44.
CDI Simola, S. (2016), “Fostering collective growth and vitality following acts of moral courage:
a general system, relational psychodynamic perspective”, Journal of Business Ethics,
21,4 available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-016-3014-0 (accessed
January 15, 2016).
Taylor, S. (2002), The Tending Instinct: Women, Men and the Biology of Our Relationships, Henry
Holt, New York, NY.
354 Taylor, S., Klein, L., Lewis, B., Greunwald, T., Guring, R. and Updegraff, J. (2000), “Biobehavioral
responses to stress in females: tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight”, Psychological Review,
Vol. 107 No. 3, pp. 411-429.
Thompson, J.A. and Bunderson, J.S. (2003), “Violations of principle: ideological currency in the
psychological contract”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 571-598.
Walker, M. (2004), “Race, self and society: relational challenges in a culture of disconnection”,
in Jordan, J.V., Walker, M. and Hartling, L.M. (Eds), The Complexity of Connection,
The Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp. 90-102.
Walker, M. (2008), “Power and effectiveness: envisioning an alternate paradigm”, in Jordan, J.V.
(Ed.), The Power of Connection, Haworth Press, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 129-144.
Ward, J. (2002), The Skin We’re in: Teaching Our Children to be Emotionally Strong, Socially
Smart, Spiritually Connected, Free Press, New York, NY.
Way, N. (2011), Deep Secrets: Boys’ Friendships and the Crisis of Connection, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Whiteside, D.B. and Barclay, L. (2013), “Echoes of silence: employee silence as a mediator
between overall justice and employee outcomes”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 116 No. 2,
pp. 251-266.
Worline, M.C. (2010), “Understanding the role of courage in social life”, in Pury, C.L.S. and Lopez, S.J.
(Eds), The Psychology of Courage, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC,
pp. 209-226.
Corresponding author
Sheldene Simola can be contacted at: ssimola@trentu.ca
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Simola 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Simola 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Career Development International

Mentoring the morally courageous: a relational cultural perspective

Downloaded on: 19 September 2016, At: 01:03 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

no consideration of mentoring as a form of support following acts of moral courage.

psychological contracts and organizational justice, which though conceptually similar,

Relational perspectives on mentoring

Through interactions characterized by mutuality, individuals can develop greater

practices, actually discourage authentic discussion of disagreement and difference,

Implications of RCT for moral courage-related mentoring

Summary, implications and directions for future research

engagement in high-quality mentoring episodes or relationships.

Ragins, B.R. (2011), “Relational mentoring: a positive approach to mentoring at work”, in

You might also like