Feminist Mentoring and Relational Cultural Theory

Abstract

Social work educators who identify as feminists often find themselves feeling isolated in the academy and longing for connection. Connection is emphasized in Relational Cultural Theory (RCT), a theory of human development that emphasizes the perspective that individuals grow in relationship with one another. The authors apply RCT to membership on the Council on the Role and Status of Women in Social Work Education (Women’s Council), within the Council on Social Work Education. This perspective has explanatory value and can be used to help plan for and facilitate beneficial mentoring experiences. Implications for research and for use in other contexts are considered.

The role mentoring can play in improving quality of professional life and chances for success is widely accepted. This applies within the academy as well as in other contexts. There is evidence suggesting that mentoring in social work academia is particularly important for women (Alvarez, Collins, Graber, & Lazzari, 2008; Wilson, Valentine, & Pereira, 2002). For feminist social work academics, especially, mentoring may be needed to reduce isolation, build connections, and help navigate complex—and often patriarchal—professional settings (Logan & Finn, 2011). Relational Cultural Theory (RCT) (Jordan, 1997; Jordan, Kaplan, Miller, & Surrey, 1991; Jordan, Walker, & Hartling, 2004; Miller, 1976, 2004) can be used to explore the significance and power of mentoring episodes and relationships in supporting and enriching feminist social work educators. The Council on the Role and Status of Women in Social Work Education (Women’s Council or WC)—a governance unit within the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE)—provides a rich context for this exploration. A review of WC’s structure, composition, and mentoring aspects in relation to mentoring and RCT reveals many intriguing points of comparison, and findings can be used to enhance mentoring outcomes. It is important to articulate clearly not only the benefits of relational mentoring but also the components of such relationships, so that this information can be shared and used to design more effective mentoring approaches for both faculty members and students who need support within the academy.

Context and Authors’ Positionality

This article reflects the mentoring experiences of two senior social work educators who first met when both served on what was then called the Women’s Commission (now Council) on the Role and Status of Women in Social Work Education. Both of us are North American women of European ancestry, one is now in her 60s and the other in her 70s (with minor, age-related physical challenges), one identifies as heterosexual, and one as lesbian. We both identify as feminists. We have each held faculty roles and academic administrative positions for more than 20 years. During our time together on the Women’s Commission, we developed a connection that has deepened over time, as we have collaborated on several projects, served together on another CSWE Commission, and continued to connect around our mutual interests in feminism and the social work academy—as well as over shared and disparate personal experiences over time. We have talked about our aging parents and related responsibilities, important family members and how we support them, our struggles with the at times unbearable pressures of academic life, severe societal injustices, our advocacy efforts, our missteps and successes, and when or when not to retire. There were times we literally laughed and cried together. The generative nature of our interactions has provided both support and a desire for continued explorations of both our personal and professional lives.

We have each found in the other a friend, colleague, and ally. Our appreciation for this and our interest in the RCT approach to mentoring led us to intentionally nominate and “award” each other within the “Mentoring Recognition Project” during the 2012 Women’s Council Networking Breakfast, which will be described later. As the language of one of our nominations read, “We are recognizing each other in honor of the work we have done together, and the mutual and reciprocal learning it has involved.”

It is significant that our relationship began in a safe space, a space that provided opportunities to experience open and honest discussions about life in academia and beyond. We began our service on the Women’s Commission at different points in time. One author shares that “From the first time I heard about it, I had always wanted to be part of the Women’s Commission. During my social work PhD program, my involvement with the women’s studies program was crucial to my survival and completion, and my colleague friends from those days are still important to me. I expected—and found—the Women’s Commission to provide a similar environment, within which feminist principles were actualized, connections between the personal and the political were recognized and honored, collaboration—rather than competition—was encouraged and accepted as the norm, and varied perspectives were welcomed and respected”. The other author writes, “As the newer member, I was able to observe relational interactions that made me feel both welcomed and respected. I was able to risk, to share thoughts and feelings that would likely have been discounted in other venues. I was in a room with strong feminists, many of whom I had only admired from afar, I began to see connections and networks that spanned across our country, as well as internationally. I learned that it was possible to thrive in academia and also, that is was perfectly fine to move on to new opportunities. I had a voice that mattered”.

The nature and quality of our relationship was not unique to us. Others established and maintained connections based on a variety of characteristics that included, for example, shared scholarly activities, similar ethnic/racial heritages, similar life roles such as being parents of young children, and the often unspoken challenges of being feminists in the academy.

During our many discussions about mentoring, our interest was piqued as to what about the interactions among Women’s Commission/Council members lent itself to the development of our relationship and others we saw among or experienced with our colleagues. After all, faculty members typically serve on multiple committees, commissions, and boards but seldom do these serve as springboards for ongoing professional and personal relationships and seldom could they be perceived as having involved or evolved into any kind of ongoing support or mentoring. We were intrigued enough to try to answer the question of what was different about the WC—what about its structures and processes led to the outcomes we had experienced and observed? This led us to a consideration of different approaches to mentoring to see if there was theory that was a good fit, could be applied to the WC, and had explanatory value as well as potential for application in other settings. This review and consideration, in turn, led us to RCT and its implications for mentoring.

The WC provides the backdrop for our reflections, as well as the context for applying RCT to those experiences, particularly as related to mentoring feminist social work educators. While there are certainly men who identify as feminist, our focus is more upon women, some of whom may not consider themselves as feminists. We define feminists as those who focus upon and advocate for the rights and needs of women, with an understanding of the complex intersections of their diverse characteristics and life circumstances. It is our position that most women in academia face unique challenges by virtue of their gender and their location in gendered institutions, with structures and processes that favor men over women. This privileged patriarchal status reflects and reinforces the priorities of our current society and who and what it values.

In 2008, the first history of the WC was published (covering the late 1960s through 2006). This historical analysis highlights the need for women in a female-dominated profession to remain vigilant.

The WC … has a proud and successful history of commitment and accomplishment and yet, over time, has struggled for survival. Such determination to remain intact appears to have been fueled and sustained by a feminist vision. This feminist vision has been challenged, not only from outside the WC membership, but also from within. Some women and men may hesitate to use the word feminist, because for some it may conjure negative stereotypes and myths, or simply may not be consistent with their worldview. However, all WC members and their allies understand the importance of giving women’s experiences a voice and a presence in their work and their organizations. (Alvarez et al., 2008, p. 79)

For both authors, serving on the WC provided opportunities to develop ongoing mentoring relationships as well as to experience episodic mentoring encounters that continue to enrich and sustain our personal and professional lives. RCT provides a model for reciprocal mentoring that will be applied to the activities of the WC. This theoretical perspective may help to explain the reasons most women who currently and/or in the past have served on this council attribute such importance to their experiences, whether or not they identify as feminists. While we do not represent the voices of all past or current members, we have remained connected to the WC through the establishment in 2005 of the spin-off group WE-CRONES (Women’s Ex-Commission, Rotated Off, Now Elders in Solidarity), discussed later in this article (Alvarez et al., 2008). This ongoing connection has allowed us, as well as others, to remain informed of current progress and issues faced by the WC and to contribute experience and support as members continue to struggle to maintain feminist ways of being in the academy. Whether ongoing or episodic, these interactions provide powerful mentoring opportunities as well as amplify women’s voices.

Feminists in the Academy

Between us, we have held more than 11 academic appointments (including part-time lecturer, tenured faculty member, department/school administrator, interim vice chancellor for academic affairs, co-director for diversity and minority affairs, and formal leadership roles in faculty governance) and worked in a combined total of 8 different universities. Having identified as feminists in our roles, we are acutely aware of the challenges that many feminists, including students—and in particular those who are women—face in the academy. For some, caring for children, elders, or other family members presents a barrier that affects engagement in academic life in ways that result in gender discrimination. The impact of this is often exacerbated by cultural expectations that may disproportionately affect those who may already be marginalized on the basis of perceived differences. For others, the experience or fear of sexual harassment and/or retribution as tenure time approaches results in the silencing of women. In addition, the efforts of academics whose scholarly efforts are grounded in feminism may be discredited and/or discounted. Feminist scholars often address topics such as domestic violence, issues of families and children, women’s health (including behavioral health and reproductive issues), poverty, and culturally diverse approaches to practice—focusing on realities that disproportionately affect women. These areas of study, as well as methodological approaches used to explore them, are often undervalued. A chilly climate remains, resulting primarily from the patriarchal and hierarchical environments that characterize most academic institutions, including social work programs.

For social work in particular, this seems ironic, as there appears to be a goodness of fit between social work and feminist values and perspectives (Barretti, 2011; Bricker-Jenkins & Hooyman, 1986; Collins, 1986; Kemp & Brandwein, 2010). This alignment with feminist values typically is ignored or minimized by the social work hierarchy, even though the profession’s history is grounded in the work of women who organized themselves in ways that would be considered feminist.

For example, Jabour (2012), in highlighting the life and work of early social work education pioneer Sophonisba Breckinridge (1866–1948), reinforces the significance of feminism, mentoring, relationships, and leadership. “By embracing the reform-oriented, female-centered social work that Breckinridge espoused, contemporary social workers may also reinvigorate feminist and activist visions of social work and revive a forgotten tradition of female mentorship, collaboration, and leadership” (Jabour, 2012, p. 23). It is important to acknowledge that a feminist perspective is not limited to women, and the reverse is also true: both men and women can and do engage with and promote the hierarchical system equally well. This can include holding positions of leadership, and operating within them to reinforce “power over,” as opposed to more egalitarian and participatory approaches. However, it is common knowledge that from the formative beginnings of social work to the present day, women have dominated the profession numerically, while the reverse is true when it comes to those who hold the majority of leadership positions, both in social work practice and in the academy. Overwhelmingly, that power continues to rest with men. Feminist values challenge the status quo, and when men as well as women show deference to power, those who identify as “feminist” are in jeopardy.

The hierarchy in social work academia simply reflects most organizational hierarchies, where those few at the top hold the most power over all other members of the organization. Generally speaking, these positions are held by white males who tend to belong to power networks (typically organized by virtue of gender and/or status position), which replicate patriarchal structures. As noted above, both men and women keep the system in place by the way they make decisions over others. It is the structure of hierarchies that places expectations and constraints on how people behave. When an individual attempts to move out of those prescribed roles, he or she will likely be faced with criticism and in some cases hostility and even violence. This is especially true for women, particularly those who identify as feminist, and those who are persons of color.

While we know there are multiple feminisms, the label itself often marginalizes those who self-identify and/or are identified by others as feminist. When an individual’s social identities are added to the mix, some feminists—by virtue of factors such as gender, age, sexual orientation, ability status, and/or ethnic/racial identities, among others—are further distanced from the sources of power in most academic institutions. What frequently results is a sense of isolation or disconnection. According to Judith Jordan, one of the founding scholars of RCT:

In a relational model of psychological development, disconnection from others is viewed as one of the primary sources of human suffering. Similarly, disconnection from oneself, from the natural flow in one’s responses, needs, and yearnings creates distress, inauthenticity and ultimately a sense of isolation in the world. (Jordan, 2004, p. 47)

While this might to some sound exaggerated, most feminist academics, especially those who are female and fall outside of the dominant norms, can identify with this description of disconnection. Whether one is in the role of mentor or mentee, the realities of isolation and disconnection can be the same.

There is a “paradoxical nature of feminist mentoring” that supports women to be successful in existing structures, while attempting to challenge and change the power imbalances of those structures (Humble, Solomon, Allen, Blaisure, & Johnson, 2006). Still, the structures and processes that keep the hierarchy deeply rooted leave little space for diverse feminist voices that aspire to transform institutions so that power over becomes “power with” (Miller, 1976), thus uprooting the hierarchy. As feminists strive to change and humanize higher education, we cannot lose sight of those who are most vulnerable on the basis of, for example, gender, age, sexual orientation, ability status, religion, nationality/ies, and/or ethnic/racial identities. Nor can we forget those who are vulnerable by virtue of role—including pretenured faculty members, those who are nontenure track (e.g., who may be considered lecturers, adjuncts, or contingent faculty), staff members, and, in some cases, students. When one feels supported as a feminist, there is a greater chance he or she will feel “safe” in supporting and advocating on behalf of others who may be struggling in their personal and professional lives.

The need for support has been voiced by scholars in a range of disciplines, including the STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and math), geography, counseling psychology, family studies, and social work (Heilbronner, 2013; Humble et al., 2006; Logan & Finn, 2011; McClelland & Holland, 2014; Moss et al., 1999; Rayle et al., 2006; Sethi, 2011; Wilson et al., 2002). Mentoring, especially when viewed through the lens of RCT, sheds light on the potential opportunities for both the mentor and the mentee to engage in mutually enriching relationships.

Given the current state of higher education related to the increasing (mis-)use of lecturers as well as graduate students, many if not most of whom are women (Mason, 2011), the need for mentoring is even greater. This is a social justice issue that calls for action, especially from those of us in academia who are protected by virtue of our rank and/or position.

Relational Cultural Theory and Mentoring

RCT was developed in the 1970s, primarily by psychologists and psychiatrists affiliated with the Stone Center at Wellesley College, in Massachusetts. Jean Baker Miller’s (1976) groundbreaking work, Toward a New Psychology of Women, provided the foundation for the ongoing development and application of this theoretical perspective. As asserted by Fletcher and Ragins (2007), RCT is feminist theory, due to its analysis and understanding of the significance and impact of gender upon personal and societal relationships. Built upon an approach to therapy, RCT is basically a theory of human development, as well as a therapeutic modality, that emphasizes the belief that individuals grow in connection with one another and that both parties benefit from the relationship (Jordan, 1997; Jordan et al., 1991 , 2004; Miller, 1976, 2004). While the initial focus of this theory was informed by studying mostly white women and the nature of their connections, RCT has expanded and can be applied to all human relationships, with cultural contexts being a necessary consideration in understanding these relationships. “Over time, RCT deepened its cultural analysis beyond gender, to broader systemic categories of power and social identity” (Fletcher & Ragins, 2007, p. 378), concepts which hold relevance for the struggles that many feminists face in the academy. These categories of power and social identities include, among others, race/ethnicities, sexual orientations, and class status.

It seems clear that feminism is deeply embedded in RCT which, as noted above, has evolved over time. The following quotation from the Jean Baker Miller Training Institute website (2014) focuses sharply on issues of power and the impact and results of power over relationships.

We acknowledge the thesis that a “power over” culture is itself an agent of disconnection that, left unchallenged, diminishes the relational capacities and confidence of all its members.… When the purpose of a relationship is to protect the power differential (maintain the gap between those who hold privilege and those who do not), it is highly unlikely that authentic responsiveness can unfold. Indeed, authentic engagement and openness to mutual influence may be viewed as dangerous practices.

The need for mutually supportive relationships is clear, and the application of RCT to mentoring holds hope for moving toward mutual growth and empowerment. The Women’s Council, mentioned earlier, has offered that hope, empowerment, and sense of belonging for the authors and for others with past or current service on this council. The mentoring framework developed by Fletcher and Ragins (2007) applies core concepts from RCT that include relational conditions/stance, skills, behaviors, and processes; contextual factors; and mentoring episode and relationship outcomes (see Appendix). This approach is in stark contrast to more traditional models of mentoring (Allen, Eby, & Lentz, 2006; Ehrich, Hansford, & Tennent, 2004), which tend to use more formal and hierarchical approaches, based on the assumption that one person has more to offer than the other. Within academia, for example, it is often assumed that a senior faculty member knows more than someone who is less experienced, and, therefore, he or she should serve in the mentor role regardless of considering other factors that contribute to a successful mentoring relationship. This often leads to programs that pair a pretenure with a tenured faculty member from their own or another academic unit. An issue with this approach is the built-in power dynamic, which may limit the degree of trust the more junior person has and may thus limit the utility of the relationship, if the “mentee” does not feel that total honesty will serve him or her well. It is difficult to express fears, perceived inadequacies, or even criticism of policies and/or leadership, if there is a possibility that any of this could ultimately factor into and negatively affect a tenure and promotion decision.

The literature has focused on mentoring that is formal, hierarchical, and ongoing and has paid less attention to mentoring episodes, which may or may not result in long-term personal and/or professional relationships (Fletcher & Ragins, 2007). These encounters may be serendipitous and unexpected and are not always understood or appreciated in the moment. Over time and upon reflection, however, these episodic interactions may provide a “safety net” for those involved. “Mentoring episodes are most likely to evolve to high-quality mentoring relationships when both members have the ability to resist hierarchically prescribed roles and adopt a relational stance” (Fletcher & Ragins, 2007, p. 383).

The CSWE Women’s Council as a Case Example

As one of the three other councils comprising the Commission for Diversity and Social and Economic Justice, the Women’s Council is part of the governance structure for the CSWE, the accrediting body for schools of social work in the United States and Puerto Rico. As part of its charge, the WC:

… works to eliminate all procedures within academia that hinder the full participation of women, makes recommendations to the Board on all matters of policy, and initiates and coordinates programs and activities related to women in social work education. (CSWE, 2014)

The irony of its situation is embedded in the charge and positioning of the WC within CSWE. Most readers are no doubt familiar with Audre Lorde’s famous pronouncement, in her essay of the same name, that “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house” (1984, pp. 110–114). This speaks to the heart of an important dilemma, since it is difficult—and may be unrealistic and impossible—to maintain a relationship of positivity and mutual support given the organizational context and respective roles of the WC and CSWE. In the case of the WC, as above, it was developed to monitor policies and procedures, advocate for change, and work toward the improvement of the “role and status of women” within the profession of social work education. CSWE is logically the recipient of constructive criticism from the WC, which has at times taken issue with its administration, organization, accreditation standards, and overall operations. At the same time, WC resources (staff support, meeting space, access to information, online presence, and visibility during an annual national conference) come to it from CSWE, its parent organization, which ultimately has power over the council. This creates a delicate balance and challenging tensions between the two entities, resulting in sometimes problematic interactions and outcomes.

Another irony is that there is such a need for mentoring within the context of social work education. Given the nature of the two disciplines represented—social work and education—a newcomer might expect a focus on strengths-based empowerment, collaboration, respect for and appreciation of differences, and readily available support. The contrast with the reality, as described in the previous section on “Feminists in the Academy,” can be not only disappointing but also shocking and daunting. Despite attempts to the contrary, the Annual Program Meeting (APM) of CSWE can serve as an unfortunate representation of some of these aspects. To many of its attendees, this gathering is seen as bewildering, hierarchical, elitist, and overly expensive, in ways that are alienating, exclusionary, confusing, and counter to the ideals of social justice and advocacy that brought them to social work in the first place. In the face of immense and pervasive global inequities, a focus on bylaws and organizational maintenance issues can seem trivial, conservative, and frustrating. The WC and its events/initiatives can be perceived as a haven in this context—albeit an imperfect one that still operates under many constraints.

We will reflect upon and discuss the role of the WC in providing a context for both ongoing and episodic mentoring relationships. Specific focus will be on WC composition and structure, formalized mentoring aspects, and the impact of WC membership and mentoring. We believe that entities such as the WC hold relevance for feminists, particularly women, in most—if not all—professional disciplines, which are primarily housed in gendered organizations. In fact, this gendered aspect is so embedded and persistent that some may view university systems as among the last bastions of the white male patriarchy and privilege.

Throughout the remaining discussion, we refer to the chart in the Appendix, showing a model developed by Fletcher and Ragins (2007), which reflects the application of RCT concepts to mentoring. Concepts from the chart are in boldface for easy identification and reference. The six central components of the model—each of which has multiple subaspects—are relational conditions/stance, relational skills, relational behaviors and processes, contextual factors, mentoring episode outcomes, and mentoring relationship outcomes. This model elucidates the intertwining between and among individual relationships grounded in mutuality, with consideration of the impacts of contextual factors, leading to episodic and relationship mentoring outcomes. These processes are fluid and powerful, and this perspective on relationships is captured effectively in the chart.

CSWE WC Composition and Structure

Of interest in thinking about the WC is its composition, which typically consists of 26 members at any one point in time, meeting twice per year with no reimbursement for travel expenses. Controversy over whether or not men could be members has surfaced from time to time. Only a few men have ever been appointed to the WC—and to our knowledge, these appointments have been made without members’ input or support. This speaks, we believe, to the need and the importance of its members having “a space of their own,” where there is a common understanding of the challenges facing women in the academy. Such a space provides more fertile ground for the relational conditions/stance of authenticity, empathy, and empowerment (see Appendix) to emerge, thus supporting relational mentoring.

The need for all-women’s networks within organizations is reinforced by Hopkins, O’Neil, Passarelli, and Bilimoria (2008) in their exploration of women’s leadership development in diverse types of organizations. They underscore the importance of women’s relational skills and “… women’s unique contributions [that] will result in women realizing their individual potential and in organizational transformation, the two primary objectives of effective, sustainable leadership development” (p. 361). The WC provides an example of an all-women’s network within CSWE, an organization dominated numerically by women yet organized in a traditional top-down structure, where men tend to receive the greatest rewards and recognition. For example, the three awardees selected for the two major CSWE awards at the 2014 APM were all men (CSWE, 2014).

From its beginnings, the WC has worked to bring broad representation to its membership by including women of diverse ages, sexual orientations, ethnic/racial backgrounds, academic ranks and roles (including a doctoral student and a retiree); geographic representation and type of college or university are considered as well. This approach values the perspectives that flow from different life circumstances, again providing the conditions for mentoring relationships to be nurtured and isolation to be at least minimized, if not eliminated.

Additionally, the WC provides an environment where the traditional academic hierarchy, which reinforces power over, is leveled and is thus conducive to members’ growing in connection with one another. This is not to suggest that power struggles never occur, because they do—although in our experience they are few. Many WC members hold formal positions of authority in their home institutions, so at times it can be challenging to leave these roles behind. The WC developed in 2004 and implemented in 2005 a model of co-chairs to emphasize the notions of shared leadership and responsibility (Alvarez et al., 2008), which to be effective must be grounded in mutuality, a core concept of RCT. Mutuality in relationships cannot occur without open and honest communication, which fosters growth and thus benefits those engaged in the relationship. The co-chair model of leadership tends to reproduce power sharing among all members, as opposed to how hierarchical leadership limits power and decision making to a select few.

The WC, with other diversity-related councils, has engaged over time in efforts to transform CSWE through implementing structures and processes to minimize the impacts of a patriarchal hierarchy. These efforts have most often, but not always, been resisted—or have been supported in ways that ultimately reinforce conflicting values and priorities. An example of organizational tension has been the challenge for the WC and other councils to retain the co-chair model, despite opposition from CSWE leadership. These differences have at times resulted in the reinstatement of a hierarchical model that WC members and others had worked intentionally to displace.

The membership composition and structure of the WC corresponds to the contextual factors noted by Fletcher and Ragins (2007), as well as the relational skill of “response ability” (see Appendix). When leadership is shared not only by those in leadership roles but by all members, the ability to be responsive to one another is critical to moving the work of the group forward. As noted by two previous members of the WC, when implementing co-leadership “[c]areful attention must be paid to mutual respect, mutual decision-making, support of one another, adaptation, common values and goals, collective and individual identity, cooperation, respect for different views, and effective conflict resolution” (Collins & Lazzari, 2010, p. 301). This speaks directly to the contextual factors noted by Fletcher and Ragins (2007).

When members of the WC meet, they are able to show vulnerability (a relational condition) and to tell the stories of disconnection and isolation they often experience in their own academic institutions. Those who are pretenure are able to share their fears, and those who do not feel supported (for a multitude of reasons) are able to share their frustrations. Invariably, there will be others who can identify with what is being said. This provides an example of what Fletcher and Ragins (2007) note as a relational behavior and process, that is, “using disconnection to connect” (see Appendix), thus allowing for authenticity and mutuality in relationship.

If not addressed, this [inability to be one’s authentic self] can lead to a downward spiral of disconnection and ultimately a growth-deadening rather than a growth-fostering relationship. However, if such disconnections are addressed, they can lead to an even deeper connection and result in the capacity for increased growth-in-connection. (p. 382)

The WC’s membership structure provides an environment (contextual factors, as above) for what Fletcher and Ragins (2007) describe as necessary for relational mentoring to occur. The manner in which the WC organizes itself represents a fluid structure through which decision making and responsibilities are shared and gendered power dynamics are eliminated. This type of climate opens up possibilities for personal and professional growth through relational behaviors and processes (see Appendix). These include “interdependence; reciprocity; fluidity in expertise, power, and role enactment;” and “mutual learning, teaching, and information exchange;” as well as “using disconnection to connect.” For example, having a retiree as a member of the WC honors the expertise that an older person provides and sets the stage for mutual learning and sharing of information. When one observes and interacts with a person who has “survived” academia and is engaged and thriving, not only is new knowledge and information exchange available but typically there is a desire for more connection, which Fletcher and Ragins (2007) note as a mentoring episode outcome (see Appendix).

As another example of desiring more connection, WE-CRONES (described previously), which was established as a way for former members to maintain relationships with each other and involvement with the WC, meets yearly during the APM of the CSWE. The group has no formal purpose or structure, and what it does and how the group comes together is fluid. Some years, people have simply used it as an opportunity to reconnect. Over time, the WE-CRONES gatherings have evolved to include current WC members and leadership and have included discussion of issues and strategizing about how to address them. In recognition of this, the WC organized a listserv for WE-CRONES. This is an example of the relational behaviors and processes of interdependence; reciprocity; and mutual learning, teaching, and information exchange (see Appendix).

Formalized WC Mentoring Aspects

A major APM event for the WC is its Networking Breakfast, during which the Feminist Manuscript Award is presented in the name of an individual honored with the Feminist Scholar Award, and mentors are recognized through the Mentor Recognition project. Each of these aspects merits separate attention in the context of relational mentoring.

The Networking Breakfast provides a focused venue for episodic mentoring relationships. For many who attend, the interactions that occur may be among the few times during a calendar year when they feel truly validated, thus reflecting mentoring episode outcomes (see Appendix), particularly zest and self-in-relation esteem. The atmosphere of acceptance and support is palpable, allowing for serendipitous episodic mentoring to occur and increasing the desire for further growth in connection. In addition, intentional approaches to foster these connections are used, including public recognition and appreciation of first-time attendees, and the standing practice that WC members spread themselves throughout the room, rather than clustering together at tables.

“Conceptualized and announced at the 1995 Networking Breakfast, the Feminist Scholarship Award was first given in 1996. Its purpose is to recognize excellence in feminist scholarship” (Alvarez et al., 2008, p. 77). Initially, this phrase was applied to the author(s) being honored, and each year this award was named and given in honor of one or more outstanding feminist social work educators, exemplifying the interdependence and reciprocity among feminist scholars as well as the mentoring relationship outcomes of career satisfaction and efficacy (see Appendix). Beginning in 2014, the recognized author(s) receives the “Feminist Manuscript Award,” in the name of the person(s) honored with the “Feminist Scholar Award.”

The Mentor Recognition project was first conceptualized as a fund-raising event to help sustain the Networking Breakfast, but its impact is much more for those involved. It is a way to publicly honor others who have served in mentoring roles. In 2012, the authors each contributed official recognition of the other to acknowledge and celebrate the existence and importance of our reciprocal mentoring relationship, an example of relational behaviors and processes (see Appendix).

Taken together, the Women’s Council Networking Breakfast, the Feminist Manuscript Award, the Feminist Scholar Award, and the Mentor Recognition project are tangible examples of mentoring relationship outcomes (see Appendix), including personal/professional learning, growth, and development as well as organizational performance and career outcomes.

Impact of WC Membership and Mentoring Relationships

There is no doubt that our personal and professional lives have been enriched and that both episodic and ongoing mentoring relationships have provided a safety net throughout our academic careers and beyond. Ironically, some members of the WC have chosen to leave academia, due in part to the support they experienced as WC members. Instead of being mentored to “fit in,” their lack of fit was acknowledged, and they were better able to first articulate and then to follow their dreams. As a result of the relational skills of authenticity, empathic competence, vulnerability, and holistic thinking, the mentoring relationship outcomes of career and life satisfaction occurred (see Appendix). For most, however, participation in the WC has helped us to remain in academia and to develop and sustain professional and personal connections that include meeting annually during conferences (including at WE-CRONES gatherings), being active on related listservs, presenting and publishing together, and advocating for continuing feminist perspectives and actions within our organizations and profession. The WC has provided both validation of these endeavors and opportunities to pursue them, including promoting presentations and developing joint publication projects. This helps to counter the marginalization that feminist topics and methodology often encounter, as discussed previously. Our WC relationships have enriched our lives, allowing us to be more effective in our careers as well as providing support for overall life satisfaction, health, well-being, and balance—all of which are identified in the literature as important mentoring relationship outcomes (see Appendix).

Our experiences and observations suggest that serving on the WC offered multiple opportunities for both episodic and ongoing, long-term mutually satisfying relationships. The trajectory of such relationships appears to move back and forth along the continuum of mentoring relationships, as noted above. If these relationships were not highly valued, why would ex-commission/council members want to stay connected?

Implications for Research and Action

While we have personally witnessed and experienced mentoring episode and mentoring relationship outcomes as articulated by Fletcher and Ragins (2007), our next goal is to better articulate the components of both episodic and ongoing mentoring relationships that are part of a relational mentoring continuum, specifically in the context of the WC.

The notion of mentoring episodes … offers a more fine-grained understanding of relational mentoring and the continuum of mentoring relationships. According to RCT, high-quality relational-mentoring episodes are those in which the criteria for a mutually growth-fostering interaction … are met. It is reasonable to assume that the frequency and quality of these episodes will predict a deepening connection and commitment between the parties and may over time evolve to what both may acknowledge as a high-quality mentoring relationship. RCT therefore gives us a way of envisioning a full continuum of possible mentoring interactions—from episodic to continuous—as well as a way to differentiate among them in order to study and articulate unique characteristics and outcomes of relational mentoring. (Fletcher & Ragins, 2007, pp. 381–382)

Although not acknowledged as a formal mentoring program, the WC offers an example of an “alternative” or feminist way of interacting within the CSWE, a hierarchically structured organization. Through explicating the components and qualities of relational mentoring, it is our hope to spur further research in this important area. It will also be critical to compare the experiences of women who differ on factors such as race/ethnicity, age, ability, sexual orientation, and academic context, to understand whether and how aspects of culture and identity are correlated with differential experiences of mentoring in the WC.

Insights from this article and results of further research can provide guidance for the WC in development of its processes and programs. For example, if the importance and relevance of RCT are established, there are implications for the balance of process and task focus within WC meetings and programs. This is always an ongoing debate in feminist contexts, but the need to develop connections among peers indicates the importance of time for informal conversations, which can be incorporated into the twice-yearly meetings and can also be provided during the annual Networking Breakfast. As program content has increased, it has been difficult to schedule this time and not to view it as “wasteful.” However, this may be some of the most important time toward establishing relationships of mutual benefit, outside of a more traditional formal and hierarchical mentoring model. We also hope that the leadership of the CSWE will take the opportunity to reevaluate its structures and processes, so they more strongly reflect social work and feminist values, which are closely aligned with and embedded in RCT.

Another potentially meaningful outcome of examining the impact of the WC on its members relates to leadership development. Many members of the council hold or have held leadership roles within their universities and within the social work profession. It will be important to learn from them the significance of their experiences on the WC vis-à-vis the relational mentorship they experienced as related to their leadership roles. In today’s society, there is much conversation related to crises with leadership, in organizations spanning the federal government to local entities. Perhaps there are more effective ways of “doing leadership” that we can learn from those who value mutuality and shared responsibility.

Clearly, the above principles and practices are applicable outside of and beyond both the CSWE and the WC. Those in positions of responsibility in universities and schools of social work can employ a feminist-informed leadership model that implies recognizing and providing support for different kinds of mentoring. For example, within some academic settings, a “formal mentor” receives a monetary reward that can be used for travel or research. While this is laudable, it might be even more beneficial in some cases if people were to develop their own connections, and if each participant received some kind of reward for this, in recognition of mutuality.

To sum up the preceding, we have the following recommendations:

That research be conducted to understand whether and how differences in culture and identity relate to differential experiences of mentoring in the WC (and in other settings),

that WC processes and programs continue to offer and incorporate even more of the kinds of informal opportunities to connect (e.g., during meetings and the Networking Breakfast), which fosters the kinds of relationships that are crucial within RCT,

that CSWE revisits and redesigns its structure and operations to more closely reflect the values of feminism and the profession,

that CSWE, the WC, and readers consider the implications of RCT and work toward its application within their professional contexts, and

that academic institutions and units, as well as other organizations and entities, develop and use feminist-informed leadership and mentoring models and allocate resources to support-related initiatives.

In addition, we hope and recommend that individuals will become more aware of the potential to engage in interactions from the perspective of the RCT model, and will avail themselves of opportunities to develop both episodic and ongoing relationships that promote and demonstrate feminist principles of equality, support, and reciprocal learning and benefits.

Ultimately, an understanding of the relevance and usefulness of RCT could lead to the development of improved approaches for mentoring relationships among feminist academics, as well as the staff members and students with whom they share their personal/professional contexts and lives. It is also our hope that our efforts will help in the ongoing process of validating the significance of RCT as a critically important theoretical base not only in understanding human development and relationships but also in moving toward a more just society.