Abstract
Mentoring has long been viewed as an effective tool for human resource development. This paper challenges the mainstream view that mentoring is unequivocally beneficial to organizations and by extent to the wider social system. The argument is built on four caveats that emerge from the available literature: (1) evidence on the relationship of mentoring receipt with protégé job performance (as opposed to career success) is elusive; (2) the mechanism via which mentoring enhances protégé career success appears to rely mostly on power and political processes; (3) the type of learning imparted by mentoring seems mostly related to the understanding and implementation of political tactics for personal gain; and (4) the possibility that mentoring may, at times, impair protégés' ethos and lower their ethical standards. The conclusion is that caution – instead of unconditional enthusiasm – must be exercised with mentoring. The article closes with guidelines for practice and suggestions for future research, which can serve as starting points in the adoption of a more balanced view of mentoring.