In the rapidly globalizing landscape of STEMM talent development, understanding the nuanced dynamics of mentorship initiation across cultural contexts is pivotal. A recent comprehensive study sheds light on how national culture, particularly the dimension of power distance, profoundly influences the initiation and early development of mentor-mentee relationships within an international STEMM mentoring program. This investigation uncovers the culturally rooted behaviors and perceptions that shape who takes the initiative in mentoring, the establishment of meeting agendas, and the collaborative interactions that define the earliest stages of these critical partnerships.
Power distance, as conceptualized in cross-cultural psychology, describes the degree to which less powerful members of a society accept and expect power to be distributed unequally. This cultural trait becomes especially salient in mentoring relationships, where hierarchical dynamics can steer communication patterns and decision-making processes. The study at hand delves into the pragmatics of initiation, noting that despite program protocols designating mentees as the first point of contact, mentors from high power distance countries frequently subverted these guidelines by proactively initiating contact themselves. This behavioral divergence underscores how ingrained cultural norms can override institutional frameworks, potentially reconfiguring the power dynamics intended by program designers.
Further scrutiny reveals that mentors originating from greater power distance societies tend to assert control in setting the initial agenda during early meetings. These mentors exhibit a directive approach, often deciding the topics with limited input from mentees, which contrasts sharply with mentors from low power distance countries. The latter group engages in a more collaborative process, encouraging mentees to express preferences and jointly agree on discussion points, reflecting cultural tendencies toward egalitarianism and shared authority.
The thematic focus of initial conversations mirrors these cultural distinctions. Mentors from high power distance nations predominantly concentrate discussions on STEMM-centric topics such as academic goals, research interests, and tangible achievements. Personal information exchange is minimal and secondary, if present at all. Conversely, mentors from low power distance environments demonstrate adaptive flexibility; their meetings often blend STEMM discourse with personal sharing, contingent on the mentee’s cultural background and expressed comfort with such exchanges. This nuanced responsiveness highlights the fluid interplay between mentor and mentee cultures, where mentor behavior is as much about cultural context as it is about the mentee’s individual needs.
Interestingly, the study finds that despite the cross-cultural nature of the mentorship program, explicit discussion of cultural differences is rare. Mentors frequently downplay the significance of national culture, framing their relationships in terms of openness and internationalism that transcend cultural boundaries. This pervasive minimization suggests a potential gap in cross-cultural training or an underestimation of how implicit cultural dimensions subtly shape interaction styles and expectations in mentoring.
Turning to early collaborative behaviors, the analysis probes five distinct domains: decision-making, seeking mentee opinions, sharing social life, mentee disagreement, and provision of direction. The results consistently display a pattern aligned with national power distance indices. Mentors from high power distance countries predominantly take charge of decisions during the mentorship initiation phase, positioning themselves as authoritative figures whose expertise guides the mentee’s trajectory. This aligns with a traditional hierarchical model where deference to authority is normalized.
In contrast, mentors from low power distance countries embrace a partnership model of collaboration. Decision-making is mutual, with mentors proposing options and mentees having substantive input before finalizing agendas or actions. This egalitarian approach fosters shared ownership of the mentoring process, arguably enhancing mentee engagement and autonomy from the outset.
Regarding the solicitation of mentee opinions, mentors from low power distance cultures habitually seek continuous feedback to ensure alignment with mentee expectations. This proactive attitude underscores a mentorship philosophy rooted in empathy and responsiveness. Mentors from high power distance cultures are more reactive, tending to seek feedback only in response to observable mentee disengagement or irregularities, suggesting a more top-down relational dynamic.
The exchange of personal life information during the initial mentoring phase remains limited across the board, yet subtle cultural distinctions emerge. Mentors from high power distance countries generally erect clearer boundaries around social sharing, often perceiving personal topics as irrelevant or inappropriate within the professional mentoring context. Meanwhile, mentors from low power distance countries exhibit curiosity about personal dimensions, though this sharing remains constrained, possibly influenced by the virtual, goal-oriented nature of the program and age differences between mentors and mentees.
A particularly intriguing deviation from traditional power distance predictions arises in the context of mentees disagreeing with mentors. Contrary to the expectation that high power distance cultures would discourage open disagreement, most mentors from such countries report mentee disagreements as part of healthy scientific discourse and encourage this dynamic as a vital component of intellectual development. This finding points to the transformative role of disciplinary norms within STEMM that may transcend or modulate cultural hierarchy.
Provision of direction to mentees does not follow a clear cultural pattern. Both groups of mentors report instances of mentees being self-directed and independently pursuing tasks, likely influenced by the rigorous selection criteria of the program that favor highly motivated participants. Nevertheless, the mentors balance guidance with autonomy, adapting their approaches to mentees’ readiness and capacities.
An attempt to validate mentors’ national power distance through individual survey responses unveiled an intriguing insight: mentors from high power distance countries often perceive themselves as less hierarchical than their national indices suggest, while no responses were received from mentors in low power distance countries for this follow-up. This discrepancy highlights the complex interplay between individual beliefs and entrenched cultural norms, suggesting that personal values may diverge from broader societal tendencies, but that national culture nonetheless exerts considerable influence on behaviors in structured mentoring contexts.
Overall, the findings suggest that national culture, as operationalized by power distance, critically shapes the initiation and early structure of mentorship relationships in STEMM talent development programs. These cultural contours influence who leads communication, how agendas are crafted, and the extent to which collaboration is hierarchical or egalitarian. Recognizing and adapting to these cultural dynamics can enhance the design of cross-cultural mentoring programs, ensuring that protocols are sensitive to culturally embedded behaviors while fostering productive, trusting, and goal-oriented mentor-mentee partnerships.
As STEMM fields continue to internationalize, these insights bear significant implications. Mentoring programs must balance culturally informed flexibility with clear guidance to accommodate diverse interaction styles without compromising the program’s objectives. The subtle, often unspoken cultural norms influencing mentorship initiation underscore the importance of training mentors in cross-cultural competence and open communication strategies. Encouraging explicit dialogue about cultural expectations—even when participants do not spontaneously raise such topics—can further enrich mentoring relationships and optimize STEMM talent development across cultures.
Moreover, this research illuminates the possibility that other cultural dimensions beyond power distance might explain nuances in perceived cultural differences or mentoring practices. Variables such as individualism versus collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, or communication context may also critically shape mentoring interactions. Future investigations incorporating a broader spectrum of cultural frameworks could offer more comprehensive models to predict and guide cross-cultural mentorship dynamics.
In conclusion, the intersection of national culture and mentoring initiation in STEMM reveals a complex tapestry of expectations, behaviors, and adaptations. The conduit for knowledge transfer and talent cultivation extends beyond academic content into the realm of culturally inflected interpersonal relationships. Enhancing awareness of these cultural currents enables mentoring programs to be more inclusive, effective, and enriching for diverse participants. As the global community strives to foster STEMM talent, embracing cultural diversity with intentionality in mentoring can catalyze innovation, mutual learning, and scientific progress on a global scale.
Subject of Research: The investigation centers on how national cultural dimensions—specifically power distance—influence the initiation phase of mentoring relationships within an international STEMM talent development program.
Article Title: The influence of national culture on the initiation of mentoring in a STEMM talent development program: mentors’ perspectives.
Article References:
Lunsford, L.G., Luo, L. & Stoeger, H. The influence of national culture on the initiation of mentoring in a STEMM talent development program: mentors’ perspectives. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 1352 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05072-8
Image Credits: AI Generated
