Reverse mentoring: intergenerational communication and its perceived contributions to organizational life

Abstract

Reverse mentoring, in contrast to traditional mentoring models, enables younger employees to guide senior leaders by sharing technological competencies, contemporary insights, and generational perspectives. This study aims to examine how reverse mentoring is experienced and interpreted by senior executives across various industries, including international companies operating in Türkiye. The study adopts a qualitative methodology based on in-depth interviews with 16 senior executives from diverse organizational settings. Rather than offering an objective assessment of program outcomes, the research focuses on the perceived effectiveness of reverse mentoring from the perspective of senior leaders. Thematic analysis indicates that senior leaders perceive reverse mentoring as more effective when mutual trust, psychological safety, open communication, and reciprocal engagement are present. Participants associated reverse mentoring with enhanced intergenerational communication, stronger organizational belonging, leadership development, digital adaptation, and innovation. Beyond facilitating knowledge exchange on digital tools, executives reported that reverse mentoring fosters broader interactions involving decision-making, strategic thinking, and organizational learning. The findings suggest that reverse mentoring functions not only as a knowledge-transfer mechanism but also as a relational and cultural practice that may support inclusive leadership and organizational adaptability. The study offers practical insights for organizations seeking to integrate reverse mentoring into leadership development and talent management strategies.

1 Introduction

Reverse mentoring is commonly described as a channel through which younger generations transfer knowledge, skills, and contemporary perspectives while engaging in reciprocal learning with senior leaders. This approach is often associated with a two-way flow of information, enabling both junior and senior employees to exchange technological expertise, experiential knowledge, and generational insights. In organizational contexts, reverse mentoring is frequently framed as a process of intergenerational learning and communication, where younger employees provide senior leaders with fresh perspectives, digital competencies, and insights into emerging cultural and market dynamics. At the same time, senior executives share their professional experience, institutional knowledge, and strategic understanding. Recent empirical studies have reported positive associations between reverse mentoring practices and employees’ innovative behavior, with some findings suggesting that continuous learning processes may play a mediating role (Li et al., 2025).

The concept of mentoring has a deeply rooted presence in classical literature. One of the earliest references to the term “mentor” can be found in Homer’s Odyssey, where the character Mentor is entrusted by Odysseus to guide and educate his son Telemachus. Approximately 3,500 years ago, as King Odysseus of Ithaca left for the Trojan War, he entrusted his household and heir to his loyal friend Mentor. During Odysseus’s absence, Mentor served not only as a guardian but also as Telemachus’s personal tutor and trusted advisor (Starcevich, 1997, as cited in Kılıç and Serin, 2017, p. 1). Although rooted in mythology, the concept of mentoring has found its way into diverse cultures, religions, disciplines, cinematic narratives, and both national and international academic literature [Chen, 2013, 2014; Kochan and Pascarelli, 2012, as cited in Lawrence, 2017, p. 170]. The term “mentor” may vary contextually, taking the form of “guru” or “guide,” while the term “mentee” is sometimes referred to as “protégé,” implying a protected individual. The overarching goal of mentoring is to provide guidance over a defined period, though the duration and nature of mentor–mentee interactions can vary significantly across contexts (Lawrence, 2017, p. 170).

Reverse mentoring, by inverting the traditional dynamic, is frequently described as creating opportunities for younger employees to develop leadership capacities, build self-confidence, and assume more active roles within organizational structures. Simultaneously, senior leaders are often reported to benefit from younger generations’ creativity, digital fluency, and contemporary perspectives. In this sense, reverse mentoring is commonly framed not only as a mechanism for knowledge exchange but also as a relational and organizational practice associated with learning, adaptation, and organizational renewal.

Recent scholarship has increasingly examined reverse mentoring across diverse contexts. For example, empirical studies have reported positive associations between reverse mentoring practices and employees’ innovative behavior in technology enterprises, with some findings suggesting the mediating role of continuous learning processes (Li et al., 2025). Conceptual work in the AI era has further argued that younger cohorts—particularly Gen Z—can reshape leadership learning and digital adaptability within organizations (Kalyani, 2025). In the Turkish context, sector-specific studies, such as those in the banking industry, have begun to document how reverse mentoring is designed and implemented locally, shedding light on both enablers and constraints (Tayşir et al., 2022). Building on these insights, the present study extends this line of inquiry by focusing on senior executives across sectors, including international companies operating in Türkiye, and by proposing a context-specific roadmap that links reverse mentoring to organizational culture and power distance. Although reverse mentoring has attracted growing academic attention, evidence from high-power-distance contexts and executive-level, cross-sector perspectives remains scarce. Prior work typically treats reverse mentoring as a dyadic skills exchange rather than a culture-level intervention, and rarely theorizes willingness as a distinct relational enabler alongside trust and transparency. This study addresses these gaps by (i) offering a multi-sector inquiry centered on senior executives (including international firms operating in Türkiye); (ii) developing an actionable roadmap grounded in phenomenology—cultural diagnostics → action plan (scope, matching, cadence) → relational enablers (trust, transparency, willingness) → measurement; (iii) proposing a context-specific model that links organizational culture and power distance to the mechanisms and outcomes of reverse mentoring; and (iv) framing digital competence transfer together with leadership development, inclusion/belonging, retention, and innovation. Together, these contributions conceptualize reverse mentoring not merely as upskilling but as a strategic cultural intervention (later detailed in Figures 1, 2).

Figure 1

Figure 2

Methodologically, the study adopts a qualitative approach, drawing on in-depth interviews with 16 senior executives from a range of organizational contexts. Thematic analysis is employed to explore how reverse mentoring is perceived, implemented, and adapted across different institutional cultures.

2 Traditional mentoring approach in the business world

Mentoring has long been an integral part of the business world. Traditional mentoring refers to a relationship in which an experienced employee utilizes their existing knowledge, expertise, and insights about the job/workplace to support the development of a younger and/or less experienced employee (Terzi and Boylu, 2019, p. 3295). A mentor is defined as an individual who provides support to another by occasionally offering ideas or making suggestions to advance their personal development. Historically, the term mentoring has been used in the sense of providing guidance and direction. In this context, mentoring can be described as the transfer of knowledge and experience by an expert to someone lacking sufficient expertise in a specific subject, offering guidance, direction, and occasional advice (Luecke, 2016, p. 93). The majority of Fortune 500 companies, as well as many private firms, implement mentoring programs within their organizations. Research has demonstrated that mentoring is beneficial for both individuals and organizations (Allen and Eby, 2007; Allen et al., 2004; Ragins and Kram, 2007).

There are several critical points to consider regarding mentoring. First and foremost, mentoring is not merely about giving advice. The fine line between advice—which can be defined as guidance leading to favorable outcomes—and mentoring can be summarized as follows: When advice yields positive results, the success is attributed to the mentor; conversely, if the outcome is unfavorable, all blame or responsibility may again fall upon the mentor. In such cases, the mentee fails to benefit from the learning, growth, change, and transformation, which are the core focus areas of the mentoring approach. Dr. Rıza Kadılar of the European Mentoring Coaching Council (EMCC) highlights that in today’s world, where access to information is so readily available, anyone who knows what to seek and asks the right questions can find suitable answers. However, he emphasizes that the crucial aspect is increasing our awareness of the subject matter. Dr. Kadılar underscores the concept of “situational wisdom” in mentoring, stating that effective mentoring requires active listening, asking functional questions, approaching with empathy, maintaining focus, encouraging, providing feedback, setting boundaries, managing oneself, channeling curiosity appropriately, and knowing when to push limits. Additionally, mentoring is supported by role modeling and inspiring exchanges fueled by situational wisdom. He stresses that mentoring requires a non-judgmental stance and does not involve debates or arguments, as it is a dialogue free from contention (Kadılar, 2022).

There are numerous organizations in the business world that implement traditional mentoring programs and are deemed successful in doing so. Boeing, an American company specializing in the design and production of airplanes, helicopters, rockets, satellites, telecommunication equipment, and missiles, provides its 156,921 employees with opportunities to enhance their skills in career development, leadership, and diversity through mentoring programs. The company emphasizes that it operates with clearly defined objectives and strict parameters to ensure the effective implementation of these programs, enabling participants to establish mutually beneficial relationships. The Rotational Program offers a platform where interns and new employees collaborate with senior executives to determine career goals across various departments. Additionally, to support diversity, the program facilitates one-on-one meetings between participants from diverse backgrounds, equipping them with skills relevant to the global business environment. The Boeing Leadership Center further provides an opportunity for future leaders to interact with current leaders, aiming to develop interpersonal skills.

Another notable example can be found at McGraw-Hill. With the goal of disseminating perspectives across its workforce of over 20,000 employees in 38 countries, McGraw-Hill has developed a mentoring program that leverages various business units. Recognizing that the success of such a large-scale organization’s program depends on its implementation, McGraw-Hill has conducted extensive research to establish best practices through initiatives such as the Women’s Initiative Network and Comprehensive Research for Success. Collaborating with Menttium Corporation, McGraw-Hill has ensured the flawless execution of its program, working with mentors to define objectives such as leadership development, thought leadership, and the broadening of perspectives in partnership with senior leadership. To measure the effectiveness of its programs, the company has conducted internal research, revealing that nearly 100% of participants would recommend the program to a colleague, while 88% reported an increased understanding of perspectives across different business units (Scalia, 2017).

Reverse mentoring aligns with Kram’s (1985) two-function model of mentoring, which emphasizes both career-related support and psychosocial development. In reverse mentoring, young mentors contribute to leadership development through digital competence transfer, while also influencing the mentor’s identity on a psychosocial level (Kram, 1985, pp. 23–32). Additionally, Ragins and Cotton (1999) highlight that relationship quality—especially trust and closeness—is crucial for mentoring success. This insight is particularly salient in reverse mentoring relationships where traditional power dynamics are inverted (Ragins and Cotton, 1999, p. 533). Blau’s (1964) Social Exchange Theory further provides a robust explanation for reverse mentoring, emphasizing mutual benefit, reciprocity, and sustainability within such intergenerational interactions (Blau, 1964, pp. 91–98).

3 Generations

The concept of “generation” refers to a group of individuals born within a proximate time period who share common formative experiences, values, and cultural references [Latif and Serbest, 2014, as cited in Sarıoğlu and Özgen (2018), p. 1068]. Generational identity is shaped by multiple socializing agents, including family, media, education, socio-economic events, and historical milestones, particularly during childhood and adolescence. These early influences contribute to relatively stable value structures that continue to guide individuals’ perceptions and behaviors throughout their lives (Lubinski et al., 1996; Meglino and Ravlin, 1998; Scott, 2000). Scholars emphasize that while generational cohorts may be heuristically defined through temporal boundaries, the effects of generational change are neither abrupt nor monolithic. Rather, these shifts occur gradually and often intersect with other dimensions such as class, gender, and digital literacy (Twenge et al., 2004; Twenge et al., 2008). Despite this fluidity, the categorization of generations—such as the Silent Generation, Baby Boomers, Generation X, Millennials, and Generation Z—serves as a useful analytical tool to understand intergroup dynamics, particularly within workplace contexts.

Each generation is shaped by the socio-technological conditions of its time. For instance, those raised during periods of industrial growth or global conflict often emphasize loyalty and discipline, while generations immersed in digital technologies tend to value flexibility, inclusion, and rapid information exchange. These generational orientations not only affect communication styles and work ethics but also have profound implications for leadership expectations, innovation adoption, and organizational loyalty. Research shows that generational differences are especially salient in professional environments where collaboration across age groups is inevitable (Urick et al., 2017). In workplace settings, these generational variations can both enrich and complicate internal communication processes. Studies in organizational psychology and human resource management suggest that conflicting assumptions about hierarchy, feedback, and the role of technology often arise from these intergenerational tensions (Executive Education at Berkeley, 2024). Even seemingly minor symbolic practices—such as emoji usage in digital communication—have been shown to trigger misunderstandings between younger and older employees, as demonstrated in a multinational study involving over 9,000 participants (Slack and Duolingo, 2023). These nuances point to the importance of cultural and generational sensitivity in corporate communication strategies.

Understanding these generational logics is therefore not merely a matter of demographic classification, but a strategic necessity. As Gutterman (2017) argues, generational competence is critical for organizations aiming to retain talent, build inclusive cultures, and remain agile in a fast-changing global economy. The cost of neglecting generational differences is not trivial: high turnover, disengagement, and conflict are frequent symptoms of organizations that fail to adapt. Thus, the workplace becomes a microcosm where generational dynamics intersect with broader institutional and technological transformations. Within this complex terrain, reverse mentoring emerges as a particularly effective practice. By encouraging knowledge exchange between younger and older employees, it offers a model of mutual learning that resists the unidirectional logic of traditional mentoring. In doing so, it provides not only a framework for intergenerational communication but also a platform for redefining authority, expertise, and inclusion in contemporary organizational cultures. Studies in organizational psychology and human resource management suggest that conflicting assumptions about hierarchy, feedback, and the role of technology often arise from these intergenerational tensions (Executive Education at Berkeley, 2024). Recent cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence further indicates that Millennials and Generation Z differ in their anticipatory work-related expectations, particularly in terms of career development and organizational policies (Egerova et al., 2024, pp. 109–111). Such differences underscore the need for structured mechanisms, such as reverse mentoring, to bridge intergenerational perspectives.

4 A multigenerational workforce

The contemporary workplace represents an unprecedented convergence of multiple generational cohorts, each shaped by distinct sociocultural and technological trajectories. For the first time in organizational history, it is common to observe employees from four or even five generational groups coexisting within the same institutional environment, often with age gaps exceeding 30 years. While such diversity broadens the scope of perspectives, competencies, and values present in organizational life, it also introduces considerable variation in communication styles, expectations, and work ethics (Urick et al., 2017, pp. 168–172). Several structural and cultural shifts have contributed to the rise of multigenerational workplaces, including increased life expectancy, delayed retirement, flattened hierarchies, and the proliferation of remote and hybrid working models (Gutterman, 2017, p. 11). These changes have altered the dynamics of workplace participation, positioning generational diversity not as an exception but as a norm. However, this transformation also requires renewed attention to intergenerational communication—a domain that is often strained by conflicting symbolic systems, assumptions, and digital fluencies.

Digital communication, in particular, reveals how generational interpretations can diverge significantly, even over shared symbols. A study conducted by Slack and Duolingo (2023) involving 9,400 participants across 11 countries demonstrated that emojis—a ubiquitous yet ambiguous tool of digital expression—often yield intergenerational miscommunication. For example, 31% of Generation Z and 24% of Millennials reported that their emoji usage was frequently misunderstood. Misinterpretations of the “loudly crying face” (😭) versus “tears of joy” (😂) emoji illustrate not only divergent communicative codes but also a broader generational semiotic gap. While seemingly trivial, such differences represent visible nodes in a deeper iceberg of communicative dissonance shaped by value systems, emotional literacies, and media socialization (Slack and Duolingo, 2023, p. 4). The effective management of intergenerational communication has become a strategic necessity for organizations seeking cohesion and long-term performance. Research emphasizes that generational misalignment can manifest in reduced employee morale, interpersonal friction, and talent attrition (Executive Education at Berkeley, 2024, para. 5). From an economic standpoint, the cost of turnover resulting from poor communication or lack of inclusion is substantial. In the United States, employee attrition may cost organizations up to 50% of an individual’s annual salary, factoring in recruitment, training, and productivity loss (Navarra, 2022). These figures highlight that generational understanding is not merely a humanistic concern but a measurable factor of organizational resilience.

In this regard, reverse mentoring offers a particularly innovative approach to fostering generational integration and knowledge transfer. Rooted in Blau’s (1964, pp. 91–98) social exchange theory and further supported by mentoring frameworks that emphasize relational reciprocity (Kram, 1985, pp. 23–32; Ragins and Cotton, 1999, p. 533), reverse mentoring enables junior employees to share their digital fluency and cultural insights, while simultaneously benefiting from the strategic experience and institutional knowledge of senior counterparts. Rather than simply bridging an age gap, reverse mentoring reconstructs the mentoring relationship itself, rebalancing authority and enabling two-way learning. It is within this logic of mutuality and negotiated knowledge that reverse mentoring gains particular relevance in the context of contemporary generational dynamics. Thus, a multigenerational workforce, while complex, can serve as a fertile ground for innovation, inclusion, and intergenerational solidarity—provided that organizations embrace structured, dialogic, and reciprocal frameworks like reverse mentoring to transform potential friction into sustainable collaboration.

5 Age discrimination (ageism)

The term “ageism” refers to any form of discrimination directed toward an individual or group based on their age. More specifically, ageism can be defined as any attitude, action, or institutional structure that places a person or group in a subordinate position due to their age or assigns roles in society solely based on age (Butler, 1969, pp. 243–246). Recently, it has been observed that ageism predominantly affects older individuals, particularly in the workplace. While organizations with multigenerational workforces have the potential to turn this diversity into an asset, not all succeed in creating added value; instead, negative examples of age-based discrimination persist. Historically, there was greater bias within organizations against inexperienced or younger employees. However, a growing global trend reveals an increasing prevalence of negative prejudices against older employees.

Age discrimination is inherently shaped by negative biases and manifests in various forms within the workplace. Stereotypes such as older individuals being resistant to innovation, inflexible, or lacking technological skills can influence hiring and promotion processes. These biases may result in older individuals being excluded from managerial positions or having their qualifications overlooked. In certain sectors, particularly in the technology industry, there is a notable tendency to favor younger employees, which can lead to the exclusion of experienced and older workers. For instance, in 2018, an investigative report by ProPublica and Mother Jones alleged that IBM had a deliberate strategy to reduce its older workforce. Shortly after this report, some former IBM employees filed lawsuits against the company, accusing it of age discrimination (Winick, 2018). Furthermore, television commercials, magazine covers, and other media platforms often prioritize young and energetic individuals. This trend frequently results in older individuals being ignored or sidelined.

The fact that experienced employees generally command higher salaries can prompt employers to opt for younger and “less expensive” labor. Additionally, older individuals who lose their jobs tend to remain unemployed for longer periods compared to their younger counterparts (Wanberg et al., 2012, pp. 459–486). Moreover, older employees are often excluded from ongoing training or professional development programs in the workplace. In the United States, federal laws protect individuals aged 40 and above against age discrimination. However, the effectiveness of these laws remains a subject of debate. Similarly, within the European Union, there are laws aimed at combating age discrimination, but their implementation varies across member states. Age discrimination is a complex issue with significant social and economic implications, necessitating a comprehensive approach for its resolution. Reverse mentoring has emerged as an effective tool to address these challenges. At the same time, reverse mentoring can provide substantial benefits to organizations by fostering better communication, enhancing adaptability, and promoting creativity and productivity within diverse teams.

6 The evolution of reverse mentoring

Reverse mentoring emerged as a strategic response to the increasing need for intergenerational communication and organizational adaptability in the face of rapid digital and cultural transformations. Its theoretical roots can be traced to Social Exchange Theory, which posits that social behavior is the result of an exchange process aimed at maximizing benefits and minimizing costs (Blau, 1964, p. 91). In the context of reverse mentoring, this theory helps explain the reciprocal nature of learning between senior leaders and younger employees. Furthermore, Relational Mentoring Theory offers an important framework by emphasizing the development of high-quality, mutual, and growth-fostering connections between mentors and mentees (Ragins and Verbos, 2007, pp. 91–116).

Initially gaining traction in the early 2000s, reverse mentoring was introduced by companies seeking to bridge generational gaps and capitalize on the digital fluency of younger employees. This shift paralleled a broader organizational trend away from hierarchical communication models and toward more horizontal, collaborative learning environments. As emphasized by Fogarty and Sinha (2016), reverse mentoring not only promotes knowledge sharing but also cultivates inclusive leadership practices and cross-generational understanding. Recent empirical studies reinforce the strategic importance of reverse mentoring. For example, De Jong and Espejo (2021) highlight its role in fostering innovation and bridging digital divides in traditional sectors. Chowdhury and Gibson (2020) explore how reverse mentoring can enhance executive emotional agility and adaptability, particularly in times of organizational change. Additionally, Martin and Thomas (2022) emphasize that inclusive leadership approaches grounded in reverse mentoring can mitigate generational biases and support workforce cohesion in diverse teams.

In fictional narratives, the value of intergenerational learning is frequently depicted. In The Intern (Meyers, 2015), the evolving mentor-mentee relationship between Anne Hathaway’s and Robert De Niro’s characters demonstrates how reciprocal respect and communication can transform initial skepticism into deep professional trust. However, real-world applications are often less seamless. Beer et al. (2016) argue that many leadership development programs fail precisely because they do not account for intergenerational perspectives or cultivate mentorship structures that foster meaningful mutual growth. Beyond organizational outcomes, reverse mentoring addresses a deeper psychosocial dynamic: the human need for recognition, relevance, and contribution at every stage of one’s career. When implemented within a supportive and trust-based environment, reverse mentoring provides opportunities not only for digital upskilling but also for dismantling stereotypes and fostering a culture of continuous, cross-generational learning.

7 What does reverse mentoring offer organizations?

A two-way interaction environment enhances the professional vision of younger employees while empowering emerging and established leaders. Reverse mentoring helps bridge the knowledge gap between long-term employees and newly hired individuals. It reduces the scale of large organizations and transcends boundaries that would otherwise remain unbridgeable. By encouraging younger and less experienced employees to participate in organizational decision-making processes, reverse mentoring fosters loyalty and commitment to the organization. Millennials and, in particular, Generation Z demand flexible environments and socially responsible missions, alongside clear opportunities for continuous learning, transferable skill development, personal growth, and career advancement. In organizations where reverse mentoring is implemented, Millennials and Generation Z feel valued for their contributions, gain unique access to senior leaders, and discover new career paths and horizons. A well-designed reverse mentoring programme serves as a strategic mechanism for fostering organizational belonging and internal networking” (Gordon, 2025, p. 57).

Communication needs can vary depending on the size and structure of organizations. Some companies have larger structures, while others employ fewer people. Certain organizations employ individuals from diverse ethnic backgrounds, while others maintain localized structures. In large and international organizations, reverse mentoring pairings can bridge gaps among diverse populations, spanning differences in age, exceptional circumstances, ethnicity, and gender. This approach can lead to diverse and inclusive workshops, fostering collaboration across varied demographics. While most studies have concentrated on corporate contexts, evidence from higher education also demonstrates that reverse mentoring reduces perceived power distance between students and senior leaders, creating safe spaces for inclusive dialogue (O’Connor et al., 2025, p. 357). Although the institutional context differs, these findings reinforce the potential of reverse mentoring to address hierarchical asymmetries and foster trust across organizational settings.

Prejudice is one of the primary factors that create barriers to communication. While completely eliminating biases may not be entirely realistic—given that our perception processes are, to some extent, shaped by biases—the ideal approach is to raise awareness and reduce biases as much as possible. Toribio's, 2021 research highlights the critical importance for managers to identify biases that may exist in the workplace. Managers should strive to make employees aware of such biases—whether explicit or implicit. This approach helps employees understand their own biases and equips them with the tools needed to address these biases effectively. In this context, reverse mentoring emerges as a highly beneficial practice. By bringing together employees from diverse backgrounds, it fosters empathetic perspectives and reduces unconscious biases. This not only enhances individual understanding but also contributes to a more inclusive and collaborative organizational culture.

8 Examples of reverse mentoring practices

Former CEO of General Electric, Jack Welch, is credited with pioneering the introduction of an official reverse mentoring program in 1999. Welch launched this program by assigning his top 500 executives the task of finding younger employees who could help them develop their internet skills (Greengard, 2002, p. 15). This program supported the company’s digital transformation process. Cisco Systems implemented a reverse mentoring program to bridge gaps among different age groups, genders, and cultures, thereby promoting diversity and inclusivity. The program facilitated mutual learning and contributed to the professional development of both parties involved (Pearce, 2012). Procter and Gamble successfully operates a reverse mentoring program that brings senior executives and young professionals together, fostering fresh perspectives and innovation. This initiative has had a significant impact on the company’s future strategies (Jaynes, 2019). Similarly, technology company Hewlett-Packard paired young employees with senior executives, accelerating technological adaptation and easing the transition of young talents into leadership positions within the company. The program strengthened workplace culture and collaboration (Sapundzhieva, 2018).

In Türkiye, significant reverse mentoring practices also stand out. Akbank, for example, launched its “Switch” reverse mentoring program in 2014, enabling young employees to mentor senior executives on next-generation banking and Gen Y customers. This program contributed to the bank’s digital transformation process and helped executives better understand the expectations of younger generations (Toptalent, 2022). Bahçeşehir University (BAU), on the other hand, initiated reverse mentoring projects in collaboration with Unilever in 2017 and continued with companies such as Ata Holding, Denizbank, Doğuş Otomotiv, Akenerji, Penti, Watsons, L’Oreal, BAU Rectorate, and Oyak Renault. These projects paired university students with senior executives, aiming to transfer the perspectives of younger individuals to decision-makers and foster a mutual learning environment (Bahçeşehir University, 2024). Another notable example is Shell Türkiye’s “X-MILE Reverse Mentoring Program,” which aims to enhance intergenerational interaction and help leaders better understand younger generations. The program covers topics such as next-generation competencies, sustainability, social media, and artificial intelligence, facilitating knowledge exchange between young mentors and leaders (Youthall, 2022). Similarly, Istanbul Aydın University launched its “Reverse Mentoring Program” in 2023, targeting the sharing of knowledge and experiences between individuals from different generations. The program includes training in fields such as graphic design, information technology, cybersecurity, fashion design, digital marketing, and social media, conducted over 8 weeks at 3 h per week (İstanbul Aydın University, 2023).

These examples illustrate how reverse mentoring can be successfully implemented across various industries and organizations for diverse purposes. Programs can be effective in areas such as technological adaptation, diversity and inclusivity, innovation, and leadership development.

9 Purpose and methodology of the research

The purpose of this study is to examine how reverse mentoring is experienced and interpreted by senior executives across diverse industries, including international companies operating in Türkiye. In particular, it investigates how reverse mentoring is perceived to relate to intergenerational communication, leadership development, and organizational innovation within hierarchical institutional environments. As outlined in the Introduction, these objectives specifically include examining relational and structural enablers such as trust, transparency, willingness, and organizational culture, as well as the role of younger cohorts’ digital fluency in Türkiye’s high-power-distance context. To pursue these objectives, the study adopted a qualitative research design grounded in phenomenology, supported by a conceptually informed theoretical framework.

While this study is empirical in nature, it is conceptually informed. Conceptual research methodology is preferred to examine a specific concept or subject more deeply, addressing its various dimensions and perspectives within the literature. The primary objective is to focus on the meaning of the concept, its scope, related topics, and its evolution. Conceptual papers aim to broaden the different dimensions and perspectives of an existing concept. These studies are not solely intended for theory-building; they have the potential to establish interdisciplinary connections and integrate existing theories. Conceptual literature adopts a holistic perspective and discusses the evolution of a concept and how it can contribute to future research within a conceptual framework [Gilson and Goldberg, 2015, cited in Bozak, 2021, p. 116]. The study conducted should also thoroughly address how the concept has evolved, how this evolution can be practically applied, and who has contributed to the field [de Van Ven, 1989, cited in Bozak, 2021, p. 116]. Additionally, such conceptual studies guide the academic community and practitioners by identifying existing problems in the field and proposing solutions. Another critical function of conceptual research is its ability to offer a more comprehensive and integrated approach by bringing together interdisciplinary perspectives and methodologies.

Phenomenology, on the other hand, is a qualitative research method used to describe how individuals understand, feel, perceive, and experience a specific phenomenon or concept (Rose et al., 1995, p. 1124). Phenomenological studies typically generate data through in-depth and multiple interviews (Tekindal and Uğuz Arsu, 2020, p. 168). To enable an in-depth understanding of reverse mentoring as a lived organizational experience, phenomenology and in-depth interview techniques were applied as data collection methods. In-depth interviews allow for the collection of detailed, intensive, and comprehensive information about participants’ experiences, thoughts, and emotions (Seidman, 2013, p. 58). Adopting a semi-structured format, this method enables researchers to present predefined questions flexibly while asking additional questions based on participants’ responses (DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree, 2006). The in-depth interview method selected for this study ensures that reverse mentoring experiences are addressed from a rich and multidimensional perspective.

Building on this methodological foundation, the data analysis process followed a structured thematic approach within the phenomenological framework, as described below. The collected data were analyzed using thematic analysis consistent with phenomenological inquiry. Following transcription of the interviews, an iterative coding process was undertaken. Initial codes were generated inductively from the data, capturing key expressions and patterns relevant to the research questions. These codes were then grouped into broader categories to identify emergent themes. To ensure analytical rigor, the coding process involved multiple readings and memo-writing. The analysis was conducted manually without the aid of qualitative software, enabling close engagement with the data. The process followed the principles of phenomenological inquiry by prioritizing participants’ lived experiences while minimizing researcher bias through reflexive journaling and peer debriefing.

The interview data were analyzed through a manual, iterative coding process. Initially, open coding was used to identify and label emerging concepts directly from the transcripts. These codes were then grouped through axial coding to establish relationships between categories. Finally, selective coding was employed to refine overarching themes that captured the core relational and structural dynamics of reverse mentoring. Although the analysis was conducted manually, this approach allowed for a close engagement with the data and enhanced interpretive depth. Data saturation was reached after the 14th interview, at which point no substantively new themes emerged and existing categories were sufficiently elaborated. Two additional interviews were conducted to enhance confirmability. Participants were purposively selected to reflect diversity across sectors (e.g., finance, healthcare, technology), hierarchical positions (senior executives and mid-level managers), and demographic characteristics. This purposive sampling strategy ensured that the findings capture a wide range of perspectives and organizational contexts.

This research adheres to ethical guidelines and principles for studies involving human participants. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from an independent ethics committee. All participants provided informed consent prior to their involvement. They were fully briefed on the study’s purpose, their rights as participants, and the measures taken to ensure the confidentiality and anonymity of their data. Participation was entirely voluntary, and participants were free to withdraw at any time without providing a reason. The data used in this study are retained solely by the researchers to safeguard participant confidentiality. If required, a summary of the data can be provided to editors and reviewers for assessment purposes.

10 Research scope and participants

The study involved interviews with senior executives from 4 Turkish companies and 12 international companies. These interviews were conducted face-to-face between October 5, 2023, and June 29, 2024. Particular attention was paid to ensuring that the participants represented various institutions, with the aim of reflecting any potential sectoral differences. Within this framework, executives from the following sectors were interviewed: the Türkiye General Manager of an international cosmetics company (K1); the Middle East Division Head of an international risk management company (K2); the Human Resources Manager of an international bank operating in Türkiye (K3); the Human Resources Manager of a local textile company (K4); the Talent Management Division Manager of a local telecommunications company (K5); the Europe Region Human Resources Manager of an international automotive company (K6); the Human Resources Manager of a local tourism firm (K7); the Türkiye Operations Director of an international healthcare company (K8); the Global Human Resources Leader of an educational technology startup (K9); the Türkiye Human Resources Manager of an international retail chain (K10); the Training and Development Manager of a local airline company (K11); the Human Resources Director of an international financial technology company (K12); the EMEA Region Human Resources Director of a global software company (K13); the Human Resources Manager of an international energy company operating in Türkiye (K14); the Türkiye General Manager of an international logistics company (K15); and the Human Resources Manager of a local food production company (K16). The majority of the participating executives did not consent to their names being explicitly disclosed in the study. As such, participants were anonymized and coded as K1, K2, K3, K16. This approach aims to highlight sectoral diversity and the international dimension of the research. The number of participants in this study aligns with the standards of qualitative inquiry, particularly when the research involves high-ranking executives whose time and access are limited. Rather than relying on numerical generalization, qualitative research prioritizes the depth, richness, and contextual relevance of insights. In this study, the diversity of sectors and the inclusion of both national and international organizations provided a broad foundation for cross-contextual analysis. The interviews reached a point of thematic saturation, ensuring that additional interviews would likely yield diminishing analytical returns. As such, the sample is both methodologically justified and appropriate to the research aims. It is important to note that this study deliberately focuses on the perspectives of senior executives, as the primary aim is to explore how reverse mentoring is experienced, interpreted, and operationalized by decision-makers within organizational hierarchies. While the views of mentees—typically younger employees—fall outside the scope of this investigation, their experiences represent a critical dimension for future research. A comparative or complementary study that explores both sides of the mentoring dyad could offer a more holistic understanding of reverse mentoring dynamics. This delineation reflects the strategic intent of the current study to analyze leadership-level perceptions that shape the implementation and outcomes of reverse mentoring programs. In line with this focus, the current study strategically analyzes leadership-level perceptions that shape the implementation and outcomes of reverse mentoring programs. To provide a clearer overview, Table 1 summarizes the demographic characteristics of the participants, including age range, gender, position, and years of professional experience.

11 Findings

Understanding the strategic value of reverse mentoring requires examining the domains in which these programs are most frequently discussed and perceived as valuable by participants. Based on insights from in-depth interviews with 16 senior executives across diverse sectors, five primary focus areas emerged, reflecting how senior leaders interpret the organizational relevance of reverse mentoring.

The figure illustrates the sector-specific distribution of themes described by participants. Senior executives most frequently emphasized technology adaptation (30%), underscoring the role they attribute to younger mentors in facilitating digital learning and adaptation processes. This pattern is consistent with prior research highlighting digital capability gaps at leadership levels (Keller and Meaney, 2017). Marketing and sales-related themes (20%) and leadership development (20%) were also prominently discussed, particularly in customer-facing industries where responsiveness to evolving consumer expectations is considered strategically important (Beer et al., 2016). Cultural transformation (15%) and employee engagement and retention (15%) were described less frequently, suggesting comparatively moderate but growing institutional attention to relational and cultural dimensions of reverse mentoring. These findings highlight how senior executives frame generational exchange not as a disruption to hierarchy but as a potential organizational resource. This interpretation aligns with Ragins and Verbos’ (2007) notion of relational mentoring, where mentorship relationships facilitate mutual learning and reshape hierarchical communication patterns.

Furthermore, participants’ emphasis on reciprocity and mutual benefit resonates with Blau’s (1964) Social Exchange Theory, which conceptualizes organizational relationships as sustained through perceived value and exchange dynamics. In this context, executives described younger employees as contributing digital fluency while simultaneously gaining visibility, legitimacy, and relational capital within formal organizational structures.

The data represented in the figure stem from a thematic coding process based on participants’ reflections on their organization’s reverse mentoring practices. Participants were asked to identify both the benefits and operational domains of these programs. The resulting themes were then categorized to reflect the participants’ perceived strategic alignment between mentoring outcomes and organizational goals. This analytical mapping process allowed for the identification of reverse mentoring as a mechanism described by participants not only in relation to upskilling but also broader structural and cultural dynamics.

Continuing from the sectoral analysis, Figure 3 presents a thematic map outlining the foundational elements that support successful reverse mentoring practices. This thematic map captures the complex interplay among structural and interpersonal elements that facilitate effective reverse mentoring. Drawing from the in-depth interviews, four principal themes emerged—Trust, Transparency, Willingness, and Organizational Culture—each comprising several subcomponents such as Reliability, Openness, Engagement, Collaboration, and Sense of Belonging. These were derived inductively from qualitative coding and triangulated with existing literature on relational dynamics in mentoring (Allen and Eby, 2007; Scandura, 1998). The prominence of Trust as a central node reflects its perceived importance in participants’ accounts, where executives frequently framed trust as foundational for open and secure mentor–mentee relationships. This aligns with Ragins and Kram's (2007) framework of “developmental relationships,” where trust-based exchanges allow for vulnerability, mutual influence, and growth. Sub-themes such as Reliability, Openness, and Support are not merely desirable traits but prerequisites for disrupting traditional hierarchies and enabling authentic dialogue (Haggard et al., 2011). Transparency—another key pillar—was described by participants as critical for minimizing power asymmetries and building psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999), particularly in organizations with rigid hierarchical legacies. Organizational Culture, a structural theme, emerged as both an enabler and a barrier. Companies that foster collaboration, internal communication, and clarity around goals appeared more likely to embed reverse mentoring into long-term talent strategies. These findings echo the propositions of Social Exchange Theory, wherein shared values and reciprocal reinforcement strengthen professional bonds and increase program sustainability (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005).

Figure 3

Furthermore, Willingness—often underrepresented in mentoring literature—proved essential. Participants emphasized that without a genuine willingness from both parties to engage beyond formal expectations, reverse mentoring risks becoming performative. As noted in DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree's (2006) model, authenticity in qualitative inquiry reflects a parallel need in organizational mentoring: the process must be experienced as sincere and adaptive, rather than top-down or symbolic. Overall, Figure 3 offers a conceptually informed representation of how senior leaders interpret the relational and structural conditions shaping reverse mentoring experiences. The thematic map visualizes key relational mechanisms while illustrating how reverse mentoring is framed by participants not merely as a skill-transfer practice but as a dynamic socio-cultural process shaped by intersubjective conditions and institutional norms.

11.1 The importance of organizational culture

A recurring theme across interviews was the centrality of organizational culture in shaping how participants interpreted the success of reverse mentoring initiatives. Executive K3 emphasized that such programs must begin with a comprehensive analysis of internal dynamics, remarking that “the first step is to thoroughly examine the existing culture of the organization… [it] can directly influence the quality and effectiveness of the reverse mentoring relationship.” This observation highlights how participants framed cultural diagnostics as influential in shaping mentoring structures and relational experiences. Theoretical perspectives provide a useful lens for interpreting these accounts. Hofstede’s (1980, p. 45) foundational concept of power distance—the degree to which less powerful members of organizations accept unequal power distributions—provides a useful lens to interpret the challenges faced in implementing reverse mentoring, especially in culturally hierarchical contexts such as Türkiye. As Hofstede et al. (2010, p. 72) suggest, organizations characterized by rigid hierarchies may be less likely to foster open dialogue across generations unless deliberate efforts are made to recalibrate authority and communication norms. Within such environments, participants described reverse mentoring not necessarily as a mechanism that automatically flattens traditional power structures but only when cultural conditions allow.

Another participant, executive K2, underscored the importance of intentionally integrating culture into mentoring design. Their organization began with Simon Sinek’s “Golden Circle” method to identify purpose, followed by a systematic examination of organizational needs and structural readiness. They explained: “We ensured that the mentoring program’s functionality relied on several factors… Does the established reverse mentoring program address a strong business need? Is it based on appropriate matching, comprehensive guidelines, and clear objectives?” These practical considerations illustrate how participants linked mentoring effectiveness to organizational alignment rather than treating it as an isolated intervention, consistent with research by Kram (1985), who contend that mentoring relationships unfold within the microclimate of an organization’s shared values and norms, which can either foster or hinder development (pp. 111–112). Further evidence of this cultural embeddedness came from executive K5, who emphasized the need for deliberate mentor-mentee matching and the implementation of evaluative feedback loops. They reflected: “Generation X might need mentoring in social media or technological aspects. We matched a financial expert with an executive trainee with a sales vision. We asked, ‘Are you happy?’ and conducted interim evaluation processes. Such things do not happen without changing the culture.” This account illustrates how participants framed reverse mentoring not merely as a human resources tool but as a practice embedded within broader cultural dynamics. It requires more than logistical alignment; it demands openness to mutual learning, flattened hierarchies, and intergenerational trust. Theoretical frameworks such as Relational Mentoring Theory (Ragins and Verbos, 2007) provide further depth, positing that successful mentoring relationships are characterized by psychological safety, inclusion, and mutual respect—qualities that are themselves shaped by the broader cultural fabric of the organization (pp. 83–85). Likewise, Edmondson (1999) argues that the development of psychological safety within teams enhances learning behavior, a critical precondition for authentic mentoring dialogues (pp. 353–354).

In sum, organizational culture is not merely an environmental factor in reverse mentoring; participants consistently described it as a key condition influencing the perceived viability and sustainability of reverse mentoring practices. Without a supportive cultural foundation marked by openness, reflexivity, and willingness to engage in reciprocal learning, reverse mentoring risks being experienced as symbolic rather than relationally substantive.

11.2 Reverse mentoring as a structured method

Reverse mentoring programs can be implemented through either formalized, structured methods or informal, ad hoc arrangements. As executive K1 noted, “Reverse mentoring can be implemented either as a structured method or informally within organizations. However, it may be difficult to achieve the same level of perceived effectiveness in unstructured applications” (p. 17). This observation underscores the importance of systematic design in mentoring practices, as unstructured formats often lack the clear expectations and evaluative mechanisms necessary for sustained impact (Allen et al., 2004, p. 298).

Indeed, structured implementations are frequently preceded by a diagnostic phase, during which organizational needs are assessed and pilot studies are conducted to optimize the mentoring model. As explained by K7, “We provided training to both mentors and mentees. Tasks progressed more smoothly in positions led by Generations Y and Z. We first conducted a pilot study” (p. 18). This aligns with findings by Chao (2009), who emphasized that successful mentoring interventions are preceded by targeted training, which increases the quality of interpersonal engagement (p. 332).

Planning is especially vital in organizations where informal culture dominates. K6 explained: “The mentoring structure needs to be properly established. In informal and less structured organizations, this process can be more challenging. Both mentors and mentees must fully understand their responsibilities” (p. 18). This sentiment echoes Kram’s (1985) assertion that role clarity and mutual expectation-setting form the foundation of successful mentoring interactions (pp. 45–46).

Meeting regularity is another indicator of a structured program. K3 shared: “Our meeting frequency can generally be adjusted according to mentoring relationships… intervals of 4–6 weeks are widely preferred… we decide collaboratively” (p. 19). Literature supports this flexible but consistent approach, suggesting that regular intervals promote accountability while collaborative planning enhances engagement (Ragins and Kram, 2007, p. 31).

Finally, a key dimension of structured mentoring is the presence of clearly articulated goals and assessment metrics. As K16 observed: “First, defining expectations is crucial… you should think about what kinds of contributions you can offer to the mentee… what you aim to learn or gain from your mentor” (p. 19). K13 added: “As an organization, you should also think about how you will evaluate success… What steps have you taken? How will you track your progress?” (p. 20). These reflections align with Allen and Eby (2007), who argued that goal alignment and outcome tracking are among the most predictive factors of mentoring effectiveness (p. 304). Thus, participants frequently associated structured reverse mentoring practices with greater clarity, continuity, and perceived developmental value. Without such frameworks, reverse mentoring initiatives risk being experienced as symbolic rather than organizationally substantive.

11.3 Diverse perspectives in varied environments and topics

Reverse mentoring practices are shaped not only by content or matching strategies but also by the physical and institutional contexts in which they are implemented. One participant (K3) emphasized that mentoring relationships should not be confined to formal office settings, suggesting that alternative venues such as meeting rooms or cafés may promote more open and comfortable exchanges. This spatial flexibility was perceived as helping to soften hierarchical boundaries and contributing to a more relaxed, engaged dialogue between participants. Moreover, participants highlighted that pairing mentors and mentees based on individual needs and personality traits was frequently associated with more meaningful mentoring experiences. This flexibility extended beyond physical space to the design of the matching process itself. Another respondent (K4) described a deliberate effort to match individuals with contrasting traits for instance, pairing an introverted manager with members of the sales and marketing team. The goal was to push participants beyond their comfort zones and facilitate mutual learning through cognitive diversity. Such intentional mismatching was described as potentially generating new perspectives on problem-solving and creativity. At the same time, participants acknowledged that not all pairings lead to success; in some instances, interpersonal mismatches may hinder the development of effective mentoring relationships. These reflections highlight the experimental and adaptive nature of reverse mentoring, which requires ongoing reflection and calibration. The thematic focus of mentoring relationships must also be tailored to organizational context. As noted by participant K7, large organizations often require mentoring content that extends beyond technical or digital literacy to include domains such as marketing, sales, and social media. This broader scope was associated with more cross-functional forms of knowledge exchange.

International implementations further reinforce illustrate this dynamic. In contexts such as Dubai and Saudi Arabia, as described by participant K2, structured graduate programs were described as supporting the transition of young professionals into the workforce. These programs prioritize bidirectional knowledge exchange between junior and senior employees, creating spaces where seasoned professionals offer guidance while simultaneously gaining new insights. Such mentoring structures serve not only individual development but also institutional talent cultivation. Reverse mentoring, in this framework, becomes a strategic instrument that nurtures organizational capacity and intergenerational cohesion.

Overall, these findings suggest that reverse mentoring may extend beyond the boundaries of a conventional HR intervention. It is most effective when embedded within a broader institutional fabric that embraces diversity, contextual sensitivity, and mutual growth. When approached as a culturally responsive and structurally integrated initiative, reverse mentoring was described as holding the potential to contribute to sustainable organizational development.

11.4 Building reverse mentoring on core principles: trust, transparency, and willingness

The effectiveness of reverse mentoring initiatives rests not solely on organizational readiness or strategic alignment, but equally on the relational quality between mentors and mentees. Interview data underscore three interrelated principles as foundational to this relationship: trust, transparency, and willingness to learn. These concepts are not merely ethical ideals; rather, they operate as relational enablers that allow reverse mentoring to move beyond symbolic performance and become a transformative developmental practice.

One participant (K5) emphasized the importance of a clear orientation process at the beginning of the relationship, during which expectations are clarified and ground rules are mutually established. This step fosters trust and provides a stable foundation for collaboration. Such practices resonate with mentoring literature that highlights the significance of clearly defined roles, mutual expectations, and open dialogue in initiating and sustaining effective mentoring relationships (Ragins and Kram, 2007, pp. 5–7). Prior research has shown that trust is a foundational condition for mentoring relationships, enabling psychological safety, disclosure, and creative risk-taking (Frazier et al., 2017, pp.113–165). In reverse mentoring, trust is particularly important because it mitigates status differentials and allows upward feedback across hierarchical boundaries. Similarly, participant K1 underscored that success is only possible when both parties exhibit genuine openness to mutual learning—a point that aligns with research showing that mentoring thrives in climates of reciprocity and shared vulnerability. Organizational transparency—clarity, accuracy, and openness of information—has also been identified as a critical enabler of psychological safety and mutual understanding in workplace relationships (Schnackenberg and Tomlinson, 2016, pp. 1784–1810). In the context of reverse mentoring, transparency reduces hierarchical ambiguity and supports candid dialogue.

In the same vein, participant K4 identified trust as a condition for creative risk-taking within mentoring conversations, while K6 pointed to the importance of transparency for establishing emotional safety and communicative clarity. Beyond structural design, motivational readiness or willingness to learn is increasingly recognized as a prerequisite for reciprocal exchanges in mentoring relationships, reinforcing continuous learning and adaptability (Li et al., 2025, p. 7–9). This study highlights willingness as a distinct relational enabler, setting it apart from more commonly discussed conditions such as trust and transparency. Participants K1 and K5 particularly emphasized willingness as central to sustaining authentic engagement.

These narratives reflect how trust, transparency, and willingness operate not as abstract values, but as concrete relational conditions enabling the success of reverse mentoring. When present, these factors foster psychological safety and authentic connection, paving the way for growth, reflection, and cross-generational learning. Similarly, Doles et al. (2025) reported that program orientations designed to establish ‘brave spaces’ were essential to cultivate psychological safety, vulnerability, and trust in reverse mentoring relationships (p. 11). Qualitative reflections from participants further emphasized that such orientations revealed the importance of psychological safety and connection (p. 20). Consistent with this, a 2024 feasibility study in a UK Royal College found that reverse-mentoring pairs built safe spaces and improved leaders’ capability to support colleagues facing EDI-related challenges, underscoring psychological safety as a central design criterion (Iyizoba-Ebozue et al., 2024, p. 665).

These findings converge on the notion that reverse mentoring cannot be confined to structural design; it must also be affectively and cognitively anchored in relational depth. This insight informs the comprehensive model proposed in this study, visualized in Figure 1. The model presents a stepwise roadmap for institutionalizing reverse mentoring practices in organizations, beginning with cultural diagnostics and ending with continuous measurement and improvement.

This model begins with a deep analysis of organizational culture, particularly the hierarchical structure and power distance dynamics (Hofstede et al., 2010). Such diagnostics are essential for assessing whether the organization is culturally ready to engage in a model that redistributes voice and influence. The second phase involves structuring an action plan: defining the scope and objectives of the mentoring program, making appropriate pairings, and determining the frequency and format of meetings. Next, the framework identifies three guiding principles—trust, transparency, and willingness as prerequisites for cultivating meaningful mentor-mentee interactions. These are not static ideals but dynamic practices that must be continually reinforced through training, dialogue, and feedback. Finally, the model emphasizes the importance of process measurement, encouraging organizations to assess both programmatic achievements and areas requiring refinement. This stepwise roadmap primarily explains how reverse mentoring can be implemented. To complement this process-oriented perspective, the study also proposes a conceptual model that illustrates why and to what end these relational enablers matter in organizational contexts.

This framework is not intended as a universal formula but rather as an adaptable blueprint. It acknowledges the necessity of tailoring reverse mentoring programs to organizational size, cultural climate, and strategic priorities. Importantly, it positions reverse mentoring not as an isolated HR tool but as a cultural and structural intervention with the potential to shift organizational dynamics, foster innovation, and support talent development across generational divides. Reverse mentoring provides leaders with direct access to the lived experiences, aspirations, and challenges of employees from diverse demographic and professional backgrounds, enabling more inclusive and equitable decision-making (Gordon, 2025, p. 58).

Accordingly, Figure 2 presents the Conceptual Model of Reverse Mentoring, which integrates the empirical findings with theoretical insights. This model synthesizes the findings by positioning trust, transparency, retention, willingness, and organizational culture as core relational and structural enablers of reverse mentoring. These foundational principles create the conditions for mutual learning and psychological safety, which in turn generate organizational outcomes such as innovation, digital transformation, employee retention, and inclusion. The model underscores reverse mentoring not only as an interpersonal exchange but also as a cultural and strategic mechanism for organizational transformation. In doing so, Figure 2 complements the stepwise framework in Figure 1: while the latter highlights how organizations can structure reverse mentoring, the conceptual model emphasizes what outcomes these enablers may generate, ranging from innovation to digital transformation and inclusion.

12 Conclusion and discussion

This study has examined the phenomenon of reverse mentoring as a dynamic and strategic practice as experienced and interpreted by senior executives, particularly in relation to intergenerational communication, leadership development, and organizational processes. Based on in-depth interviews with high-level executives across diverse industries and national contexts, the research suggests that participants tend to perceive reverse mentoring as extending beyond simple knowledge exchange, framing it instead as a relational and organizational practice. The analysis indicates that the success of reverse mentoring programs is closely tied to the organizational culture in which they are embedded. A clear understanding of institutional norms, leadership dynamics, and generational expectations was described by participants as shaping the design and sustainability of mentoring structures. Interviewed executives emphasized that reverse mentoring initiatives were more likely to be experienced as meaningful in environments where mutual respect, psychological safety, and a culture of continuous learning were prioritized. This model was interpreted by participants as creating opportunities for younger employees to share insights and digital fluency while also engaging in developmental exchanges.

Reverse mentoring also was described by participants as facilitating the transmission of innovative ideas and technological fluency from younger employees to experienced leaders. Younger generations, often more attuned to emerging digital tools and trends, provide strategic insights that enhance operational efficiency and competitiveness. Organizations increasingly leverage reverse mentoring to support digital transformation and bridge generational digital divides. In this sense, reverse mentoring acts as a vehicle for digital inclusion and organizational adaptability in an era defined by rapid technological change.

Another notable outcome concerns the role of reverse mentoring in supporting diversity and inclusion efforts. Participants described how younger employees often bring a heightened awareness of issues such as gender equity, sustainability, and workplace ethics. By embedding these values into mentoring relationships, organizations can align more closely with evolving societal norms and expectations, while cultivating a more inclusive internal culture.

Moreover, reverse mentoring was frequently framed by participants as being linked to talent retention dynamics. Organizations that offer younger employees opportunities to contribute, lead, and influence through mentoring programs were perceived as being associated with higher levels of engagement and reduced turnover. Tailored mentoring models, particularly those addressing digital literacy, agile thinking, and generational integration, were identified as highly beneficial. The study also revealed that successful mentoring programs involve structured planning and collaboration across departments. Participants recommended the use of interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral partnerships including cooperation with academic institutions to enhance the design and impact of reverse mentoring. Building on these insights, several key recommendations can be made for practitioners. The first step in developing a successful reverse mentoring initiative is to conduct a comprehensive assessment of organizational culture. This includes analyzing core values, hierarchical dynamics, and power distance levels (Hofstede). A high power distance, for instance, may inhibit open communication and thus undermine mentoring relationships. Similarly, evaluating employee commitment and sense of belonging can offer critical insights into readiness for participation. Employees who identify with organizational values and exhibit long-term engagement may be more likely to engage meaningfully in mentoring exchanges.

Based on these assessments, organizations may benefit from developing structured action plans that reflect internal dynamics and strategic objectives. Reverse mentoring programs may benefit from continuously monitored and evaluated to ensure their effectiveness. Establishing regular feedback mechanisms may support for iterative improvement and alignment with evolving goals.

In practical terms, organizations aiming to implement reverse mentoring should begin by conducting a cultural and structural readiness assessment. This includes identifying existing power distance, mapping communication practices, and clarifying the objectives of the program. Pilot projects and orientation workshops can help create shared expectations and establish trust before full-scale implementation. Clear guidelines, mentor–mentee matching criteria, and scheduled evaluations are essential to avoid the risk of symbolic or short-lived initiatives. Beyond these initial steps, companies should integrate reverse mentoring into their broader talent management and inclusion strategies. This requires allocating resources, appointing program coordinators, and embedding reverse mentoring outcomes into leadership development metrics. Periodic feedback loops may support program adaptation to evolving organizational needs.

To maximize impact in contemporary workplaces, reverse mentoring should also be digitized. Organizations can adopt AI-assisted matching systems, virtual mentoring platforms, and dedicated online collaboration spaces to ensure accessibility across hybrid and remote work environments. Such digital extensions broaden participation, reduce logistical barriers, and resonate particularly well with digitally fluent younger generations. Finally, embedding reverse mentoring outcomes into strategic performance indicators—such as innovation metrics, diversity goals, and sustainability benchmarks—ensures that the practice is not symbolic but transformative. By linking reverse mentoring to measurable outcomes, organizations can elevate it from an isolated HR initiative to a strategic driver of innovation, inclusivity, and long-term organizational resilience. Beyond its practical implications, this study also makes several original contributions to the academic literature. First, it is among the few investigations that examine reverse mentoring in Türkiye, a national context marked by high power distance and hierarchical organizational traditions. By including executives from both local and international companies operating in Türkiye, the study captures a unique blend of perspectives that reflect the interplay of national culture and global organizational practices. Second, the findings bring forward “willingness” as a relational condition for effective mentoring—a dimension that has received little attention in previous research compared to more established concepts such as trust and transparency. Third, by foregrounding the voices of senior executives, the study shifts the analytical lens from mentees or mentors to decision-makers who design and shape mentoring programs. Taken together, these contributions underscore the novelty of the study and demonstrate its potential to enrich both theory and practice.

These findings also extend existing theoretical frameworks. In particular, the emphasis on reciprocity, trust, and willingness resonates with principles of social exchange theory, illustrating how mentoring relationships can flourish even in hierarchical, high-power-distance contexts. Moreover, by positioning willingness alongside trust and transparency, this study contributes to the development of relational mentoring theory, offering a more nuanced understanding of how executive–junior exchanges are sustained in organizational practice.

12.1 Limitations

This study is based exclusively on senior executives’ accounts of reverse mentoring and its perceived effectiveness. Only senior leaders were interviewed, and the junior mentors/mentees involved in these relationships were not included in the data collection. Accordingly, the findings should be interpreted as perception-based and experience-based reflections rather than a dyadic or objectively measured evaluation of reverse mentoring effectiveness. While these executive perspectives provide valuable insight into organizational design and leadership interpretations, future research would benefit from incorporating both mentor and mentee viewpoints. Multi-perspective, longitudinal, and mixed-method designs may enable a more comprehensive assessment of relational dynamics and developmental outcomes.

Beyond practical applications, this study also contributes to theoretical debates in organizational communication and mentoring research. By illustrating how participants described trust, transparency, and willingness as operating together in executive-level mentoring structures, the findings offer interpretive insights that extend discussions within relational mentoring theory and the literature on psychological safety. The Turkish high-power-distance context further provides a context-specific lens for reconsidering social exchange dynamics, as participants emphasized that reciprocity may emerge even in hierarchical environments when cultural enablers are perceived to be present. These insights position reverse mentoring not only as a managerial practice but also as a relational and cultural mechanism as interpreted by participants.

While this study provides novel insights, several avenues remain open for further investigation. Future research could incorporate the perspectives of mentees and junior employees, enabling a two-sided analysis of reverse mentoring dynamics. Comparative studies across different cultural contexts would also be valuable, particularly to examine how variations in power distance and organizational norms shape the implementation and perceived outcomes of reverse mentoring. In addition, mixed-methods and longitudinal designs could help to capture causal effects and trace how mentoring practices evolve over time. Finally, future studies may integrate quantitative performance indicators alongside qualitative accounts in order to provide a more multidimensional understanding of reverse mentoring processes.

In summary, this research suggests that reverse mentoring is interpreted by senior executives as a multidimensional practice with the potential to influence leadership perceptions, organizational interactions, and learning dynamics. When approached as a strategically structured and culturally situated initiative, reverse mentoring was described by participants as holding developmental and organizational significance.

References

• 1

  AllenT. D.EbyL. T. (2007). The Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring: A multiple Perspectives Approach. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AllenT. D.EbyL. T.PoteetM. L.LentzE.LimaL. (2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol.89, 127–136. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.127,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  Bahçeşehir University (2024). Tersine Mentörlük Available online at: https://coop.bau.edu.tr/tersine-mentorluk/ (Accessed November 1, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 4

  BeerM.FinnströmM.SchraderD. (2016). Why Leadership Training Fails, Harvard Business Review. Available online at: https://hbr.org/2016/10/why-leadership-training-fails-and-what-to-do-about-it (Accessed November 18, 2023).

  • Google Scholar

• 5

  BlauP. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.

  • Google Scholar

• 6

  BozakA. (2021). Instructional reverse mentoring: a practice proposal for teachers’ understanding the “Z” and “Alpha” generations’ learning perspectives. Int. J EurasiaSoc Sci12, 114–142.

  • Google Scholar

• 7

  ButlerR. N. (1969). Age-ism: another form of bigotry. Gerontologist9, 243–246. doi: 10.1093/geront/9.4_Part_1.243,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  ChaoG. T. (2009). Formal mentoring: lessons learned from past practice. Prof. Psychol. Res. Pract.40, 314–320. doi: 10.1037/a0012658

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  ChenY.-C. (2013). Effect of reverse mentoring on traditional mentoring functions. Leadersh. Manag. Eng.13, 199–208.

  • Google Scholar

• 10

  ChenY.-C. (2014). Examining traditional mentoring functioning scale considering reverse mentoring and the work characteristics of millennials. Int. J. Technol. Policy Manag., 14, 205–219. Reverse Mentoring, doi: 10.1504/IJTPM.2014.062931

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  ChowdhuryS.GibsonC. (2020). The adaptive leader: reverse mentoring as an intervention for executive emotional agility. Leadersh. Q.31, 409–426.

  • Google Scholar

• 12

  CropanzanoR.MitchellM. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review. J. Manage.31, 874–900. doi: 10.1177/0149206305279602

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  De JongT.EspejoP. (2021). Reverse mentoring for innovation: bridging digital divides in traditional industries. J. Organ. Chang. Manag.34, 130–145.

  • Google Scholar

• 14

  de Van VenA. H. (1989). Nothing is quite so practical as a good theory. Acad. Manag. Rev.14, 486–489.

  • Google Scholar

• 15

  DiCicco-BloomB.CrabtreeB. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Med. Educ.40, 314–321. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02418.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  DolesJ.SmithR.MartinezA. (2025). Creating brave spaces in reverse mentoring: building trust and psychological safety in higher education. Int. J. Mentor. Coach. Educ.14, 1–23. doi: 10.1108/IJMCE-02-2024-0012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  EdmondsonA. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm. Sci. Q.44, 350–383. doi: 10.2307/2666999

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  EgerovaD.KomarkovaL.RotenbornovaL. (2024). Generational differences in work-related expectations: examining period and cohort effects. Econ. Soc.17, 103–117. doi: 10.14254/2071-789X.2024/17-4/6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  Executive Education at Berkeley (2024). Enhancing intergenerational communication. Available online at: https://executive.berkeley.edu/thought-leadership/blog/enhancing-intergenerational-communication (Accessed May 26, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 20

  FogartyT. J.SinhaA. K. (2016). Beyond the myth of the perfect mentor: building a network of developmental relationships. Bus. Horiz.59, 561–568.

  • Google Scholar

• 21

  FrazierM. L.FainshmidtS.KlingerR. L.PezeshkanA.VrachevaV. (2017). Psychological safety: a meta-analytic review and extension. Pers. Psychol.70, 113–165. doi: 10.1111/peps.12183

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  GilsonL. L.GoldbergC. B. (2015). Editors’ comment: so, what is a conceptual paper?

  • Google Scholar

• 23

  GordonP. (2025). Reverse mentoring: transforming learning at individual, team, and organizational levels to build belonging in the workplace. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Dev. Pract. Policy Res.9, 53–60. doi: 10.2478/ijhrd-2025-0006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  GreengardS. (2002). Moving Forward with Reverse Mentoring. Workforce, Mart, (Costa Mesa, CA: Crain Communications), 15.

  • Google Scholar

• 25

  GuttermanA. S. (2017). Organizational Culture: Global Survey of Theory and Research, Sustainable Entreneurship Project. Available online at: www.seproject.org (Accessed January 17, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 26

  HaggardD. L.DoughertyT. W.TurbanD. B.WilbanksJ. E. (2011). Who is a mentor? A review of evolving definitions and implications for research. J. Manage.37, 280–304. doi: 10.1177/0149206310386227

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  HofstedeG. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

  • Google Scholar

• 28

  HofstedeG.HofstedeG. J.MinkovM. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the mind. 3rd Edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.

  • Google Scholar

• 29

  İstanbul Aydın University (2023). Tersine Mentörlük Programı. Available online at: https://www.aydin.edu.tr/haberler/Pages/tersine-mentorluk-programi-2023.aspx (Accessed November 18, 2023).

  • Google Scholar

• 30

  Iyizoba-EbozueZ.FatimilehinA.O’ReillyK.ObaroA. E. (2024). Cultivating inclusivity and bridging gaps through reverse mentoring: a feasibility study within the Royal College of Radiologists. Clin. Oncol. (R. Coll. Radiol.)36, 662–668. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2024.06.057,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  JaynesJ. (2019). Should You Adapt Reverse Mentoring At Your Working Place? Available online at: https://blog.avilar.com/2019/07/10/should-you-adopt-reverse-mentoring-at-your-workplace/ (Accessed September 21, 2023).

  • Google Scholar

• 32

  KadılarR. (2022). Günümüz İş Dünyasında Mentorluk ve Koçluk, Harvard Business Review Türkiye, 16 Kasım. Available online at: https://hbrturkiye.com/blog/gunumuz-is-dunyasinda-mentorluk-ve-kocluk

  • Google Scholar

• 33

  KalyaniR. (2025). Reverse mentoring in the AI era: how gen Z can reshape leadership learning in digitally evolving organizations. Int. J. Manag. Appl. Res.12, 55–70.

  • Google Scholar

• 34

  KellerS.MeaneyM. (2017). Attracting and retaining the right digital talent. McKinsey Quarterly. Available online at: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/attracting-and-retaining-the-right-digital-talent (Accessed April 15, 2021).

  • Google Scholar

• 35

  KılıçT.SerinA. E. (2017). Kuşaklar arasındaki farklılıklar ve örgütsel yansımaları [Differences between generations and their organizational reflections]. Çağdaş Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi4, 186–202.

  • Google Scholar

• 36

  KochanF.PascarelliJ. T. (2012). “Perspectives on culture and mentoring in the global age,” in SAGE Handbook of Mentoring and Coaching, eds. FletcherS.MullenC. A. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications).

  • Google Scholar

• 37

  KramK. E. (1985). Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in Organizational Life. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

  • Google Scholar

• 38

  LatifH.SerbestS. (2014). Türkiye’de 2000 kuşağı ve 2000 kuşağının iş ve çalışma anlayışı [Generation 2000 in Turkey and their work attitudes]. Gençlik Araştırmaları Dergisi2, 134–163.

  • Google Scholar

• 39

  LawrenceT. M. (2017). Reverse Mentoring Literature Review: Valuing Diverse Generations’ Contributions to Future Successes, Northeast Business & Economics Association Proceedings, 170.

  • Google Scholar

• 40

  LiM.GuoJ.ZouC.YinJ. (2025). The impact of reverse mentoring on employees’ innovative behavior: evidence from Chinese technology enterprises. Sustainability17:6. doi: 10.3390/su17010006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  LubinskiD.SchmidtD. B.BenbowC. P. (1996). A 20-year stability analysis of the study of values for intellectually gifted individuals from adolescence to adulthood. J. Appl. Psychol.81, 443–451. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.443

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  LueckeR. (2016) in İş Dünyasında Koçlar ve Mentörler, Mentoring: A Useful Career Development Too, ed. Çeviri ŞensoyÜ. (İstanbul, Türkiye: İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları).

  • Google Scholar

• 43

  MartinA. J.ThomasD. (2022). Generational diversity and inclusive leadership: a reverse mentoring perspective. Hum. Resour. Manag. J.32, 65–82.

  • Google Scholar

• 44

  MeglinoB. M.RavlinE. C. (1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts, controversies, and research. Journal of Management24, 351–389. doi: 10.1177/014920639802400304

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  MeyersNancy (2015) The Intern. Available online at: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2488496/ (Accessed April 15, 2021).

  • Google Scholar

• 46

  NavarraK. (2022). The Real Costs of Recruitment Society for Human Resources Management. Available online at: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/talent-acquisition/pages/the-real-costs-of-recruitment.aspx (Accessed September 21, 2023).

  • Google Scholar

• 47

  O’ConnorR.BarracloughL.GleadallS.WalkerL. (2025). Institutional reverse mentoring: bridging the student/leadership gap. Br. Educ. Res. J.51, 344–368. doi: 10.1002/berj.4078

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  PearceE. (2012). Reverse Mentoring, Cisco’s Succesful Mentor Program. Available online at: https://www.mentorresources.com/mentoring-blog/bid/130898/Reverse-Mentoring-Cisco-s-Successful-Mentor-Program (Accessed January 18, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 49

  RaginsB. R.CottonJ. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: a comparison of men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. J. Appl. Psychol.84, 529–550. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.529,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  RaginsB. R.KramK. E. (2007). The Handbook of Mentoring at Work: Research, Theory and Practice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

  • Google Scholar

• 51

  RaginsB. R.VerbosA. K. (2007). Positive relationships in action: relational mentoring and mentoring schemas in the workplace. Acad. Manag. J.50, 80–96.

  • Google Scholar

• 52

  RoseP.BeebyJ.ParkerD. (1995). Academic rigour in the lived experience of researchers using phenomenological methods in nursing. J. Adv. Nurs.21, 1123–1129.

  • Google Scholar

• 53

  SapundzhievaA. (2018) Mentoring- a key component of your strategic career toolkit, HPE Community. Available online at: https://community.hpe.com/t5/advancing-life-work/mentoring-a-key-component-of-your-strategic-career-toolkit/ba-p/6994859 (Accessed May 12, 2021).

  • Google Scholar

• 54

  SarıoğluE. B.ÖzgenE. (2018). Z Kuşağının Sosyal Medya Kullanım Alışkanlıkları Üzerine Bir Çalışma. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi11, 1067–1081. doi: 10.17719/jisr.2018.2856

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  ScaliaV. (2017). 5 Corporate Mentorship Programs Worth Imitating, Gloo, Available online at: https://blog.gloo.us/corporate-mentorship-program-examples (Accessed February 23, 2021).

  • Google Scholar

• 56

  ScanduraT. A. (1998). Dysfunctional mentoring relationships and outcomes. J. Manage.24, 449–467. doi: 10.1177/014920639802400307

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  SchnackenbergA. K.TomlinsonE. C. (2016). Organizational transparency: A new perspective on managing trust in organization-stakeholder relationships. Journal of Management42, 1784–1810. doi: 10.1177/0149206314525202

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  ScottJ. (2000). Is it a different world to when you were growing up? Generational effects on social representations and child-rearing values. British Journal of Sociology51, 355–376. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-4446.2000.00355.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  SeidmanI. (2013). Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A guide for Researchers in Education and the social Sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 60

  Slack and Duolingo (2023). World Emoji Day. Available online at: https://www.onepoll.us/portfolio/slack-and-duolingo-world-emoji-day/ (Accessed September 15, 2023).

  • Google Scholar

• 61

  StarcevichM. (1997). All About Coaching and Team Building In: KılıçE. D.SerinH.Süreç Olarak Mentorluk. Çağdaş Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi. Uttah: CMOE.

  • Google Scholar

• 62

  TayşirN. S.KarakoçN.ÇelikA. (2022). “Reverse mentoring” designs of the banking sector in Turkey. J Bus Res Türk14, 2045–2062.

  • Google Scholar

• 63

  TekindalM.Uğuz ArsuŞ. (2020). Nitel araştırma yöntemi olarak fenomenolojik yaklaşımın kapsamı ve sürecine yönelik bir derleme. Ufkun Ötesi Bilim Dergisi20, 153–182.

  • Google Scholar

• 64

  TerziE.BoyluY. (2019). TÜrkiye ve DÜnya’da Tersine Mentorluk: Kuşaklar Bazında Farklılaşan İş Değerleri ve GenÇlerin İşten Ayrılma Niyeti AÇısından Bir İnceleme. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi11, 3283–3322. doi: 10.20491/isarder.2019.810

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  Toptalent (2022). Akbank Switch Programı [Akbank Switch Program]. Available online at:https://www.toptalent.co/akbank-switch-programi (Accessed March 15, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 66

  ToribioJ. (2021). Accessibility, implicit bias, and epistemic justification. Synthese198, 1529–1547. doi: 10.1007/s11229-018-1795-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  TwengeJ. M.KonrathS.FosterJ. D.CampbellW. K.BushmanB. J. (2008). Egos inflating over time: a cross-temporal meta-analysis of the narcissistic personality inventory. J. Pers.76, 875–902. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00507.x,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  TwengeJ. M.ZhangL.ImC. (2004). It’s beyond my control: a cross-temporal meta-analysis of increasing externality in locus of control, 1960-2002. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev.8, 308–319. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_5,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  UrickM. J.HollensbeE. C.MastersonS. S.LyonsS. T. (2017). Understanding and managing intergenerational conflict: an examination of influences and strategies. Work Aging Retire.3, 166–185.

  • Google Scholar

• 70

  WanbergC. R.ZhuJ.KanferR.ZhangZ. (2012). Age and reemployment success after job loss: an integrative model and meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull.138, 459–486.

  • Google Scholar

• 71

  WinickE. (2018). MIT Technology Review. Cambridge, MA: MIT Technology Review.

  • Google Scholar

• 72

  Youthall (2022). Shell Türkiye X-MILE Ters Mentorluk Programı [Shell Turkey X-MILE Reverse Mentoring Program]. Available online at:https://www.youthall.com/firsatlar/shell-turkiye-x-mile-ters-mentorluk-programi (Accessed Şubat 20, 2024).

  • Google Scholar