ABSTRACT. This paper explores gender barriers to the formation of the female mentor – male protégé relationship. The authors consider both physiological as well as social gender as a way to help understand the scarcity of these relationships. A number of gender-related factors are considered, including organizational demographics, relational demography, sexual liaisons, gender stereotypes, gender behaviors, and power dynamics. The paper concludes with direc- tions for future research that will help provide further insights into the development and success of the female mentor – male protégé relationship. The earliest female mentor – male protégé rela- tionship can be traced to Greek mythology. In ancient Greece, when Odysseus left to fight the Trojan War, he entrusted the education of his son Telemachus to his wise and trusted counselor and friend, Mentor. Unknown to others, the goddess Athena disguised herself as Mentor for the protégé Telemachus. Although it is unclear exactly why Athena disguised herself as a male, gender may provide some of the explanation. For example, perhaps Athena misrepresented herself to Telemachus to create an all-male mentoring relationship. Or, perhaps she was concerned about Telemachus’ perceptions, and disguised herself to convey a sense of masculinity to him. Regardless of the motivations and perceptions of these Greek characters, the possibility of gender- related barriers to the formation of a female mentor – male protégé relationship is an inter- esting and complicated topic in this ancient legend as well as today. Theory suggests that the gender composition of a mentoring relationship is one of its most important components (Ragins, 1997, 1999). Indeed, in the past decade, research on gender and mentoring has received increasing attention. There are two ways to conceptualize gender: physiological and social (Bem, 1974; Scott, 1986; Spence et al., 1975). A person’s physiological gender is either male or female while an individual’s social gender can be masculine, feminine, or androgynous (Bem, 1974; Goktepe and Schneier, 1989; Spence et al., 1975). In other words, social gender con- siders individual personality characteristics while physiological gender considers biological sex (Spence and Helmreich, 1979; Spence et al., 1975). Existing mentoring research has considered the role of gender in these two distinct ways. Most research on gender and mentoring has compared the different experiences that men and women have in mentoring relationships (see reviews by O’Neill, forthcoming; Ragins, 1999). In addition, at least one study found that mas- culinity, femininity, and androgyny were more important than biological gender in predicting the likelihood of having a mentor and the func- tions of the relationship for men and women protégés (Scandura and Ragins, 1993). Physiological and social gender are both likely to influence the formation of the female mentor – male protégé relationship. To date, however, there has been little research on women men- toring men. In part, this is because of the limited number of these relationships. More Gender Barriers to the Female Mentor – Male Protégé Relationship Journal of Business Ethics 37: 51–63, 2002. © 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. Regina M. O’Neill Stacy D. Blake-Beard Regina O’Neill is Professor of Organizational Behavior, School of Management, Suffolk University. She has studied mentoring processes extensively. Stacy Blake-Beard is a Professor in the School of Education. She has examined diversity issues in organizations and the role of mentoring in career development.