Table 3. Reverse mentoring research... | Emerald Publishing

Table 3.

Reverse mentoring research agenda: Antecedents, decisions and outcomes (ADO perspective)

	Macro-theme	State of the art	Gaps identified	Future research questions (RQs)
ANTECEDENTS	Technological antecedents	Technology has been predominantly framed as the object of RM, with juniors transferring digital skills to seniors (Green and Roberts, 2012; Saxena, 2024). Studies acknowledge the digital divide as a primary driver of role inversion (Chaudhuri et al., 2022)(2022b)	Limited exploration of technology as an enabler of RM (e.g. digital collaboration platforms, AI, VR/AR tools) rather than only as the content exchanged	RQ1: To what extent do digital platforms and collaboration tools enhance or hinder trust, psychological safety and knowledge sharing in RM dyads? RQ2: How does digital mediation (vs. face-to-face interaction) affect the depth, continuity and sustainability of intergenerational exchanges?
	Cultural and institutional antecedents	Prior research highlights the importance of a supportive organizational culture, oriented toward learning and openness (Saxena, 2024; Marcinkus Murphy, 2012). Broader DEI objectives are also seen as legitimizing RM programmes (Raza and Onyesoh, 2020)	Neglect of macro-level antecedents such as national culture, industrial systems and institutional pressures. Cross-national dynamics, power distance and the maturity of national DEI frameworks remain underexplored	RQ3: How do national cultural values (e.g. power distance, collectivism) shape the adoption and success of RM programmes? RQ4: In what ways do national industrial systems and institutional frameworks (e.g. labour laws, sectoral regulation, ESG policies) condition the legitimacy and diffusion of RM? RQ5: Do differences between emerging and mature economies explain variations in RM implementation and outcomes?
	Additional individual-level antecedents	Existing studies emphasize openness, curiosity, psychological safety and trust as necessary antecedents for RM participation (Chaudhuri and Ghosh, 2012; Browne, 2021; Jammulamadaka, 2021)	Little attention has been paid to advanced individual dispositions, such as cultural intelligence (CQ), digital resilience, mindfulness and learning goal orientation	RQ6: To what extent does cultural intelligence predict seniors’ willingness to engage in RM and overcome status anxiety? RQ7: Does juniors’ digital resilience increase their mentoring effectiveness and perceived credibility? RQ8: How do mindfulness and learning goal orientation influence the quality and durability of RM relationships?
	Inter-organizational antecedents	RM is almost exclusively studied within single organizations	No exploration of RM in cross-organizational or inter-sectoral settings (e.g. start-up–corporate partnerships)	RQ9: How does inter-organizational RM differ in knowledge transfer outcomes compared to intra-organizational RM? RQ10: Can RM across firms serve as a driver of open innovation ecosystems?
DECISION	Programme design and formalization	Effective RM design requires a balance between structure and flexibility (Burdett, 2014; Garg et al., 2012). (Garg et al., 2021) Formalised programmes ensure clarity and accountability, while voluntary and flexible participation enhances engagement and relational depth (Jain and Maheshwari, 2020)	Lack of empirical studies measuring the optimal degree of formalization; no investigation of how programme goals (technical vs strategic) require different structural intensity	RQ11: What is the optimal balance between formalization and flexibility across RM goals (digital upskilling vs leadership development)? RQ12: How does the level of formalization affect perceived fairness, trust and reciprocity within RM dyads?
	Configuration and matching	Literature identifies multiple RM formats (1:1, 1: many, cohort, flash) with heterogeneous results (Burdett, 2014; Ropes, 2015; Bailey, 2007) (Baily, 2009). Matching quality—both skill-based and relational—emerges as a key success factor (Hechl, 2017; Agarwal and Raghav, 2023)	No comparative studies on performance differences across formats; absence of algorithmic or cognitive-diversity matching research; limited understanding of the facilitator’s role	RQ13: Which RM configuration maximizes learning and engagement? RQ14: How do cognitive distance and relational compatibility affect RM quality and sustainability? RQ15: How does the presence of a manager-facilitator moderate the effectiveness of RM?
	Management and monitoring	Assessment tools such as the Reverse Mentoring Functioning Scale (Chen, 2014) and ARCS motivational model (Chen, 2016) support programme evaluation, but studies remain cross-sectional and self-reported	Lack of longitudinal and objective measurement; minimal integration of HR analytics, network metrics, or digital feedback systems	RQ16: How can HR analytics and network analysis improve the measurement of RM outcomes? RQ17: How can digital learning analytics and continuous feedback loops enhance RM monitoring and redesign?
	Knowledge and capability outcomes	RM fosters bidirectional knowledge transfer (Lužar et al., 2023; Jain and Maheshwari, 2020). Seniors acquire digital literacy (Kaše et al., 2019; Gabriel et al., 2020), while juniors improve coaching and networking skills	Lack of longitudinal evidence and organizational-level analysis of how RM affects collective learning and absorptive capacity	RQ18: How does RM enhance firms’ absorptive capacity and collective learning routines over time? RQ19: To what extent does RM promote knowledge recombination and innovation capability?
	Leadership and talent development outcomes	RM develops leadership exposure for juniors and adaptability for seniors (Browne, 2021; Kaše et al., 2019). It supports succession planning and enhances cross-generational collaboration	Few studies link RM to leadership pipeline and succession outcomes. Leadership identity transformation remains unexplored	RQ20: How does RM participation accelerate leadership readiness among junior mentors? RQ21: How does RM influence senior leaders’ humility and identity reconstruction?
OUTCOMES	Additional and under-investigated outcomes	Emerging work suggests RM could generate broader HR and societal outcomes (Saxena, 2024; Raza and Onyesoh, 2020), but empirical evidence remains scarce	1) There is a paucity of studies which studied how RM could improve mental health, reduce burnout and foster work meaningfulness. 2) No research examines how RM affects team cohesion, communication, or collective efficacy. 3) RM may position firms as inclusive and learning-oriented employers, but this reputational effect is not studied. 4) No evidence yet on RM’s role in intergenerational trust or community-level learning	RQ22: How does RM influence psychological well-being, burnout and perceived work meaningfulness over time? RQ23: What spillover effects does RM generate on team cohesion and collaboration quality? RQ24: Can RM enhance employer and talent attractiveness and strengthen organizational reputation as a talent magnet? RQ25: Does RM produce broader societal outcomes, such as fostering intergenerational trust or community learning?
	Market-facing and reputational outcomes	Current RM research has focused exclusively on internal outcomes (employee skills, engagement, retention, firm-level capabilities). No study has examined the impact of RM on external stakeholders such as customers or industrial buyers	Lack of evidence on whether RM influences external perceptions of the firm (e.g. innovativeness, inclusivity, trustworthiness) and market outcomes (brand engagement, purchase intentions)	RQ26: Does RM adoption enhance corporate reputation and brand engagement among customers and industrial clients? RQ27: How do RM programmes signal innovativeness and inclusivity to external stakeholders and do these perceptions translate into purchase intentions or B2B relationship strength?

	Macro-theme	State of the art	Gaps identified	Future research questions (RQs)
ANTECEDENTS	Technological antecedents	Technology has been predominantly framed as the object of RM, with juniors transferring digital skills to seniors (Green and Roberts, 2012; Saxena, 2024). Studies acknowledge the digital divide as a primary driver of role inversion (Chaudhuri et al., 2022)(2022b)	Limited exploration of technology as an enabler of RM (e.g. digital collaboration platforms, AI, VR/AR tools) rather than only as the content exchanged	RQ1: To what extent do digital platforms and collaboration tools enhance or hinder trust, psychological safety and knowledge sharing in RM dyads? RQ2: How does digital mediation (vs. face-to-face interaction) affect the depth, continuity and sustainability of intergenerational exchanges?
	Cultural and institutional antecedents	Prior research highlights the importance of a supportive organizational culture, oriented toward learning and openness (Saxena, 2024; Marcinkus Murphy, 2012). Broader DEI objectives are also seen as legitimizing RM programmes (Raza and Onyesoh, 2020)	Neglect of macro-level antecedents such as national culture, industrial systems and institutional pressures. Cross-national dynamics, power distance and the maturity of national DEI frameworks remain underexplored	RQ3: How do national cultural values (e.g. power distance, collectivism) shape the adoption and success of RM programmes? RQ4: In what ways do national industrial systems and institutional frameworks (e.g. labour laws, sectoral regulation, ESG policies) condition the legitimacy and diffusion of RM? RQ5: Do differences between emerging and mature economies explain variations in RM implementation and outcomes?
	Additional individual-level antecedents	Existing studies emphasize openness, curiosity, psychological safety and trust as necessary antecedents for RM participation (Chaudhuri and Ghosh, 2012; Browne, 2021; Jammulamadaka, 2021)	Little attention has been paid to advanced individual dispositions, such as cultural intelligence (CQ), digital resilience, mindfulness and learning goal orientation	RQ6: To what extent does cultural intelligence predict seniors’ willingness to engage in RM and overcome status anxiety? RQ7: Does juniors’ digital resilience increase their mentoring effectiveness and perceived credibility? RQ8: How do mindfulness and learning goal orientation influence the quality and durability of RM relationships?
	Inter-organizational antecedents	RM is almost exclusively studied within single organizations	No exploration of RM in cross-organizational or inter-sectoral settings (e.g. start-up–corporate partnerships)	RQ9: How does inter-organizational RM differ in knowledge transfer outcomes compared to intra-organizational RM? RQ10: Can RM across firms serve as a driver of open innovation ecosystems?
DECISION	Programme design and formalization	Effective RM design requires a balance between structure and flexibility (Burdett, 2014; Garg et al., 2012). (Garg et al., 2021) Formalised programmes ensure clarity and accountability, while voluntary and flexible participation enhances engagement and relational depth (Jain and Maheshwari, 2020)	Lack of empirical studies measuring the optimal degree of formalization; no investigation of how programme goals (technical vs strategic) require different structural intensity	RQ11: What is the optimal balance between formalization and flexibility across RM goals (digital upskilling vs leadership development)? RQ12: How does the level of formalization affect perceived fairness, trust and reciprocity within RM dyads?
	Configuration and matching	Literature identifies multiple RM formats (1:1, 1: many, cohort, flash) with heterogeneous results (Burdett, 2014; Ropes, 2015; Bailey, 2007) (Baily, 2009). Matching quality—both skill-based and relational—emerges as a key success factor (Hechl, 2017; Agarwal and Raghav, 2023)	No comparative studies on performance differences across formats; absence of algorithmic or cognitive-diversity matching research; limited understanding of the facilitator’s role	RQ13: Which RM configuration maximizes learning and engagement? RQ14: How do cognitive distance and relational compatibility affect RM quality and sustainability? RQ15: How does the presence of a manager-facilitator moderate the effectiveness of RM?
	Management and monitoring	Assessment tools such as the Reverse Mentoring Functioning Scale (Chen, 2014) and ARCS motivational model (Chen, 2016) support programme evaluation, but studies remain cross-sectional and self-reported	Lack of longitudinal and objective measurement; minimal integration of HR analytics, network metrics, or digital feedback systems	RQ16: How can HR analytics and network analysis improve the measurement of RM outcomes? RQ17: How can digital learning analytics and continuous feedback loops enhance RM monitoring and redesign?
	Knowledge and capability outcomes	RM fosters bidirectional knowledge transfer (Lužar et al., 2023; Jain and Maheshwari, 2020). Seniors acquire digital literacy (Kaše et al., 2019; Gabriel et al., 2020), while juniors improve coaching and networking skills	Lack of longitudinal evidence and organizational-level analysis of how RM affects collective learning and absorptive capacity	RQ18: How does RM enhance firms’ absorptive capacity and collective learning routines over time? RQ19: To what extent does RM promote knowledge recombination and innovation capability?
	Leadership and talent development outcomes	RM develops leadership exposure for juniors and adaptability for seniors (Browne, 2021; Kaše et al., 2019). It supports succession planning and enhances cross-generational collaboration	Few studies link RM to leadership pipeline and succession outcomes. Leadership identity transformation remains unexplored	RQ20: How does RM participation accelerate leadership readiness among junior mentors? RQ21: How does RM influence senior leaders’ humility and identity reconstruction?
OUTCOMES	Additional and under-investigated outcomes	Emerging work suggests RM could generate broader HR and societal outcomes (Saxena, 2024; Raza and Onyesoh, 2020), but empirical evidence remains scarce	1) There is a paucity of studies which studied how RM could improve mental health, reduce burnout and foster work meaningfulness. 2) No research examines how RM affects team cohesion, communication, or collective efficacy. 3) RM may position firms as inclusive and learning-oriented employers, but this reputational effect is not studied. 4) No evidence yet on RM’s role in intergenerational trust or community-level learning	RQ22: How does RM influence psychological well-being, burnout and perceived work meaningfulness over time? RQ23: What spillover effects does RM generate on team cohesion and collaboration quality? RQ24: Can RM enhance employer and talent attractiveness and strengthen organizational reputation as a talent magnet? RQ25: Does RM produce broader societal outcomes, such as fostering intergenerational trust or community learning?
	Market-facing and reputational outcomes	Current RM research has focused exclusively on internal outcomes (employee skills, engagement, retention, firm-level capabilities). No study has examined the impact of RM on external stakeholders such as customers or industrial buyers	Lack of evidence on whether RM influences external perceptions of the firm (e.g. innovativeness, inclusivity, trustworthiness) and market outcomes (brand engagement, purchase intentions)	RQ26: Does RM adoption enhance corporate reputation and brand engagement among customers and industrial clients? RQ27: How do RM programmes signal innovativeness and inclusivity to external stakeholders and do these perceptions translate into purchase intentions or B2B relationship strength?

Source(s): Authors’ own work