Program Factors Influencing Investment in NHRI Leadership Mentoring Relationships

Authors

• Elizabeth A. Kenes, University of Nebraska-LincolnFollow

First Advisor

Lindsay Hastings

Date of this Version

5-2026

Document Type

Thesis

Citation

A thesis presented to the faculty of the Graduate College at the University of Nebraska in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Master of Science

Major: Leadership Education 

Under the supervision of Professor Lindsay Hastings 

Lincoln, Nebraska, May 2026

Comments

Copyright 2026, Elizabeth A. Kenes. Used by permission

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine how specific programmatic factors influence levels of investment within mentoring relationships in a collegiate leadership mentoring program. Previous research has demonstrated the benefits of mentoring; however, much of this work has relied on self-reported data and has not directly linked program factors to clearly defined mentoring outcomes. This study addresses this gap by examining how relationship duration, meeting consistency, and training and learning predict mentoring investment using observational program data.

Using the Investment Triangle framework and an integrative theoretical framework as guiding foundations, this study examined mentoring investment within NHRI Leadership Mentoring at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. Data were collected from 1,506 one-on-one mentoring reports submitted by 157 mentors during Fall 2025. Investment levels were determined through direct content analysis of reports and categorized into four levels: (1) trust-building, (2) strengths awareness, (3) stimulus situations, and (4) reinvestment. Predictor variables included year in program, to-date one-on-one meetings, project meeting attendance, and NHRI class enrollment.

Results from analyses demonstrated that relationship duration and one-on-one meeting consistency were significant predictors of higher levels of mentoring investment. Specifically, mentors who had participated in the program longer and those who engaged in more consistent one-on-one meetings were more likely to demonstrate deeper levels of mentoring investment. Additional analyses indicated that the combination of all factors explained the variance within the data more fully than any single predictor, suggesting that mentoring development is influenced by multiple interacting program components.

These findings suggest that sustained and consistent engagement within mentoring relationships is critical for fostering deeper levels of investment. The results support the use of social capital theory to understand mentoring relationships, emphasizing that time and repeated interaction are key mechanisms through which trust and developmental opportunities emerge. This study contributes to leadership education and mentoring research by demonstrating how existing program data can be used for evaluation and by providing evidence to inform program improvement.

Advisor: Lindsay Hastings