capitalizing on proactivity for informal mentoring

Capitalizing on proactivity for informal mentoringreceived during early career: The moderating roleof core self-evaluations

JIAN LIANG1* AND YAPING GONG2

1Antai College of Economics and Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China2Department of Management of Organizations, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China

Summary This paper examines the role of proactive personality in the receipt of informal mentoring received(i.e., psychosocial and career-related mentoring) among a sample of 174 early career employees in China.The regression results indicated that networking behavior mediated the relationship between proactivepersonality and career-related mentoring, whereas voice behavior mediated the relationship between proactivepersonality and psychosocial mentoring. Furthermore, core self-evaluations moderated the aforementionedtwo indirect relationships such that they were stronger at higher levels of core self-evaluations. Our analysesalso showed that the moderating effects occurred at the first stage of the indirect relationships. We discussthe theoretical and practical implications of these findings. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: proactive personality; informal mentoring received; networking behavior; voice behavior; coreself-evaluations; China

To ensure the supply of employees capable of meeting future business objectives, organizations periodically recruitjunior employees from the external labor market. Among these junior employees, only a minority eventuallyachieve senior positions. Who the fast trackers will be among these junior employees is an interesting question boththeoretically and practically. Researchers suggest that those young employees who receive mentoring from seniormembers are likely to become fast trackers within the organization (Ragins, 1999; Singh, Ragins, & Tharenou,2009). The question is: What characteristics do those young people have and how do they attract the attention ofsenior members and win their mentoring assistance?Mentoring refers to the relationship between an experienced senior employee (i.e., the mentor) and a less

experienced junior one (i.e., the protégé) in which the mentor provides support, direction, and feedback regardingthe protégé’s career plans and personal development (Kram, 1985). Previous research has documented the benefitsof mentoring for protégés and mentors (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004; Chun, Sosik, & Yun, 2012;Kammeyer-Mueller & Judge, 2008). Both formal and informal mentoring may exist in organizations. Informalmentoring develops naturally and is maintained on a voluntary basis, whereas formal mentoring develops withorganizational intervention (Ragins & Cotton, 1999). It has been shown that informal mentoring is less likely tolead to negative mentoring experiences and that protégés with informal mentors reap greater benefits than thosewith formal mentors (Eby, Rhodes, & Allen, 2007). Informal mentoring is therefore more likely to significantlyaffect career outcomes and bring long-term advantages to organizations than formal mentoring (Singh, Bains, &Vinnicombe, 2002; Underhill, 2006).Informal mentoring develops on the basis of perceived competence and interpersonal comfort (Eby et al., 2007).

Mentors tend to select high-potential protégés who are considered to be rising stars or even “diamonds in the rough”

*Correspondence to: Jian Liang, Antai College of Economics and Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. E-mail:[email protected]

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Received 09 June 2011

Revised 04 November 2012, Accepted 07 November 2012

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 1182–1201 (2013)Published online 21 December 2012 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.1849R

esearchArticle

(Kram, 1985). The aptly named rising star hypothesis suggests that because of their proactivity, highly visible,well-motivated young employees are likely to be selected as protégés and to subsequently become fast trackerswithin their respective organizations (Ragins, 1999; Singh et al., 2009). The rising star hypothesis assumes aproactive approach to building mentoring relationships. Researchers have argued that proactive behaviors arehelpful in forming informal mentoring relationships because such behaviors lead to interactions with others inone’s environment (Aryee, Lo, & Kang, 1999; Turban & Dougherty, 1994). Surprisingly, little research has beenundertaken to examine the effect of proactive personality, a narrowly defined dispositional tendency to effectconstructive changes (Bateman & Crant, 1993), on the informal mentoring received from experienced or seniormembers. We intend to fill this gap by examining whether and how proactive individuals may obtain informalmentoring at work.We extend prior research on informal mentoring in three ways. First, we take a proactive perspective and propose

that proactive individuals are more likely to be seen as rising stars and to receive informal mentoring than those whoare not proactive. By doing so, we respond to the recent call for more research on the role of protégé personality,in particular, narrow personality traits, in informal mentoring relationships (Dougerty, Turban, & Haggard,2007; Wu, Foo, & Turban, 2008). Second, we reveal that networking and voice behavior are the behavioralmechanisms underlying the relationship between proactive personality and informal mentoring received. Althoughresearchers conceptualize proactive personality as a singular disposition, it may be manifested in different formsof proactive behaviors such as networking and voice (Bindl & Parker, 2011; Fuller, Marler, & Hester, 2012; Grant& Ashford, 2008). Networking refers to behaviors for developing and maintaining relationships with others whocan potentially positively impact one’s work and/or career (Forret & Dougherty, 2001). Voice refers to verbalexpressions of work-related ideas, opinions, and information that can potentially improve the organization forwhich one works (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Third, we further examine core self-evaluations, individuals’ corebeliefs about themselves and their capabilities (Judge, Locke, & Durham, 1997), as a moderator for the indirectrelationship that proactive personality has with informal mentoring received via networking and voice. Previousstudies have suggested that proactive personality only represents a behavioral tendency, and individuals may ormay not capitalize on their proactivity (e.g., Chan, 2006). We therefore not only identify the underlying processesthrough which proactivity manifests itself into meaningful informal mentoring outcomes but also reveal a dispositionalmoderator for the processes (Bindl & Parker, 2011; Grant & Ashford, 2008). The inclusion of core self-evaluationsprovides us an opportunity to cluster the personality variables within individuals, rather than focus on an individualpersonality trait. Such a person-centered approach is expected to increase the validity of proactive personality inpredicting informal mentoring received (Judge, Van Vianen, & De Pater, 2004).We conducted the study in China. Because of the high power distance tradition in China, there is a large

social barrier between employees and managers. This tradition may hinder the effectiveness of formal mentoringprograms, and thus most mentoring relationships in China are informal in nature (Yang et al., 2011). Deeply rootedin Confucian values, Chinese culture emphasizes informal guidance and advice from an experienced or seniorperson to a junior person (Bozionelos & Wang, 2006). Although workplace mentoring in China has attracted theattention of researchers, most of them have mainly focused on formal mentoring relationships (e.g., Liu, Liu,Kwan, & Mao, 2009; Wang, Noe, Wang, & Greenberger, 2009; Wang, Tomlinson, & Noe, 2010). More effort isneeded to understand informal mentoring relationships in China.Research suggests that employees in more collectivistic cultures (such as China) engage in fewer career-related

proactive behaviors than their more individualistic counterparts (Claes & Ruiz-Quintanilla, 1998). Researchalso suggests that Asian-American employees tend to progress more slowly through the ranks than their moreindividualistic European-American colleagues (Xin, 2004), presumably because they engage in fewer proactivebehaviors. On the one hand, being proactive may help career progression. On the other hand, proactive behaviorssuch as voice could be interpreted negatively because of the emphasis on maintaining order in a high powerdistance culture. Thus, whether individual proactivity and proactive behaviors actually enhance the informalmentoring received in a higher power distance culture is an interesting question to examine, and China providesan appropriate context to examine the question.

PROACTIVITY AND CAREER MENTORING 1183

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 1182–1201 (2013)DOI: 10.1002/job

Theory and Hypotheses

In this study, we take a dispositional, proactive perspective to informal mentoring received and view protégés moreas “sculptors” than “sculptures” when forming their mentoring relationships (Grant & Ashford, 2008). Accordingto the situational strength perspective (Mischel, 1977), individual differences, such as proactive personality, shouldplay an important role in the formation of workplace mentoring relationships when these relationships developvoluntarily or spontaneously rather than being officially sanctioned. We expect that proactive employees are likelyto receive informal mentoring in their initiatives to leverage interpersonal resources and to showcase their talentsto experienced or senior members.

Proactive personality and informal mentoring received

Proactive personality describes a behavioral tendency to identify opportunities to change things at work and to acton those impulses (Crant, 2000). A recent meta-analytic review indicated that proactive personality is related to avariety of desirable individual and organizational outcomes (Fuller & Marler, 2009). Despite this accumulation ofknowledge, our understanding of how individuals utilize their proactivity to obtain informal mentoring is still verylimited, if not nonexistent.Proactive employees are more likely to actively shape and manipulate their work environments in order to

accomplish their goals (Crant, 2000). At the workplace, experienced or senior employees are a valuable sourceof work-related information, knowledge, and experience for junior employees’ development. Informal mentoringfrom experienced or senior employees can be thought of as a type of social capital and can help early careerindividuals fulfill goals such as gaining promotion and receiving social support. These resources may, in turn,impact employees’ affective bonds with their organizations and coworkers (Allen et al., 2004).A recent study suggests that early career employees who actively seek out opportunities to be mentored and to

interact with experienced or senior colleagues are more likely to have a higher income and a more senior positiontwo years later than those who do not (Blickle, Witzki, & Schneider, 2009). This effect is particularly likely in arelationship-oriented society such as China. Compared to Westerners, the Chinese have a stronger tendency toput people into categories and to treat them differently (Hwang, 1987; Tsui & Farh, 1997). When young employeesare perceived to be loyal and capable, senior employees are obligated to offer them special consideration and guidance(Farh & Cheng, 2000). Thus, early career employees with proactive personalities are more likely to take initiativesand seek informal mentoring relationships with senior employees to better deal with organizational issues and totake advantage of career opportunities. Indeed, proactive personality has been found to enhance both job-searchoutcomes and individual career outcomes (Brown, Cober, Kane, Levy, & Shalhoop, 2006; Seibert, Kraimer, &Crant, 2001).Partners of mentoring relationships tend to select partners they have a high level of trust in and often report a

mutual attraction that led to the development of a relationship (Kram, 1985; Wang et al., 2010). Mentors alsousually consider ability and potential when selecting protégés (Allen, 2004; Dougerty et al., 2007). Thus, proactiveemployees who use social interaction to build trust and self-presentation to reveal their potential should bemore likely to be selected as protégés and receive valuable informal mentoring. Taken together, we hypothesizethe following:

Hypothesis 1: Proactive personality is positively related to the amount of informal mentoring received.

The mediating roles of networking and voice behavior

There are usually more protégés available than mentors. Thus, it is important for protégés to take the initiative inorder to gain informal mentoring from experienced or senior employees. Rather than passively waiting, proactive

1184 J. LIANG AND Y. GONG


employees may use a number of specific behaviors to reach their goals (Seibert, et al., 2001). Consistent with thesuggestions for building informal mentoring relationship made by Chandler, Hall, and Kram (2010), we proposetwo behavioral mechanisms linking proactive personality and informal mentoring received in this study: networkingand voice behavior. These two variables represent proactive behaviors because they are self-initiated, future-orientedbehaviors aimed at improving current circumstances and/or creating favorable conditions (Bindl & Parker, 2011;Grant & Ashford, 2008).

Networking behaviorNetworking behavior refers to the specific and observable behaviors individuals engage in to build and maintain theirsocial networks and relationships (Michael & Yukl, 1993). Networking behavior is conceptually different fromsocial networks, which are primarily about the structure and pattern of actors’ positions in network relationships(Kilduff & Tsai, 2003). In this study, we view networking behavior as a necessary step in building individuals’ networkties and accumulating social capital (i.e., relationships with informal mentors). Examining networking behavior enablesus to better understand what junior employees do to win informal mentoring and thereby benefit their careers.Individuals with a prototypical proactive personality excel at identifying growth opportunities and taking initiatives

to make meaningful changes (Crant, 2000). Networking behavior is important for these individuals because greaterinterpersonal connections provide valuable opportunities to make meaningful changes as well as the resources fordoing so. In Chinese societies, the tendency to treat people differently highlights the importance of interpersonalrelationships (i.e., guanxi in Chinese). Chinese employees often cultivate, maintain, and improve their relationshipswith experienced or senior employees through networking behaviors (Law, Wong, Wang, & Wang, 2000; Yang,1993). Having relationships with these senior employees has at least three potential benefits: access to valuableinformation, access to resources, and career sponsorship (Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001). Therefore, we expectthat proactive employees will actively construct their social networks so that they can identify and access peoplewith job-related information, political knowledge, and power (Ferris et al., 2007; Gong, Cheung, Wang, & Huang,2012; Thompson, 2005). Fostering a strong network of relationships will help proactive employees obtain andleverage the support of experienced or senior employees in their pursuit of advancement. In addition to providingfriendship and social support (i.e., psychosocial mentoring), these experienced or senior employees can providecareer-related information and benefits (i.e., career-related mentoring) (Seidel, Polzer, & Stewart, 2000; Blickle et al.,2009). In this way, networking behavior serves as a conduit through which proactive employees seek and obtain bothpsychosocial and career-related mentoring within the organization. To summarize, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2a: Networking behavior mediates the positive relationship between proactive personality and informalmentoring received.

Voice behaviorVoice behavior involves constructive change-oriented communication intended to improve one’s work environment(Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Proactive employees are likely to take initiative in a broad range of activities andsituations, and are therefore likely to raise suggestions to initiate constructive changes at work. Previous researchhas accumulated support for this effect. For example, Bateman and Crant (1993) found that MBA applicants highin proactive personality were more likely to list involvement in constructive changes as their “greatest personalachievements” compared with their less proactive counterparts. Similarly, Parker (1998) found that proactivepersonality was positively associated with individuals’ participation in organizational improvement initiatives.Detert and Burris (2007) reported significant correlations between proactive personality and voice behavior acrosstwo samples.By contributing innovative ideas and addressing important issues, voice behavior allows protégés to present

their crucial and unique perspectives to their group. As a communicative and innovative form of personal initiative,voice behavior usually entails considerable effort on the part of the protégés because they need to put theirthoughts together into comprehensible ideas that can be publicly articulated to experienced or senior members



(Farh, Tangirala, & Liang, 2010). Successfully selling a solution to a work-related issue may open up an opportunity tointeract and communicate with potential mentors in the organization (Dutton & Ashford, 1993). Consequently,voice behavior may represent a way for early career employees to reveal their talents, and gain visibility andinterpersonal influence. The constructive ideas they present may not only reveal their potential to others but alsodemonstrate their strong commitment to work-related issues. For example, an employee may raise an idea for makinga work procedure more efficient. This suggestion-making behavior may attract the attention of potential mentors. Theymay interpret the behavior as a sign of potential talent and evidence of commitment to the organization.Despite its constructive nature, voice behavior may bring adversity to the focal employee because of its challenging

nature (Detert & Burris, 2007; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Because of the information asymmetry and social distancein a high power distance culture, employees may not know how senior employees view their competence. Therefore,junior employees who want to move up may have to engage in such potentially beneficial but costly signaling activity(i.e., voice) to reveal their competence and value (Spence, 1973). To advance the interests of the organization or unit,experienced or senior employees often have the motivation to discover competent employees. Offering guidance andsupport to a protégé is considered part of the social obligations of experienced or senior employees in China (Farh &Cheng, 2000). Consistent with the rising star hypothesis, we expect that constructive efforts from junior employees willattract attention from senior members and enable these junior employees to gain career guidance and social support fromthem. To summarize, we expect that self-presentation behaviors such as voice are likely to be recognized by experiencedor senior members in the form of informal mentoring. Thus, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2b: Voice behavior mediates the positive relationship between proactive personality and informalmentoring received.

The moderating effect of core self-evaluations

Proactive personality represents a behavioral tendency (to effect change) only. An individual may not fullymaterialize its proactive potential into actual proactive behaviors. This is because being proactive often entailspotential risks to the individuals, and there are many obstacles along the way (Bindl & Parker, 2011; Frese &Fay, 2001; Grant & Ashford, 2008). For example, one risks being rejected when one tries to establish social rela-tionships with experienced or senior people. Voice behavior involves personal risk in that one may receive criticismor even attack as a result of speaking up. Therefore, the process perspective to individual proactivity advances thatbefore individuals engage in actual proactive behaviors, they would think ahead to assess the likely outcomes ofthese behaviors and anticipate possible futures (Bindl & Parker, 2011; Grant & Ashford, 2008). During this antic-ipation/deliberation process, individuals’ self-beliefs about how well they will function in response to specificsituations will elicit different regulatory processes regarding their choices of proactive behaviors. A construct thatcaptures comprehensive self-beliefs is core self-evaluations, the “fundamental premises that individuals hold aboutthemselves and their functioning in the world” (Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998, p. 61).Core self-evaluations capture a latent construct that causes employees to view themselves as having higher

self-esteem, higher generalized self-efficacy, lower neuroticism, and an internal locus of control (Judge et al., 1998).Because core self-evaluations describe an individual’s level of positive self-regard (or the degree to which he orshe judges his or her identity favorably), it may alleviate an individual’s concerns about potential risks and obstaclesinvolving proactive behaviors. Because of the buffering function of high core self-evaluations, we examine it as amoderator for the effect of proactive personality on networking and voice behaviors. We expect that the relationshipbetween proactive personality and networking or voice behavior is stronger when core self-evaluations are higher.More specifically, when proactive employees have favorable evaluations about themselves, they tend to see

themselves as capable, worthy, and in control of their lives. As such, they anticipate few risks or obstacles andthus are likely to turn their proactive tendency into actual proactive behaviors. When seeking the opportunity formentoring assistance, they are likely to consider promotion-focused proactive behaviors (e.g., networkingand voice behavior) because their high core self-evaluations alleviate their worries and thus help unleash the



potential of proactivity for such behaviors. Even when they anticipate difficulties in the proactive process (e.g., theirnetworking behaviors receive negative feedback or their constructive suggestions encounter criticisms), they may stilldecide to engage in proactive behaviors (to reach their career goals) because they believe that they have the knowledge,skills, and abilities to exert control and exercise interpersonal influence (Bono & Colbert, 2005; Erez &Judge, 2001). To sum up, we expect that high core self-evaluations help an individual to capitalize on the proactivepersonality and to bring out its potential for proactive behaviors, thus strengthening the relationship betweenproactive personality and proactive behaviors.In contrast, when proactive employees have low core self-evaluations, they tend to interpret their interpersonal

environments as containing more threats than opportunities for their development and feel less capable of handlingchallenges and risks (Best, Stapleton, & Downey, 2005). Even though they identify the valuable opportunity to gainmentoring assistance for their career, they may still anticipate more obstacles and greater psychological strainduring the proactive process (Kammeyer-Mueller, Judge, & Scott, 2009). Compared with their counterparts, theseindividuals are sensitive to interpersonal threats, risks, punishment, and other negative feedback before engagingactual proactive behaviors (Judge et al., 2004). Facing the possibility to receive mentoring assistance, they arelikely to adopt a prevention-focused approach and assign more weight to the personal risks of their behaviors ratherthan to their potential career benefits. Consequently, they are less likely to turn their proactive potentials into actualbehaviors. To sum up, we expect that low core self-evaluations and associated deliberation processes constrain orinhibit proactive tendency from manifesting itself into actual proactive behaviors, thus weakening the relationshipbetween proactive personality and networking or voice behaviors. Taken together, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 3a: Core self-evaluations positively moderate the relationship between proactive personality andnetworking behavior such that this relationship is stronger when core self-evaluations are higher.

Hypothesis 3b: Core self-evaluations positively moderate the relationship between proactive personality andvoice behavior such that this relationship is stronger when core self-evaluations are higher.

Thus far, we have hypothesized that proactive personality is positively related to informal mentoring received(Hypothesis 1) and that proactive behaviors (i.e., networking and voice) mediate this relationship (Hypotheses2a and 2b). We further propose that core self-evaluations positively moderate the associations between proactivepersonality and proactive behaviors (e.g., networking and voice) (Hypothesis 3a and 3b). Combining both themediation and moderation hypotheses, we provide integrative hypotheses that summarize our research model.Specifically, we propose that the positive indirect relationship (via networking and voice) between proactive personalityand informal mentoring received varies as a function of core self-evaluations such that the indirect relationship isstronger when core self-evaluations are higher. Those with positive core self-evaluations are confident in theirknowledge, skills, and abilities and are thus likely to take advantage of their proactivity to seek interpersonalopportunities to be mentored. On the other hand, those with unfavorable core self-evaluations are less likely to turntheir proactivity into actual behaviors that increase the chance of being mentored. Consistent with our arguments,Judge and Hurst (2007) found that core self-evaluations strengthen the positive effects of family advantage andeducational attainment on personal income. The authors concluded that those who have more positive core self-evaluations are better able to achieve their career goals by better leveraging their social resources. Thus, we expectthat those with positive core self-evaluations will be more likely to benefit from their proactivity than their counter-parts. To summarize, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 4a: The positive indirect (mediated) effect of proactive personality on informal mentoring received(via networking behavior) is stronger when core self-evaluations are higher.

Hypothesis 4b: The positive indirect (mediated) effect of proactive personality on informal mentoring received(via voice behavior) is stronger when core self-evaluations are higher.



Methods

Participants and procedures

We collected survey data from a high-technology firm located in Shenzhen. The high-technology companywe studied traditionally encouraged personal initiative among its employees but did not have a formal men-toring system in place. With the help of the HR manager, we surveyed 200 employees from the company’sproduction department in Shenzhen. These respondents included all of the first-level (junior) employeesfrom the department; these employees held a variety of different technology-intensive jobs (e.g., technicians).They were in need of support and assistance from experienced or senior coworkers to compensate fortheir inexperience.We administered two surveys at two different points in time to alleviate the threat of common method bias

(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). In the first survey, we asked the participants to answer questionsrelated to demographics, proactive personality, and core self-evaluations. Three months later, we asked abouttheir proactive behaviors and the informal mentoring they had received. In the second round of data collection,we inserted a section in the survey with a different reporting format in order to separate the items fornetworking and voice from those for informal mentoring received to alleviate the effect of common scaleformat. During the data collection, we ensured the confidentiality of individual responses in order to increaseparticipants’ candidness. The participants completed the surveys on the spot and returned them directly to aresearch team member.A total of 174 matched surveys were received, representing a response attrition rate of 13 percent

across 3months. The participants were mostly male (73.8 percent), relatively young (90.1 percent were between21 and 30 years), and reasonably well educated (83.7 percent had completed vocational/technical training). Theirworking experience was generally less than 3 years (79.3 percent); thus, our participants were at the early stageof their careers.

Measures

A 5-point Likert-type scale was used for all of the substantive variables. The English items were translated into Chineseby using translation and back-translation procedures (Brislin, 1986). All of the materials were presented in Chinese.

Proactive personalityParticipants completed Seibert, Crant, and Kraimer’s (1999) 10-item version of Bateman and Crant’s (1993)Proactive Personality Scale. A sample item is “I am constantly on the lookout for new ways to improve my life.”Principal axis factoring of these items generated a one-factor solution that accounted for a total of 33.91 percentof the common variance among the items. The common factor had an eigenvalue of 3.39. The Cronbachalpha for the scale was .78.

Informal mentoring receivedTraditionally, there are two approaches to measuring mentoring received: (i) to ask a single question aboutwhether respondents have such a relationship and (ii) to employ continuous indices to measure the extent to whichprotégés receive mentoring (Kammeyer-Mueller & Judge, 2008). Both of the approaches assume that one receivesmentoring assistance from a specific mentor only. The focus of this study was on informal mentoring relationships;in such relationships, a junior employee may receive assistance from more than one mentor and these mentorsmay change (Yang et al., 2011). Therefore, we took a third approach and measured informal mentoring receivedas development networks in which an individual may receive developmental supports from multiple mentors



(Higgins & Kram, 2001). We adapted the 18-item scale developed by Dreher and Ash (1990). Respondents wereinstructed to consider their actual experience within the current company and to rate the extent to which theyhad individuals (ti xie zhe1) who provided career-related and psychosocial mentoring to them (1= never to 5 = always).The literature has shown that the domain of mentoring assistance is generalizable to the Chinese context with a highpower distance and collectivism (Yang et al., 2011).In order to conduct fine-grained analyses on mentoring, we created two broad dimensions of mentoring

assistance (i.e., career-related and psychosocial assistance). Consistent with Turban and Dougherty (1994) andMetz (2009), we conducted the principal axis-factoring procedure and retained two factors with item loadingsgreater than 0.40 for each factor. The two factors accounted for 44.70 percent of the common variance amongthe items. The factor of psychosocial mentoring consisted of nine items (a = .84) and reflected counseling theprotégé on anxieties and uncertainty, and providing friendship and acceptance. A sample item is “(the mentor)conveys empathy for the concerns and feelings I have discussed with him/her.” The factor of career-relatedmentoring included specific supportive behaviors to the protégé such as providing human capital enhancementopportunities and links to powerful individuals in the organizations. It had six items (a = .80). A sample item is“(the mentor) gives (or recommends) challenging assignments to me that present opportunities to learn new skills.”Three of the 18 items were deleted because of heavy cross-loadings or low factor loadings.

Networking behaviorWe adapted six items from previous studies (Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998; Youndt, Subramaniam, & Snell, 2004) tomeasure the extent to which individuals actively build job-related relationships at work. A sample item is “I spendlots of time with other people at social occasions.” Principal axis factoring of these items generated a one-factorsolution that accounted for a total of 50.63 percent of the common variance among the items. The common factorhad an eigenvalue of 3.04. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was .79.

Voice behaviorWe measured voice behavior using the six-item scale developed by Van Dyne and LePine (1998). A sample item is“I develop and make recommendations concerning issues that affect this work group.” Principal axis factoring ofthese items generated a one-factor solution that accounted for a total of 46.12 percent of the common varianceamong the items. The common factor had an eigenvalue of 2.77. The Cronbach alpha was .76.

Core self-evaluationsWe used the 12-item Core Self-Evaluations Scale from Judge, Erez, Bono, and Thoresen (2003). This scale wasdesigned in a holistic and integrated manner to directly measure the components of self-esteem, generalizedself-efficacy, internal locus of control, and emotional stability. Principal axis factoring of these items generateda one-factor solution that accounted for a total of 32.24 percent of the common variance among the items. Thecommon factor had an eigenvalue of 2.72. Two negatively worded items were deleted from the analyses becauseof low factor loadings. A sample item is “I am confident I get the success I deserve in life.” The 10 items had aCronbach alpha of .70.

1As there are several ways to represent informal mentor in Chinese, in the questionnaire, we used the Chinese word ti xie zhe, which refers toexperienced or senior persons who provide career-related advice and support to and look after the junior persons. In Chinese organizations, tixie zhe may not necessarily be the direct supervisor and is often not formally assigned to junior persons by the organization. Any experiencedor senior members can be the ti xie zhe for early career employees. This is highly consistent with the definition of an informal mentor in the main-stream literature (Dougerty et al., 2007).



Control variablesWe controlled for five variables thought to influence informal mentoring received (Kammeyer-Mueller & Judge,2008).2 Age was measured as a categorical variable (e.g., 20 years or younger, 21–25, 26–30, and 31–35 years).Education was also measured as a categorical variable: middle school, high school, vocational/technical school,and university. Relevant work experience was measured using four categories: less than 1 year, 1–3 years, 3–5 years,and over 5 years. Gender was dummy-coded (1 =male and 0 = female). Finally, considering the effects of someindividuals’ general negative tendency toward their life and work situation, we controlled for negative affectivity3

by using the 10-item scale developed by Watson, Clark, and Tellegen (1988). The Cronbach alpha was .78.

Results

Confirmatory factor analyses

Six main variables were employed in this study: proactive personality, networking behavior, voice behavior,two forms of informal mentoring received, and core self-evaluations. Before testing the relationships among theconstructs, we assessed their distinctiveness through a series of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) procedures.We formed three parcels as indicators for each latent construct by averaging the items with the highest and lowestloadings, respectively. Against the baseline model of six factors (Model 1), we examined three alternative models(Models 2–4). As shown in Table 1, the nested models exhibited significantly worse fit than the baseline model, asseen from the significant chi-square difference tests and model fit indices. The baseline model of six factors fittedthe data well (w2 = 183.44, df = 120, RMSEA = 0.057, CFI = 0.96, IFI = 0.96, NNFI = 0.95). The standardized load-ings of all indicators on their specified constructs were significant at the 0.01 level. We also examined the averageshared variance of each construct. In most of the cases, variance-extracted estimates from any two measures weregreater than their squared inter-construct correlations, thus providing clear evidence of the distinctiveness of ourkey variables (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).In order to examine the potential influence of common method variance, we further included two measurement

models following the suggestions of Podsakoff et al. (2003). Model 5 was a one-factor model with all of themeasures combined together. Model 6 was a seven-factor model with all of the six factors and one uncorrelatedmethod factor. We allowed all of the 18 indicators to load on this method factor. The chi-square differencetest between the one-factor model and the baseline model was significant (Δw2 = 790.70 for 15 df, p< .01), andthe baseline model had a better fit to the data. The chi-square difference test between the baseline model and theseven-factor model was not significant (Δw2 = 23.79 for 18 df ), suggesting that the baseline model was notsignificantly improved by the addition of an uncorrelated method factor. We concluded that common methodvariance was not a serious threat to our study.

2Individuals may differ in their motives to receive mentoring assistance, and job performance may capture such motives. We did not include jobperformance as a control variable because the relationship between job performance and informal mentoring received is ambiguous conceptually.For example, we may argue that low performers would receive more informal mentoring because of a greater need for such mentoring; however,they may receive less informal mentoring because of their low visibility and potential. Moreover, the causal direction for the relationship is un-clear: Job performance could be an antecedent or a consequence of informal mentoring received. Nevertheless, we included self-related job per-formance in a supplementary analysis to check the robustness of our results. We found that self-rated job performance was not significantly relatedto informal mentoring received. All key results hold with the control of self-rated job performance.3Because the potential overlap between negative affectivity and neuroticism may partial out some of the variance in outcomes explained by coreself-evaluations, we re-analyzed our data without negative affectivity. The results remained unchanged. We elected to retain negative affectivity asa control variable because all our data were from the same source. Even though we collected them at two different time points, negative affectivitymay be an important source for inflating the correlations among our study variables (Podsakoff et al., 2003).



Descriptive statistics

Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations among the variables. The zero-order correlationbetween proactive personality and informal mentoring received was .15 (p< .05) for psychosocial mentoringand .24 (p< .01) for career-related mentoring. The correlation was .41 (p< .01) between proactive personalityand core self-evaluations, and .47 (p< .01) between networking and voice behavior. The correlations among thetwo mediators and informal mentoring received ranged from .17 (p< .05, psychosocial mentoring and networkingbehavior) to .25 (p< .01, career-related mentoring and networking behavior). Consistent with our CFA tests, thesemeasures appeared to be conceptually and empirically distinguishable.

Hypotheses testing

A series of multiple regression analyses was conducted to examine the hypotheses. In all of the analyses, we examinedthe proposed relationships while controlling for age, gender, education, tenure, and negative affectivity. We centeredproactive personality and core self-evaluations to avoid multicollinearity with their product terms in the moderationregressions (Aiken & West, 1991).

The main effect of proactive personality (Hypothesis 1)Table 3 presents the results for our hypothesized main effect of proactive personality. As shown in Model 1, proactivepersonality had a positive effect on psychosocial mentoring (b= .20, p< .05). Meanwhile, the effect of proactivepersonality on career-related mentoring was also positive and significant (b= .22, p< .01, see Model 3). Thus,Hypothesis 1 received support. In addition, as shown in Models 5 and 8, proactive personality had positive effectson both networking behavior (b= .29, p< .01) and voice behavior (b= .31, p< .01).

The mediating role of proactive behaviors (Hypothesis 2)In order to test Hypothesis 2, we examined the necessary conditions for mediation prescribed by Baron andKenny (1986). The analyses for Hypothesis 1 provided support for the first two conditions in examining a mediatingrelationship: the independent variable (i.e., proactive personality) related to the mediating variables (i.e., networkingand voice behavior); the independent variable related to the dependent variables (i.e., psychosocial and career-related

Table 1. Comparison of measurement models for study variables.

Models Descriptions w2 dfΔw2 overModel 1 RMSEA CFI IFI NNFI

1 Six factors: Proactive personality, networking, voice,two forms of mentoring, core self-evaluations

183.44 120 0.057 0.96 0.96 0.95

2 Five factors: Networking and voice were combinedinto one factor

303.10 125 119.66** 0.093 0.91 0.91 0.89

3 Five factors: The two forms of mentoring werecombined into one factor

301.84 125 118.40** 0.093 0.91 0.91 0.89

4 Five factors: proactive personality and core self-evaluations were combined into one factor

251.60 125 68.16** 0.078 0.93 0.93 0.91

5 One factor: All factors were combined into onefactor

974.14 135 790.70** 0.194 0.62 0.62 0.56

6 Seven factors: the baseline six factor and a methodfactor

159.65 102 23.79 0.49 0.97 0.97 0.96

Note: Two-tailed tests.**p< .01.



Table

2.Means,standarddeviations,and

inter-correlations

amongvariables.

Mean

SD1

23

45

67

89

1011

1.Psychosocialmentoring

3.25

0.61

.84

2.Career-relatedmentoring

2.86

0.71

.50**

.80

3.Proactiv

epersonality

3.44

0.56

.15*

.24**

.78

4.Networking

behavior

3.83

0.50

.17*

.25**

.31**

.79

5.Voice

behavior

3.12

0.55

.21**

.20**

.34**

.47**

.76

6.Coreself-evaluations

3.52

0.44

.16*

.16*

.41**

.23**

.20**

.70

7.Age

2.20

0.94

�.20**

.05

.15*

.11

.18*

.24**

—8.

Gender

0.74

0.44

�.06

.14†

.11

.07

.17*

.07

.38*

*—

9.Educatio

n3.16

0.61

�.08

.13†

.17*

.16*

.15†

.11

.16*

.15*

—10.T

enure

1.69

0.95

�.06

.04

.10

.04

.21**

.16*

.45**

.35**

.18*

—11.N

egativeaffectivity

1.73

0.52

�.03

�.07

�.15*

.01

�.05

�.43**

�.26**

�.07

�.08

�.23**

.78

Note:

N=169;

forgender,0=female,1=male.Cronbachalphacoefficientsformulti-item

scales

arelistedin

thediagonal.Two-tailedtests.

†p<.10;

*p<.05;

**p<.01.

Table

3.Regressionresults

formediatio

nanalysis.

Psychosocialmentoring

Career-relatedmentoring

Networking

behavior

Voice

behavior

Model

1Model

2Model

3Model

4Model

5Model

6Model

7Model

8Model

9Model

10

Age

�.22*

�.23**

�.04

�.06

.08

.06

.06

.05

.04

.04

Gender

.01

�.00

.13

.13

.01

.02

.04

.06

.06

.08

Educatio

n�.

09�.

11.09

.07

.10

.10

.06

.06

.06

.02

Tenure

.02

�.01

�.04

�.04

�.02

�.03

�.01

.14

.13

.15

Negativeaffectivity

�.05

�.06

�.04

�.05

.08

.14

.12

.06

.08

.07

Proactiv

epersonality

(PP)

.20*

.11

.22**

.15

.29**

.23**

.26**

.31**

.29**

.30**

Networking

behavior

.07

.17*

Voice

behavior

.21*

.05

Coreself-evaluation(CSV)

.17†

.20*

.07

.10

PP�CSV

.23**

.17*

ΔR2

.05**

.04*

.05**

.03*

R2

.08

.13

.08

.12

.114

.13

.18

.16

.16

.19

Fvalue

2.25*

3.01**

2.42*

2.61*

3.49**

3.54**

4.45**

5.13**

4.49**

4.66**

Note:

Two-tailedtests.

*p<.05;

**p<.01.



mentoring). In Step 3, both proactive personality and proactive behaviors were included in the analyses. As shown inModel 2 (Table 3), voice behavior was significantly related to psychosocial mentoring (b= .21, p< .05), and proactivepersonality became nonsignificant. Model 4 showed that networking behavior was significantly related to career-relatedmentoring (b= .17, p< .05), whereas proactive personality became nonsignificant. The preceding results suggestthat voice behavior mediated the relationship between proactive personality and psychosocial mentoring, whereasnetworking behavior mediated the relationship between proactive personality and career-related mentoring.Hypothesis 2 therefore received partial support.

The moderating role of core self-evaluations (Hypotheses 3 and 4)Hypothesis 3 is about the moderating roles of core self-evaluations in the relationship between proactive personalityand proactive behaviors. We tested this hypothesis using two separate moderated regression models (Model 7 fornetworking and Model 10 for voice). In support of Hypothesis 3, Table 3 shows a significant moderating effect of coreself-evaluations. Specifically, the beta coefficient for the interaction term (proactive personality� core self-evaluations)was significant for both networking behavior (b= .23, p< .01) and voice behavior (b= .17, p< .05).To visualize this interaction effect, separate simple slopes depicting the relationships between proactive personality

and proactive behaviors were examined. Plots were drawn for individuals whose scores on the moderator were onestandard deviation below and above the mean (Aiken & West, 1991). Figure 1 suggests that the relationship betweenproactive personality and networking behavior was positive and significant for the higher core self-evaluationsgroup (b= .42, p< .01) but nonsignificant for the lower core self-evaluations group (b= .05, ns). Figure 2 shows thatthe relationship between proactive personality and voice behavior was positive and significant for the higher coreself-evaluations group (b= .45, p< .01) and that this effect was marginal for the lower core self-evaluations group(b= .18, p< .06). Thus, Hypothesis 3 received support.Hypothesis 4 further proposed that the indirect effect of proactive personality on informal mentoring received,

via networking and voice behavior, differs in strength across lower and higher levels of core self-evaluations.We operationalized the higher and lower levels of core self-evaluations as one standard deviation above and belowthe mean score. The moderated path analysis approach proposed by Edwards and Lambert (2007) was followed

Net

wor

king

beh

avio

r High core self-evaluations

Low core self-evaluations

4.20

4.10

4.00

3.90

3.80

3.70

3.60

2.88 3.99Proactive personality

Figure 1. Core self-evaluations as a moderator for the relationship between proactive personality and networking behavior



to test this hypothesis. The results in Table 4 support the first-stage moderation effects, revealing significantmoderating effects of core self-evaluations because the paths from proactive personality to networking and voicediffered significantly across different levels of core self-evaluations (Δb= .42, p< .01 for networking behavior,Δb= .34, p< .01 for voice behavior). This provided additional support for Hypotheses 3a and 3b.

High core self-evaluations

Voi

ce b

ehav

ior

Low core self-evaluations

3.40

3.30

3.20

3.10

3.00

2.90

2.80

2.88 3.99Proactive personality

Figure 2. Core self-evaluations as a moderator for the relationship between proactive personality and voice behavior

Table 4. Moderated mediated results for proactive personality across levels of core self-evaluations.

Stage Effect

First Second Direct effect Indirect effect

Proactive personality (X)!Networking (M)!Psychosocial mentoring (Y)Low core self-evaluations (�1 SD) .05 .09 .12 .01High core self-evaluations (+1 SD) .47** .23 .02 .11Difference between low and high .42** .15 �.10 .10

Proactive personality (X)!Networking (M)!Career-related mentoring (Y)Low core self-evaluations (�1 SD) .05 .12 .05 .01High core self-evaluations (+1 SD) .47** .38 .39* .18*Difference between low and high .42** .26 .34 .17*

Proactive personality (X)!Voice (M)!Psychosocial mentoring (Y)Low core self-evaluations (�1 SD) .14 .16 .15* .02High core self-evaluations (+1 SD) .48** .22 .08 .11*Difference between low and high .34** .06 �.07 .09*

Proactive personality (X)!Voice (M)!Career-related mentoring (Y)Low core self-evaluations (�1 SD) .14 �.06 .05 �.01High core self-evaluations (+1 SD) .48** .30* .43* .14*Difference between low and high .34** .36 .39* .15†

Note: Two-tailed tests. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Bootstrap sample size = 1000.†p< .10;*p< .05;**p< .01.



The results in Table 4 indicate that the indirect relationship between proactive personality and career-relatedmentoring via networking behavior was significant (b= .18, p< .05) under high core self-evaluations but nonsignificant(b= .01, ns) under low core self-evaluations. The difference between the indirect relationships was significant (Δb= .17,p< .05). Meanwhile, for both the high and low core self-evaluations groups, the indirect relationship betweenproactive personality and psychosocial mentoring via networking behavior was not significant. Thus, Hypothesis 4awas partially supported.Regarding Hypothesis 4b, as shown in Table 4, the indirect relationship between proactive personality and

psychosocial mentoring via voice behavior was significant (b= .11, p< .05) when core self-evaluations werehigh but nonsignificant (b= .02, ns) when core self-evaluations were low. The difference between the indirectrelationships was significant (Δb= .09, p< .05). Meanwhile, the indirect relationship between proactive personal-ity and career-related mentoring via voice behavior was significant (b= .14, p< .05) when core self-evaluationswere high but nonsignificant (b=�.01, ns) when core self-evaluations were low. The difference between the indi-rect relationships was marginally significant (Δb= .15, p< .10). Thus, Hypothesis 4b was partially supported.

Discussion

In this study, we developed and tested a moderated mediation model of informal mentoring received. On the basisof a sample of 174 Chinese participants, we found that networking behavior mediated the relationship betweenproactive personality and career-related mentoring, whereas voice behavior mediated the relationship betweenproactive personality and psychosocial mentoring. Furthermore, we found that core self-evaluations moderatedthe aforementioned two indirect relationships. Our analyses showed that this moderation largely occurred at the firststage of the indirect relationship: Core self-evaluations positively moderated the relationship between proactivepersonality and the two proactive behaviors (i.e., networking and voice). These results advance the currentunderstanding of the mechanisms by which proactive personality relates to informal mentoring received and reveala dispositional moderator surrounding this relationship.

Theoretical implications

Our study contributes to the mentoring literature by linking proactive personality and informal mentoring receivedas well as by examining how proactive employees develop informal mentoring relationships. Researchers havepreviously argued that protégés with certain personality traits—those indicative of proactive behaviors towardothers—might initiate relationships and receive mentoring assistance (Aryee et al., 1999; Turban & Dougherty,1994). However, researchers have generally not paid specific attention to the role of proactive personality in thisprocess. To the best of our knowledge, two studies have included individual proactivity in mentoring research.Wanberg, Kammeyer-Mueller, and Marchese (2006) examined the relationship between proactive personalityand mentoring received in formal mentoring programs. Byrne, Dik, and Chiaburu (2008) examined proactivepersonality as a moderator in the relationship between mentoring assistance and career success. Building onand extending those works, we examined the dispositional and proactive approach to the formation of informalmentoring relationships. We showed that proactivity helps early career employees to gain psychosocial andcareer-related assistance from experienced or senior members through voice and networking behaviors. This studyalso contributes to prior research on proactive personality, which has shown that proactive personality leads tocareer success (e.g., promotion and increased salary) through proactive behaviors (Seibert, et al., 2001). Our findingsextend this line of research by showing that proactivity enhances informal mentoring received, a social resourcesupporting the career development of employees.



Second, in response to the call to investigate how protégés’ personality traits influence informal mentoringrelationships (Dougerty et al., 2007), we examined networking and voice behavior as two different mechanismslinking proactive personality and informal mentoring received. The mainstream literature on mentoring suggeststhat mentors deliberately seek out capable individuals as protégés on the basis of their expected productivity(Kammeyer-Mueller & Judge, 2008). Thus, early career employees who proactively build their career-relatedrelationships and demonstrate their potential are more likely to attract attention from potential mentors (Chandleret al., 2010). Interestingly, our results revealed the differential mediating roles of networking and voice behavior:Networking behavior mediated the relationship between proactive personality and career-related mentoring,whereas voice behavior mediated the relationship between proactive personality and psychosocial mentoring.There are two plausible explanations for our findings. The first is related to the context of Chinese society,

a strongly relationship-centered society (Yang, 1993). Because of the tendency to treat people differentially, peopleare usually motivated to make social investments to cultivate positive guanxi with experienced or senior employeesat work. Therefore, networking behavior in China has instrumental value for securing personal favors related tofulfilling individual career objectives. Meanwhile, voice behavior has different implications for early careeremployees looking to receive mentoring assistance. As we argued, voice behavior may increase personal visibilityand perceived competence. In China, company employees are encouraged to be responsible “citizens.” However,such behaviors may also result in personal vulnerability for the focal employee. It can be misinterpreted as a typeof personal criticism or complaint even though it is intended to target organizational improvement (Van Dyne& LePine, 1998). Thus, those who choose to be mentors are expected to take an advisory role and to providepsychosocial support and guidance to early career employees when they anticipate or actually see problemsresulting from their protégés’ voice behaviors. In Eastern Asia, a mentoring relationship is usually viewed not onlyas task accomplishment but also as a chain of particularistic ties, which involve social obligations from both sides inthe relationship (Bright, 2005; Yang et al., 2011). For example, as a type of particularistic tie in China, mentoringrelationship may demand the loyalty from the protégé’s side. The mentor, on the other hand, needs to provide theirprotections to the protégé (Farh & Cheng, 2000; Tsui & Farh, 1997). Future research could examine how culturaldifference influences the behavioral mechanisms of informal mentoring received.A second plausible explanation is that the measure of networking behavior was strictly restricted to work

domains and did not look at nonwork domains. We did not cover nonwork exchange behaviors that Chineserespondents usually engage in, including giving birthday gifts, offering interpersonal help for family issues, andhaving dinner together after work (Law et al., 2000). Mentors are more likely to provide psychosocial assistanceto their protégés during such occasions. Our results therefore may not exhaustively capture the relationship thatnetworking behaviors has with psychosocial mentoring assistance. Future research may develop a more contextualizedmeasure of networking behavior and examine whether it relates to psychosocial mentoring in China.Third, this study also contributes to the literature on proactivity. As a highly relevant antecedent to proactive

behavior, proactive personality drives a range of specific behaviors, such as network building (Lambert, Eby,& Reeves, 2006; Thompson, 2005), proactive socialization into the organization (Kammeyer-Mueller &Wanberg, 2003), taking charge, individual innovation, voice, and problem prevention (Parker & Collins, 2010).The aforementioned evidence suggests that even though proactive personality was conceptualized as a unitarydisposition, it is actually manifested as different forms of proactive behavior (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010). Inthis study, in order to explain the relationship between proactive personality and informal mentoring received,we proposed networking and voice as two interpersonal-oriented proactive behaviors that aim at creating afavorable environment for career development. Because individual proactivity may manifest itself in varyingdegrees, we further proposed and tested core self-evaluations as a moderating variable. Our results suggest that coreself-evaluations positively moderate the relationship between proactive personality and the two proactive behaviorsand thus its indirect relationships with career-related mentoring (via networking behavior) and psychosocialmentoring (via voice behavior). The significant interaction between proactive personality and core self-evaluationssuggests that clustering the personality variables within individuals, rather than focusing on proactive personalityonly, would add to its predictive validity in organizational research (Judge et al., 2004).



Meanwhile, our results provide support for the idea that individuals go through a deliberate decision processbefore engaging in proactive behaviors (Bindl & Parker, 2011; Grant & Ashford, 2008). Considering the possiblerisks involved in proactive behaviors, individuals may not fully turn their proactivity into actual behaviors. Highcore self-evaluations can alleviate the concerns in the deliberation process and thus bring out more the potentialof proactivity for proactive behaviors. Researcher may further examine other dispositional moderators (e.g., situationaljudgment ability; Chan, 2006) and contextual variables (e.g., justice climate; Li, Liang, & Crant, 2010) in explaininghow individual proactivity manifests itself into specific proactive behaviors.

Limitations and directions for future research

This study has several limitations. First, we collected all of the data from junior employees themselves. In thisstudy, we examined the extent to which junior employees received informal mentoring. Some junior employeesmay not have a mentor, and when they do, these mentors may change because of the informal nature of the relationships.We therefore did not collect data from mentors. Future research should collect data on how potential mentorsperceive the junior employee and whether their perception further mediates the relationship between proactivebehaviors and informal mentoring received by the junior employee.Second, while we collected data at two time points, proactive behaviors and informalmentoring receivedweremeasured

at the same time. As a result, we cannot empirically rule out the possibility of a reverse relationship between proactivebehaviors and informal mentoring received. Our theory is that proactive personality drives proactive behaviors, which,in turn, help junior employees gain informal mentoring. Conceptually, it is possible that those who already receive mentor-ing may engage in more proactive behaviors. However, it is also possible that they engage in less proactive behaviors (e.g.,networking) because they have already established relationships with experienced or senior employees (i.e., mentors) andthus see less need to do so. The reverse relationships therefore seem less clear conceptually. Nevertheless, future researchshould collect data frommultiple sources (e.g., both the mentor and the protégé) at multiple time points to provide the mostrigorous examination of the relationship between proactive behaviors and informal mentoring received.Third, the data used for hypothesis testing were collected from junior employees in a single organization—a high-

technology company in China. Although this sample is appropriate for examining the relationship between proactivepersonality and informal mentoring received, future studies should systematically examine the effects of researchcontext on our model and determine whether the pattern of our findings is generalizable to other contexts.Finally, we took a proactive approach and conceptualized junior employees as active agents in shaping their work situa-

tions. Most of our study variables were selected from this approach. However, early career employees are subject to theinfluence of people from various social spheres. Future research could explore this question from an ecological systemperspective and examine informal mentoring received as an activity embedded in complex interactions between socialsystems (Chandler, Kram, & Yip, 2011). For example, the congruence between the protégé and his or her mentors’ levelsof proactive personality (Zhang,Wang, & Shi, 2012) may be a powerful predictor for informal mentoring outcomes.Whenexamining the contingent factors of the proactive approach, future research may consider the roles of organizationalstructure and culture (Noe, Greenberger, & Wang, 2002) and examine how those contextual variables, in addition todispositional variables, influence the extent to which individuals can utilize their proactivity for career development.

Practical implications

In order to become “fast-tracked” among early career employees, an individual needs to take the initiative inbuilding informal mentoring relationships. Harris and Field (1992) described fast-tracked employees in a U.S. cor-poration as follows: “They itch to . . . get involved . . . they want visibility that comes from engaging in responsible ac-tivities and the personal satisfaction of taking on a challenge” (p. 64). Our inclusion of networking and voicebehavior is highly consistent with this observation.



There may be differences between Western and Chinese junior employees in terms of managing their careers.However, our results suggest that the benefits of individual proactivity for procuring mentoring assistance can begeneralized to a Chinese context as well. In order to align the career development of young employees with theinterest of the company, managers need to take into account two important traits (e.g., proactive personality andcore self-evaluations) in selecting candidates from the labor market. Meanwhile, it is necessary for firms to takeaction to encourage personal initiative among their employees. Such actions may entail changing the structureand culture of an organization to encourage proactive behaviors (e.g., voice and networking) and providing positivefeedback to activate employees’ positive self-evaluations; these measures would allow individuals to have moreopportunities to be proactive and to build high-quality informal mentoring relationships in their workplaces.Finally, with the increasing competition in the labor market, Chinese employees have gradually recognized theimportance of professional competence and qualifications for career development (Liu, 2003). Therefore, firmsneed to provide them with formal or informal mentoring assistances, particularly for those at their early career.

Acknowledgement

The work in this paper was jointly supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project No.70902046 and 71032003), and Doctoral Fund of Ministry of Education of China (Project No. 20090073120035).

Author biographies

Jian Liang is an associate professor at Antai College of Economics and Management at Shanghai Jiao TongUniversity. He obtained his PhD in Management from The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.His research interests include employee proactive behaviors, cultural values, leadership, and business ethics.Yaping Gong is an associate professor of management at School of Business and Management, The Hong KongUniversity of Science and Technology. He obtained his PhD in Management from the Fisher College of Business,The Ohio State University. His research interests include strategic human resource management, internationalhuman resource management, goal orientation theory, and employee creativity.

ReferencesAiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Allen, T. D. (2004). Protégé selection by mentors: Contributing individual and organizational factors. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 65, 469–483.

Allen, T. D., Eby, L., Poteet, M., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: Ameta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 127–136.

Aryee, S., Lo, S., & Kang, I.-L. (1999). Antecedents of early career stage mentoring among Chinese employees. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 20, 563–576.

Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social–psychological research. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 14, 103–118.

Belschak, F. D., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2010). Pro-self, prosocial, and pro-organizational foci of proactive behaviour: Differentialantecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 475–498.

Best, R. G., Stapleton, L. M., & Downey, R. G. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job burnout: The test of alternative models.Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 441–451.



Bindl, U., & Parker, S. K. (2011). Proactive work behavior: Forward thinking and change-oriented action in organizations. InS. Zedeck (Eds.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 567–598). Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Blickle, G., Witzki, A., & Schneider, P. B. (2009). Self-initiated mentoring and career success: A predictive field study. Journalof Vocational Behavior, 74, 94–101.

Bono, J. E., & Colbert, A. E. (2005). Understanding responses to multi-source feedback: The role of core self-evaluations. PersonnelPsychology, 58, 171–203.

Bozionelos, N., & Wang, L. (2006). The relationship of mentoring and network resources with career success in the Chineseorganizational environment. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17, 1531–1546.

Bright, M. I. (2005). Can Japanese mentoring enhance understanding of western mentoring? Employee Relations, 27, 325–339.Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instrument. In W. Lonner, & J. Berry (Eds.), Field methods incross-cultural research (pp. 137–164). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Brown, D. J., Cober, R. T., Kane, K., Levy, P. E., & Shalhoop, J. (2006). Proactive personality and the successful job search:A field investigation with college graduates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 717–726.

Byrne, Z. S., Dik, B. J., & Chiaburu, D. S. (2008). Alternatives to traditional mentoring in fostering career success. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 72, 429–442.

Chan, D. (2006). Interactive effects of situational judgment effectiveness and proactive personality on work perceptions and workoutcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 475–481.

Chandler, D. E., Hall, D. T., & Kram, K. E. (2010). A developmental network and relational savvy approach to talent development: Alow-cost alternative. Organizational Dynamics, 39, 48–5.

Chandler, D. E., Kram, K. E., & Yip, J. (2011). An ecological systems perspective on mentoring at work: A review and futureprospects. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 519–570.

Chun, J. U., Sosik, J. J., &Yun, N. Y. (2012). A longitudinal study of mentor and protégé outcomes in formalmentoring relationships.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 1071–1094.

Claes, R., & Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A. (1998). Influences of early career experiences, occupational group, and national culture onproactive career behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 357–378.

Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435–462.Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership influences on employee voice behavior: Is the door really open? Academy ofManagement Journal, 50, 869–884.

Dougerty, T. W., Turban, D. B., & Haggard, D. L. (2007). Naturally occurring mentoring relationships involving workplaceemployees. In T. D. Allen, & L. Eby (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspective approach(pp. 139–158). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Dreher, G. F., & Ash, R. A. (1990). A comparative study of mentoring among men and women in managerial, professional, andtechnical positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 539–546.

Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. (1993). Selling issues to top management. Academy of Management Review, 18, 397–428.Eby, L. T., Rhodes, J. E., & Allen, T. D. (2007). Definition and evolution of mentoring. In T. D. Allen, & L. Eby (Eds.),The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspective approach (pp. 7–20). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical frameworkusing moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1–22.

Erez, A., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 86, 1270–1279.

Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2000). A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In J. T. Li, A. S. Tsui,& E. Weldon (Eds.), Management and organizations in the Chinese context (pp. 94–127). London: Macmillan.

Farh, C. I. C., Tangirala, S., & Liang, J. (2010). Thinking before speaking: Employee cognitive engagement in change as aprecursor to voice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Academy of Management, Montreal Canada.

Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Perrewé, P. L., Brouer, R. L., Douglas, C., & Lux, S. (2007). Political skills in organizations.Journal of Management, 33, 290–320.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error.Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.

Forret, M. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (2001). Correlates of networking behavior for managerial and professional employees. Group& Organization Management, 26, 283–311.

Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research inOrganizational Behavior, 23, 133–187.

Fuller, J. B., & Marler, L. E. (2009). Change driven by nature: A meta-analytic review of the proactive personality literature.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 329–345

Fuller, J. B., Marler, L. E., Hester, K. (2012). Bridge building within the province of proactivity. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 33, 1053–1070.



Gong, Y., Cheung, S. Y., Wang, M., & Huang, J. C. (2012). Unfolding the proactive process for creativity: Integration of theemployee proactivity, information exchange, and psychological safety perspectives. Journal of Management, 38, 1611–1633.

Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34.Harris, S. G., & Field, H. S. (1992). High-potential management development programs. Journal of Management Development, 11,61–70.

Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. E. (2001). Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A developmental network perspective. Academy ofManagement Review, 26, 264–288.

Hwang, K. K. (1987). Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 944–74.Judge, T. A., & Hurst, C. (2007). Capitalizing on one’s advantages: Role of core self-evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology,92, 1212–1227.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. E. (1998). The power of being positive: The relation between positive self-concept and jobperformance. Human Performance, 11, 167–188.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The Core Self-Evaluations Scale (CSES): Development of a measure.Personnel Psychology, 56, 303–331.

Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach.Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151–188.

Judge, T. A., Van Vianen, A. E. M., & De Pater, I. E. (2004). Emotional stability, core self-evaluations, and job outcomes:A review of the evidence and an agenda for future research. Human Performance, 7, 325–346.

Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Judge, T. A. (2008). A quantitative review of mentoring research: Test of a model. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 72, 269–283.

Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Wanberg, C. R. (2003). Unwrapping the organizational entry process: Disentangling multipleantecedents and their pathways to adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 779–794.

Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Judge, T. A., & Scott, B. A. (2009). The role of core self-evaluations in the coping process. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 94, 177–195.

Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2003). Social network and organizations. London: Sage Publications.Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman andCompany.

Lambert, T. A., Eby, L. T., & Reeves, M. P. (2006). Predictors of networking intensity and network quality among white-collarjob seekers. Journal of Career Development, 32, 351–365.

Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., Wang, D., & Wang, L. (2000). Effect of supervisor-subordinate guanxi on supervisory decisions inChina: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11, 751–765.

Li, N., Liang, J., & Crant, M. (2010). The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior:A relational perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 395–404.

Liu, S. (2003). Culture within culture: Unity and diversity of two generations of employees in state-owned enterprises. HumanRelations, 56, 387–417.

Liu, D., Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., & Mao, Y. (2009). What can we gain as a mentor? The effect of mentoring on the job performanceand social status of mentors in China. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 871–895.

Metz, I. (2009). Organizational factors, social factors, and women’s advancement. Applied Psychology: An International Review,58, 193–213.

Michael, J., & Yukl, G. (1993). Managerial level and subunit function as determinants of networking behavior in organizations.Group & Organization Management, 18, 328–351.

Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson, & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads:Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333–352). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Noe, R. A., Greenberger, D. B., & Wang, S. (2002). Mentoring: What we know and where we might go. Research in Personneland Human Resource Management, 21, 129–173.

Parker, S. K. (1998). Role breadth self-efficacy: Relationship with work enrichment and other organizational practices. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 83, 835–852.

Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal ofManagement, 36, 633–662.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A criticalreview of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

Ragins, B. R. (1999). Gender and mentoring relationships: A review and research agenda for the next decade. In G. N. Powell(Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 347–370). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and women in formal and informalmentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 529–550.

Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactivepersonality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54, 845–974.



Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal,44, 219–37.

Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology,84, 416–427.

Seidel, M. D. L., Polzer, J. T., & Stewart, K. J. (2000). Friends in high places: The effects of social networks on discrimination insalary negotiations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 1–24.

Singh, V., Bains, D., & Vinnicombe, S. (2002). Informal mentoring as an organizational resource. Long Range Planning, 35,389–405.

Singh, R., Ragins, B. R., & Tharenou, P. (2009). Who gets a mentor? A longitudinal assessment of the rising star hypothesis.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 11–17.

Spence, A. M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 355–374.Thompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology,90, 1011–1017.

Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal,41, 464–476.

Tsui, A. S., & Farh, J. L. (1997). Where guanxi matters: Relational demography and guanxi in the Chinese context. Work andOccupations, 24, 56–79.

Turban, D. B., & Dougherty, T. W. (1994). Role of protégé personality in receipt of mentoring and career success. Academy ofManagement Journal, 37, 688–702.

Underhill, C. M. (2006). The effectiveness of mentoring programs in corporate settings: A meta-analytical review of the literature.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 292–307.

Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity.Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108–119.

Wanberg, C. R., Kammeyer-Mueller, J., & Marchese, M. 2006. Mentor and protégé predictors and outcomes of mentoring in aformal mentoring program. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 410–423.

Wang, S., Noe, R. A., Wang, Z., & Greenberger, D. (2009). What affects willingness to mentor in the future? An investigation ofattachment styles and mentoring experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 245–256

Wang, S., Tomlinson, E. C., & Noe, R. A. (2010). The role of mentor trust and protégé internal locus of control in formal mentoringrelationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 358–367.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect:The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.

Wu, P. C., Foo, M. D., & Turban, D. B. (2008). The role of personality in relationship closeness, developer assistance, and careersuccess. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 440–448.

Xin, K. R. (2004). Asian American managers: An impression gap? An investigation of impression management and supervisor-subordinate relationships. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40, 160–181.

Yang, K. S. (1993). Chinese social orientation: An integrative analysis. In L. Y. Cheng, F. M. C. Cheung, & C. N. Chen (Eds.),Psychotherapy for the Chinese: Selected papers from the first international conference (pp. 19–56). Hong Kong: The ChineseUniversity of Hong Kong.

Yang, L.-Q., Xu, X., Allen, T. D., Shi, K., Zhang, X., & Lou, Z. (2011). Mentoring in China: Enhanced understanding andassociation with occupational stress. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 485–499.

Youndt, M. A., Subramaniam, O., & Snell, S. A. (2004). Intellectual capital profiles: An examination of investments and returns.Journal of Management Studies, 41, 335–361.

Zhang, Z., Wang, M., & Shi, J. Q. (2012). Leader–follower congruence in proactive personality and work outcomes: The mediatingrole of leader–member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 111–130.



Copyright of Journal of Organizational Behavior is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv withoutthe copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, oremail articles for individual use.

capitalizing on proactivity for informal mentoring

Documents

psychosocial mentoring

benetsof mentoring

mentoring assistance

careerrelated mentoring

formal mentoring singh

negative mentoring experiences

informal mentors

early career employees