for better and for worse
TRANSCRIPT
For better and for worseAdverse working conditions and the
beneficial effects of mentoringHetty van Emmerik
Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Keywords Mentoring, Benefits, Job satisfaction Working conditions
Abstract This study examined the direct and buffering effects of mentoring on the relationshipbetween adverse working conditions and positive (i.e. intrinsic job satisfaction and careersatisfaction) and negative (i.e. the burnout dimensions: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization,and reduced personal accomplishment) employee outcomes. Moderated regression analyses on thedata of 1,320 faculty members showed direct effects of mentoring on both positive and negativeemployee outcomes. Moreover, from the results of testing the buffering hypotheses, it appears thatmentoring is possibly not only an important career development and psychosocial resource inprosperity, but also maybe an important tool to improve positive employee outcomes and to reduceburnout when employees are confronted with adverse working conditions. Implications of resultsand directions for future research are discussed.
IntroductionMentoring is a critical career resource for employees by providing career guidanceand psychosocial support (Baugh and Scandura, 1999; Hunt and Michael, 1983;Noe, 1988; Ragins and Cotton, 1999). The beneficial effects of mentoring on careersuccess have received ample attention. For instance, proteges indicate to be moresatisfied with their jobs (Whitely and Coetsier, 1993), mentoring facilitatesorganizational commitment, and enhances career expectations (Baugh andScandura, 1999). Moreover, proteges not only report more perceived careersuccess (Turban and Dougherty, 1994), but also actually receive more promotions(Dreher and Ash, 1990; Scandura and Schriesheim, 1994) and even make moremoney (Scandura, 1992).
However, work environmental influences may facilitate or constraint theopportunities of beneficial mentoring relationships (Higgins, 2001) and there aretwo questions that come to mind when viewing the beneficial effects of mentoring.First, is the mentoring relationship only beneficial in times of career prosperity, orcan a mentor also be helpful in adversity? Second, is the mentoring relationshipalso able to reduce harmful consequences such as burnout? Despite the abundanceof studies on the beneficial effects of mentoring on career success, these issues havenot received noticeable attention. Yet, examining these issues may advanceinsights concerning the range of potential benefits of mentoring i.e. not only
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.em eraldinsight.com/res earchregister www.em eraldinsight .com/1362-0436. htm
An earlier version of this article was presented at the Academy of Management meeting, Seattle,2003.
CDI9,4
358
Received September2003Revised October 2003Accepted October 2003
Career Development InternationalVol. 9 No. 4, 2004pp. 358-373q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1362-0436DOI 10.1108/13620430410526157
beneficial effects on career success but also potential direct and buffering benefitsof mentoring taking adverse working conditions into account. In the next sectionwe will first view at mentoring from a coping assistance perspective (Thoits, 1986)to examine if mentoring is also a viable option for employees who suffer fromadverse working conditions. Next, direct and buffering effects of mentoring on therelationship adverse work assistance are proposed with positive work outcomes,i.e. preventing intrinsic and career dissatisfaction, and with negative workoutcomes, i.e. burnout.
The hypotheses will be tested on a sample of faculty members. Most mentoringresearch has been based on nonacademic settings (De Janasz and Sullivan, 2002).Nevertheless, working within universities has changed dramatically, large changesin resource allocation took place, substantial and rapid decline in funding and anongoing emphasis on more efficiency, and faculty members are increasinglypressured to be productive (Altbach, 1995). Whereas initially nearly all new facultymembers report high levels of satisfaction with their careers, they do not maintainsuch satisfaction and enthusiasm over time (Sorcinelli, 1994). Dissatisfaction andfeelings of fatigue are intensified by heightened work pressure and role conflict(Viswesvaran et al., 1999). Consequently, in the present study the beneficial effectsof mentoring when employees are confronted with adverse working conditions inacademia, namely heightened work pressure and role conflict, will be examined.
Mentoring as coping assistanceMentors are influential individuals with advanced experience and knowledgeproviding support and mobility to their protege’s careers (Hunt and Michael, 1983;Ragins and Cotton, 1991; Ragins and Cotton, 1999; Ragins and Scandura, 1997).Generally, mentors are thought to help their proteges by providing careerdevelopment aid, which facilitates the protege’s advancement in the organization,and psychosocial functions, which contribute to the protege’s personal growth andprofessional development (Ragins and Cotton, 1999). However, there is no agreedon precise definition of a mentor and many use the term mentor interchangeablywith coach, sponsor and colleague, although these roles may involve differenttypes of relationships (De Janasz and Sullivan, 2002). Nevertheless,conceptualizations of mentoring predominantly do emphasize beneficial effectsof mentoring on career development without specifying conditions that will fosterthe creation of such benefits. However, it may also be argued that mentors are ableto assist employees to achieve valued outcomes when they confronted with adverseworking conditions. To reduce the effects of adverse work conditions, employeescan develop various coping strategies by themselves (Latack and Havlovic, 1992),but individuals also can be backed up with different kinds of coping assistance i.e.the active participation of significant others in an individual’s stress-managementefforts (Thoits, 1986), e.g. coping assistance provided by a mentor. In worksettings, studies concerning the beneficial effects of coping assistance to boostsatisfaction often emphasize the beneficial effects of specific coping assistance,
For better andfor worse
359
namely socio-emotional aid (Baruch-Feldman et al., 2002; Lee and Ashforth, 1990;Rafferty et al., 2001). Typically, such a form of coping assistance to promotepositive employee outcomes can be expected to be provided for by a mentor.
Beneficial effects of mentoring when employees are confronted with adverseworking conditions can be investigated as direct or as buffering effects (Cohen andWills, 1985; Cummins, 1990; Dormann and Zapf, 1999; Greenglass et al., 1996). Adirect effect model assumes mentoring and adverse working conditions to actindependent of one another on dissatisfaction and burnout. A buffering modelassumes mentoring to moderate the relationship between adverse workingconditions and employee outcomes. Within social support and coping assistancestudies, especially the buffering model has received considerable attention(Viswesvaran et al., 1999), notwithstanding evidence for buffer effects of copingassistance to be rather tenuous, with only weak support for the buffer hypothesis(Haines and Hurlbert, 1991; Koniarek and Dudek, 1996). Nevertheless, bufferingeffects have considerable practical implications because adverse workingconditions sometimes hardly can be completely eliminated and then negativeeffects of adverse working conditions can possibly be compensated for bybuffering effects of coping assistance (Cohen and Wills, 1985; Dormann and Zapf,1999). Accordingly, in the present study, both direct and buffer effects of mentoringwhen employees are confronted with adverse working conditions will be examined.Furthermore, these direct and buffering effects models will be used to examine theassociation with positive employee outcomes and with negative employeeoutcomes.
Positive employee outcomesWork satisfaction is a highly important variable in organizational studies and it isassociated with a variety of constructs, such as job characteristics, group andorganizational characteristics, and leader relations (Kinicki et al., 2002). Specificallyfor the sample of faculty members used in this study, workload, role conflict andlack of role clarity brought by multiple role obligations, such as the combination ofeducational, research and administrative tasks, may negatively affect worksatisfaction (Blaxter et al., 1998).
Existing theory predicts mentoring to be associated with positive employeeoutcomes (Kram and Isabella, 1985; Ragins et al., 2000) and studies generallysupport the direct effects model of mentoring. For instance, studies showemployees with a mentor to report more promotions, higher incomes, and morework satisfaction than employees without a mentor (Baugh and Scandura, 1999;Dreher and Ash, 1990; Ragins et al., 2000; Scandura, 1992; Scandura andSchriesheim, 1994; Turban and Dougherty, 1994; Whitely and Coetsier, 1993). Inthe present study, we want to express this relationship between mentoring andpositive employee outcomes more fully by specifying both a direct and a bufferinghypothesis:
CDI9,4
360
H1. Mentoring will be positively associated with positive work outcomes (i.e.intrinsic job satisfaction and career satisfaction).
H2. Mentoring will moderate the negative relationship between adverseworking conditions andpositivework outcomes, such that for thosewithouta mentor this relationship will be stronger than for those with a mentor.
Negative employee outcomesNegative employee outcomes examined in this study are three burnout dimensions.Burnout is a unique type of stress syndrome that is most commonly referred to as asyndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and reduced personalaccomplishment (Cordes and Dougherty, 1993; Maslach et al., 1996; Schaufeli et al.,1993). Emotional exhaustion refers to feelings of being overextended and drainedfrom one’s emotional resources. Depersonalization is an attempt to put distancebetween oneself and others. People may develop such an indifference or cynicalattitude when they are exhausted and discouraged. Reduced personalaccomplishment or feelings of inefficacy are prompted by a work situation withchronic, overwhelming demands that is likely to erode one’s sense of effectiveness.
Burnout is increasingly recognized as a very serious occupational health hazard,often associated with employee dissatisfaction, lowered productivity, absenteeismand turnover (Gianakos, 2000; Maslach et al., 2001). Working in an academicenvironment has been related to higher levels of stress and burnout as facultymembers are put under increasing pressure to be more productive (Altbach, 1995;Gillespie et al., 2001). Consequently, academic staff has become particularly proneto dissatisfaction and burnout (Blaxter et al., 1998).
Typically, coping assistance to reduce negative employee outcomes can beexpected to be provided for by a mentor and this lead to the formulation of a directand a buffering effects hypothesis for negative employee outcomes. Themeta-analysis of Viswesvaran et al. (1999) showed coping assistance to lessenthe seriousness of burnout. Generally, coping assistance studies support the directeffects model of coping assistance to reduce the consequences of adverse workingconditions (Baruch-Feldman et al., 2002; Lee and Ashforth, 1990; Maslach et al.,2001; Rafferty et al., 2001; Schaufeli et al., 1993). For instance, the emotional supportin the Lee and Duxbury (1998) study, the coping assistance instrument used in thestudy of Cummins (1990), and the personal support in the study of Parson et al.(1992) are examples of the use of socio-emotional aid as one of the forms of copingassistance. Studies suggest also support for buffering effects model of mentoring toreduce the negative effects of adverse working conditions on employee outcomes(Himle et al., 1991; Koniarek and Dudek, 1996). In the present study, we want alsoexpress this relationship between mentoring and negative employee outcomesmore fully by specifying both a direct and a buffering hypothesis:
H3. Mentoring will be negatively associated with negative work outcomes (i.e.burnout).
For better andfor worse
361
H4. Mentoring will moderate the negative relationship between adverseworking conditions and negative work outcomes, such that for thosewithout a mentor this relationship will be stronger than for those with amentor.
MethodPopulation and sampleThis study was comprised of a sample of 1,320 faculty members from a largersurvey on careers of faculty members. The overall survey yielded 1,881questionnaires with a response rate of 33 percent. For the present study, only theinformation of respondents that had filled in the network variables – where thepresence of a mentor was asked – was used. The response with respect to genderand age was compared with data from the personnel information system of theuniversity. According to this database, 43 percent is female and 57 percent is male.The sample comprised 561 (43 percent) female and 759 (57 percent) male facultymembers. Further, the personnel database showed that the mean age of femalefaculty members is 41.7 years (SD ¼ 3.1) versus 38.2 years (SD ¼ 9.9) in thesample. A total of 58 percent of the respondents indicates having a mentor.
MeasuresDependent variablesNegative employee outcomes. Burnout was measured with the Maslach BurnoutInventory (Maslach et al., 1996). The emotional exhaustion scale consist of sixitems:
(1) Feeling used up at the end of the workday.
(2) Feeling fatigued when getting up in the morning and facing another day onthe job.
(3) Feeling emotionally drained from work.
(4) Feeling burned out from work.
(5) Feeling frustrated with the job.
(6) Feeling of working too hard (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ 0.81).
The scale used a five-point Likert scale response format (1 – strongly disagree, to 5– strongly agree). The items were summated and divided by six, thus indicating1 ¼ low and 5 ¼ high emotional exhaustion. Only one item to measuredepersonalization was used: worrying that this job is hardening emotionally,and this was measured with the same five-point scale. Reduced personalaccomplishment was measured with the following five items:
(1) Feeling (not) very energetic.
(2) Dealing (not) very effectively with problems at work.
(3) Doubting the significance of work.
CDI9,4
362
(4) (Not) having accomplished many worthwhile things in job.
(5) (Not) dealing with emotional problems very calmly (Cronbach’salpha ¼ 0.65).
The scale also used a five-point Likert response format (1 – strongly disagree, to 5– strongly agree). The items were summated and divided by 5, thus indicating1 ¼ low and 5 ¼ high extent of reduced personal accomplishment.
Positive employee outcomes. Intrinsic job satisfaction was measured with fiveitems concerning interesting work, use of knowledge and experience, challenge,autonomy, and sufficiently demanding work (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ 0.82). Careersatisfaction was measured with the following five items:
(1) Satisfaction with career perspectives.
(2) Satisfaction with employment conditions.
(3) Satisfaction with taking care for career well-being of employees.
(4) Satisfaction with opportunities to participate in important decision making.
(5) Satisfaction with professional training opportunities (Alpha ¼ 0.68).
Both indices were measured on a five-point Likert scale response format andsummated and divided by 5, thus indicating 1 ¼ low satisfaction and 5 ¼ highsatisfaction.
Independent variablesMentoring. The following definition of a mentor was the guiding principle (Raginsand Cotton, 1991, 1999; Ragins and Scandura, 1997): An influential individual inyour work environment who has advanced experience and knowledge and who iscommitted to providing upward mobility and support to your career. Presence of amentor was classified with the question “Do you have a mentor?” and this wascoded 1 ¼ mentor, and 0 ¼ no mentor.
Adverse working conditions.Work pressure was measured with 1 ¼ verysatisfied, 5 ¼ very dissatisfied. Three role conflict items were used from the scaleof Rizzo et al. (1970): unreasonable pressure to perform, conflicting task demands,and doing tasks that are opposed to own judgment. The items were scored on afive-point Likert scale response format (1 – completely disagree, to 5 – completelyagree) and also summated and divided by 3. Reliability with Cronbach’salpha ¼ 0.68.
Background/control variables. As background variables gender, hierarchicallevel and working status were included. Age was not included in the analysesbecause it is strongly related to hierarchical level in tenure based academic ranks.Gender was inventoried with 0 ¼ male and 1 ¼ female. Hierarchical level wasclassified into five categories: 1 ¼ PhD candidate and junior faculty members,2 ¼ Post-doctorate, 3 ¼ Assistant Professor, 4 ¼ Associate Professor, and5 ¼ Full Professor. Work status was coded 1 ¼ working full-time and0 ¼ part-time.
For better andfor worse
363
ResultsTable I presents means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients for allmeasures included in the study. As expected (Maslach et al., 2001; Schaufeli et al.,1993), the burnout dimensions emotional exhaustion and depersonalization aremoderately correlated (r ¼ 0.53, p, 0.01) and both are less strongly related to thethird burnout dimensions reduced personal accomplishment (with emotionalexhaustion r ¼ 0.39, p , 0.01, and with depersonalization r ¼ 0.30, p , 0.01).Mentoring appears to be weakly positively correlated with positive employeeoutcomes: Intrinsic job satisfaction (r ¼ 0.17, p , 0.01), and career satisfaction(r ¼ 0.13, p , 0.01). Further, mentoring appears to be weakly negativelyassociated with negative employee outcomes: emotional exhaustion (r ¼ 20.10,p , 0.01), depersonalization (r ¼ 20.10, p , 0.01), and reduced personalaccomplishment (r ¼ 20.11, p , 0.01).
Five moderated regression analyses were performed for the five employeeoutcomes: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, reduced personalaccomplishment, intrinsic job satisfaction, and career satisfaction. Prior to dataanalyses, role conflict and work pressure were centered, using the deviation fromthe mean scores, to minimize problems of multicollinearity (Cohen et al., 2003). Totest specifically for interaction effects, the variables were entered in three steps. Instep 1, the background variables (gender, hierarchical level, and working status)and the adverse working conditions (role conflict and work pressure) were entered.In step 2, mentoring was entered. In step 3, the product variables, computed bymultiplying mentoring with work pressure and multiplying mentoring with roleconflict were added. Table II shows the results of the regression analyses.
Mentoring appears to be positively related to the satisfaction measures: Withintrinsic job satisfaction b = 0.18 ( p, 0.01), and with career satisfaction b = 0.12( p, 0.01). Thereby,H1, that mentoring is positively associated with positive workoutcomes (i.e. intrinsic job satisfaction and career satisfaction) is supported.Two of the specified interactions for the satisfaction measures turn out to besignificant. To examine if these interactions support the specified direction in H2,the interactions are plotted following the procedures outlined by Aiken and West(1991) by displaying different lines for mentor present and mentor not present.Figure 1 provides graphical displays of the significant interactions.
Panel 1a depicts the relationship between role conflict and intrinsic jobsatisfaction for mentor present and mentor not present. Employees with a mentor– independent of level of role conflict – score higher on intrinsic job satisfaction.The less steep line for those with a mentor indicates mentoring to buffer thenegative relationship between role conflict and intrinsic job satisfaction. The samepicture emerges for the relationship between role conflict and career satisfaction formentor present and mentor not present, as depicted in Panel 1b. Thereby lendingsupport for H2 (that mentoring moderates the negative relationship betweenadverse working conditions and positive work outcomes, such that for those
CDI9,4
364
Mean
SD
12
34
56
78
910
1Emotional
exhaustion
1.99
0.66
2Depersonalization
1.41
0.78
0.53**
3Reducedpersonal
accomplishment
2.20
0.49
0.39**
0.30**
4Intrinsicjobsatisfaction
2.97
0.77
20.24**
20.26**
20.30**
5Careersatisfaction
3.96
0.71
20.28**
20.32**
20.44**
0.43**
6Gender
0.43
0.49
0.08**
0.00
0.15**
20.14**
20.05
7Hierarchical
level
2.37
1.09
0.01
0.03
20.15**
0.17**
0.01
20.22**
8Workingstatus
(full-tim
e/part-time)
0.64
0.48
20.03
20.02
20.03
0.12**
0.03
20.24**
20.11**
9Workpressure
2.92
1.12
0.47**
0.22**
0.24**
20.19**
20.22**
0.03
0.19**
20.03
10Roleconflict
2.29
0.82
0.45**
0.30**
0.27**
20.29**
20.29**
0.07**
0.05
0.07*
0.42**
11Mentoring
0.58
0.49
20.10**
20.10**
20.11**
0.17**
0.13**
0.02
20.15**
0.06*
20.08**
20.09**
Notes:*p,
0.05,**
p,
0.01
Table I.Means, standard
deviations, and personcorrelations (n ¼ 1,320)
For better andfor worse
365
Emotional
exhaustion
Depersonalization
Reducedpersonal
acc.
Intrinsicjob
satisfaction
Careersatisfaction
’DR
2’
DR
2’
DR
2’
DR
2’
DR
2
Step1
0.30**
0.10**
0.15**
0.16**
0.10**
Gender
0.03
20.05
0.10**
20.05
0.00
Hierarchical
level
20.08**
20.03
20.18**
0.22**
0.06
Workingstatus
20.03
20.05
20.04
0.13**
0.05
Roleconflict
0.39**
0.39**
0.25**
20.34**
20.34**
Workpressure
0.29**
0.00
0.10*
20.04
20.06
Step2
0.01**
0.01*
0.01**
0.03**
0.02**
Mentoring(M
)20.06**
20.06*
20.11**
0.18**
0.12**
Step3
0.01*
0.01**
0.01
0.01*
0.01*
M£
workpressure
0.06
0.14**
0.10*
20.08
20.08
M£
roleconflict
20.12**
20.19**
20.05
0.11*
0.14**
Notes:
*p,
0.05;**
p,
0.01
Total
variance
explained
isR
2¼0.31
(p,
0.01)forem
otional
exhaustion;R
2¼0.11
(p,.01)
fordepersonalization;R
2¼0.17
(p,
0.01)for
reducedpersonal
accomplishment,R
2¼0.20
(p,
0.01)intrinsicjobsatisfaction,andR
2¼0.31
(p,
0.01)forcareer
satisfaction
Table II.Regression analyses fornegative and positiveemployee outcomes(n ¼ 1,320)
CDI9,4
366
without a mentor this relationship is stronger than for those with a mentor) for roleconflict.
Mentoring shows to be negatively associated with all three burnout dimensions.With emotional exhaustion b =20.06, p, 0.01, with depersonalization b =20.06( p , 0.05), and with reduced personal accomplishment b = 20.11 ( p , 0.01).Thereby, providing support for H3 that mentoring is negatively associated withnegative work outcomes (i.e. the three burnout dimensions).
Four of the six specified interactions for the burnout dimensions turn out to besignificant and they are graphically presented in Figure 2.
Panels 2a and 2b depict the relationship between role conflict with emotionalexhaustion and with depersonalization. In both cases, as expected, although moreevident for depersonalization, the relationship between role conflict and burnout isstronger for those without a mentor than for those with a mentor. Thereby, H4(mentoring moderates the negative relationship between adverse workingconditions and negative work outcomes, such that for those without a mentorthis relationship will be stronger than for those with a mentor) is supported for roleconflict on two of the three burnout dimensions.
Panels 2c and 2d depict the relationship between work pressure withdepersonalization and with reduced personal accomplishment. Both panels showmentoring to have more beneficial effects when work pressure is low. However,confronted with high work pressure those with and without mentor hardly differ inthe extent of burnout and the relationship between work pressure and burnout andburnout is not stronger for those without a mentor than for those with a mentor.Thus, H4 is not supported for work pressure.
Figure 1.Graphical
representations of themoderating role on the
relationship between roleconflict and positiveemployee outcomes
For better andfor worse
367
DiscussionMentoring was demonstrated to be positively related to positive work outcomes,i.e. intrinsic job satisfaction and career satisfaction. With this positive associationof mentoring with positive employee outcomes, the results of the present studyreplicate and underscore mentoring to be a critical resource to boost the career andpsychosocial development of employees (e.g. Baugh and Scandura, 1999; De Janaszand Sullivan, 2002; Noe, 1988; Ragins and Cotton, 1999; Scandura, 1992). Further,results showed a negative association of mentoring with negative employee
Figure 2.Graphicalrepresentations of themoderating role on therelationship betweenadverse workingconditions conflict andnegative employeeoutcomes
CDI9,4
368
outcomes, i.e. the burnout dimensions emotional exhaustion, depersonalization,and reduced personal accomplishment. Moreover, from the results of testing thebuffering hypotheses, mentoring appears to be an important tool to improvepositive employee outcomes and to reduce burnout when employees are confrontedwith adverse working conditions. The negative relationship between adverseworking conditions and intrinsic work and career satisfaction appeared to bestronger for those without a mentor than for those with a mentor. Thus providingsupport for a buffering model of mentoring on the relationship adverse workingconditions and positive employee outcomes. The results for negative workoutcomes were somewhat less straightforward. As expected, the relationshipbetween role conflict and burnout for the burnout dimensions emotionalexhaustion and depersonalization, is stronger for those without a mentor thanfor those with a mentor. But the relationship between work pressure and burnout isnot stronger for those without a mentor than for those with a mentor. Therefore,the buffering model receives mixed support for the moderating relationship ofmentoring on negative employee outcomes. Taken together these results suggestthat having a mentor is especially important for employees plagued by roleconflict. Especially role conflict appeared to be a pronounced adverse workingcondition that is sensitive for the buffering potentials of mentoring. Perhapsmentors are able to provide their proteges with more insight how to handleconflicting tasks demands that gave rise to role conflict, or possibly proteges canbetter work off stress of conflicting task demands by the coping assistance of amentor. Nevertheless, in the present study only two measures of adverse workingconditions were used and future research may benefit from taking more diversestressful working conditions into account for a better understanding of potentialbuffer effects of mentoring.
Some words of caution regarding the results of this study are necessary. Asalready emphasized by De Janasz and Sullivan (2002), there is not yet a consistentdefinition of mentoring. The definitions of mentoring in use all focus more or lesson the beneficial effects of mentoring in times of prosperity and positive careerdevelopment trajects. The present study shows mentoring also to be a valuable toolto be used when employees are confronted with adverse working conditions.Extending the applicability of mentoring to such conditions adds a dimension tothe comprehensive phenomenon of mentoring, but also shows that mentoring canbe a viable option for those employees who do not have excellent careeropportunities or who suffer from stress and burnout. It maybe objected that this ismore the role of a coach. However, the faculty members in this study show thatthey attribute these capacities to their having a mentor, i.e. an influential individualin their work environment that has advanced experience and knowledge and iscommitted to provide support to their career (Ragins and Cotton, 1991, 1999;Ragins and Scandura, 1997). Elaboration further on the definition issue, noattention was paid to two additional elements of the definition of mentoring. Thepossibility that beneficial effects of mentoring could be attributed to different
For better andfor worse
369
mentors was not included, although De Janasz and Sullivan (2002) suggest that thetraditional model of professors, being guided throughout their careers by oneprimary mentor, may no longer be realistic. Having multiple mentors may enhancementoring outcomes, such as greater job satisfaction and better career expectations(Baugh and Scandura, 1999).
Further, respondents were not asked to indicate the precise nature of thementoring relationship, albeit studies show proteges with informal mentors mightreceive greater benefits than proteges with formal mentors (Ragins and Cotton,1999). Both issues emphasize even more the need for a sound definition ofmentoring, and it is recommended that future research adopts a consistentdefinition which includes different dimensions of the construct and makes adistinction between different types of mentoring to improve our ability togeneralize across settings and to compare findings across studies (De Janasz andSullivan, 2002).
Further, the data were collected via self-report measures and common methodvariance easily can become a problem, also the cross-sectional design precludescausal relationships. Future research efforts need not only consider usinglongitudinal and multi-actor data, for instance information from both mentor andprotege, but also might focus particularly on the significance of morecomprehensive definitions of mentoring, as career resource and as copingassistance.
The results of the present study have a number of practical implications fororganizations seeking to promote the mentoring relationships. First, beneficialeffects of mentoring when employees are confronted with adverse workingconditions are particular salient in times that stress and burnout areincreasingly recognized to be serious occupational health hazards (Gianakos,2000; Maslach et al., 2001). Moreover, buffering effects may have considerablepractical value when adverse working conditions hardly can be completelyeliminated (Cohen and Wills, 1985; Dormann and Zapf, 1999). Exclusivelyfocusing on the beneficial effects of coping assistance of mentors may easilyoverlook the negative influences of adverse work factors as shown in thisstudy.
From the results it is obvious that work pressure and role conflict are associatedwith dissatisfaction and burnout for the faculty members in this study. As manyorganizations plan to establish formal mentoring programs (Armstrong et al., 2002)these functions might be included in the task description of such formal mentoringprograms. But when organizations want to promote their employees’ well beingthey have to devote their attention also to the implementation of more preventivestrategies (Cummins, 1990) to relieve work pressure clarify roles andresponsibilities.
Finally, the strength of study may well be the buffering effects of mentoring onthe relationship adverse working conditions and positive and negative employeeoutcomes. Thereby the potential effects of mentoring “for better and for worse” are
CDI9,4
370
emphasized: mentoring is not only a powerful career resource in times of careerprosperity, but also a viable option in times of adversity.
References
Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression., Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Altbach, P.G. (1995), “Problems and possibilities: the US academic profession”, Studies in HigherEducation, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 27-44.
Armstrong, S.J., Allinson, C.W. and Hayes, J. (2002), “Formal mentoring systems: an examinationof the effects of mentor/protege cognitive styles on the mentoring process”, Journal ofManagement Studies, Vol. 39 No. 8, pp. 1111-37.
Baruch-Feldman, C., Brondolo, E., Ben-Dayan, D. and Schwartz, J. (2002), “Sources of socialsupport and burnout, job satisfaction, and productivity”, Journal of Occupational HealthPsychology, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 84-93.
Baugh, S.G. and Scandura, T.A. (1999), “The effects of multiple mentors on protege attitudestoward the work setting”, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 14 No. 4,pp. 503-21.
Blaxter, L., Hughes, C. and Tight, M. (1998), “Writing on academic careers”, Studies in HigherEducation, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 281-95.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G. and Aiken, L.S. (2003), Applied Multiple Regression/CorrelationAnalysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Cohen, S. and Wills, T.A. (1985), “Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis”,Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 310-57.
Cordes, C.L. and Dougherty, T.W. (1993), “A review and an integration of research on jobburnout”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 621-56.
Cummins, R.C. (1990), “Job stress and the buffering effect of supervisory support”, Group &Organization Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, p. 92.
De Janasz, S.C. and Sullivan, S.E. (2002), “Multiple mentoring in academe: developing theprofessorial network”, paper presented at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Academy ofManagement, Denver, CO, 9-14 August.
Dormann, C. and Zapf, D. (1999), “Social support, social stressors at work, and depressivesymptoms: testing for main and moderating effects with structural equations in athree-wave longitudinal study”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 6, pp. 874-84.
Dreher, G.F. and Ash, R.A. (1990), “A comparative study of mentoring among men and women inmanagerial, professional, and technical positions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75No. 5, pp. 539-46.
Gianakos, I. (2000), “Gender roles and coping with work stress”, Sex Roles, Vol. 42, pp. 1059-79.
Gillespie, N.A., Walsh, M., Winefields, A.H., Dua, J. and Stough, C. (2001), “Occupational stress inuniversities: staff perceptions of the causes, consequences and moderators of stress”,Workand Stress, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 53-72.
Greenglass, E., Fiksenbaum, L. and Burke, R.J. (1996), “Components of social support, bufferingeffects and burnout: Implications for psychological functioning”, Anxiety, Stress andCoping, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 185-97.
Haines, V.A. and Hurlbert, J.S. (1991), “Occupational stress, social support, and the bufferhypothesis”, Work & Occupations, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 212-35.
For better andfor worse
371
Higgins, M.C. (2001), “Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: a developmental networkperspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 254-88.
Himle, D.P., Jayaratne, S. and Thyness, P. (1991), “Buffering effects of four social support typeson burnout among social workers”, Social Work Research & Abstracts, Vol. 27 No. 1,pp. 22-7.
Hunt, D.M. and Michael, C. (1983), “Mentorship: a career training and development tool”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 8, pp. 475-85.
Kinicki, A.J., McKee-Ryan, F.M., Schriesheim, C.A. and Carson, K.P. (2002), “Assessing theconstruct validity of the Job Descriptive Index: a review and meta-analysis”, Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 14-32.
Koniarek, J. and Dudek, B. (1996), “Social support as a buffer in the stress-burnout relationship”,International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 99-106.
Kram, K.E. and Isabella, L. (1985), “Mentoring alternatives: the role of peer relationships in careerdevelopment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 110-32.
Latack, J.C. and Havlovic, S.J. (1992), “Coping with job stress: a conceptual evaluation frameworkfor coping measures”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13, pp. 479-508.
Lee, C.M. and Duxbury, L. (1998), “Employed parents’ support from partners, employers, andfriends”, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 138 No. 3, pp. 303-22.
Lee, R.T. and Ashforth, B.E. (1990), “On the meaning of Maslach’s three dimensions of burnout”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 6, pp. 743-7.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S.E. and Leiter, M.P. (1996),Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual, ConsultingPsychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B. and Leiter, M.P. (2001), “Job burnout”, Annual Review of Psychology,Vol. 52 No. 397-422.
Noe, R.A. (1988), “Women and mentoring: a review and research agenda”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 13, pp. 65-78.
Parson, L.A., Sands, R.G. and Duane, J. (1992), “Sources of career support for university faculty”,Research in Higher Education, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 161-76.
Rafferty, Y., Friend, R. and Landsbergis, P.A. (2001), “The association between job skilldiscretion, decision authority and burnout”, Work and Stress, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 73-85.
Ragins, B.R. and Cotton, J.L. (1991), “Easier said than done: gender differences in perceivedbarriers to gaining a mentor”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 939-51.
Ragins, B.R. and Cotton, J.L. (1999), “Mentor functions and outcomes: a comparison of men andwomen in formal and informal mentoring relationships”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 84 No. 4, pp. 529-50.
Ragins, B.R. and Scandura, T.A. (1997), “The way we were: gender and the termination ofmentoring relationships”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 6, pp. 945-53.
Ragins, B.R., Cotton, J.L. and Miller, J.S. (2000), “Marginal mentoring: the effects of type ofmentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 117-1194.
Rizzo, J., House, R. and Lirtzman, S.I. (1970), “Role conflict and ambiguity in complexorganizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 15, pp. 150-63.
Scandura, T.A. (1992), “Mentorship and career mobility: an empirical investigation”, Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 169-74.
CDI9,4
372
Scandura, T.A. and Schriesheim, C.A. (1994), “Leader-member exchange and supervisor careermentoring as complementary constructs in leadership research”, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 1588-602.
Schaufeli, W., Maslach, C. and Marek, T. (1993), Professional Burnout: Recent Developments inTheory and Research, Taylor and Francis, Washington, DC.
Sorcinelli, M.D. (1994), “Effective approaches to new faculty development”, Journal of Counseling& Development, Vol. 72 No. 5, p. 474.
Thoits, P.A. (1986), “Social support as coping assistance”, Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 416-23.
Turban, D.B. and Dougherty, T.W. (1994), “Role of protege personality in receipt of mentoringand career success”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 688-702.
Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J.I. and Fisher, J. (1999), “The role of social support in the process ofwork stress: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 314-34.
Whitely, W.T. and Coetsier, P. (1993), “The relationship of career mentoring to early careeroutcomes”, Organization Studies, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 419-41.
For better andfor worse
373