mentoring provided: relation to mentors career success ... bozionelos.pdf · career success,...

Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 24–46

www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

Mentoring provided: Relation to mentor�scareer success, personality, and

mentoring received

Nikos Bozionelos*

Department of Human Resource Management, Strathclyde Business School, University of Strathclyde,

The Graham Hills Building, 50 Richmond Street, Glasgow G1 1XU, UK

Received 25 April 2002

Abstract

The relationship of a mentor�s perceptions of his/her career success, mentoring he/she re-

ceived, personality, and the amount of mentoring he/she provided was investigated in a sample

of 176 administrators. Results indicated that the amount of mentoring respondents reported

they had provided was positively associated with their objective and their subjective career suc-

cess and with the amount of mentoring they reported they had received. Mentoring provided

mediated the relationship between mentoring received and subjective career success. Finally,

the personality trait of openness was associated with mentoring provided over and above

the contribution of human capital and demographics. The results were in line with suggestions

in the literature that providing mentoring has positive consequences for the career of the men-

tor and that an individual who has been mentored is more likely to provide mentoring. How-

ever, the findings suggested a limited role for the personality of the mentor in providing

mentoring. The implications for career development practices and tactics and for future

research were considered, along with the limitations of the study.

� 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

Keywords: Mentoring provided; Mentors; Prot�eeg�ees; Personality; Five-Factor model; Career success;

Objective; Subjective

* Fax: +44-141-552-3581.

E-mail address: [email protected].

0001-8791/$ - see front matter � 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00033-2

mail to: [email protected]

N. Bozionelos / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 24–46 25

1. Introduction

Mentoring is defined as a developmental relationship that involves organizational

members of unequal status or, less frequently, peers (Kram, 1985). The relationship

may involve a variety of socio-emotional (e.g., friendship, counseling) and career de-velopment (e.g., role modeling, career guidance) functions that the mentor provides

for the prot�eeg�ee (Kram, 1985; Noe, 1988; Scandura, 1992).

Mentoring has been established as a human resource practice and as an individual

strategy for career success (e.g., Atkinson, 2002; Knouse, 2001; O�Reilly, 2001).

A respectable body of empirical systematic research has investigated its nature,

antecedents, and consequences (e.g., for a short review see Russell & Adams, 1997).

However, up-to-date empirical research has predominantly focused on anteced-

ents and consequences of mentoring from the perspective of prot�eeg�ees (Higgins &Kram, 2001; Ragins, 1997). With few exceptions (Allen, Poteet, Russell, & Dobbins,

1997; Ragins & Cotton, 1993; Ragins & Scandura, 1999), there is a scarcity of sys-

tematic empirical investigations of mentoring from the perspective of mentors. The

present work adopted the perspective of those who provide mentoring and investi-

gated correlates of mentoring provided by mentors.

The study focused exclusively on informal mentoring relationships (i.e., relation-

ships that are initiated and evolve naturally and without organizational intervention)

between organizational members of unequal status. This type of relationship is typ-ically associated with the term ‘‘mentoring’’ (e.g., Eby, 1997; Higgins & Kram, 2001).

However, mentoring exists in other forms, including formal mentoring, which refers

to mentoring relationships arranged by the organization, lateral mentoring, which

involves individuals of equal status, and external mentoring, which refers to develop-

mental relationships between individuals who function within different organiza-

tional settings. These forms of mentoring, albeit important (e.g., see Allen,

McManus, & Russell, 1999; Eby, 1997; Higgins & Kram, 2001), were excluded from

the focus of the present work.

2. Theoretical background and formulation of hypotheses

2.1. Mentoring and career success

A substantial amount of empirical research has investigated the relationship of

mentoring with career success of prot�eeg�ees. Career success is conceptualized as realor objective and perceived or subjective achievements in individuals� work lives

(e.g., Judge, Cable, Boudreau, & Bretz, 1995; Van Maanen & Schein, 1977). Objec-

tive career success refers to career accomplishments evaluated by means of external

or objective criteria, which utilize societal or organizational definitions of success

or failure (Gattiker & Larwood, 1988; Jaskolka, Beyer, & Trice, 1985). Subjective

career success refers to individuals� own internal evaluations of their career accom-

plishments (Gattiker & Larwood, 1986, 1988; Poole, Langan-Fox, & Omodei,

1993).

26 N. Bozionelos / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 24–46

Empirical systematic research has demonstrated that mentoring relates to objec-

tive career success of prot�eeg�ees, including number of promotions achieved (e.g., Ary-

ee, Wyatt, & Stone, 1996; Dreher & Ash, 1990; Scandura, 1992), salary progression

(Dreher & Ash, 1990), salary levels (e.g., Turban & Dougherty, 1994; Wallace, 2001),

and organizational grade (Koberg, Wayne Boss, Chappell, & Ringer, 1994); and tosubjective career success of prot�eeg�ees (e.g., Fagenson, 1989; Koberg et al., 1994; Mur-

phy & Ensher, 2001; Wallace, 2001).

2.2. Mentoring provided and career success

Researchers have argued that providing mentoring entails benefits for the careers

of mentors. From an objective career success perspective, mentors may become more

effective and efficient by delegating to prot�eeg�ees (Nykodym, Freedman, Simonetti, &Nielsen, 1995). In addition, mentors should be able rely on loyal subordinates for

information and support (Kram, 1985; Mullen, 1994) that may form the basis for

further advancement in the organization (Dreher & Ash, 1990). Finally, researchers

have suggested that mentors may enhance their reputation among organizational de-

cision makers who recognize the mentors� contributions through the achievements of

prot�eeg�ees (Kram, 1985). From a subjective career success perspective, mentors may

gain satisfaction, sense of accomplishment, and additional meaning in their work

lives by helping less experienced colleagues and by finding an outlet for passing theiraccumulated knowledge and wisdom (Clawson, 1980; Kram, 1983, 1985; Levinson,

Darrow, Klein, Levinson, & McKee, 1978; Ragins & Scandura, 1999). However, as

authors have noted (Ragins, 1997), despite theorizing the relationship between men-

toring provided by mentors and their career success has received little systematic em-

pirical attention.

Hypothesis 1a: The perceived amount of mentoring provided by a mentor will be

positively related to the mentor�s objective career success.

Hypothesis 1b: The perceived amount of mentoring provided by a mentor will bepositively related to the mentor�s subjective career success.

2.3. Mentoring provided and personality

It has been suggested that the personality of the mentor affects involvement by the

mentor in mentoring relationships (e.g., Chao, 1997; Fagenson, 1989; Kram, 1985;

Scandura & Ragins, 1993; Turban & Dougherty, 1994). The identification of person-

ality features that relate to mentoring provided by mentors has important practicalimplications. Ragins, Cotton, and Miller (2000) found that the quality of the mentor

plays an important role in prot�eeg�ees� attitudes towards their jobs, their careers, andthe organization, and they suggested that it is important to identify individual char-

acteristics that relate to proneness and ability to become a mentor.

The Five-Factor Model (FFM) or ‘‘Big Five’’ constitutes a promising taxonomy

to parsimoniously and comprehensively describe human personality and consists of

the following traits: Neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and consci-

entiousness (e.g., Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1990). The FFM has been criticized (e.g.,


see Block, 1995; Eysenck, 1992) and there has been debate over its validity (for a re-

view see Merenda, 1999, pp. 920–924). Nevertheless, the FFM has received extensive

empirical support (e.g., Digman, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1996; Wiggins & Trapnell,

1997; and see Goldberg, 1993). For example, most recent quantitative review re-

search is supportive of its comprehensiveness, a critical property that refers to theextent to which every personality trait is substantially related to one or more of

the FFM traits (O�Connor, 2002). Adherence to the FFM taxonomy in organiza-

tional research greatly enhances parsimony and provides the desired variable consis-

tency across studies (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Salgado, 1997; Tokar, Fischer, &

Mezydlo Subich, 1998).

Characteristics of neuroticism include anxiety, inhibition, negative mood, and a

tendency to focus on the self. These features should make individuals who score high

on neuroticism less likely to approach subordinates to provide mentoring functionsfor them. Furthermore, neuroticism is associated with hostility, impatience, and

low confidence. These characteristics should make the individual less attractive as

a mentor.

Extraversion is associated with spontaneity, activity, and intimacy in social inter-

actions. Hence, extraverts will be more likely to approach potential prot�eeg�ees and in-

teract with them beyond formal work activities. Furthermore, the characteristics of

extraversion are related to inter-personal competence, and experimental work indi-

cates that prot�eeg�ees show a preference for imaginary mentors who demonstrate highlevels of interpersonal competence (Olian, Carroll, Giannantonio, & Feren, 1988).

Openness encompasses cognitive and emotional flexibility and receptivity to new

experiences and ideas. Hence, those who score high on openness should be more

likely to develop interest in the views of subordinates, accept their idiosyncrasies,

and find interest in the relationship. Furthermore, those with broad interests and tol-

erance to diverse views and ideas should be more attractive as potential mentors.

Agreeableness encompasses care and concern for others as well as trust and mod-

esty. Therefore, agreeable individuals should be more inclined towards providing ad-vice, help, and support for less experienced and less powerful organizational members.

Furthermore, agreeable individuals will be less likely to feel threatened to share their

knowledge and expertise with others, hence, more likely to become mentors.

Conscientiousness encompasses sense of duty and adherence to moral principles.

Hence, conscientious individuals should be prone to provide advice and developmen-

tal support for less senior colleagues. Furthermore, the achievement striving facet of

conscientiousness reflects a tendency to develop aspirations. This should lead to

identification with the work efforts of subordinates and should increase the likeli-hood to mentor them (Allen et al., 1997). Finally, the qualities of industriousness

and reliability that characterize conscientious individuals should increase the likeli-

hood to be approached by prot�eeg�ees for mentoring.

The empirical literature includes a limited number of well-conducted investiga-

tions of the association between personality traits and precursors of mentoring pro-

vided, such as motivation (Aryee, Chay, & Chew, 1996), willingness (Allen et al.,

1997) and perceived competence to provide mentoring (Rice & Brown, 1990).

Motivation and willingness reflect intentions, while perceived competence reflects


self-efficacy beliefs to provide mentoring. Intentions and efficacy beliefs are only im-

perfect predictors of actual or self-reported behavior (e.g., Ajzen, 1991; Armitage &

Conner, 2001). Therefore, the relationship between mentoring provided by mentors

and their personality traits needs to be investigated.

Hypothesis 2a. Neuroticism will be negatively related to mentoring provided.Hypothesis 2b. Extraversion will be positively related to mentoring provided.

Hypothesis 2c: Openness will be positively related to mentoring provided.

Hypothesis 2d: Agreeableness will be positively related to mentoring provided.

Hypothesis 2e: Conscientiousness will be positively related to mentoring provided.

2.4. Mentoring provided and mentoring received

Authors have suggested that mentoring cultures, that is cultures that promote andfoster developmental relationships between organizational members, are initiated and

sustained when more senior employees provide mentoring for less experienced orga-

nizational members who in turn become mentors when the opportunity arises (Ragins

& Scandura, 1999). Role modeling, a pivotal mentoring function (Scandura, 1992;

Scandura & Ragins, 1993), provides an explanation for this process. Those who have

been mentored are more likely to model the fact that senior colleagues have provided

mentoring functions for them; and in turn they may exercise this behavior later in

their careers and become mentors for their junior colleagues. Furthermore, thosewho have received mentoring tend to anticipate more rewards from becoming men-

tors than those who have not received mentoring (Ragins & Scandura, 1999). Hence,

having received mentoring may increase the likelihood to provide mentoring.

Studies have reported associations between having received mentoring and inten-

tions to provide mentoring in the future among executives (Ragins & Scandura,

1999), professionals (Ragins & Cotton, 1993) and first-line supervisors (Allen et al.,

1997). Therefore, empirical research must proceed to investigate whether amount of

mentoring that individuals report they have received in their organizational careerhistory is associated with the amount of mentoring they report they have provided.

Hypothesis 3: The amount of mentoring an individual reports he/she has received

in the past will be positively related to the amount of mentoring he/she reports he/

she has provided.

It is reasonable to assume that most individuals start their careers at lower orga-

nizational grades, mostly as subordinates. Hence, for most individuals the opportu-

nity to receive mentoring precedes the opportunity to provide mentoring. Therefore,

considering the relationship between mentoring received and mentoring providedfrom a temporal point of view, it is logical to assume that it is mentoring received

that acts as the causal variable in the relationship.

Empirical research that was reviewed earlier indicates that mentoring received by

prot�eeg�ees is associated with their career success, and we hypothesized in the present

study that the amount of mentoring provided by individuals would be associated

with the amount of mentoring they received in the past, and with their career success.

If those hypotheses are proved correct, it is then logical to further hypothesize that

the amount of mentoring provided by individuals partially mediates the relationship


between the amount of mentoring they received and their career success; taking into

account that mentoring received must temporally precede mentoring provided.

Hypothesis 4a: The amount of mentoring provided by mentors will partially me-

diate the relationship between the amount of mentoring they received and their

objective career success.Hypothesis 4b: The amount of mentoring provided by mentors will partially me-

diate the relationship between the amount of mentoring they received and their

subjective career success.

Not only have authors called for empirical investigations of the mentors� perspec-tives, but they have also noted that such investigations must not be limited to upper

organizational echelons (Allen et al., 1997; Ragins & Scandura, 1999). Every hierar-

chical level that entails managerial responsibility is linked with the opportunity to

provide mentoring. Furthermore, the flattened organizational structures of the pres-ent era attach increased responsibilities for the development of employees, which is

an activity inherent in mentoring, to middle and lower managerial ranks (e.g., see

Allen et al., 1997). Hence, the present study utilized a sample of individuals from ev-

ery rank, lowest to the highest, that was associated with the opportunity to provide

mentoring for other organizational members.

2.5. Control for human capital, demographics, and structural factors

Structural, human capital, and demographic factors were controlled for. Empirical

evidence suggests that objective and subjective career success (e.g., Aryee et al., 1996;

Boudreau, Boswell, & Judge, 2001; Melamed, 1996a) as well as the development of

mentoring relationships (Aryee, Lo, & Kang, 1999; Olian, Carroll, & Giannantonio,

1993) are related to human capital, such as education and organizational tenure, and

demographic characteristics, such as gender and marital status. Furthermore, empir-

ical evidence suggests that career success (e.g., Judge et al., 1995; Melamed, 1995,

1996a) and the development of mentoring relationships (Aryee et al., 1996; Aryeeet al., 1999) are also affected by structural factors that include organizational features

and environmental characteristics, such as industry type and the geographic region.

The study was conducted within a uniform organizational environment. This type

of environment, which may consist of a single organization or of highly similar or-

ganizations, provides the most appropriate setting to control for the effects of struc-

tural factors (Cannings & Montmarquette, 1991; Gattiker & Larwood, 1986).

Human capital and demographic variables were statistically controlled for.

3. Method

3.1. Setting

White-collar workers who were administrators in three universities in the north-

west of England were targeted. The three institutions were located in the

same geographic region, had the same organizational structure, utilized a common


promotion procedure and employed very similar numbers of white-collar personnel.

None of the institutions had at the time of the investigation, or at any time in the

past, a formal mentoring scheme in place.

The organizational hierarchy for white-collar personnel consisted of 11 grades with

no formal distinction between clerical and administrative grades. Taking into accountrange and scope of responsibilities, latitude of work behavior, and the accountability

inherent in each grade (Gattiker & Larwood, 1988) employees in grade four and

above were classified as administrators. Those were the individuals who had manage-

rial responsibilities and the opportunity to provide mentoring for subordinates within

this particular organizational setting. Although, it was not assumed, or required, that

all of them had actual experience in providing mentoring for subordinates.

3.2. Procedure

Envelopes that included the questionnaires, a letter asking for participation in a

study on ‘‘attitudes towards work,’’ and a self-addressed postage-paid envelope for

the return of completed questionnaires were sent via the internal mail to all listed grade

four and above non-academic and non-technical employees in the institutions. The op-

tion of feedback onpersonality profileswas offered to the respondents.Of the 198 ques-

tionnaires that were returned (response rate 31.2%), 188 were usable. This response

rate was satisfactory, considering that each questionnaire demanded responses toabout 250 items contained in 14 pages, and is near the response rate that should be an-

ticipated when questionnaires are distributed to working individuals through the mail

(see Baruch, 1999). Of the respondents who returned usable questionnaires, 176 indi-

cated at least two years of tenure and they were included in the analysis. Two years rep-

resent an adequate time interval for a mentoring relationship to unfold (e.g., see Chao,

1997; Fagenson-Eland,Marks, & Amendola, 1997) and for effects of personality traits

on interpersonal or career outcomes to become evident (Helmreich, Sawin, &Garsrud,

1986). In all analyses the ratios of respondents to variables were well above the recom-mended lower limits (e.g., Berry & Feldman, 1985; Comrey, 1973).

Taking into account the moderate response rate, two methods were employed to

conclude on the extent to which non-response bias could have been introduced into

the data (De Vaus, 1996). First, testing was conducted for differences in age and ten-

ure between respondents who provided usable responses and the total white-collar

workforce in grade four and above in the institutions. The t tests showed no signif-

icant differences. Second, testing was conducted for mean differences between the re-

spondents and the British general population of non-manual occupations (Smith,1994, p. 16) in raw scores on the primary factors of the Cattell 16PF5 (Cattell, Cat-

tell, & Cattell, 1993).1 A series of one-sample t tests showed no significant differences

1 Scores on Cattell 16PF5�s (Cattell et al., 1993) global factors, which were utilized in the study, can be

derived only in sten (i.e., standardized ten scores) form. This is because scores on the global factors are

estimated on the basis of sten scores on 15 primary personality factors (the 16th factor is mental ability),

which are derived by applying the appropriate formulae on the raw scores on these factors (see Russell &

Karol, 1994).


in 12 out of the 15 comparisons. These results suggested that non-response was not

very likely to have introduced bias into the data.

3.3. Sample

Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. Of the respondents, 119 (66.4%)

were women and 57 (33.6%) were men. This ratio was representative of the wom-

en-to-men ratio in the organizational grades included in the study. Of the respon-

dents, 75 (42.6%) were single and 101 (57.4%) were married. The sample was

considerably educated as 78.4% of respondents held at least post-secondary school

qualifications, 44.3% held undergraduate degrees, and 21% held graduate degrees.

Finally, a series of one-way Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs) showed no differences

between respondents from the three organizations in scores on mentoring provided,F ð2; 173Þ ¼ 0:80, ns, mentoring received, F ð2; 173Þ ¼ 0:04, ns, and subjective career

success, F ð2; 173Þ ¼ 0:79, ns; and an Analysis of Co-variance (ANCOVA), with ten-

ure and starting grade as co-variates, showed no difference in number of promotions

received, F ð2; 171Þ ¼ 1:71, ns. This provided further evidence on the uniformity of

the setting.

3.4. Measures

Five-factor model traits. These were assessed with the global factors of the UK edi-

tion of the Cattell 16PF52 (Cattell et al., 1993; Russell & Karol, 1994). Sten (stan-

dardized ten scores), using the norms for the British general population for non-

manual occupations (Smith, 1994, p. 29), were utilized. Empirical evidence (Byravan

& Ramanaiah, 1995; Conn & Rieke, 1994; Russell & Karol, 1994) demonstrates the

correspondence between the global factors of the 16PF5 and other personality inven-

tories that aim at tapping the FFM, including the NEO PI-R (Costa & McCrae,

1992) and Goldberg�s Marker Scales (Goldberg, 1992). The correspondence of16PF5�s global factors tough-mindedness and independence with openness and

agreeableness, respectively, is negative; hence, the signs of the respective coefficients

between scores on these traits and scores on the rest of the variables was reversed in

the results. The inventory also yields scores on an independent factor, impression

management, which assesses social desirability (Russell & Karol, 1994), and was uti-

lized in order to test whether responses to the mentoring provided scale were affected

by social desirability.

Objective career success. This was operationalized as number of promotions sincejoining the organization, calculated as the difference between current and starting

grade, after imposing statistical control for starting grade and tenure. Indices of ob-

jective career success that are functions of the hierarchical position are preferable

2 Reproduced by permission of the exclusive publisher of 16PF5 in the English language in the

European Community: ASE, a division of NFER-NELSON Publishing Company Limited, Darville

House 2, Oxford Road East, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1DF, UK. 16PF5 copyright. The Institute for

Personality and Ability Testing, Inc., 1993.

Table

1

Descriptivestatisticsandintercorrelations(N

¼176)

MSD

12

34

56

78

910

11

12

13

14

15

1.Mentoringprovided

2.97

1.33

—

2.Mentoringreceived

2.95

0.95

0.24

—

3.Subjectivecareer

success

3.23

0.67

0.25

0.45

—

4.Number

ofpromotions

2.18

1.94

0.22

0.10

0.23

—

5.Tenure

8.73

6.62

0.19

)0.02

)0.01

0.56

—

6.Grade

5.85

2.10

0.29

0.05

0.26

0.31

0.02

—

7.Startinggradea

3.70

2.46

0.09

)0.04

0.04

)0.56

)0.43

0.65

—

8.Age

38.35

9.07

0.13

)0.02

0.08

0.15

0.51

0.21

0.06

—

9.Educationalattainment

3.41

1.09

0.13

0.14

0.12

)0.04

)0.18

0.42

0.39

)0.14

—

10.Socio-economic

origin

1.96

0.91

)0.08

0.18

)0.06

)0.10

)0.03

0.01

0.10

)0.02

0.12

—

11.Neuroticism

5.70

1.86

)0.06

0)0.15

)0.02

)0.02

)0.12

)0.08

)0.24

0.11

0—

12.Extraversion

5.31

2.02

0.04

0.18

0.11

)0.03

)0.21

00.02

)0.15

)0.04

)0.03

)0.18

—

13.Openness

5.14

1.66

0.20

0.23

0.09

)0.10

)0.18

0.09

0.15

)0.01

0.28

0.05

0.09

0.40

—

14.Agreeableness

5.17

1.76

)0.15

)0.02

0.05

)0.09

0.13

)0.14

)0.05

0.07

)0.10

0.03

0.06

)0.30

)0.42

—

15.Conscientiousness

5.03

1.65

)0.11

)0.16

)0.09

)0.02

0.25

)0.15

)0.12

0.21

)0.28

0.06

)0.12

)0.29

)0.43

0.33

—

Note.Correlations>

:14,.19,.22are

significantatp<

:05;p<

:01;p<

:001,respectively.

aCorrelationsforstartinggradeare

basedonnaturallogarithmic

values.



when single or identically structured organizations are studied (e.g., see Cox & Har-

quail, 1991). This single criterion of objective career success was utilized in order to

preserve parsimony: Promotion rate (i.e., number of promotions controlling for

starting grade and tenure) is a function of current grade, starting grade and tenure.

In addition, it reflects the process of attaining career outcomes instead of providingthe isolated snapshot that current grade provides.3 Furthermore, in these organiza-

tions salary grades were strictly tied-up to organizational grades. Therefore, utiliza-

tion of an index of objective career success that is a function of salary, in addition to

an index that is a function of grade, would be redundant.

Subjective career success. This was measured with seven items on a 5-point re-

sponse format (1: completely disagree, 5: completely agree) from Gattiker and Lar-

wood (1986). The items assess subjective evaluations of success in the following

domains: Job success (e.g., ‘‘I am in a position to do mostly work which I reallylike’’); hierarchical success (e.g., ‘‘I am pleased with the promotions I have received

so far’’); financial success (e.g., ‘‘I receive a high income compared to my col-

leagues’’); and interpersonal success (‘‘I am respected by my colleagues’’). Cronbach

a for the present sample was .70.

Mentoring received. This was assessed with seven items on a 5-point response for-

mat (1: not at all, 5: to a great extent) from Dreher and Ash (1990). Respondents

considered their career history since they started working in the organizations and

indicated the extent to which ‘‘a higher-ranking individual (this need not be limitedto one person) who had advanced experience and knowledge’’ had provided a variety

of mentoring functions for them. Items covered career-related functions (e.g., ‘‘. . .given or recommended you for challenging assignments that presented opportunities

to learn new skills?’’) and socio-emotional functions (e.g., ‘‘. . . shared personal expe-

riences as an alternative perspective to your problems?’’) including role modeling

(e.g., ‘‘. . . served as a role model’’). Cronbach a for the present sample was .88.

Mentoring provided. This was assessed with six items on a 5-point response format

(1: not at all, 5: to a great extent). Item development was based on qualitative literatureon mentoring (e.g., Kram, 1983, 1985) and on scales that assess mentoring received

(e.g., Dreher & Ash, 1990; Ragins &McFarlin, 1990). The aim was to develop a short,

yet reliable, and valid, general scale of the amount of mentoring that an employee has

provided over one�s career history within a particular organization. Respondents in-

dicated the extent to which ‘‘in my career history in this institution there has been at

least one subordinate:’’ ‘‘to whom I have consistently given challenging assignments;’’

‘‘whom I have introduced to higher level individuals;’’ ‘‘whom I have consistently pro-

vided emotional support;’’ ‘‘to whom I have given advice concerning his or her ca-reer;’’ ‘‘I was personally interested in his or her professional development;’’ and ‘‘I

was personally interested in his or her career.’’ Cronbach a was .87.

This operationalization, in terms of a scale, was utilized in order to capture the

variability in experience in providing mentoring among respondents. Mentoring is

3 Utilization of current grade instead of number of promotions in relevant analyses produced highly

similar results.


not an all-or-none phenomenon. Authors have concluded that in the majority of

mentoring relationships only a fraction of the career-related and socio-emotional

functions that have been associated with mentoring are provided (Kram, 1985; Phil-

lips-Jones, 1982; Zey, 1984). Ragins et al. (2000, p. 1177) noted that by treating ‘‘all

mentoring relationships created equal’’ (in essence, treating mentoring as an all-or-none experience) and utilizing binary measures to operationalize mentoring expe-

rience we probably fail to take into account important variation in the breadth and

quality of mentoring relationships (Ragins et al., 2000). Therefore, a scale that taps

the extent to which the individual has provided a variety of mentoring functions, for

one or more subordinates, should be apt at capturing individual variability in expe-

rience in providing mentoring. Furthermore, such a measure also accounts for cases

of individuals with no experience in providing mentoring. As noted, respondents

were targeted as individuals who had the opportunity to provide mentoring, butthere was no certainty or requirement that all of them had provided mentoring for

subordinates. Respondents who recalled no experience in providing mentoring,

and naturally there were such individuals in the sample (n ¼ 22), scored the lowest

possible score (i.e., one) on the scale.

Controls. Educational attainment was assessed with a single item in which respon-

dents indicated all educational qualifications they had achieved. Responses were

coded as follows: (1) CSE and/or O�levels/GCSE; (2) A-levels; (3) Postsecondary

Diploma (e.g., B.Tech.); (4) Bachelor degree; and (5) Graduate degree. The highestqualification was used as index of educational attainment. Socio-economic origin

was assessed with a single item in which respondents indicated the socio-economic

level of their family when they were ‘‘at the age of 15’’ on a five-choice format: Upper

class (coded 5); upper-middle class (coded 4); middle class (coded 3); working-middle

class (coded 2); and working class (coded 1). Marital status (coded 1 for married, and

2 for non-married), gender (coded 1 for male, and 2 for female), and age were as-

sessed with single items.

4. Results

4.1. Preliminary analysis

4.1.1. Mentoring provided: Construct uniformity and social desirability

To test for construct uniformity of the mentoring provided scale, principal com-

ponents analysis followed by varimax rotation was executed. The eigenvalues greaterthan one criterion indicated a single factor that accounted for 72.87% of the total

variance. Item loadings spread over a range 0.73–0.94 with median loading 0.86.

This suggested that items in the scale tapped the same construct.

Furthermore, there was no association (r ¼ :03, ns) between scores on mentoring

provided and scores on impression management. This suggested that responses to

the items in the scale were unaffected by social desirability. This constitutes a critical

attribute for a self-report instrument aiming at assessing mentoring provided (see

Ragins & Cotton, 1993).


4.2. Percept–percept bias

To assess the degree to which percept–percept bias, which refers to artificial infla-

tion of measures of co-variation when self-report data are utilized, was a potential

problem in the associations between the scale measures for mentoring provided,mentoring received and subjective career success, the three scales were subjected to

principal components analysis forcing a three-factor solution that was followed by

varimax rotation. Each scale formed a distinct factor and loadings ranges were

0.72–0.93, 0.64–0.83, and 0.36–0.72 for mentoring provided, mentoring received,

and subjective career success, respectively, with median loadings 0.84, 0.73, and

0.56, respectively. The maximum cross-loading was 0.28. This suggested that per-

cept–percept bias was not a problem in the associations between the three scales

and that the scales tapped different constructs.

4.3. Hypotheses testing

Probability levels were based on non-directional significance testing. Pearson cor-

relation coefficients are presented in Table 1. Natural logarithmic values instead of

raw values were utilized for starting grade because presumably number of promo-

tions is inversely related to starting grade. This was confirmed by a visual inspection

of the plot of starting grade against number of promotions. Hence, a logarithmicfunction provided a more appropriate description of relationships and, furthermore,

enabled the regression models to fulfill the linearity assumption (e.g., Berry &

Feldman, 1985).

Hypothesis 1 postulated significant positive associations of scores on mentoring

provided with scores on objective, Hypothesis 1a, and subjective, Hypothesis 1b, ca-

reer success, respectively. These hypotheses were tested with two hierarchical regres-

sions that utilized objective and subjective career success as criteria. Step 1 included

the control variables: Gender, age, marital status, educational attainment, socio-eco-nomic origin, starting grade, tenure, and the five personality traits.4 The regression

for subjective career success also included the number of promotions in this step, be-

cause subjective career evaluations are partly influenced by objective career accom-

plishments (Gattiker & Larwood, 1988; Poole et al., 1993). Step 2 included

mentoring provided and utilized the stepwise procedure for variable selection with

entry and removal points set equal at 0.05 (Draper & Smith, 1981).

The regression models are presented in Table 2. Mentoring provided significantly

added to the total amount of variance accounted for in objective career success(b ¼ :14; t ¼ 2:57; p < :05) and in subjective career success (b ¼ :18; t ¼ 2:35;p < :05) above the significant contributions of the control blocks. Therefore, Hy-

potheses 1a and 1b were both supported. The b coefficients of mentoring provided

4 Although ethnic origin can impact career progression (e.g., Judge et al., 1995) and involvement in

mentoring relationships (e.g., Feldman, Folks, & Turnley, 1999), it was not included in the control

variables because 96% of the workforce in the institutions consisted of white origin individuals.

Table

2

Hierarchicalregressionmodelstestingfortheassociationofmentoringprovided

withobjectiveandsubjectivecareer

success(N

¼176)

Variables

Objectivecareer

success

Subjectivecareer

success

btValue

R2

DR2

FD

btValue

R2

DR2

FD

Step1:Forcible

entry

Gender

.08

1.32

).25

)3.26��

Age

.04

0.59

.13

1.33

Maritalstatus

.03

0.54

.03

0.42

Educationalattainment

.21

3.43��

.06

0.76

Socio-economic

origin

).03

)0.53

).02

)0.23

Startinggradea

).57

)8.23��

.16

1.47

Tenure

.27

3.49��

).24

)2.21�

Neuroticism

).04

)0.78

).10

)1.28

Extraversion

.07

1.19

.03

0.35

Openness

).15

)2.22�

.03

0.31

Agreeableness

).13

)2.11�

.18

2.29�

Conscientiousness

).06

)0.89

.09

1.02

Number

ofpromotions

.45

4.29��

.530

17.42��

.176

3.88��

Step2:Stepwise

Mentoringprovided

.14

2.57�

.18

2.35�

.545

.015

6.58�

.199

.023

5.54�

Fð13;162Þ¼

17:13��

Fð14;161Þ¼

4:10��

Notes.Adjusted

R2values

are

presented.bCoeffi

cients

intheoverallmodel

are

presented.

aCalculationsare

basedonnaturallogarithmic

values.

*p<

:05.

**p<

:01.

***p<

:001.



in the two regression models were compared with the use of Williams� formula for

non-independent variables (Steiger, 1980; Williams, 1959). The three required b co-

efficients that represented the relationships between mentoring provided, objective,

and subjective career success were calculated by constructing three hierarchical re-

gression models with control variables identical to those in the regression model thattested Hypothesis 1a. The sample size was set equal to 164, which represented the

size of the sample (i.e., 176) minus the number of control variables (i.e., 12). The va-

lue of the T statistic, T ð161Þ ¼ �1:27, ns, indicated that the contribution of mentor-

ing provided to objective career success was not significantly different from its

contribution to subjective career success.

Hypotheses 2 and 3 postulated significant associations of scores on mentoring

provided with scores on the five personality traits and mentoring received, respec-

tively. These hypotheses were also tested by means of hierarchical regression analy-sis. Step 1 included the control variables: Gender, age, marital status, educational

attainment, socio-economic origin, starting grade, tenure, and grade. Step 2 included

the personality traits, and step 3 included mentoring received. The stepwise criterion

was utilized in steps 2 and 3.

The total model is presented in Table 3. Openness was the only personality trait to

survive the stepwise procedure (b ¼ :16; t ¼ 2:18; p < :05) and mentoring received

further added to the amount of total variance accounted for (b ¼ :20; t ¼ 2:71;

Table 3

Hierarchical regression model testing for the association of mentoring provided with personality traits and

mentoring received (N ¼ 176)

Variables b t Value R2 DR2 FD

Step 1: Forcible entry

Gender ).10 )1.39Age ).03 )0.35Marital status ).01 )0.15Educational attainment ).01 )0.07Socio-economic origin ).12 )1.71Starting gradea .01 0.05

Tenure .24 2.31�

Grade .29 3.20��

.120 3.99��

Step 2: Stepwise

Openness .16 2.18�

.150 .030 6.95��

Step 3: Stepwise

Mentoring received .20 2.71��

.182 .032 7.34��

F ð10; 165Þ ¼ 4:89��

Notes. Adjusted R2 values are presented. b Coefficients in the overall model are presented.a Calculations are based on natural logarithmic values.* p < :05.** p < :01.*** p < :001.


p < :01). Therefore, Hypotheses 2c and 3 were supported, whilst Hypotheses 2a, 2b,

2d, and 2e were not supported.

Hypothesis 4 postulated that mentoring provided would mediate the relationship

between mentoring received and career success. This was tested with the procedure

suggested by Kenny and colleagues (Baron &Kenny, 1986; Judd &Kenny, 1981). Be-fore proceeding with the execution of the procedure preliminary analysis was con-

ducted. The substantial association between mentoring received and subjective

career success (r ¼ :45; p < :001) directed towards the presence of mediators (Baron

& Kenny, 1986). However, the non-significant association between mentoring re-

ceived and objective career success (partial correlation r ¼ :13, ns; tenure and starting

grade as co-variates) did not allow testing for mediators. Hence, the procedure was

executed only for subjective career success, restricting testing to Hypothesis 4b only.

The procedure consists of three stages, each involving the formation of a hierar-chical regression model. The human capital and demographic factors, and the per-

sonality traits were used as co-variates in all three models and were forcibly

entered in the first step. In stage (i) the mediator (mentoring provided) was regressed

on the predictor (mentoring received). The contribution of mentoring received was

significant, b ¼ :22; t ¼ 2:84; p < :01; DR2 ¼ :036; F ð14; 161Þ ¼ 3:76; p < :001;R2 ¼ :181. This satisfied the condition for progress to the second stage. In stage

(ii) the criterion (subjective career success) was regressed on the predictor (mentoring

received). The contribution of mentoring received was significant, b ¼ :39;t ¼ 5:54; p < :001; DR2 ¼ :130; F ð14; 161Þ ¼ 6:12; p < :001; R2 ¼ :291; and this

justified progress to stage (iii) in which the criterion (subjective career success) was

hierarchically regressed on both the mediator (mentoring provided), in step 2, and

the predictor (mentoring received), in step 3. Mentoring provided significantly im-

proved the amount of total variance accounted for (b ¼ :17; t ¼ 2:24; p < :05;DR2 ¼ :020); and mentoring received significantly added to that variance

(b ¼ :37; t ¼ 5:15; p < :001; DR2 ¼ :112) in the total model, F ð15; 160Þ ¼ 5:83;p < :001; R2 ¼ :293. To conclude a mediating effect, the total variance contributionof the predictor (mentoring received) in stage (iii) must be lower than its contribution

in stage (ii) (Baron & Kenny, 1986). The contribution of mentoring received to the

total variance accounted for in stage (iii) was 1.8% below its contribution in stage

(ii), hence, the criterion of a minimum one per cent difference (Melamed, 1996b)

was fulfilled. The contribution of mentoring received in stage (iii) was still significant,

which suggested partial mediation. Therefore, Hypothesis 4b was supported.

5. Discussion

The study adopted the perspective of mentors and addressed hypotheses over the

extent to which amount of mentoring they provided was related to their career suc-

cess, to amount of mentoring they received, and to their personality. In general, the

results were in line with hypotheses and indicated that those who reported that they

had provided more mentoring were more likely to be successful in their careers and

to report that they had received more mentoring. Furthermore, the results revealed a


link between mentoring provided and personality, albeit not extensive. It should be

kept in mind that the identified associations accounted for relatively low amounts of

variance. Nevertheless, these relationships were held over and above the contribu-

tions of an array of human capital and demographic variables within a structurally

uniform setting.All organizational grades that were practically associated with managerial respon-

sibilities and the opportunity to provide mentoring for subordinates were included

in the study. This satisfied calls for investigations of mentoring from the mentors�perspective in every managerial level, and the conclusions are applicable to every or-

ganizational level that is related to opportunities to provide mentoring for subordi-

nates. It will be positive for managers at all ranks to know that their careers can be

enhanced by providing mentoring and developing their less senior colleagues.

Knowledge of this fact can act as a motivating factor for managers to become men-tors, counterbalancing the effects of increased work demands and low job certainty

that are imposed by the modern economy, which may deter them from providing

mentoring functions for subordinates.

The findings confirmed the hypothesized association between the amount of men-

toring mentors had provided and the amount of mentoring they had received in their

organizational careers. This association had been implicit in the literature and had

been empirically tested up to the level of intentions to provide mentoring. This sup-

ports the suggestion that providing mentoring for less senior organizational mem-bers contributes to the preparation of the next wave of mentors in the

organization (Ragins & Scandura, 1999), which leads to the initiation of a ‘‘mentor-

ing cycle’’ and the establishment of a mentoring culture. Therefore, it is to the inter-

est of organizations to provide incentives to their managers to become mentors.

Organizations have at their disposal a major such incentive, as the results suggest

that mentoring is an activity that relates to tangible extrinsic, along with intrinsic,

career benefits for mentors. Therefore, career counseling and career development

programs, in addition to stressing the importance of obtaining mentors for career de-velopment, must also focus on the benefits that accrue from becoming a mentor.

Mentoring provided partially mediated the relationship between mentoring re-

ceived and subjective career success. This suggests that receiving mentoring and

providing mentoring contribute to mentors� subjective career evaluations in a

complementary manner. Receiving mentoring is important for positive evaluations

of own careers even when individuals have reached the stage at which they can be

mentors. On the other hand, mentoring provided did not mediate the relationship

between mentoring received and objective career success, because that relationshipwas proved non-significant. This finding makes the important implication that pro-

viding mentoring for subordinates may be more important than receiving mentoring

for objective career achievement of managers. However, it would be premature to

accept this conclusion until this finding is replicated in future research, which must

systematically investigate the relative contributions of mentoring provided and men-

toring received by mentors on their career success.

The association of openness with mentoring provided confirmed the expectation

that individuals with broad interests and receptivity to new experiences and ideas


are more likely to provide mentoring functions for subordinates. The practical impli-

cation of this finding is that openness can be included amongst the criteria for mentor

selection in formal mentoring schemes; taking into account the importance of the

quality ofmentors for the effectiveness ofmentoring relationships (Ragins et al., 2000).

5.1. Limitations

The study adopted a cross-sectional design. Therefore, causality assumptions

must be made with great caution. In the present study there can be reasonable cer-

tainty regarding the causal direction of certain relationships. For example, a major

criterion for assigning causality in relationships between variables is the stability of

variables over time (Davis, 1985). The FFM traits demonstrate remarkable temporal

stability (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999) and this permits the assump-tion that openness influences mentoring provided and not vice versa. However, this

criterion cannot be utilized with the remaining relationships, whose causality direc-

tion cannot be asserted with confidence. It is sensible to suggest, for example, that

individuals who are successful in their careers are more likely to be approached by

subordinates for mentoring because mentoring relationships with successful organi-

zational members must be perceived as more beneficial. Therefore, only longitudinal

designs can resolve the issue of causality with absolute certainty.

Data were collected with self-report measures, which raises the issue of percept–percept inflation and the issue of response validity to the mentoring provided scale.

Regarding the former issue, the critical associations in the study were those of men-

toring provided with career success, mentoring received, and personality. Consider-

ing the relationship between mentoring provided and the measures of career success,

if percept–percept inflation were present then relationships between scale measures

would be stronger than corresponding relationships between scale measures and

measures based on personal information items; because meta-analytic evidence indi-

cates that percept–percept inflation is not present in the latter types of associations(Crampton & Wagner, 1994). This, however, was not the case. The analysis showed

that mentoring provided made similar contributions to variance in both objective ca-

reer success, which was operationalized by means of personal information items, and

subjective career success, which was assessed by means of a scale. Regarding the as-

sociation between the two measures of mentoring, the analysis suggested that the

scales for mentoring provided and mentoring received tapped different constructs.

Finally, Crampton and Wagner (1994, p. 70 & p. 72) concluded that there is no per-

cept–percept inflation in correlations between self-report scale measures of personal-ity and self-report scale measures of career-related activities, including mentoring.

Therefore, percept–percept inflation may not be a serious problem in the present

study. Nevertheless, utilization of multi-source measurements should be encouraged

in future research.

Regarding the second issue, utilization of managers� self-reports to assess amount

of mentoring they had provided generates questions pertaining to the validity of

those reports. The fact that responses to the scale were not affected by social desir-

ability is important, but it does not fully resolve the issue. Responses represented


managers� own perceptions of the amount of mentoring they had provided and these

perceptions, albeit not influenced by social desirability, may still not adequately re-

flect reality. Therefore, future studies should include data from subordinates or third

parties that will enable cross-validation with managers� own reports.

The investigation was conducted in organizations from a particular domain of thepublic sector. The majority of the findings were congruent with hypotheses that were

built on theory, logic, and past empirical research. Furthermore, those findings that

did not support the hypotheses did not contradict them either. Therefore, the study

appears to possess reasonable internal validity. However, career progression and

mentoring experiences are also affected by structural characteristics and, therefore,

caution should be exercised in the generalization of the results in different contexts.

Studies must be conducted in other domains of the public sector (e.g., civil services

and the federal government) and, especially, in the private sector. For example, theflat structures and results-oriented cultures of flexible commercial organizations may

impose fewer structural obstacles on the development of mentoring relationships. In

such cultures individual difference factors, such as the personality of the manager,

may play a more potent role in the amount of mentoring that subordinates receive.

The investigation was conducted in organizations with no formal mentoring

schemes in place. Empirical evidence suggests that formal and informal mentoring

differ in the extent of provision of mentoring functions for prot�eeg�ees and in their ef-

fects on prot�eeg�ees� careers (Chao, Walz, & Gardner, 1992; Ragins & Cotton, 1999;Viator, 2001); with formal mentoring programs being generally inferior (though see

also Ragins et al., 2000). Whether these differences also hold for mentors in formal

and informal mentoring schemes is an issue that merits investigation. In addition, the

present study concentrated on mentoring in its traditional form. As noted, alterna-

tive forms of mentoring relationships exist, including lateral and external mentoring.

These forms of mentoring relationships acquire particular importance in the condi-

tions (e.g., flattened organizational hierarchies, frequent career moves) that are asso-

ciated with the modern economy (Eby, 1997). Research in these types of mentoringrelationships is limited not only from the perspective of the mentor, but also from the

perspective of the prot�eeg�ee (Eby, 1997). Future research ought to investigate anteced-

ents of involvement in non-traditional mentoring relationships, and consequences

for mentors and for prot�eeg�ees who are involved in such relationships.

5.2. Directions

The study suggested a limited role for the personality of the mentor in the amountof mentoring provided by the mentor. It is possible, however, that personality influ-

ences more strongly intentions or motivation to provide mentoring than it influences

actual mentoring provided by mentors; as the amount of mentoring provided by men-

tors may be influenced more strongly by structural factors (e.g., the organizational

communication system, job design, and formal power structures) than by intentions

or motivation, which intuitively are more directly under the influence of personality.

Although relevant empirical reports are not available for mentoring provided bymen-

tors, the above suggestion concurs with empirical research on mentoring received by


prot�eeg�ees. Aryee et al. (1999) found that personality traits contributed more strongly

than situational and structural variables to prot�eeg�ees� attempts to initiate relationships

with mentors, but structural and situational variables contributed more strongly than

personality traits to self-reported amount of mentoring received by prot�eeg�ees. Futurestudies must, therefore, investigate the relative effects of personality and structuralfactors on mentoring provided by mentors and on its precursors.

The cognitions that mediate the identified relationship between mentoring re-

ceived and mentoring provided by mentors need to be modeled. Empirical literature

suggests that these cognitions should include realization of the benefits of mentoring

relationships and perceptions of barriers in providing mentoring (Allen et al., 1997;

Ragins & Cotton, 1993; Ragins & Scandura, 1999). Additional mediating cognitions

to consider include self-efficacy enhancement by receiving mentoring and social mod-

eling (i.e., prot�eeg�ees� modeling mentors� behavior in providing mentoring). Expec-tancy theory (Vroom, 1964), which can accommodate estimations of benefits and

barriers to mentor, and the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991), which can ac-

commodate self-efficacy, role modeling and intentions to mentor, can serve as initial

frameworks.

Another important undertaking for future studies, which was outside the scope of

the present study, is to establish the ways in which providing mentoring benefits the

career of the mentor. As presented in the introductory part of the study, various

mechanisms have been proposed, which include improvements in the performanceof the mentor due to the assistance of prot�eeg�ees, ability to rely on a pool of loyal sub-

ordinates for information and support, and enhanced reputation among organiza-

tional decision makers. These suggestions must be empirically tested in future

investigations.

Empirical evidence suggests that, apart from greater career success, prot�eeg�ees alsoreport higher loyalty to the organization and favorable perceptions of organizational

justice (Scandura, 1997; Viator, 2001). These outcomes are highly valued by organi-

zations and authors have suggested that mentoring is related to the demonstration ofpositive attitudes towards the organization by mentors as well (Kram, 1985; Ragins,

1997). Future studies must test these suggestions.

Finally, the literature has recently directed attention into negative aspects of men-

toring relationships (Eby, McManus, Simon, & Russell, 2000) and on mentoring rela-

tionships that are dysfunctional (Scandura, 1998) or onlymarginally adequate (Ragins

et al., 2000). Such mentoring relationships are unsuccessful in the sense that they do

not provide the benefits that are traditionally associated with inclusion in a mentoring

dyad. This is an important area for future work because it is sensible to expect that ex-perience of unsuccessful mentoring relationships influences future engagement inmen-

toring relationships (Scandura, 1998). The present study showed that amount of

experience in receivingmentoring was associated with amount of experience in provid-

ingmentoring. A fruitful line of researchwill be to determine the way in which negative

or marginal experiences of individuals as prot�eeg�ees relate to the amount of mentoring

they have provided or their intentions to provide mentoring in the future.

The present study responded to calls in the literature for investigations that adopt

the perspective of mentors and include all organizational ranks that are associated


with the opportunity to become a mentor. The results showed that the amount of

mentoring individuals reported they had provided was associated with the amount

of mentoring they reported they had received in their organizational past, their ca-

reer success, and their scores on the personality trait of openness. Although the study

contributed to and extended the literature it had methodological as well as inevitablescope limitations. Future studies should seek to overcome these limitations and pro-

ceed along the directions set by the study; so they can enable definite conclusions and

further expand the literature on antecedents and correlates of mentoring provided by

mentors.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,

50, 179–211.

Allen, T. D., McManus, S. E., & Russell, J. E. A. (1999). Newcomer socialization and stress: Formal peer

mentoring relationships as a source of support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 453–470.

Allen, T. D., Poteet, M. L., Russell, J. E. A., & Dobbins, G. H. (1997). A field study of factors related to

supervisors� willingness to mentor others. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 1–22.

Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic

review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499.

Aryee, S., Chay, Y. W., & Chew, J. (1996). The motivation to mentor among managerial employees: An

interactionist approach. Group and Organization Management, 12, 261–277.

Aryee, S., Lo, S., & Kang, I.-L. (1999). Antecedents of early career stage mentoring among Chinese

employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 563–576.

Aryee, S., Wyatt, T., & Stone, R. (1996). Early career outcomes of graduate employees: The effect of

mentoring and ingratiation. Journal of Management Studies, 33, 95–118.

Atkinson, W. (2002). Mentoring programs pick up where training leaves off. Purchasing, 131(2), 18–19.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A

meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Baruch, Y. (1999). Response rate in academic studies: A comparative analysis. Human Relations, 52, 421–

438.

Berry, W. D., & Feldman, S. (1985). Multiple regression in practice. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological

Bulletin, 117, 187–215.

Boudreau, J. W., Boswell, W. R., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Effects of personality on executive career success

in the United States and Europe. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 53–81.

Byravan, A., & Ramanaiah, N. V. (1995). Structure of the 16PF fifth edition from the perspective of the

five-factor model. Psychological Reports, 76, 555–560.

Cannings, K., & Montmarquette, C. (1991). Managerial momentum: A simultaneous model of the career

progress of male and female managers. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 44, 212–228.

Cattell, R. B., Cattell, A. K., & Cattell, H. E. (1993). Sixteen personality factor questionnaire (5th ed.).

Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

Chao, G. T. (1997). Mentoring phases and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 15–28.

Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M., & Gardner, P. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison on

mentoring functions and contrast with non-mentored counterparts. Personnel Psychology, 45, 619–636.

Clawson, J. (1980). Mentoring in managerial careers. In C. B. Derr (Ed.), Work, family and the career:

New frontiers in theory and research (pp. 144–165). New York: Praeger.


Comrey, A. L. (1973). A first course in factor analysis. New York: Academic Press.

Conn, S. R., & Rieke, M. L. (1994). Construct validation of the 16PF fifth edition. In S. R. Conn, & M. L.

Rieke (Eds.), The 16PF fifth edition technical manual (pp. 101–142). Champaign, IL: Institute for

Personality and Ability Testing.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-

Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Cox, T. H., & Harquail, C. V. (1991). Career paths and career success in the early career stages of male and

female MBAs. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39, 54–75.

Crampton, S. M., & Wagner III, J. A. (1994). Percept–percept inflation in microorganizational research:

An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 67–76.

Davis, J. A. (1985). The logic of causal order. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

De Vaus, D. A. (1996). Surveys in social research (4th ed.). London: UCL Press.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five factor model. Annual Review of

Psychology, 41, 417–440.

Draper, N. R., & Smith, H. (1981). Applied regression analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Dreher, G. F., & Ash, R. A. (1990). A comparative study of mentoring among men and women in

managerial, professional, and technical positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 539–546.

Eby, L. T. (1997). Alternative forms of mentoring in changing organizational environments: A conceptual

extension of the mentoring literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 125–144.

Eby, L. T., McManus, S. E., Simon, S. A., & Russell, J. E. A. (2000). The prot�eeg�ee�s perspective regardingnegative mentoring experiences: The development of a taxonomy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57,

1–21.

Eysenck, H. J. (1992). Four ways five factors are not basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 667–

673.

Fagenson, E. A. (1989). The mentor advantage: Perceived career/job experiences of prot�eeg�ees versus non-

prot�eeg�ees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 309–320.

Fagenson-Eland, E. A., Marks, M. A., & Amendola, K. L. (1997). Perceptions of mentoring relationships.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 29–42.

Feldman, D. C., Folks, W. R., & Turnley, W. H. (1999). Mentor–prot�eeg�ee diversity and its impact on

international internship experiences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 597–611.

Gattiker, U. E., & Larwood, L. (1986). Subjective career success: A study of managers and support

personnel. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1, 78–94.

Gattiker, U. E., & Larwood, L. (1988). Predictors for managers� career mobility, success and satisfaction.

Human Relations, 41, 569–591.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative ‘‘description of personality’’: The big-five factor structure. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychological

Assessment, 4, 26–42.

Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26–

34.

Helmreich, R. L., Sawin, L. L., & Garsrud, A. L. (1986). The honeymoon effect in job performance:

Temporal increases in the predictive power of achievement motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology,

71, 185–188.

Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. E. (2001). Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A developmental network

perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 264–288.

Jaskolka, G., Beyer, J. M., & Trice, H. M. (1985). Measuring and predicting managerial success. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 26, 189–205.

Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in evaluation research.

Evaluation Research, 5, 602–619.

Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D., Jr. (1995). An empirical investigation of the

predictors of executive career success. Personnel Psychology, 48, 485–519.

Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big five personality traits,

general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621–652.


Knouse, S. B. (2001). Virtual mentors: Mentoring on the internet. Journal of Employment Counseling, 38,

162–169.

Koberg, C. S., Wayne Boss, R., Chappell, D., & Ringer, R. C. (1994). Correlates and consequences of

prot�eeg�ee mentoring in a large hospital. Group and Organization Management, 19, 219–239.

Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 608–625.

Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL:

Scott, Foresman.

Levinson, D. J., Darrow, C. M., Klein, E. G., Levinson, M. H., & McKee, B. (1978). The seasons of a

man�s life. New York: Knopf.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical

contexts for the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five factor model of personality:

Theoretical perspectives (pp. 51–87). New York: Guilford.

Melamed, T. (1995). Career success: The moderating effect of gender. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47,

35–60.

Melamed, T. (1996a). Career success: An assessment of a gender-specific model. Journal of Occupational

and Organizational Psychology, 69, 217–242.

Melamed, T. (1996b). Validation of a stage model of career success. Applied Psychology: An International

Review, 45, 35–65.

Merenda, P. F. (1999). Theories, models, and factor approaches to personality, temperament, and

behavioral types: Postulations and measurement in the second millennium A.D. Psychological Reports,

85, 905–932.

Mullen, E. J. (1994). Framing the mentoring relationship as an information exchange. Human Resource

Management Review, 4, 257–281.

Murphy, S. E., & Ensher, E. A. (2001). The role of mentoring support and self-management strategies on

reported career outcomes. Journal of Career Development, 27, 229–246.

Noe, R. A. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships.

Personnel Psychology, 41, 457–479.

Nykodym, N., Freedman, L. D., Simonetti, J. L., & Nielsen, W. R. (1995). Mentoring: Using transactional

analysis to help organizational members use their energy in more productive ways. Transactional

Analysis Journal, 25, 170–179.

O�Connor, B. P. (2002). A quantitative review of the comprehensiveness of the five-factor model in relation

to popular personality inventories. Assessment, 9, 188–203.

Olian, J. D., Carroll, S. J., & Giannantonio, C. M. (1993). Mentor reactions to prot�eeg�ees: An experiment

with managers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43, 266–278.

Olian, J. D., Carroll, S. J., Giannantonio, C. M., & Feren, D. B. (1988). What do prot�eeg�ees look for in a

mentor? Results of three experimental studies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 33, 15–37.

O�Reilly, D. (2001). The mentoring of employees: Is your organization taking advantage of this

professional development tool? Ohio CPA Journal, 60(3), 51–54.

Phillips-Jones, L. (1982). Mentors and prot�eeg�ees. New York: Arbor House.

Poole, M. E., Langan-Fox, J., & Omodei, M. (1993). Contrasting subjective and objective criteria as

determinants of perceived career success: A longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 66, 39–54.

Ragins, B. R. (1997). Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations: A power perspective. Academy

of Management Review, 22, 482–521.

Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1993). Gender and willingness to mentor in organizations. Journal of

Management, 19, 97–111.

Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and women

in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 529–550.

Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: The effects of type of mentor,

quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes. Academy of Management

Journal, 43, 1177–1194.

Ragins, B. R., & McFarlin, D. B. (1990). Perceptions of mentor roles in cross-gender mentoring

relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 321–339.


Ragins, B. R., & Scandura, T. A. (1999). Burden or blessing? Expected costs and benefits of being a

mentor. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 493–509.

Rice, M. B., & Brown, R. D. (1990). Developmental factors associated with self-perceptions of mentoring

competence and mentoring needs. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 293–299.

Russell, J. E. A., & Adams, D. M. (1997). The changing nature of mentoring in organizations: An

introduction to the special issue on mentoring in organizations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 1–

14.

Russell, M. T., & Karol, D. L. (1994). The UK edition of the 16PF5: Administrator�s manual. Windsor, UK:

NFER-NELSON.

Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European

Community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 30–43.

Scandura, T. A. (1992). Mentorship and career mobility: An empirical investigation. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 13, 169–174.

Scandura, T. A. (1997). Mentoring and organizational justice: An empirical investigation. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 51, 58–69.

Scandura, T. A. (1998). Dysfunctional mentoring relationships and outcomes. Journal of Management, 24,

449–467.

Scandura, T. A., & Ragins, B. R. (1993). The effects of sex and gender role orientation on mentorship in

male-dominated occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43, 251–265.

Smith, P. (1994). The UK standardization of the 16PF5: A supplement of norms and technical data. Windsor,

UK: NFER-NELSON.

Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–

251.

Tokar, D. M., Fischer, A. R., & Mezydlo Subich, L. (1998). Personality and vocational behavior: A

selective review of the literature 1993–1997. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 115–153.

Turban, D. B., & Dougherty, T. W. (1994). Role of prot�eeg�ee personality in receipt of mentoring and career

success. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 688–702.

Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1977). Career development. In J. R. Hackman, & J. L. Shuttle (Eds.),

Improving life at work (pp. 30–95). Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.

Viator, R. E. (2001). The association of formal and informal public accounting mentoring with role stress

and related job outcomes. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26, 73–93.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

Wallace, J. E. (2001). The benefits of mentoring for female lawyers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58,

366–391.

Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1997). Personality structure: The return of the Big Five. In R. Hogan, J.

A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality and social psychology (pp. 737–765). San

Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Williams, E. J. (1959). The comparison of regression variables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society,

21(Series B), 396–399.

Zey, M. (1984). The mentor connection. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.

mentoring provided: relation to mentors career success ... bozionelos.pdf · career success,...

Documents