New Directions for Mentoring Research: An Examination of Related Constructs

JOURNAL OF VOCATIONAL BEHAVIOR ARTICLE NO.

51, 145–161 (1997)

VB971597

New Directions for Mentoring Research: An Examination of Related Constructs Stacy E. McManus and Joyce E. A. Russell Department of Management, The University of Tennessee This article describes literature from several domains in organizational psychology and vocational behavior in an attempt to advance theory building and research in the area of mentoring in organizations. Relevant research from leader – member exchange theory, organizational citizenship behavior, social support, and socialization is reviewed in order to understand the theoretical nomological network of mentoring. Propositions for future research on the topic of mentoring are provided. q 1997 Academic Press

In recent years, mentoring has become more prevalent as a career development tool in organizations (Russell, 1991; Russell & Eby, 1993). As a result, researchers have focused on identifying the antecedents and consequences of mentoring. While informative, little of this work has integrated mentoring with other career or organizational constructs that may enhance our understanding of the nomological network of mentoring. The purpose of the present paper was to examine four constructs that can be considered similar to mentoring in their effect on individuals, particularly prote´ge´s. These constructs include leader–member exchange (LMX), organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), social support, and socialization. In this article we review the research on these constructs and offer ideas for extending the current research on mentoring. Mentoring is a developmental relationship typically occurring between senior and junior individuals in organizations. Mentors usually serve career and psychosocial functions (Kram, 1985). Career functions include sponsorship, exposure-and-visibility, coaching, protection, and providing challenging assignments. Psychosocial functions include role modeling, acceptance-andconfirmation, counseling, and friendship. Given this definition, mentoring We thank Lillian T. Eby, Michael C. Rush, Larry J. Williams, and an anonymous reviewer for thoughtful comments and suggestions regarding previous drafts of this paper. All correspondence regarding this paper and reprint requests should be addressed to Stacy E. McManus or Joyce E. A. Russell, 408 Stokely Management Center, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-0545. 145 0001-8791/97 $25.00 Copyright q 1997 by Academic Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

AID

JVB 1597

/

630e$$$161

07-05-97 15:10:39

jvba

AP: JVB

146

MCMANUS AND RUSSELL

can be integrated conceptually with leader–member exchange, organizational citizenship behavior, social support, and socialization. For instance, leader– member exchange and mentoring both involve a close working relationship between senior and junior individuals. Informal mentoring and organizational citizenship behavior are similar in that they involve individuals engaging in voluntary extrarole behaviors, while social support and mentoring both involve helping others cope with stressful situations. Finally, mentoring may be a valuable career development tool to socialize new employees or resocialize employees who have experienced dramatic organizational changes such as restructuring and downsizing. The present paper represents an initial step toward integrating mentoring with much of the research that will be discussed. Thus, the research propositions provided tend to be general and suggestive rather than specific and exhaustive. We are seeking to identify potential antecedents, correlates, and consequences of mentoring that have received little to no attention to date. As a result, the focus of this paper is on the similarities between mentoring and the four constructs mentioned above. MENTORING AND LEADER–MEMBER EXCHANGE

Although alternative forms of mentoring such as peer relationships exist (e.g., Kram & Isabella, 1985), the more traditional conceptualization of mentoring tends to focus on superior–subordinate dyadic relationships in the workplace. Similarly, LMX theory (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975) specifically focuses on the supervisor–subordinate dyad. Both mentoring and LMX involve a developmental relationship between a senior and a junior individual. Leader–member exchange theory holds that subordinates become members of either the supervisor’s in-group (characterized by a high quality social exchange) or out-group (characterized by adherence to formal work role interactions). This classification occurs through a role-making process during which the subordinate and supervisor interact and establish the subordinate’s degree of negotiating latitude with regard to their working relationship. Some recent research has examined the similarities and distinctions between leader–member exchange and mentoring functions. Scandura and Schriesheim (1994) demonstrated that subordinates, but not supervisors, saw leader– member exchange and supervisory career mentoring as similar types of relationships. These findings are congruent with those reported by Thibodeaux and Lowe (1996), who noted that subordinates in high leader–member exchange relationships also reported that they experienced supervisory mentoring relationships. Schriesheim and Castro (1995), however, found that subordinates or prote´ge´s were able to differentiate between LMX and mentoring relationships. They measured three types of mentoring functions including career, psychosocial, and role modeling, and found that role modeling appeared to be independent from leader–member exchange. They further examined the ability of each construct (mentoring, LMX) to account for

AID

JVB 1597

/

630e$$$162

07-05-97 15:10:39

jvba

AP: JVB

147

MENTORING AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS

variance in subordinate job satisfaction. They found that the role modeling dimension was the only one of the mentoring functions to account for variance in job satisfaction above and beyond that explained by leader–member exchange. However, this result did not hold when the supervisor and mentor were two different people. Overall, the results from these three studies suggest that the discrimination between leader–member exchange and mentoring as constructs may depend on: (1) whether the subordinate’s or supervisor’s perspective is used; (2) whether the mentor and supervisor are the same person; and (3) whether role modeling is assessed separately from the other psychosocial mentoring dimensions. Many of the positive outcomes associated with in-group status are similar to those associated with having a mentor. For example, job satisfaction, performance ratings, and promotions have been investigated as outcomes of both mentoring and high quality leader – member exchange relationships (e.g., Corzine, Buntzman, & Busch, 1994; Whitely, Dougherty, & Dreher, 1991). What remains to be tested is the relative contribution of each type of relationship to other important outcomes for subordinates and prote´ ge´ s. First, however, additional evidence must be gathered to address the following general proposition. PROPOSITION 1. Effective mentoring relationships and high quality leader – member exchanges will result in similar outcomes for prote´ ge´ s or subordinates. Additional research is also needed to examine the longitudinal development of leader–member exchange and mentoring relationships. For instance, Liden, Wayne, and Stilwell (1993) investigated leader–member exchange relationships with new leader–member dyads. Initial expectations (measured at 0– 5 days), liking, and perceived similarity (both measured at 2 weeks) predicted LMX quality 6 months later. Hence, it appears that in-group and out-group membership are determined quite early in supervisor–subordinate relationships. On the other hand, mentoring relationships may take longer to develop. Kram (1985) proposed an initiation phase of the mentoring relationship that occurs over a period of 6 months to a year. During this time, the relationship becomes important to both individuals. More intense mentoring is not expected to be provided until 2 to 5 years into the relationship. Consequently, rather than being equivalent to establishing a mentoring relationship, as suggested by Scandura and Graen (1987), obtaining in-group status may be a prerequisite for subordinates to receive mentoring from their supervisors. Accordingly, it is proposed that: PROPOSITION 2. A higher quality LMX relationship will increase the likelihood that a mentoring relationship between a supervisor and a subordinate will develop.

AID

JVB 1597

/

630e$$$162

07-05-97 15:10:39

jvba

AP: JVB

148

MCMANUS AND RUSSELL

Having in-group status with one’s supervisor also may increase the likelihood that an individual is viewed as an attractive or desired prote´ge´ by other potential mentors. For instance, supervisors are likely to talk to their peers in a more positive manner about those individuals who are their in-group members. Those subordinates would then enjoy more positive reputations, thus facilitating their desirability as candidates for mentoring by other senior members in the organization. Hence, it is proposed that: PROPOSITION 3. A higher quality leader–member exchange relationship will increase the likelihood that other potential mentors will view the subordinate positively and desire the subordinate as a prote´ge´. Further, negative consequences associated with belonging to the supervisor’s out-group may be ameliorated somewhat by having another senior person or peer within the organization serve as a mentor. For instance, outgroup members typically do not receive the work assignments that are more challenging and rewarding. If an out-group member has a mentoring relationship with someone else in the organization (i.e., not his/her immediate supervisor), that person could be instrumental in providing the junior organizational member with important work opportunities, such as a position on an important task force. Thus, it is proposed that: PROPOSITION 4. Out-group members who are prote´ge´s of peers or other managers will experience more positive outcomes than out-group members who are not prote´ge´s in any mentoring relationships. These are a few ideas and examples of how research concerning the relationship between leader–member exchange and mentoring could proceed in the future. Fortunately, researchers are now interested in the relationships between these two constructs, as recent empirical investigations have indicated. Future work in this area should help to advance research in both mentoring and leader–member exchange. MENTORING AND ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR

Organizational citizenship behavior involves individuals exerting more effort on the job than is required or expected by formal role prescriptions (Organ, 1990). Organizational citizenship behavior has been thought of historically as having five facets, including courtesy, sportsmanship, civic virtue, altruism, and general compliance. However, several researchers have demonstrated or noted that organizational citizenship or prosocial behavior comprises two separate components, i.e., those behaviors directed toward specific individuals and those aimed at the organization in general (e.g., Anderson & Williams, 1996; McNeely & Meglino, 1994; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Williams & Anderson, 1991). To date, there has been little, if any, research conducted to explore the

AID

JVB 1597

/

630e$$$162

07-05-97 15:10:39

jvba

AP: JVB

149

MENTORING AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS

relation between work in the areas of organizational citizenship behavior and informal mentoring, despite the fact that both involve individuals engaging in extrarole behaviors. Informal mentoring can be conceptualized as a specific form of citizenship behavior, in that mentors are providing assistance to prote´ ge´ s without that behavior being mandated or compensated by the organization. However, a mentoring relationship involves more depth and occurs over a longer duration. To illustrate this point, an individual can assist another employee who is behind on a project deadline (i.e., engage in citizenship behaviors) without forming a long-term, developmental relationship with that person. While recognizing differences between these constructs, conceptualizing mentoring as a type of citizenship behavior directed toward specific individuals leads to several interesting research questions that expand the current state of mentoring research. Specifically, examining why people engage in citizenship behaviors could enhance our understanding of individuals’ motivation to mentor others. While a large portion of the organizational citizenship behavior literature has focused on identifying reasons why individuals engage in citizenship behaviors (cf. Organ & Ryan, 1995), only a few recent studies in the mentoring literature have explored factors that might be related to individuals’ willingness to mentor others. Variables that have been studied as antecedents of willingness to mentor others include demographic factors such as gender, age, and education level; previous experience as a mentor and prote´ ge´ ; positive mood state; personality variables such as locus of control and upward striving; and situational factors such as job-induced tension and quality of the relationship with the supervisor (cf. Allen, Poteet, Russell, & Dobbins, 1997; Allen, Russell, & Maetzke, in press; Aryee, Chay, & Chew, 1996; Ragins & Cotton, 1993; Ragins & Scandura, 1994). Further, a recent meta-analysis by Organ and Ryan (1995) demonstrated that attitudinal variables such as general job satisfaction, overall fairness perceptions, and organizational commitment were significantly related to citizenship behaviors directed at specific individuals, as were dispositional variables including agreeableness, conscientiousness, and trait level positive affectivity. Conceptualizing mentoring as a form of citizenship behavior provides a rationale for including these variables in research designed to elucidate why individuals choose to become mentors. As a result, the following general assertion is made: PROPOSITION 5. Mentoring and organizational citizenship behavior directed toward a specific individual will share common antecedents (e.g., organizational commitment, fairness perceptions, job satisfaction). Further, it has been demonstrated in the organizational citizenship behavior literature that some individuals define typical extrarole behaviors (e.g., covering for others who are absent from work) as being in-role (e.g., Morrison,

AID

JVB 1597

/

630e$$$163

07-05-97 15:10:39

jvba

AP: JVB

150

MCMANUS AND RUSSELL

1994). Employees endorsing this view were more likely to engage in citizenship behaviors. Similarly, if informal mentoring is considered by an individual to be an in-role or expected job behavior, then we might expect a greater likelihood of individuals engaging in voluntary mentoring activities. Thus, the following is proposed: PROPOSITION 6. The quality and quantity of informal mentoring behaviors and outcomes will be greater when mentors define those behaviors as in-role rather than extrarole. Additionally, it is likely that individuals during their middle or late career periods are more inclined to view mentoring as an inherent part of their jobs. With fewer advancement opportunities and more career plateauing, serving as a mentor enables many middle- and late-career individuals to maintain a feeling of contributing to the organization by developing new talent. As one late-career manager noted ‘‘I think probably that one of the biggest parts of my job now—not written or documented anywhere—is watching out for young people and offering challenges that they can take and grow with’’ (Kram, 1985, p. 99). Thus, it is proposed that: PROPOSITION 7. Individuals in middle- or late-career stages will be more likely to define mentoring as an in-role behavior than will individuals in an early career stage. When viewing the relationship between citizenship behavior and mentoring from the perspective of the prote´ge´, there are several reasons to think that mentoring may increase the likelihood that prote´ge´s themselves will engage in citizenship behaviors. First, mentors serve as role models for prote´ge´s. Social-cognitive learning theory (e.g., Bandura, 1977) posits role modeling as one of the ways individuals learn a variety of behaviors. By observing one’s mentor engage in helping behaviors toward oneself and by benefiting from those behaviors, individuals may be more likely to emulate those activities. This type of learning should occur in both informal and formal mentoring relationships (e.g., Zagumny, 1993). In either case, prote´ge´s may define helping others as part of their own in-role behavior if they observe that to be the case with their mentor. Hence, PROPOSITION 8. Due to role modeling, prote´ge´s will be more likely to engage in citizenship behaviors directed toward other individuals than will non-prote´ge´s. Another way in which being a prote´ge´ in an effective mentoring relationship could promote prote´ge´ performance of citizenship behaviors involves the psychological contract between employees and the organization. Psychological contracts involve employees’ beliefs about the reciprocal obligations that

AID

JVB 1597

/

630e$$$163

07-05-97 15:10:39

jvba

AP: JVB

151

MENTORING AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS

should be exchanged between themselves and their organization (e.g., Rousseau, 1989). These contracts can be stated overtly but frequently are implied based on patterns of past exchanges, vicarious learning, and general beliefs involving fairness. Psychological contract violation occurs rather frequently (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994) and results in the reduction of employee performance of certain types of organizational citizenship behavior (Robinson & Morrison, 1995). Mentors could play a role in ameliorating these effects. For instance, a mentor could explain the rationale behind the contract violation to increase acceptance on the part of the prote´ge´. Also, if an individual has unrealistic expectations of what the organization is obliged to do for him/ her, it is more likely that the individual will experience a violation of the psychological contract. However, an effective mentor could help a prote´ge´ recognize and revise those unrealistic expectations. This would help prote´ge´s avoid experiencing a perceived psychological contract violation. Thus, PROPOSITION 9. The more mentors help prote´ge´s positively reframe their perceptions of psychological contract violations and unrealistic expectations, the more likely prote´ge´s will be to engage in organizational citizenship behaviors relative to non-prote´ge´s. MENTORING, SOCIAL SUPPORT, AND STRESS

Within the organizational context, stress is an important issue, which has been related to employee withdrawal behaviors and lower job performance (e.g., Jamal, 1984). Today, organizations are increasingly interested in avoiding the high costs associated with turnover as well as the medical costs associated with employees suffering from stress-induced physical ailments (Bernardin & Russell, 1993). A number of researchers have found that social support buffers the effects of stress for a variety of populations (e.g., Beehr & McGrath, 1992; Himle, Jayaratne, & Thyness, 1991; Shaw, Fields, Thacker, & Fisher, 1993; Turnage & Spielberger, 1991). Also, McIntosh (1991) reported that greater amounts and adequacy of social support reduced individuals’ emotional exhaustion (which is central to the burnout process), workload perceptions, and physical symptoms associated with stress. Social support refers to beneficial interpersonal relationships that aid in preventing or reducing stress and in helping individuals cope with stress (House, 1981). Four types of social support have been defined, including: (1) emotional support (e.g., esteem, trust, concern, and listening); (2) appraisal support (e.g., affirmation, feedback, and social comparison); (3) informational support (e.g., advice, suggestion, directives, and information); and (4) instrumental support (e.g., aid-in-kind, money, labor, time, and modifying environment) (House, 1981). Support can come from supervisors or peers, and this support has been related to decreased job burnout (Lee & Ashforth, 1996). There are some apparent similarities to the descriptions of social support and mentoring activities. In fact, Jacobi (1991) suggested that emotional

AID

JVB 1597

/

630e$$$163

07-05-97 15:10:39

jvba

AP: JVB

152

MCMANUS AND RUSSELL

and appraisal support correspond with the psychosocial mentoring function, while informational and instrumental support correspond with the career mentoring function. Mentoring takes place in a close relationship with a senior person or a peer, and it can have the effect of reducing stress as social support does. Although the research connecting mentoring and stress is scarce, Rhodes, Contreras, and Mangelsdorf (1994) found that Latina adolescent mothers involved in informal mentor relationships reported less anxiety and depression, as well as greater satisfaction with available social support, than those without mentors. Allen, McManus, Russell, and Reiniger (1995) investigated the effects of formally assigned mentoring relationships on perceived stress. They reported a positive relationship between the amount of mentoring received and the amount of help prote´ ge´ s felt they received in dealing with stress. It is important to note that most positive effects of mentoring have occurred in informal mentoring relationships. As organizations continue to establish formal or assigned mentoring programs, it will be valuable to examine the differential effects of formal vs informal mentoring on work-related stress. This seems especially critical, since researchers have noted that formal or assigned mentoring programs may not provide as much psychosocial support as informal mentoring (Noe, 1988). Thus it is proposed that: PROPOSITION 10. Prote´ge´s’ perceptions of the effectiveness of their mentoring relationships will be negatively related to the amount of work-related stress that they report. PROPOSITION 11. Prote´ge´s in informal mentoring relationships will report that more psychosocial mentoring has been provided and will report less stress than prote´ge´s in formal or assigned mentoring relationships. Augmentation effects of both mentoring and social support should be investigated to further elucidate their independent and joint contributions to the reduction of work-related stress. Since social support is typically investigated as a moderator of both stressors (e.g., role ambiguity, situational constraints, and hours worked) and strains (e.g., job dissatisfaction, anxiety, frustration, and turnover intent; cf. Lee & Ashforth, 1996), research within the mentoring domain should incorporate this strategy as well. Thus, it is proposed that: PROPOSITION 12. Mentoring activities will moderate the stressor–strain relationship. Furthermore, as Kram (1985) noted, prote´ge´s are not the only beneficiaries of mentoring relationships. The successful relationship is described as complementary in that each of the individuals has his/her needs met by the other. To illustrate, the mentor’s need to pass on important information complements the prote´ge´’s need for information and advice. Thus, a mentoring relationship

AID

JVB 1597

/

630e$$$163

07-05-97 15:10:39

jvba

AP: JVB

153

MENTORING AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS

should serve to reduce stress for both the mentor and the prote´ge´. However, it might be argued that mentors may experience more work-related stress, since mentors often assume personal responsibility for their prote´ge´s. In efforts to assist their prote´ge´s, mentors may experience stress when trying to find them challenging assignments or career opportunities, providing them with exposure (e.g., the mentor may be worried about how the prote´ge´ will perform when making a presentation to senior management), or counseling them (e.g., listening to their troubles), in addition to other activities. Even peer mentors may experience stress when trying to fulfill career and psychosocial mentoring activities for their colleagues. While it seems that mentors may experience some stress associated with serving as mentors, it is believed that they ultimately will experience more benefits. Thus it is proposed that: PROPOSITION 13. Mentors will experience less work-related stress than nonmentors. As Kram (1985) stated, there is likely to come a time in a mentoring relationship, due to changes in the individuals’ needs, when the individuals’ roles are renegotiated. The relationship is proposed to enter a separation phase wherein significant changes in the structural role or emotional experience of the relationship occurs. Examples of factors leading to this phase include a desire on the part of the prote´ge´ to act more autonomously or blocked opportunities that create resentment and hostility within the relationship. During the redefinition phase, the mentor and prote´ge´ may come to have a relationship that is more collegial and peer-like in nature, or the relationship may end altogether. If the latter outcome occurs, it is likely that both the mentor and the prote´ge´ will experience some stress and anxiety over the loss of the relationship. While individuals may also experience some stress when initially negotiating their roles as mentor and prote´ge´, the negative emotional ramifications associated with losing a valued relationship are proposed to be more substantial and difficult to cope with. Thus, it is proposed that: PROPOSITION 14. Mentors and prote´ge´s will experience more stress during the stages of separation and redefinition than during the initiation or cultivation stages. MENTORING, SOCIALIZATION, AND WORK ROLE TRANSITIONS

Mentoring may be a beneficial career tool that can be used to socialize newcomers to the necessary norms and rules of an organization. Further, as organizations change, mentoring may be needed to help socialize transferred employees or ‘‘survivors’’ of organizational restructurings into a new department or a new organizational culture. A review of relevant socialization literature may pinpoint areas where mentoring can provide the most benefits to employees.

AID

JVB 1597

/

630e$$$163

07-05-97 15:10:39

jvba

AP: JVB

154

MCMANUS AND RUSSELL

Socialization researchers often focus on organizational newcomers and the methods by which they gain the knowledge, skills, behaviors, and attitudes required to participate effectively within the organization (Fisher, 1986; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Organizational socialization is typically thought of as having three primary phases which include: (1) anticipatory socialization: learning about an organization that occurs prior to becoming an employee, including information from recruitment efforts, the organization’s reputation, and job previews; (2) encounter: becoming an employee and learning through direct experience what the organization is actually like; and (3) change and acquisition: mastering important skills and roles while adjusting to the work group’s values and norms (Feldman, 1981). Mentoring may be one career development tool organizations use to socialize newcomers. It would be valuable to determine at what phase of socialization mentoring provides the most benefit to new employees, although it may be difficult to examine mentoring during the anticipatory socialization phase. While incumbents can establish contact and form relationships with recruits or applicants, generally the depth of the relationship does not become intense until after the recruit joins the firm and is more accessible to receive mentoring. However, at this time as well as during the following phases of socialization, mentors external to the prote´ge´’s new organization are likely to be quite important. Mentoring within the organization could be very beneficial in socializing employees during the encounter and change and acquisition phases. The existing research relating mentoring and socialization is somewhat sparse and contradictory. For instance, Louis, Posner, and Powell (1983) found that mentors were not particularly available to newcomers and that their involvement was not viewed as especially helpful. In contrast, Ostroff and Kozlowski (1993) noted that mentors were very instrumental in helping newcomers learn about the organizational domain. Literature within the social support domain has revealed that the degree to which newcomers developed supportive relationships was negatively related to the amount of stress those newcomers experienced (Nelson & Quick, 1991). Similarly, Nelson, Quick, and Joplin (1991) suggested that stress could be reduced when organizational newcomers form supportive attachments, through an effective psychological contract, with organizational insiders. Effective mentor relationships would constitute such supportive relationships. Certainly, the hypothesis that mentors can serve beneficial functions for employees during newcomer socialization is appealing and intuitive. For instance, during the encounter phase, effective mentoring could help new employees cope with the ‘‘reality shock’’ that occurs as individuals attempt to understand the organization and their place in it. This could be accomplished through coaching (a career function), or friendship and acceptance and confirmation (psychosocial functions). Newly hired employees also may be likely to observe others (e.g., using a mentor as a role model) as a way of gaining relevant task and role information (e.g., Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). Addi-

AID

JVB 1597

/

630e$$$163

07-05-97 15:10:39

jvba

AP: JVB

155

MENTORING AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS

tionally, during the change and acquisition phase of socialization, effective mentoring could facilitate task mastery as well as role conflict resolution (e.g., via counseling). Finally, having a mentor is likely to provide newcomers with an important source of communication and information about the job and organization. Thus, we propose: PROPOSITION 15. Mentoring relationships established prior to an individual’s initial contact with an organization will be especially useful during the anticipatory socialization phase. PROPOSITION 16. Organizational newcomers will benefit most from mentors within the organization during the encounter and change and acquisition phases of socialization. Recently, Chao, O’Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein, and Gardner (1994) have suggested that socialization comprises the following dimensions: (a) performance proficiency: the extent that an individual has learned the tasks involved on the job; (b) people: the establishment of successful and satisfying relationships with organizational members; (c) politics: an individual’s success in gaining information regarding power structures and the formal and informal work relationships within the organization; (d) language: an individual’s knowledge regarding the technical language and jargon unique to the organization; (e) organizational goals and values: an individual’s understanding of the organization’s rules or principles and unwritten or informal goals and values; and (f) history: an individual’s knowledge of an organization’s traditions, customs, myths, and rituals. Only a few studies have investigated the relation between mentoring functions and these facets of socialization (Allen, McManus, Russell, & Reiniger, 1995; Chao et al., 1994; Chao, 1997). Overall results include the findings that mentoring was related to organizational socialization, and that the effects held up over time. However, it also would seem important to determine which specific aspects of mentoring (psychosocial or career functions) are more critical to the different facets of organizational socialization. The role of mentoring in ‘‘resocializing’’ employees during times of organizational change (e.g., restructurings) also should be investigated. As work is redesigned (e.g., flattened hierarchies and moving to team-based work environments), employees are more likely to be faced with role ambiguity, role conflict, and role overload. That is, organizational changes may create circumstances that put employees in the effective role of ‘‘organizational newcomer’’ in the sense that the old ways of doing business are no longer what is demanded. There is very little research to date that investigates the possibilities of using mentors to facilitate large-scale organizational changes (see Zagumny, 1993). If, however, individuals who serve as mentors are supportive of the changes, they are likely to be critical players in getting

AID

JVB 1597

/

630e$$$163

07-05-97 15:10:39

jvba

AP: JVB

156

MCMANUS AND RUSSELL

others on board and participating effectively in the redesigned workplace. Thus, it is proposed that: PROPOSITION 17. Mentored individuals will report less role ambiguity and role conflict than nonmentored individuals, especially during periods of organizational change (e.g., restructuring, downsizing). In most organizational change initiatives, employees experience some resistance to change. Some common reasons that this occurs include fear of the unknown, a climate of mistrust, peer pressure, and the disruption of cultural traditions and group relationships (cf. Judson, 1991). When organizational changes occur that do not involve the disruption of mentoring relationships, mentoring can help to counteract resistance to change. For instance, simply by maintaining the relationship in an effective manner, both the mentor and the prote´ge´ have an anchor that can provide a greater sense of stability and continuity during a time of upheaval. Thus, it is proposed that: PROPOSITION 18. Prote´ge´s will report less resistance to change if their mentors are in favor of the proposed changes than will nonmentored individuals or prote´ge´s who have mentors who are resistant to the changes. The popular press indicates a significant downsizing trend in American businesses and ‘‘rightsizing’’ is often a part of many corporate restructuring efforts (e.g., Goffee & Scase, 1992). A ‘‘resocialization’’ among the workforce often takes place following such events. Nicholson and West’s (1988) model of work transition posits four stages of the transition process that are similar to the three stages of general socialization. The four phases include preparation, encounter, adjustment, and stabilization. During the first phase, employees are likely to experience denial and withdrawal associated with resistance to change. Again, a type of ‘‘reality shock’’ is experienced as people cope with the multitude of organizational pressures associated with the change, not the least of which is a loss of co-workers. During the adjustment phase, individuals learn to redefine their work roles, their interactions with other organizational members, and their relationship to the new organizational culture. Following adjustment, individuals enter the stabilization phase in which they strive to maintain their newly defined roles, continue to make necessary adjustments, and either move toward overall success or failure. Mentors of downsized prote´ge´s may face special challenges as they (i.e., mentors) attempt to adjust and cope with the loss of individuals in whom they have invested a great deal of time and energy. Similarly, prote´ge´s who have lost mentors due to downsizing efforts may experience tremendous feelings of loss. Thus, it is proposed that: PROPOSITION 19. Mentors whose prote´ge´s are lost via downsizing are likely to have more negative reactions toward the organization and experience greater difficulty in work transition than are nonmentors.

AID

JVB 1597

/

630e$$$164

07-05-97 15:10:39

jvba

AP: JVB

AID

JVB 1597

/

630e$$1597 Yes Long-term No Personal and career enhancement Yes

Time required for the relationship to occur Presence of key precipitating event Type of outcomes expected for recipients Reciprocation between participants

High

Typical amount of sustained effort put forth by the ‘‘provider’’ Developmental in nature

No

Organizational junior; peer

Relationship must exist within the organization

Target

Informal mentoring

07-05-97 15:10:39

jvba

Yes

Career enhancement (for in-group)

No

Short-term

Yes for in-group; no for out-group

Moderate to high for in-group; low for out-group

Yes

Direct subordinate

Leader–member exchange

Not necessary

Career and personal enhancement

Yes (e.g., other person needs help)

Short-term

No

Low

Yes

Any organizational member or the organization in general

Organizational citizenship behavior

TABLE 1 Construct Similarities and Differences

Not necessary

Personal enhancement

Yes (e.g., other individual in crisis)

Short-term

Possibly

Low to moderate

No

Any organizational member

Social support

No

Career enhancement

Yes (e.g., join the organization)

Short-term

Yes

Moderate

Yes

Organizational newcomer; ‘‘survivors’’ of organizational changes

Socialization

MENTORING AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS

157

AP: JVB

158

MCMANUS AND RUSSELL

PROPOSITION 20. Prote´ge´s who have lost mentors are likely to experience more negative reactions to the restructuring than are nonprote´ge´s. CONCLUSION

In this exposition of mentoring and complementary constructs, we have posited possible antecedents, correlates, and consequences of mentoring by drawing from the literature involving leader–member exchange, organizational citizenship behavior, social support, and socialization. Overall, the inclusion of these constructs in the consideration of mentoring serves to provide an initial nomological network of the mentoring construct. Both theoretical and practical issues have been addressed. Although the preceding discussion has focused primarily on similarities between the constructs included, we recognize that there are also important differences among them. Table 1 highlights both similarities and differences between mentoring and the other four constructs, using a number of critical dimensions. Collectively, the use of these dimensions provides some direction for future research oriented toward examining similarities and differences between mentoring, leader–member exchange, organizational citizenship behavior, social support, and socialization. Although beyond the scope of this paper, future researchers also may want to examine extant research in social psychology for further insights into the processes by which many of the proposed relationships occur. For example, Hare, Blumberg, Davies, and Kent (1994) provide excellent summaries and citation lists relevant to helping behavior, which would be important for the organizational citizenship–mentoring linkages proposed in this paper. Hare et al. (1994) also devote a great deal of attention to leadership and influence issues for groups that would have bearing on the leader–member exchange/ mentoring linkages. In sum, we believe that research on mentoring that includes the constructs discussed herein will further our understanding of the mentoring relationship itself, of the factors that lead to the initiation of mentoring relationships, and of the potential positive and negative outcomes for mentors, prote´ge´s, and organizations. REFERENCES Allen, T. D., McManus, S. E., Russell, J. E. A., & Reiniger, A. (1995, November). An examination of the impact of peer mentoring on socialization and stress. Southern Management Association Proceedings, Orlando, Florida. Allen, T. D., Poteet, M. L., Russell, J. E. A., & Dobbins, G. H. (1997). Factors related to supervisors’ willingness to mentor others. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 1–22. Allen, T. D., Russell, J. E. A., & Maetzke, S. (in press). Formal peer mentoring: Factors related to prote´ge´ satisfaction and willingness to mentor others. Group and Organization Management. Anderson, S. E., & Williams, L. J. (1996). Interpersonal, job, and individual factors related to helping processes at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 282–296. Aryee, S., Chay, Y. W., & Chew, J. (1996). The motivation to mentor among managerial employees: An interactionist approach. Group and Organization Management, 21, 261–277.

AID

JVB 1597

/

630e$$$164

07-05-97 15:10:39

jvba

AP: JVB

159

MENTORING AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. Beehr, T. A., & McGrath, J. E. (1992). Social support, occupational stress and anxiety. Anxiety, Stress and Coping: An International Journal, 5, 7–19. Bernardin, H. J., & Russell, J. E. A. (1993). Human resource management: An experiential approach. New York: McGraw–Hill. Chao, G. T. (1997). Mentoring phases and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 15– 28. Chao, G. T., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J., & Gardner, P. D. (1994). Organizational socialization: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 730– 743. Corzine, J. B., Buntzman, G. F., & Busch, E. T. (1994). Mentoring, downsizing, gender, and career outcomes. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 9, 517–528. Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of role making processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46–76. Feldman, D. C. (1981). The multiple socialization of organization members. Academy of Management Review, 6, 309–318. Fisher, C. D. (1986). Organizational socialization: An integrative review. In G. F. Ferris & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 4, pp. 101– 145). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Goffee, R., & Scase, R. (1992). Organizational change and the corporate career: The restructuring of managers’ job aspirations. Human Relations, 45, 363–385. Hare, A. P., Blumberg, H. H., Davies, M. F., & Kent, M. V. (1994). Small Group Research: A Handbook. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Himle, D. P., Jayaratne, S., & Thyness, P. (1991). Buffering effects of four social support types on burnout among social workers. Social Work Research and Abstracts, 27, 22–27. House, J. S. (1981). Work, stress, and social support. Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley. Jacobi, M. (1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: A literature review. Review of Educational Research, 61, 505–532. Jamal, M. (1984). Job stress and job performance controversy: An empirical assessment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 1–21. Judson, A. S. (1991). Changing behavior in organizations: Minimizing resistance to change. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Kram, K. E., & Isabella, L. A. (1985). Alternatives to mentoring: The role of peer relationships in career development. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 110–132. Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 123–133. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader–member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662–674. Louis, M. R., Posner, B. Z., & Powell, G. N. (1983). The availability and helpfulness of socialization practices. Personnel Psychology, 36, 857–866. McIntosh, N. J. (1991). Identification and investigation of properties of social support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 201–217. McNeely, B. L., & Meglino, B. M. (1994). The role of dispositional and situational antecedents in prosocial organizational behavior: An examination of the intended beneficiaries of prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 836–844. Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior. The importance of the employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543–1567.

AID

JVB 1597

/

630e$$$164

07-05-97 15:10:39

jvba

AP: JVB

160

MCMANUS AND RUSSELL

Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. C. (1991). Social support and newcomer adjustment in organizations: Attachment theory at work? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 543–554. Nelson, D. L., Quick, J. C., & Joplin, J. R. (1991). Psychological contracting and newcomer socialization: An Attachment theory foundation. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 55–72. Nicholson, N., & West, M. A. (1988). Managerial jog change: Men and women in transition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press. Noe, R. A. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. Personnel Psychology, 41, 457–479. Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 43–72). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775–802. Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1992). Organizational socialization as a learning process: The role of information acquisition. Personnel Psychology, 45, 849–874. Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1993). The role of mentoring in the information gathering processes of newcomers during early organizational socialization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 170–183. Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1993). Gender and willingness to mentor in organizations. Journal of Management, 19, 97–111. Ragins, B. R., & Scandura, T. A. (1994). Gender differences in expected outcomes of mentoring relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 957–971. Rhodes, J. E., Contreras, J. M., & Manglesdorf, S. C. (1994). Natural mentor relationships among Latina adolescent mothers: Psychological adjustment, moderating processes, and the role of early parental acceptance. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 211–227. Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (1995). Psychological contracts and OCB: The effect of unfulfilled obligations on civic virtue behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 289–298. Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 245–259. Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 8, 121–139. Russell, J. E. A. (1991). Career development interventions in organizations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 38, 237–287. Russell, J. E. A., & Eby, L. T. (1993). Career assessment strategies for women in management. Journal of Career Assessment, 1, 267–293. Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 175– 208). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1994). Leader–member exchange and supervisor career mentoring as complimentary constructs in leadership research. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1588–1602. Schriesheim, C. A., & Castro, S. L. (1995, November). A structural modeling investigation of leader-member exchange (LMX) and mentoring as complementary concepts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Management Association, Orlando, Florida. Shaw, J. B., Fields, M. W., Thacker, J. W., & Fisher, C. D. (1993). The availability of personal and external coping resources: Their impact on job stress and employee attitudes during organizational restructuring. Work and Stress, 72, 292–246. Thibodeaux, H. F., & Lowe, R. H. (1996). Convergence of leader-member exchange and mentoring: An investigation of social influence patterns. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 97–114.

AID

JVB 1597

/

630e$$$164

07-05-97 15:10:39

jvba

AP: JVB

161

MENTORING AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS

Turnage, J. J., & Spielberger, C. D. (1991). Job stress in managers, professionals, and clerical workers. Work and Stress, 5, 165–176. Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 209–264). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Whitely, W., Dougherty, T. W., & Dreher, G. F. (1991). Relationship of career mentoring and socioeconomic origin to managers’ and professionals’ early career success. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 331–351. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617. Zagumny, M. J. (1993). Mentoring as a tool for change: A social learning perspective. Organization Development Journal, 11, 43–48. Received February 12, 1997

AID

JVB 1597

/

630e$$$164

07-05-97 15:10:39

jvba

AP: JVB