- Email: [email protected]
Launching the post-college career: A study of mentoring antecedents
Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 257–263
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Vocational Behavior journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb
Launching the post-college career: A study of mentoring antecedents Elizabeth T. Welsh *, Connie R. Wanberg University of Minnesota, Human Resources and Industrial Relations, 321-19th Avenue South, 3-300 Carlson School of Management, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 11 August 2008 Available online 10 December 2008
Keywords: Mentoring Learning goal orientation Career development New employees
a b s t r a c t Drawing upon role-making theory, this study examines which new job market entrants, following college graduation, find informal mentors and how much mentoring they receive from these mentors using a predictive design. Our results suggest that individuals lower in negative affectivity and higher in cognitive ability as well as women, individuals who have previously had a mentor, and those who go to work for organizations with developmental climates are more likely to find informal mentors. In contrast, individuals higher in learning goal orientation and mentoring instrumentality receive more mentoring once a mentoring relationship has been established. Ó 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Mentoring has been recognized as an important process to help organizational newcomers adjust and adapt to their new organizations, as well as a process that helps employees at junior levels achieve higher levels of career success (Noe, Greenberger, & Wang, 2002; Wanberg, Welsh, & Hezlett, 2003). Mentors provide career-related development through coaching, sponsorship, exposure, protection, and challenging assignments; psychosocial support is provided via counseling, friendship, acceptance, and role modeling (Kram, 1988). Although mentoring cannot be highlighted as the sole contributor to career success (Kammeyer-Mueller & Judge, 2008), meta-analytic data suggests that having a mentor is related to higher levels of job satisfaction, career satisfaction, compensation, and promotions (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004). Given the usefulness of mentoring for individuals’ careers, it is important to understand characteristics and contextual variables related to individuals becoming a protégé. Extensive research has examined gender and racial differences in having a mentor (see, for example O’Brien, Biga, Kessler, & Allen, in press), but broader examinations of variables associated with finding a mentor and receiving mentoring have been limited (Turban & Lee, 2007). This study examines a theoretically derived model, which is aimed at predicting the receipt of informal mentoring. Importantly, this research focuses on college graduates and studies these individuals over time to examine who finds a mentor in their new professional placements after graduation. Previous work, with only a few exceptions that examined formal or quasi-formal mentoring relationships (e.g., Green & Bauer, 1995; Wanberg, Welsh, & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2007), has used cross-sectional methods (making it difficult to establish whether examined variables are truly antecedents of mentoring received or if they are actually outcomes of mentoring received) or has asked mentors what characteristics they look for in protégés. The focus of our model is on the formation of informal mentoring relationships, those that form naturally without assistance from an organization, and level of mentoring received once that relationship has begun. The core theoretical framework for this study is role-making theory (Graen & Cashman, 1975). Role-making theory models how two individuals’ roles and relationship can evolve beyond the roles and relationship that are formally defined by an organization. The framework begins in a role-finding stage (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) where two individuals interact in a * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (E.T. Welsh). 0001-8791/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2008.12.001
258
E.T. Welsh, C.R. Wanberg / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 257–263
relatively superficial way, getting to know each other through repeated interactions. At some point in this stage, either individual may extend an offer to the other to expand the relationship based upon their beliefs about the other individual’s potential to become a partner in the workplace. If the second party accepts the offer, the dyad enters into a role-making stage. We build upon insights from the role-finding stage of the theory to develop hypotheses about new employee characteristics that might ‘‘push” individuals to find mentors and/or ‘‘pull” mentors to them. The theory suggests that in order for an informal mentoring relationship to form, it will be important for the protégé to possess characteristics that motivate him or her to find a mentor and make them attractive to a mentor. These characteristics will also be important to the level of mentoring received once a relationship is formed. For this study we examine four central protégé individual difference variables (learning goal orientation, mentoring instrumentality, negative affectivity, and cognitive ability) that fit especially well with both the theoretical framework and the mentoring context. 1.1. Learning goal orientation Individuals with high learning goal orientation tend to approach work with the desire to develop their knowledge, skills, and overall competence (e.g., Dweck, 1986; Elliot, 1997). Conceptually, learning goal orientation is likely to facilitate activities on the part of newcomers that will stimulate the formation of a mentoring relationship. Research has found a positive relationship between learning goal orientation and motivation to learn, effort expended during training, and persistence when faced with difficulty (e.g., Colquitt & Simmering, 1998; Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien, 2007; Vandewalle, Cron, & Slocum, 2001). In the mentoring literature, a cross-sectional association has been found between protégé learning goal orientation and level of mentoring received including psychosocial support, career-related mentoring, and role modeling (Egan, 2005; Godshalk & Sosik, 2003). However, Turban and Lee (2007) note that because learning goal orientation might be influenced by the mentoring relationship, this construct needs to be studied as a predictor of mentoring in a longitudinal design. Learning goal orientation also appears to be attractive to mentors. Allen (2004) asked individuals with experience as mentors to indicate the importance to them of several protégé characteristics. Willingness to learn had the highest mean rating of all of the characteristics. Based upon this discussion, we propose: Hypothesis 1. College graduates’ levels of learning goal orientation will be positively related to presence of an informal mentor and level of mentoring received from this mentor in their post-graduation job one year later. 1.2. Mentoring instrumentality In contrast to learning goal orientation, which conceptually has both motivational and attraction components, mentoring instrumentality (i.e., how important an individual believes it is to have a mentor) is an individual difference that is primarily motivational. Mentoring instrumentality addresses why an individual might direct energies toward finding a mentor, as opposed to fulfilling developmental needs via other avenues such as training. Although no research was found in the mentoring literature examining the role of instrumentality, meta-analytic data from other contexts suggests that instrumentality is positively associated with effort and persistence toward the target of interest (Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996). We propose: Hypothesis 2. College graduates’ assessment of the instrumentality of having a mentor will be positively related to presence of an informal mentor and level of mentoring received from this mentor in their post-graduation job one year later. 1.3. Cognitive ability Contrasting with mentoring instrumentality, cognitive ability is an individual difference that is more important to attraction than motivation. Relationship research suggests that people are more attracted to individuals with higher levels of cognitive ability because they have more respect for them (e.g., Rubin, 1973; Zanna & Hamilton, 1972). In addition, research has documented a positive association between general cognitive ability and performance in job training programs, job knowledge, skill acquisition, and performance in complex jobs (Kuncel, Hezlett, & Ones, 2004), all of which would be important to potential mentors who are considering investing significant time and energy in a protégé. Within the mentoring literature, research by Allen, Poteet, and Burroughs (1997) found mentors made remarks about what attracted them to their protégés such as ‘‘very smart and intelligent” (p. 80). In addition, Allen, Poteet, and Russell (2000) found that mentors choose protégés based upon their perceived potential/high ability rather than their perceived need for help and Allen (2004) found that college students in a laboratory study chose protégés with higher ability. We found no studies that attempted to predict whether individuals with higher cognitive ability are more likely to secure informal mentors and receive more informal mentoring. However, in a longitudinal study of quasi-formal mentoring relationships between graduate students and their advisors, Green and Bauer (1995) reported individuals with higher verbal GRE scores received more career-related mentoring with mixed results for the relationship between psychosocial mentoring and quantitative versus verbal GRE scores. We propose: Hypothesis 3. College graduates’ levels of cognitive ability will be positively related to presence of an informal mentor and level of mentoring received from this mentor in their post-graduation job one year later.
E.T. Welsh, C.R. Wanberg / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 257–263
259
1.4. Negative affectivity It is also important to consider characteristics that may deter potential mentors or reduce protégé motivation to seek out a mentor, especially considering that research has found that negative information (e.g., emotions, feedback, impressions) is frequently more powerful than positive information (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001). Given the positive nature of the other antecedents considered, protégé negative affectivity, the ‘‘tendency to experience negative emotions across time and situations” (Perrewé & Spector, 2002, p. 28), was added as a potential predictor of mentoring. Negative affectivity is conceptualized to impact both the motivation of an individual to find a mentor and his or her attractiveness to mentors. Relevant to motivation, research suggests that individuals in negative moods find goals less attractive and the actions needed to attain them more unpleasant (Schwarz & Bohner, 1996). Consistent with this notion, Turban and Dougherty (1994) reported protégés with higher levels of negative affectivity reported lower levels of initiation of mentoring relationships. In terms of attraction, mentors may be less attracted to individuals high in negative affectivity. Research examining interpersonal relationships has found that the expression of negative emotions has negative consequences on likableness ratings (Hamilton & Fallot, 1974; Kashdan & Roberts, 2004). We propose: Hypothesis 4. College graduates’ levels of negative affectivity will be negatively related to presence of an informal mentor and level of mentoring received from this mentor in their post-graduation job one year later. 1.5. Initiation behaviors We have hypothesized that higher learning goal orientation, higher mentoring instrumentality, higher cognitive ability, and lower negative affectivity on the part of college graduates will be related to receipt of informal mentoring in their first post-graduation job. Three of these variables are proposed to be related (at least in part) to finding a mentor through motivational mechanisms on the part of the college graduate. If this is indeed the case, we can expect that college graduates with higher levels of learning goal orientation, mentoring instrumentality, and lower levels of negative affectivity will report that they engaged in more behaviors related to the initiation of mentoring relationships in their first year after graduation, such as seeking to become acquainted with higher-level managers (Turban & Dougherty, 1994). We propose: Hypothesis 5. College graduates with higher levels of learning goal orientation, mentoring instrumentality, and lower levels of negative affectivity will report that they engaged in more behaviors related to the initiation of mentoring relationships in their first year after graduation.
2. Method 2.1. Sample and procedures The data for this study were collected from new undergraduate business and political science graduates over two successive years at a Midwestern University. In the month prior to their graduation, students were asked to fill out a survey assessing background information and the proposed antecedents of mentoring. A second survey was sent 14 months after graduation, timed so that participants had been in their jobs for approximately one year, as some participants started immediately after graduation while others began in early fall. An average of one year was chosen as the target in order to give new graduates time to form mentoring relationships. This second survey assessed information about mentoring received, initiation behaviors and the organization for which they worked. Participants received a $25 e-gift certificate for each completed survey. Of 1094 individuals asked to be in the study, 402 completed the Time 1 survey (response rate 37%). Of these respondents, 387 were sent a Time 2 survey (five Time 1 surveys were eliminated because of suspicious answer patterns and 10 did not graduate on time or were not working). A total of 301 individuals responded (76%). This final sample included 133 males and 168 females, 255 Caucasians, 23 Asians, 5 Hispanics, 1 African American, 11 ‘‘other” or mixed races, and 6 who did not respond to the question. There were 245 business graduates, 42 political science graduates and 14 from other departments. The average age at Time 1 of participants in the Time 2 survey was 22.1 years old. Comparing respondents at Time 2 to non-respondents at Time 2, there was only one statistically significant difference between the samples on the study variables. Time 2 non-respondents had a higher average level of mentoring instrumentality at Time 1 than Time 2 respondents (t(398) = 2.08, p < 0.05). 2.2. Measures 2.2.1. Learning goal orientation (Time 1) Trait learning goal orientation was measured with five items from Vandewalle (1997). Participants responded to each item (e.g., ‘‘I am willing to select a challenging work assignment that I can learn a lot from”) on a six-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). Coefficient alpha for this scale was .84.
260
E.T. Welsh, C.R. Wanberg / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 257–263
2.2.2. Mentoring instrumentality (Time 1) Mentoring instrumentality was measured using an 11-item scale from Guerrero and Sire (2001) which was modified to refer to the importance of mentoring rather than the importance of training. Sample items included, ‘‘How important is having a mentor to your personal satisfaction?”, and ‘‘How important is having a mentor to your personal knowledge?” An item was added to the revised scale in order to measure participants’ assessments of the overall importance of mentoring. Participants rated each item on a five-point scale ranging from extremely unimportant (=1) to extremely important (=5). Coefficient alpha was .91. 2.2.3. Negative affectivity (Time 1) Trait negative affectivity was assessed with ten items from the PANAS (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Respondents indicated the degree to which a series of ten negative emotions (e.g., scared, irritable, distressed) described how they generally feel on a five-point scale. Coefficient alpha was .78. 2.2.4. Cognitive ability (Time 1) Cognitive ability was measured with self-reported SAT scores. Because not all individuals had taken the SAT, participants were also asked for their ACT scores. For individuals who reported an ACT score but not an SAT score, SAT scores were estimated from the reported ACT scores (Dorans, Lyu, Pommerich, & Houston, 1997). Self-reported total SAT scores have been found to correlate with actual SAT scores (N = 719, k = 6, robs = .82; Kuncel, Credé, & Thomas, 2005). 2.2.5. Mentoring received (Time 2) Our focus was on two outcomes: presence of an informal mentor one year after graduation, and level of mentoring received from one’s primary informal mentor (if more than one informal mentor was reported). A mentor was defined as: ‘‘A higher ranking, influential individual in your organization who has advanced experience and knowledge and is committed to providing upward mobility and support to your career. Your mentor may or may not be your immediate supervisor” (Ragins & Cotton, 1999, p. 535). If participants indicated that they had a mentor, they were asked for the name of their most influential mentor (Higgins & Thomas, 2001). Using this name, they were then asked to indicate whether this was a formal or informal relationship and how long they had been in this relationship. This process was repeated up to three times to capture the most influential mentors an individual had found. Presence of an informal mentor was coded 0 = no, 1 = yes. Level of mentoring received was determined using the career (6 items) and psychosocial (5 items) subscales of the Mentoring Function Questionnaire (MFQ; Scandura & Ragins, 1993). Participants were asked to respond to a series of statements using a five-point scale from strongly disagree (=1) to strongly agree (=5). Sample items included, ‘‘ takes a personal interest in my career” (career-related mentoring; alpha = .73) and ‘‘I share personal problems with ” (psychosocial mentoring; alpha = .80). 2.2.6. Initiation behaviors (Time 2) Mentoring initiation behaviors were assessed using a four-item scale (Aryee, Lo, & Kang, 1999). This scale asks the extent to which individuals have engaged in a series of behaviors over the past year from a very little extent (=1) to a very great extent (=5). Sample behaviors include ‘‘Sought to become acquainted with higher-level managers”, and ‘‘Taken the initiative to seek counseling and advice from higher-level managers”. Coefficient alpha for this scale was .85. 2.2.7. Controls A rich array of additional variables was used, including the participant’s gender (O’Brien et al., in press) and race (Kammeyer-Mueller & Judge, 2008). Previously having a mentor was also controlled, as this might influence the value an individual places on being a protégé (Ragins & McFarlin, 1990) and because individuals may have already obtained a mentor and may not be seeking another. Whether the individual was a business graduate as well as number of positions held within the new organization since graduation were controlled, due to the possible impact on the exposure new graduates have to potential mentors. Development climate of the organization was measured with seven items (Aryee et al., 1999), following the premise that developmental climate may impact whether mentors engage in mentoring (Eby, Lockwood, & Butts, 2006; Young & Perrewé, 2004). Presence of a formal mentoring program was included as a control because individuals at organizations with formal mentoring programs may find it more or less difficult to find an informal mentor. Finally, in analyses for level of mentoring received, length of the relationship was also controlled. 3. Results Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations between the variables of interest. A total of 144 participants indicated that they had found a new informal mentor within their organization. Results predicting presence of an informal mentor, level of mentoring received, and protégé-reported initiation behaviors are presented in Table 2. Hypotheses 1–5 were partially supported. With respect to Hypothesis 1, new graduates’ levels of learning goal orientation measured at Time 1 were not related to their having an informal mentor at their new organizations one year later. However,
261
E.T. Welsh, C.R. Wanberg / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 257–263 Table 1 Means, standard deviations and correlations. Mean 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
15. 16.
Gender (1 = male; 0 = female) Caucasian (1 = yes; 0 = no) Previous mentor (1 = yes; 0 = no) Number of positions Business graduate (1 = yes; 0 = no) Development climate Presence formal mentoring program (1 = yes; 0 = no) Length of mentoring relationship (months) Learning goal orientation Mentoring instrumentality Negative affectivity SAT score (100’s) Initiation behaviors Informal mentor presence (1 = yes; 0 = no) Psychosocial mentoring Career-related mentoring
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
.44
.50
.88
.33
.09
.54
.50
.08
.02
1.41 .82
.76 .39
.02 .01
.05 -.02
.03 .14
25.96 .50
5.35 .50
.02 .06
.01 .01
.00 .12
.01 .02
.05 .23
8.78
3.98
.06
.16
.01
.10
.16
.08
.21
21.90
2.56
.06
.09
.08
.03
.03
.07
.02
.06
40.33
7.49
.06
.04
.09
.11
.08
.03
.09
.07
.22
18.74 12.45 14.02 .48
5.72 1.19 3.57 .50
.01 .08 .04 .15
-.03 .05 .01 .01
.12 .10 .18 .23
.10 .07 .09 .04
.06 .12 .08 .01
.16 .03 .32 .23
.04 .05 .09 .05
.06 .03 .05
.14 .05 .28 .07
.06 .11 .24 .10
16.99 23.77
4.83 4.10
.04 .06
.07 .13
.05 .02
.10 .11
.11 .10
.12 .22
.06 .10
.16 .20
.20 .29
11
12
13
14
.01 .08 .16
— .05 .13
— .31
—
.03 .05
.01 .02
.21 .33
— —
15
— — — — .03
— — .26
—
—
—
.03 .05
— — —
— .55
Note: Variables 1–7 and 9–14 based on all participants in the study (due to missing data, n ranges form 282 to 301). Variables 8 and 15–16 are based on individuals who indicated that they had a new informal mentor (n = 144). Correlations bolded are significant at the .05 level or lower (2-tailed).
*
for those individuals who did find mentors, higher levels of learning goal orientation were related to the receipt of more career-related mentoring (b = 0.18; p < 0.05), but not psychosocial mentoring. With respect to Hypothesis 2, levels of mentoring instrumentality measured at Time 1 were not related to new graduates having found an informal mentor. For those individuals who did find mentors, higher levels of mentoring instrumentality were related to the receipt of more career-related mentoring (b = 0.25; p < 0.01) as well as psychosocial mentoring (b = 0.19; p < 0.05). Partially supporting Hypothesis 3, cognitive ability as measured by SAT score was related to having an informal mentor (b = 0.31; p < 0.01). However, it was not related to either psychosocial or career-related mentoring received. Hypothesis 4 stated that negative affectivity measured at the time of graduation would be negatively related to mentoring received within the new organization one year later. Negative affectivity was negatively related to presence of an informal mentor (b = 0.06; p < 0.05), but was not related to either of the mentoring received measures. Hypothesis 5 proposed that new market entrants with higher levels of learning goal orientation and mentoring instrumentality, as well as lower negative affectivity would report that they engaged in more behaviors related to the initiation of mentoring relationships in their first year on the job. Learning goal orientation (b = 0.25; p < 0.001) and mentoring instrumentality (b = 0.20; p < 0.001) were positively related to initiation behaviors, while negative affectivity was not related to initiation behaviors. The contextual and demographic variables also provide insight into the predictors of mentoring. Women rather then men were more likely to report having an informal mentor as were individuals who had a previous mentor and who reported a more developmental climate in their organizations. Developmental climate was also positively related to career-related mentoring, while presence of a formal mentoring program was negatively related to it. 4. Discussion This study investigated whether it is possible to predict which individuals in a sample of new college graduates find informal mentors in their post-graduation jobs and the amount of mentoring they receive from these relationships. Individuals with lower levels of negative affectivity and higher levels of cognitive ability were the most likely to find mentors. In contrast, protégé learning goal orientation and mentoring instrumentality were associated with higher levels of career-related mentoring received once a mentor was found and with more behaviors directed at finding a mentor, while only mentoring instrumentality was related to higher levels of psychosocial mentoring. Thus, individual characteristics associated with
262
E.T. Welsh, C.R. Wanberg / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 257–263
Table 2 Informal mentoring. Informal mentor presence b (Odds ratio) Control variables Gender (1 = male; 0 = female) Caucasian (1 = yes; 0 = no) Previous mentor (1 = yes; 0 = no) Number of positions Business graduate (1 = yes; 0 = no) Development climate Presence formal mentoring program (1 = yes; 0 = no) Length of relationship (months) Proposed antecedents Learning goal orientation Mentoring instrumentality Negative affectivity SAT score (100’s) X2 Pseudo R2 R2 Adjusted R2
0.86 0.21 0.82 0.20 0.48 0.08 0.09
0.03 0.03 0.06 0.31
(0.42)** (0.81) (2.26)** (1.22) (0.62) (1.09)** (0.92)
(1.03) (1.03) (0.94)* (1.36)**
Psychosocial mentoring b (b) 0.20 0.63 1.35 0.61 1.55 0.16 0.79
( 0.20) (0.04) ( 0.13) (0.07) (0.13) (0.15) ( 0.08)
Career-related mentoring b (b) 0.57 1.27 0.25 0.11 0.52 0.27 1.51
( 0.07) (0.10) ( 0.03) (0.02) (0.05) (0.30)*** ( 0.18)*
0.15 ( 0.12)
0.03 (0.03)
0.30 0.15 0.01 0.02
0.29 0.17 0.06 0.27
(0.15) (0.19)* (0.01) (0.00)
Initiation behaviors b (b)
(0.18)* (0.25)** (0.08) (0.08)
0.46 0.27 0.88 0.43 0.29 0.19 0.31
( 0.06) ( 0.03) (0.12)* (0.09) (0.03) (0.29)*** ( 0.04)
0.36 0.10 0.01 0.18
(0.25)*** (0.20)*** (0.01) (0.06)
51.02*** 0.14*** 0.13 0.04
0.23** 0.15**
0.25*** 0.22***
Note: Due to missing data, n = 273 for informal mentor presence, n = 275 for initiation behaviors and n = 130 for mentoring received. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
finding an informal mentor (cognitive ability and lack of negative affectivity) differed from those characteristics associated with the level of mentoring received from that mentor and with the amount of effort individuals reported expending toward finding a mentor (learning goal orientation and mentoring instrumentality). These findings are of significant interest from both academic and practice viewpoints. First, on the academic front, a predictive study examining antecedents of developing mentoring relationships was needed (Turban & Lee, 2007). Although causation cannot be proven with our design, our predictive approach is valuable in sorting out whether a given individual difference variable predicts mentoring, as opposed to the possibility that mentoring may affect that variable. Second, results support the usefulness of role-making theory as a framework for studying mentoring. Future investigations could build upon this theory and the variables used including adding characteristics of mentors. Third, future work should separately consider factors associated with finding a mentor from factors associated with level of mentoring received once a mentor has been found. Finally, future examinations of objective career outcomes of mentoring (e.g., promotions, compensation) should control for cognitive ability. Our results suggest an omitted variable bias otherwise, because cognitive ability was related to finding a mentor and it has also been found to predict objective career outcomes (Kuncel et al., 2004). From a practice standpoint, several of our findings have implications that may be of particular interest. First, given that protégé characteristics associated with initiation behaviors were not associated with finding an informal mentor, some individuals who try to find mentors may not be successful. Second, individuals who had higher levels of cognitive ability were more likely to report finding informal mentors. This has both positive and negative implications. On the positive side, organizations want to develop and retain their best talent, and mentoring may help accomplish this goal. On the other hand, it is possible that individuals who need mentoring the most are not getting it. Because human resource professionals have limited means to change the cognitive ability profile of their current employees, they could either try to convince potential mentors to focus on the potential for growth among individuals with lower levels of cognitive ability or use formal mentoring programs to increase the number of pairings. Third, our results suggest that individuals with higher negative affectivity are less likely to report having mentors. Thus, in order to increase mentoring relationships, human resource professionals could coach organizational newcomers to avoid expressions of negative affect. This should increase a protégé’s attractiveness although it would not address any motivational issues related to high negative affectivity (e.g., if individuals high in negative affectivity do not want mentors). Finally, because level of mentoring instrumentality and learning goal orientation were related to level of mentoring received once an individual found an informal mentor, individuals who have informal mentors should be coached on the importance of focusing on learning outcomes and the benefits of being in a mentoring relationship. In conclusion, our study’s predictive design in combination with the role-making theoretical framework allowed a strong examination of the characteristics of new job market entrants who are likely to find informal mentors and receive higher levels of mentoring. The results generally support role-making theory’s assertion that both attraction and motivation are important. It appears that cognitive ability and the absence of negative affectivity are associated with finding an informal mentor while learning goal orientation and mentoring instrumentality are associated with level of mentoring received once an informal mentor is found. These findings suggest specific tactics that might be used to increase the number of mentoring
E.T. Welsh, C.R. Wanberg / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 257–263
263
relationships and the level of mentoring received in organizations. Further research will be needed to examine the external validity of these findings, as this study’s sample was fairly homogeneous in terms of age, background and race. References Allen, T. D. (2004). Protégé selection by mentors: Contributing individual and organizational factors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 469–483. Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 127–136. Allen, T. D., Poteet, M. L., & Burroughs, S. M. (1997). The mentor’s perspective: A qualitative inquiry and future research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 70–89. Allen, T. D., Poteet, M. L., & Russell, J. E. A. (2000). Protégé selection by mentors: What makes the difference? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 271–282. Aryee, S., Lo, S., & Kang, I. L. (1999). Antecedents of early career stage mentoring among Chinese employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 563–576. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370. Colquitt, J. A., & Simmering, M. J. (1998). Conscientiousness, goal orientation and motivation to learn during the learning process: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 654–665. Dorans, N. J., Lyu, C. F., Pommerich, M., & Houston, W. M. (1997). Concordance between ACT assessment and recentered SAT I sum scores. College & University, 73, 24–34. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048. Eby, L. T., Lockwood, A. L., & Butts, M. (2006). Perceived support for mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 267–291. Egan, T. M. (2005). The impact of learning goal orientation similarity on formal mentoring relationship outcomes. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7, 489–504. Elliot, A. J. (1997). Integrating the ‘‘Classic” and ‘‘Contemporary” approaches to achievement motivation: A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.). Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 143–179). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Godshalk, V. M., & Sosik, J. J. (2003). Aiming for career success: The role of learning goal orientation in mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 417–437. Graen, G. B., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers (pp. 143–165). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247. Green, S. G., & Bauer, T. N. (1995). Supervisory mentoring by advisers: Relationships with doctoral student potential, productivity, and commitment. Personnel Psychology, 48, 537–561. Guerrero, S., & Sire, B. (2001). Motivation to train from the workers’ perspective: Example of French companies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12, 988–1004. Hamilton, D. L., & Fallot, R. D. (1974). Information salience as a weighting factor in impression formation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 30, 444–448. Higgins, M. C., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Constellations and careers: Toward understanding the effects of multiple developmental relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 223–247. Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Judge, T. A. (2008). A quantitative review of mentoring research: Test of a model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 269–283. Kashdan, T. B., & Roberts, J. E. (2004). Trait and state curiosity in the genesis of intimacy: Differentiation from related constructs. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 23, 792–816. Kram, K. E. (1988). Mentoring at work. Lanham, MD: University Press. Kuncel, N. R., Credé, M., & Thomas, L. L. (2005). The validity of self-reported grade point averages, class ranks, and test scores: A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75, 63–82. Kuncel, N. R., Hezlett, S. A., & Ones, D. S. (2004). Academic performance, career potential, creativity, and job performance: Can one construct explain them all? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 148–161. Noe, R. A., Greenberger, D. B., & Wang, S. (2002). Mentoring: What we know and where we might go. In G. R. Ferris & J. J. Martocchio (Eds.). Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 21, pp. 129–174). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science Ltd.. O’Brien, K. E., Biga, A., Kessler, S. R., & Allen, T. D. (in press). A meta-analytic investigation of gender differences in mentoring. Journal of Management. Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., & Beaubien, J. M. (2007). A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological net. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 128–150. Perrewé, P. L., & Spector, P. E. (2002). Personality research in the organizational sciences. In G. R. Ferris & J. J. Martocchio (Eds.). Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 21, pp. 1–63). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science Ltd.. 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., & McFarlin, D. B. (1990). Perceptions of mentor roles in cross-gender mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 321–339. Rubin, Z. (1973). Liking and loving: An invitation to social psychology. Oxford, England: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 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. Schwarz, N., & Bohner, G. (1996). Feelings and their motivational implications: Moods and the action sequence. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 119–145). New York: Guilford Press. Turban, D. B., & Dougherty, T. W. (1994). Role of protégé personality in receipt of mentoring and career success. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 688–702. Turban, D. B., & Lee, F. K. (2007). The role of personality in mentoring relationships. In B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 21–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Van Eerde, W., & Thierry, H. (1996). Vroom’s expectancy models and work-related criteria: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 575–586. Vandewalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 995–1015. Vandewalle, D., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W. (2001). The role of goal orientation following performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 629–640. Wanberg, C. R., Welsh, E. T., & Hezlett, S. A. (2003). Mentoring research: A review and dynamic process model. In J. J. Martocchio & G. R. Ferris (Eds.). Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 22, pp. 39–124). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science. Wanberg, C. R., Welsh, E. T., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. (2007). Protégé and mentor self-disclosure: Levels and outcomes within formal mentoring dyads in a corporate context. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 398–412. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. Young, A. M., & Perrewé, P. L. (2004). The role of expectations in the mentoring exchange: An analysis of mentor and protégé expectations in relation to perceived support. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16, 103–126. Zanna, M. P., & Hamilton, D. L. (1972). Attribute dimensions and patterns of trait inferences. Psychonomic Science, 27, 353–354.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Vocational Behavior journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb
Launching the post-college career: A study of mentoring antecedents Elizabeth T. Welsh *, Connie R. Wanberg University of Minnesota, Human Resources and Industrial Relations, 321-19th Avenue South, 3-300 Carlson School of Management, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 11 August 2008 Available online 10 December 2008
Keywords: Mentoring Learning goal orientation Career development New employees
a b s t r a c t Drawing upon role-making theory, this study examines which new job market entrants, following college graduation, find informal mentors and how much mentoring they receive from these mentors using a predictive design. Our results suggest that individuals lower in negative affectivity and higher in cognitive ability as well as women, individuals who have previously had a mentor, and those who go to work for organizations with developmental climates are more likely to find informal mentors. In contrast, individuals higher in learning goal orientation and mentoring instrumentality receive more mentoring once a mentoring relationship has been established. Ó 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Mentoring has been recognized as an important process to help organizational newcomers adjust and adapt to their new organizations, as well as a process that helps employees at junior levels achieve higher levels of career success (Noe, Greenberger, & Wang, 2002; Wanberg, Welsh, & Hezlett, 2003). Mentors provide career-related development through coaching, sponsorship, exposure, protection, and challenging assignments; psychosocial support is provided via counseling, friendship, acceptance, and role modeling (Kram, 1988). Although mentoring cannot be highlighted as the sole contributor to career success (Kammeyer-Mueller & Judge, 2008), meta-analytic data suggests that having a mentor is related to higher levels of job satisfaction, career satisfaction, compensation, and promotions (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004). Given the usefulness of mentoring for individuals’ careers, it is important to understand characteristics and contextual variables related to individuals becoming a protégé. Extensive research has examined gender and racial differences in having a mentor (see, for example O’Brien, Biga, Kessler, & Allen, in press), but broader examinations of variables associated with finding a mentor and receiving mentoring have been limited (Turban & Lee, 2007). This study examines a theoretically derived model, which is aimed at predicting the receipt of informal mentoring. Importantly, this research focuses on college graduates and studies these individuals over time to examine who finds a mentor in their new professional placements after graduation. Previous work, with only a few exceptions that examined formal or quasi-formal mentoring relationships (e.g., Green & Bauer, 1995; Wanberg, Welsh, & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2007), has used cross-sectional methods (making it difficult to establish whether examined variables are truly antecedents of mentoring received or if they are actually outcomes of mentoring received) or has asked mentors what characteristics they look for in protégés. The focus of our model is on the formation of informal mentoring relationships, those that form naturally without assistance from an organization, and level of mentoring received once that relationship has begun. The core theoretical framework for this study is role-making theory (Graen & Cashman, 1975). Role-making theory models how two individuals’ roles and relationship can evolve beyond the roles and relationship that are formally defined by an organization. The framework begins in a role-finding stage (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) where two individuals interact in a * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (E.T. Welsh). 0001-8791/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2008.12.001
258
E.T. Welsh, C.R. Wanberg / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 257–263
relatively superficial way, getting to know each other through repeated interactions. At some point in this stage, either individual may extend an offer to the other to expand the relationship based upon their beliefs about the other individual’s potential to become a partner in the workplace. If the second party accepts the offer, the dyad enters into a role-making stage. We build upon insights from the role-finding stage of the theory to develop hypotheses about new employee characteristics that might ‘‘push” individuals to find mentors and/or ‘‘pull” mentors to them. The theory suggests that in order for an informal mentoring relationship to form, it will be important for the protégé to possess characteristics that motivate him or her to find a mentor and make them attractive to a mentor. These characteristics will also be important to the level of mentoring received once a relationship is formed. For this study we examine four central protégé individual difference variables (learning goal orientation, mentoring instrumentality, negative affectivity, and cognitive ability) that fit especially well with both the theoretical framework and the mentoring context. 1.1. Learning goal orientation Individuals with high learning goal orientation tend to approach work with the desire to develop their knowledge, skills, and overall competence (e.g., Dweck, 1986; Elliot, 1997). Conceptually, learning goal orientation is likely to facilitate activities on the part of newcomers that will stimulate the formation of a mentoring relationship. Research has found a positive relationship between learning goal orientation and motivation to learn, effort expended during training, and persistence when faced with difficulty (e.g., Colquitt & Simmering, 1998; Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien, 2007; Vandewalle, Cron, & Slocum, 2001). In the mentoring literature, a cross-sectional association has been found between protégé learning goal orientation and level of mentoring received including psychosocial support, career-related mentoring, and role modeling (Egan, 2005; Godshalk & Sosik, 2003). However, Turban and Lee (2007) note that because learning goal orientation might be influenced by the mentoring relationship, this construct needs to be studied as a predictor of mentoring in a longitudinal design. Learning goal orientation also appears to be attractive to mentors. Allen (2004) asked individuals with experience as mentors to indicate the importance to them of several protégé characteristics. Willingness to learn had the highest mean rating of all of the characteristics. Based upon this discussion, we propose: Hypothesis 1. College graduates’ levels of learning goal orientation will be positively related to presence of an informal mentor and level of mentoring received from this mentor in their post-graduation job one year later. 1.2. Mentoring instrumentality In contrast to learning goal orientation, which conceptually has both motivational and attraction components, mentoring instrumentality (i.e., how important an individual believes it is to have a mentor) is an individual difference that is primarily motivational. Mentoring instrumentality addresses why an individual might direct energies toward finding a mentor, as opposed to fulfilling developmental needs via other avenues such as training. Although no research was found in the mentoring literature examining the role of instrumentality, meta-analytic data from other contexts suggests that instrumentality is positively associated with effort and persistence toward the target of interest (Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996). We propose: Hypothesis 2. College graduates’ assessment of the instrumentality of having a mentor will be positively related to presence of an informal mentor and level of mentoring received from this mentor in their post-graduation job one year later. 1.3. Cognitive ability Contrasting with mentoring instrumentality, cognitive ability is an individual difference that is more important to attraction than motivation. Relationship research suggests that people are more attracted to individuals with higher levels of cognitive ability because they have more respect for them (e.g., Rubin, 1973; Zanna & Hamilton, 1972). In addition, research has documented a positive association between general cognitive ability and performance in job training programs, job knowledge, skill acquisition, and performance in complex jobs (Kuncel, Hezlett, & Ones, 2004), all of which would be important to potential mentors who are considering investing significant time and energy in a protégé. Within the mentoring literature, research by Allen, Poteet, and Burroughs (1997) found mentors made remarks about what attracted them to their protégés such as ‘‘very smart and intelligent” (p. 80). In addition, Allen, Poteet, and Russell (2000) found that mentors choose protégés based upon their perceived potential/high ability rather than their perceived need for help and Allen (2004) found that college students in a laboratory study chose protégés with higher ability. We found no studies that attempted to predict whether individuals with higher cognitive ability are more likely to secure informal mentors and receive more informal mentoring. However, in a longitudinal study of quasi-formal mentoring relationships between graduate students and their advisors, Green and Bauer (1995) reported individuals with higher verbal GRE scores received more career-related mentoring with mixed results for the relationship between psychosocial mentoring and quantitative versus verbal GRE scores. We propose: Hypothesis 3. College graduates’ levels of cognitive ability will be positively related to presence of an informal mentor and level of mentoring received from this mentor in their post-graduation job one year later.
E.T. Welsh, C.R. Wanberg / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 257–263
259
1.4. Negative affectivity It is also important to consider characteristics that may deter potential mentors or reduce protégé motivation to seek out a mentor, especially considering that research has found that negative information (e.g., emotions, feedback, impressions) is frequently more powerful than positive information (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001). Given the positive nature of the other antecedents considered, protégé negative affectivity, the ‘‘tendency to experience negative emotions across time and situations” (Perrewé & Spector, 2002, p. 28), was added as a potential predictor of mentoring. Negative affectivity is conceptualized to impact both the motivation of an individual to find a mentor and his or her attractiveness to mentors. Relevant to motivation, research suggests that individuals in negative moods find goals less attractive and the actions needed to attain them more unpleasant (Schwarz & Bohner, 1996). Consistent with this notion, Turban and Dougherty (1994) reported protégés with higher levels of negative affectivity reported lower levels of initiation of mentoring relationships. In terms of attraction, mentors may be less attracted to individuals high in negative affectivity. Research examining interpersonal relationships has found that the expression of negative emotions has negative consequences on likableness ratings (Hamilton & Fallot, 1974; Kashdan & Roberts, 2004). We propose: Hypothesis 4. College graduates’ levels of negative affectivity will be negatively related to presence of an informal mentor and level of mentoring received from this mentor in their post-graduation job one year later. 1.5. Initiation behaviors We have hypothesized that higher learning goal orientation, higher mentoring instrumentality, higher cognitive ability, and lower negative affectivity on the part of college graduates will be related to receipt of informal mentoring in their first post-graduation job. Three of these variables are proposed to be related (at least in part) to finding a mentor through motivational mechanisms on the part of the college graduate. If this is indeed the case, we can expect that college graduates with higher levels of learning goal orientation, mentoring instrumentality, and lower levels of negative affectivity will report that they engaged in more behaviors related to the initiation of mentoring relationships in their first year after graduation, such as seeking to become acquainted with higher-level managers (Turban & Dougherty, 1994). We propose: Hypothesis 5. College graduates with higher levels of learning goal orientation, mentoring instrumentality, and lower levels of negative affectivity will report that they engaged in more behaviors related to the initiation of mentoring relationships in their first year after graduation.
2. Method 2.1. Sample and procedures The data for this study were collected from new undergraduate business and political science graduates over two successive years at a Midwestern University. In the month prior to their graduation, students were asked to fill out a survey assessing background information and the proposed antecedents of mentoring. A second survey was sent 14 months after graduation, timed so that participants had been in their jobs for approximately one year, as some participants started immediately after graduation while others began in early fall. An average of one year was chosen as the target in order to give new graduates time to form mentoring relationships. This second survey assessed information about mentoring received, initiation behaviors and the organization for which they worked. Participants received a $25 e-gift certificate for each completed survey. Of 1094 individuals asked to be in the study, 402 completed the Time 1 survey (response rate 37%). Of these respondents, 387 were sent a Time 2 survey (five Time 1 surveys were eliminated because of suspicious answer patterns and 10 did not graduate on time or were not working). A total of 301 individuals responded (76%). This final sample included 133 males and 168 females, 255 Caucasians, 23 Asians, 5 Hispanics, 1 African American, 11 ‘‘other” or mixed races, and 6 who did not respond to the question. There were 245 business graduates, 42 political science graduates and 14 from other departments. The average age at Time 1 of participants in the Time 2 survey was 22.1 years old. Comparing respondents at Time 2 to non-respondents at Time 2, there was only one statistically significant difference between the samples on the study variables. Time 2 non-respondents had a higher average level of mentoring instrumentality at Time 1 than Time 2 respondents (t(398) = 2.08, p < 0.05). 2.2. Measures 2.2.1. Learning goal orientation (Time 1) Trait learning goal orientation was measured with five items from Vandewalle (1997). Participants responded to each item (e.g., ‘‘I am willing to select a challenging work assignment that I can learn a lot from”) on a six-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). Coefficient alpha for this scale was .84.
260
E.T. Welsh, C.R. Wanberg / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 257–263
2.2.2. Mentoring instrumentality (Time 1) Mentoring instrumentality was measured using an 11-item scale from Guerrero and Sire (2001) which was modified to refer to the importance of mentoring rather than the importance of training. Sample items included, ‘‘How important is having a mentor to your personal satisfaction?”, and ‘‘How important is having a mentor to your personal knowledge?” An item was added to the revised scale in order to measure participants’ assessments of the overall importance of mentoring. Participants rated each item on a five-point scale ranging from extremely unimportant (=1) to extremely important (=5). Coefficient alpha was .91. 2.2.3. Negative affectivity (Time 1) Trait negative affectivity was assessed with ten items from the PANAS (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Respondents indicated the degree to which a series of ten negative emotions (e.g., scared, irritable, distressed) described how they generally feel on a five-point scale. Coefficient alpha was .78. 2.2.4. Cognitive ability (Time 1) Cognitive ability was measured with self-reported SAT scores. Because not all individuals had taken the SAT, participants were also asked for their ACT scores. For individuals who reported an ACT score but not an SAT score, SAT scores were estimated from the reported ACT scores (Dorans, Lyu, Pommerich, & Houston, 1997). Self-reported total SAT scores have been found to correlate with actual SAT scores (N = 719, k = 6, robs = .82; Kuncel, Credé, & Thomas, 2005). 2.2.5. Mentoring received (Time 2) Our focus was on two outcomes: presence of an informal mentor one year after graduation, and level of mentoring received from one’s primary informal mentor (if more than one informal mentor was reported). A mentor was defined as: ‘‘A higher ranking, influential individual in your organization who has advanced experience and knowledge and is committed to providing upward mobility and support to your career. Your mentor may or may not be your immediate supervisor” (Ragins & Cotton, 1999, p. 535). If participants indicated that they had a mentor, they were asked for the name of their most influential mentor (Higgins & Thomas, 2001). Using this name, they were then asked to indicate whether this was a formal or informal relationship and how long they had been in this relationship. This process was repeated up to three times to capture the most influential mentors an individual had found. Presence of an informal mentor was coded 0 = no, 1 = yes. Level of mentoring received was determined using the career (6 items) and psychosocial (5 items) subscales of the Mentoring Function Questionnaire (MFQ; Scandura & Ragins, 1993). Participants were asked to respond to a series of statements using a five-point scale from strongly disagree (=1) to strongly agree (=5). Sample items included, ‘‘
261
E.T. Welsh, C.R. Wanberg / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 257–263 Table 1 Means, standard deviations and correlations. Mean 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
15. 16.
Gender (1 = male; 0 = female) Caucasian (1 = yes; 0 = no) Previous mentor (1 = yes; 0 = no) Number of positions Business graduate (1 = yes; 0 = no) Development climate Presence formal mentoring program (1 = yes; 0 = no) Length of mentoring relationship (months) Learning goal orientation Mentoring instrumentality Negative affectivity SAT score (100’s) Initiation behaviors Informal mentor presence (1 = yes; 0 = no) Psychosocial mentoring Career-related mentoring
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
.44
.50
.88
.33
.09
.54
.50
.08
.02
1.41 .82
.76 .39
.02 .01
.05 -.02
.03 .14
25.96 .50
5.35 .50
.02 .06
.01 .01
.00 .12
.01 .02
.05 .23
8.78
3.98
.06
.16
.01
.10
.16
.08
.21
21.90
2.56
.06
.09
.08
.03
.03
.07
.02
.06
40.33
7.49
.06
.04
.09
.11
.08
.03
.09
.07
.22
18.74 12.45 14.02 .48
5.72 1.19 3.57 .50
.01 .08 .04 .15
-.03 .05 .01 .01
.12 .10 .18 .23
.10 .07 .09 .04
.06 .12 .08 .01
.16 .03 .32 .23
.04 .05 .09 .05
.06 .03 .05
.14 .05 .28 .07
.06 .11 .24 .10
16.99 23.77
4.83 4.10
.04 .06
.07 .13
.05 .02
.10 .11
.11 .10
.12 .22
.06 .10
.16 .20
.20 .29
11
12
13
14
.01 .08 .16
— .05 .13
— .31
—
.03 .05
.01 .02
.21 .33
— —
15
— — — — .03
— — .26
—
—
—
.03 .05
— — —
— .55
Note: Variables 1–7 and 9–14 based on all participants in the study (due to missing data, n ranges form 282 to 301). Variables 8 and 15–16 are based on individuals who indicated that they had a new informal mentor (n = 144). Correlations bolded are significant at the .05 level or lower (2-tailed).
*
for those individuals who did find mentors, higher levels of learning goal orientation were related to the receipt of more career-related mentoring (b = 0.18; p < 0.05), but not psychosocial mentoring. With respect to Hypothesis 2, levels of mentoring instrumentality measured at Time 1 were not related to new graduates having found an informal mentor. For those individuals who did find mentors, higher levels of mentoring instrumentality were related to the receipt of more career-related mentoring (b = 0.25; p < 0.01) as well as psychosocial mentoring (b = 0.19; p < 0.05). Partially supporting Hypothesis 3, cognitive ability as measured by SAT score was related to having an informal mentor (b = 0.31; p < 0.01). However, it was not related to either psychosocial or career-related mentoring received. Hypothesis 4 stated that negative affectivity measured at the time of graduation would be negatively related to mentoring received within the new organization one year later. Negative affectivity was negatively related to presence of an informal mentor (b = 0.06; p < 0.05), but was not related to either of the mentoring received measures. Hypothesis 5 proposed that new market entrants with higher levels of learning goal orientation and mentoring instrumentality, as well as lower negative affectivity would report that they engaged in more behaviors related to the initiation of mentoring relationships in their first year on the job. Learning goal orientation (b = 0.25; p < 0.001) and mentoring instrumentality (b = 0.20; p < 0.001) were positively related to initiation behaviors, while negative affectivity was not related to initiation behaviors. The contextual and demographic variables also provide insight into the predictors of mentoring. Women rather then men were more likely to report having an informal mentor as were individuals who had a previous mentor and who reported a more developmental climate in their organizations. Developmental climate was also positively related to career-related mentoring, while presence of a formal mentoring program was negatively related to it. 4. Discussion This study investigated whether it is possible to predict which individuals in a sample of new college graduates find informal mentors in their post-graduation jobs and the amount of mentoring they receive from these relationships. Individuals with lower levels of negative affectivity and higher levels of cognitive ability were the most likely to find mentors. In contrast, protégé learning goal orientation and mentoring instrumentality were associated with higher levels of career-related mentoring received once a mentor was found and with more behaviors directed at finding a mentor, while only mentoring instrumentality was related to higher levels of psychosocial mentoring. Thus, individual characteristics associated with
262
E.T. Welsh, C.R. Wanberg / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 257–263
Table 2 Informal mentoring. Informal mentor presence b (Odds ratio) Control variables Gender (1 = male; 0 = female) Caucasian (1 = yes; 0 = no) Previous mentor (1 = yes; 0 = no) Number of positions Business graduate (1 = yes; 0 = no) Development climate Presence formal mentoring program (1 = yes; 0 = no) Length of relationship (months) Proposed antecedents Learning goal orientation Mentoring instrumentality Negative affectivity SAT score (100’s) X2 Pseudo R2 R2 Adjusted R2
0.86 0.21 0.82 0.20 0.48 0.08 0.09
0.03 0.03 0.06 0.31
(0.42)** (0.81) (2.26)** (1.22) (0.62) (1.09)** (0.92)
(1.03) (1.03) (0.94)* (1.36)**
Psychosocial mentoring b (b) 0.20 0.63 1.35 0.61 1.55 0.16 0.79
( 0.20) (0.04) ( 0.13) (0.07) (0.13) (0.15) ( 0.08)
Career-related mentoring b (b) 0.57 1.27 0.25 0.11 0.52 0.27 1.51
( 0.07) (0.10) ( 0.03) (0.02) (0.05) (0.30)*** ( 0.18)*
0.15 ( 0.12)
0.03 (0.03)
0.30 0.15 0.01 0.02
0.29 0.17 0.06 0.27
(0.15) (0.19)* (0.01) (0.00)
Initiation behaviors b (b)
(0.18)* (0.25)** (0.08) (0.08)
0.46 0.27 0.88 0.43 0.29 0.19 0.31
( 0.06) ( 0.03) (0.12)* (0.09) (0.03) (0.29)*** ( 0.04)
0.36 0.10 0.01 0.18
(0.25)*** (0.20)*** (0.01) (0.06)
51.02*** 0.14*** 0.13 0.04
0.23** 0.15**
0.25*** 0.22***
Note: Due to missing data, n = 273 for informal mentor presence, n = 275 for initiation behaviors and n = 130 for mentoring received. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
finding an informal mentor (cognitive ability and lack of negative affectivity) differed from those characteristics associated with the level of mentoring received from that mentor and with the amount of effort individuals reported expending toward finding a mentor (learning goal orientation and mentoring instrumentality). These findings are of significant interest from both academic and practice viewpoints. First, on the academic front, a predictive study examining antecedents of developing mentoring relationships was needed (Turban & Lee, 2007). Although causation cannot be proven with our design, our predictive approach is valuable in sorting out whether a given individual difference variable predicts mentoring, as opposed to the possibility that mentoring may affect that variable. Second, results support the usefulness of role-making theory as a framework for studying mentoring. Future investigations could build upon this theory and the variables used including adding characteristics of mentors. Third, future work should separately consider factors associated with finding a mentor from factors associated with level of mentoring received once a mentor has been found. Finally, future examinations of objective career outcomes of mentoring (e.g., promotions, compensation) should control for cognitive ability. Our results suggest an omitted variable bias otherwise, because cognitive ability was related to finding a mentor and it has also been found to predict objective career outcomes (Kuncel et al., 2004). From a practice standpoint, several of our findings have implications that may be of particular interest. First, given that protégé characteristics associated with initiation behaviors were not associated with finding an informal mentor, some individuals who try to find mentors may not be successful. Second, individuals who had higher levels of cognitive ability were more likely to report finding informal mentors. This has both positive and negative implications. On the positive side, organizations want to develop and retain their best talent, and mentoring may help accomplish this goal. On the other hand, it is possible that individuals who need mentoring the most are not getting it. Because human resource professionals have limited means to change the cognitive ability profile of their current employees, they could either try to convince potential mentors to focus on the potential for growth among individuals with lower levels of cognitive ability or use formal mentoring programs to increase the number of pairings. Third, our results suggest that individuals with higher negative affectivity are less likely to report having mentors. Thus, in order to increase mentoring relationships, human resource professionals could coach organizational newcomers to avoid expressions of negative affect. This should increase a protégé’s attractiveness although it would not address any motivational issues related to high negative affectivity (e.g., if individuals high in negative affectivity do not want mentors). Finally, because level of mentoring instrumentality and learning goal orientation were related to level of mentoring received once an individual found an informal mentor, individuals who have informal mentors should be coached on the importance of focusing on learning outcomes and the benefits of being in a mentoring relationship. In conclusion, our study’s predictive design in combination with the role-making theoretical framework allowed a strong examination of the characteristics of new job market entrants who are likely to find informal mentors and receive higher levels of mentoring. The results generally support role-making theory’s assertion that both attraction and motivation are important. It appears that cognitive ability and the absence of negative affectivity are associated with finding an informal mentor while learning goal orientation and mentoring instrumentality are associated with level of mentoring received once an informal mentor is found. These findings suggest specific tactics that might be used to increase the number of mentoring
E.T. Welsh, C.R. Wanberg / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 257–263
263
relationships and the level of mentoring received in organizations. Further research will be needed to examine the external validity of these findings, as this study’s sample was fairly homogeneous in terms of age, background and race. References Allen, T. D. (2004). Protégé selection by mentors: Contributing individual and organizational factors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 469–483. Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 127–136. Allen, T. D., Poteet, M. L., & Burroughs, S. M. (1997). The mentor’s perspective: A qualitative inquiry and future research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 70–89. Allen, T. D., Poteet, M. L., & Russell, J. E. A. (2000). Protégé selection by mentors: What makes the difference? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 271–282. Aryee, S., Lo, S., & Kang, I. L. (1999). Antecedents of early career stage mentoring among Chinese employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 563–576. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370. Colquitt, J. A., & Simmering, M. J. (1998). Conscientiousness, goal orientation and motivation to learn during the learning process: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 654–665. Dorans, N. J., Lyu, C. F., Pommerich, M., & Houston, W. M. (1997). Concordance between ACT assessment and recentered SAT I sum scores. College & University, 73, 24–34. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048. Eby, L. T., Lockwood, A. L., & Butts, M. (2006). Perceived support for mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 267–291. Egan, T. M. (2005). The impact of learning goal orientation similarity on formal mentoring relationship outcomes. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7, 489–504. Elliot, A. J. (1997). Integrating the ‘‘Classic” and ‘‘Contemporary” approaches to achievement motivation: A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.). Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 143–179). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Godshalk, V. M., & Sosik, J. J. (2003). Aiming for career success: The role of learning goal orientation in mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 417–437. Graen, G. B., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers (pp. 143–165). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247. Green, S. G., & Bauer, T. N. (1995). Supervisory mentoring by advisers: Relationships with doctoral student potential, productivity, and commitment. Personnel Psychology, 48, 537–561. Guerrero, S., & Sire, B. (2001). Motivation to train from the workers’ perspective: Example of French companies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12, 988–1004. Hamilton, D. L., & Fallot, R. D. (1974). Information salience as a weighting factor in impression formation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 30, 444–448. Higgins, M. C., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Constellations and careers: Toward understanding the effects of multiple developmental relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 223–247. Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Judge, T. A. (2008). A quantitative review of mentoring research: Test of a model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 269–283. Kashdan, T. B., & Roberts, J. E. (2004). Trait and state curiosity in the genesis of intimacy: Differentiation from related constructs. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 23, 792–816. Kram, K. E. (1988). Mentoring at work. Lanham, MD: University Press. Kuncel, N. R., Credé, M., & Thomas, L. L. (2005). The validity of self-reported grade point averages, class ranks, and test scores: A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75, 63–82. Kuncel, N. R., Hezlett, S. A., & Ones, D. S. (2004). Academic performance, career potential, creativity, and job performance: Can one construct explain them all? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 148–161. Noe, R. A., Greenberger, D. B., & Wang, S. (2002). Mentoring: What we know and where we might go. In G. R. Ferris & J. J. Martocchio (Eds.). Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 21, pp. 129–174). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science Ltd.. O’Brien, K. E., Biga, A., Kessler, S. R., & Allen, T. D. (in press). A meta-analytic investigation of gender differences in mentoring. Journal of Management. Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., & Beaubien, J. M. (2007). A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological net. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 128–150. Perrewé, P. L., & Spector, P. E. (2002). Personality research in the organizational sciences. In G. R. Ferris & J. J. Martocchio (Eds.). Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 21, pp. 1–63). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science Ltd.. 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., & McFarlin, D. B. (1990). Perceptions of mentor roles in cross-gender mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 321–339. Rubin, Z. (1973). Liking and loving: An invitation to social psychology. Oxford, England: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 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. Schwarz, N., & Bohner, G. (1996). Feelings and their motivational implications: Moods and the action sequence. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 119–145). New York: Guilford Press. Turban, D. B., & Dougherty, T. W. (1994). Role of protégé personality in receipt of mentoring and career success. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 688–702. Turban, D. B., & Lee, F. K. (2007). The role of personality in mentoring relationships. In B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 21–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Van Eerde, W., & Thierry, H. (1996). Vroom’s expectancy models and work-related criteria: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 575–586. Vandewalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 995–1015. Vandewalle, D., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W. (2001). The role of goal orientation following performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 629–640. Wanberg, C. R., Welsh, E. T., & Hezlett, S. A. (2003). Mentoring research: A review and dynamic process model. In J. J. Martocchio & G. R. Ferris (Eds.). Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 22, pp. 39–124). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science. Wanberg, C. R., Welsh, E. T., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. (2007). Protégé and mentor self-disclosure: Levels and outcomes within formal mentoring dyads in a corporate context. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 398–412. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. Young, A. M., & Perrewé, P. L. (2004). The role of expectations in the mentoring exchange: An analysis of mentor and protégé expectations in relation to perceived support. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16, 103–126. Zanna, M. P., & Hamilton, D. L. (1972). Attribute dimensions and patterns of trait inferences. Psychonomic Science, 27, 353–354.