Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 410–423
www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb
Mentor and protégé predictors and outcomes
of mentoring in a formal mentoring program 夽
Connie R. Wanberg a,¤, John Kammeyer-Mueller b, Marc Marchese c
a
Industrial Relations Center, University of Minnesota, 3-255 Carlson School of Management,
321-19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
b
University of Florida, USA
c
King’s College, USA
Received 18 April 2006
Available online 28 August 2006
Abstract
This study examines the predictors and outcomes of mentoring received by participants of a 12month formal mentoring program. Based on relationship theory, we examined how the personality of
the individuals in the mentoring dyad, their perceived similarity, and mentor perceived support for
mentoring contributed to relationship outcomes. The study includes data from both mentors and
protégés at the program launch, midway through the program, and at program close. Mentor proactivity was related to more career and psychosocial mentoring; protégé’s perceptions of similarity to the
mentor was related to more psychosocial mentoring. More mentoring was related to positive protégé
and mentor outcomes, including improved protégé career clarity over the duration of the study.
© 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Mentoring; Formal mentoring; Relationships; Career development; Proactivity; Protege
1. Introduction
Most mentoring relationships develop naturally through unstructured social interactions, and are known as “informal mentoring relationships.” In recent years, however,
夽
This study was funded by a grant from the Society for Human Resource Management Foundation. The interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations, however, are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent
those of the Foundation.
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (C.R. Wanberg).
0001-8791/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2006.05.010
C.R. Wanberg et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 410–423
411
many organizations have established formal mentoring programs, involving assigned pairings of mentors with protégés. Despite this trend, there is a dearth of research available
about the outcomes of formal mentoring, and the factors that make formalized relationships successful (Feldman, Folks, & Turnley, 1999). This study draws upon relationship
theory to examine the extent to which individual characteristics of the formal mentor and
protégé, as well as perceived similarity to one’s formal mentoring partner and organizational support, contribute to the levels of mentoring received during a 12-month formal
mentoring program. Contributing to a literature that has few studies on the outcomes of
formal mentoring, this study also examines whether levels of formal mentoring relate to
career development and satisfaction-related outcomes reported by both the protégé and
mentor.
1.1. Mentoring in the context of formal mentoring programs
Formal mentoring relationships diVer from informal mentoring in several fundamental
ways. First, the relationships are initiated diVerently. Informal mentoring relationships
develop because of mutual identiWcation and interpersonal comfort (Ragins, 2002). In contrast, formal mentoring programs match individuals as part of an employee development
process, and the two individuals must then strive to get to know one another. Formal and
informal mentoring relationships also diVer according to the timing and structure of the
relationship (Ragins & Cotton, 1999). Informal relationships are not governed by a timeline or a third party; there are no external rules dictating whether something should be
accomplished, or how long the relationship will last. In contrast, the formal mentoring
relationship is part of an organized, facilitated employee development program. Formal
mentoring relationships are arranged for a speciWed duration (e.g., nine months to a year),
and protégés are generally prompted to have developmental goals in mind. Formal mentoring participants must initiate interaction and establish rapport within this context.
Likely because of the fundamental diVerences between informal and formal mentoring,
research has suggested that on average, informal mentoring may be more eVective than
formal mentoring (Chao, Walz, & Gardner, 1992; Ragins & Cotton, 1999). A study by
Ragins, Cotton, and Miller (2000), however, showed that formal mentoring relationships
have the potential to reap the same beneWts as informal mentoring relationships. In addition, organizations continue to see formal mentoring as an important employee development tool (Hegstad & Wentling, 2004). Such information suggests the usefulness of
learning about what factors are associated with more versus less successful formal mentoring relationships.
1.2. Theoretical framework and hypotheses
Mentoring activities have been shown to provide both career (e.g., sponsorship, coaching, protection, challenging assignments, and exposure) and psychosocial (e.g., friendship,
role modeling, counseling, and acceptance) functions for protégés (Kram, 1985). Careeroriented functions are aimed more toward the organization and the individual’s career.
Psychosocial functions are more personal, relying on an emotional bond between the mentor and protégé. Including both members of the formal mentoring dyad, this study used a
relationships framework (Hinde, 1997) to examine protégé and mentor characteristics,
dyad characteristics, and organizational support for mentoring as predictors of level of
412
C.R. Wanberg et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 410–423
mentoring that occurs in the relationship. Relatively few applications of relationship theory as well as few studies including both the mentor and mentee exist in the mentoring literature.
Relationship theorists within the Weld of social psychology note the importance of individual diVerences to relationships, indicating that the characteristics each individual brings
to a relationship inXuence the extent and quality of interactions between the two people
(Hinde, 1997; Neyer, 2004). In the formal mentoring context, it is intriguing to begin to discuss and examine how protégé and mentor personality may contribute to the success of the
developmental relationship. Asendorpf (2002) notes that personality may aVect relationships through three primary mechanisms: via selection (who one selects as a relationship
partner), evocation (the responses that are evoked from others), and manipulation (how
individuals shape the course of their relationship). Given that most formal mentoring programs have an external party complete the matching of the mentor and protégé, we
focused on two speciWc personality characteristics (proactivity and openness to experience)
whose theoretical origins suggest would be critical in driving the mechanisms of evocation
and manipulation of interactions within a formal mentoring context.
Proactivity refers to a tendency to shape and inXuence one’s environment (Bateman &
Crant, 1993). An individual with high proactivity is likely to take action and respond to
opportunities, while low proactivity reXects little initiative, passivity, and the likelihood of
maintaining the status quo. Protégé proactivity is purported to aVect the amount of mentoring via initiation and maintenance of scheduled meetings between the mentor and protégé (evocation) and through goal-oriented behavior during mentor interactions
(manipulation). Because formal programs aim toward the protégé, it is the protégé that is
typically responsible for arranging meetings (Coley, 1996). Yet, barriers such as the perceived power of the mentor (inducing intimidation on the part of the protégé, and an
unwillingness to “bother” the more senior individual) and time constraints in the work
environment highlight the situation as one where initiative will play a role in ensuring such
meetings are scheduled. Because proactive individuals seize opportunities for growth, they
may also be more prepared for mentoring meetings, articulating questions and directing
conversation in a manner that elicits higher amounts of career mentoring. While psychosocial mentoring might be elicited if the two individuals connect on a more personal level, we
expect that proactivity of the protégé will especially elicit career mentoring, due to the
ambition and initiative components. Mentor proactivity is theoretically relevant for similar
reasons. Even if formal mentoring programs are supposed to be protégé-driven, a mentor
higher in proactivity will be more likely to schedule meetings if the protégé does not initiate
suYcient contact and will be more apt to plan discussions. We propose:
Hypothesis 1. Higher levels of protégé and mentor proactivity relate to higher levels of
career-related mentoring reported by both parties in the formal mentoring relationship.
Openness to experience encompasses imagination, intelligence, curiosity, originality, and
open-mindedness (McCrae et al., 1996). We expect the openness to experience of the protégé and mentor to be important to the amount of both career and psychosocial mentoring
that occurs in a formal mentoring context. Through both mechanisms of evocation and
manipulation, we suggest that individuals with higher openness to experience will be more
inquisitive and receptive to new ideas and perspectives from a mentor that they may not
have gravitated to on their own accord. High openness to experience is expected to similarly predispose mentors to be more willing to mentor an individual that is not a mirror
C.R. Wanberg et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 410–423
413
reXection of themselves, and the openness to evoke a more comfortable atmosphere for
self-disclosure. In a cross-sectional study of administrators, Bozionelos (2004) found that
individuals with higher openness to experience reported providing, as well as receiving,
more mentoring over their tenure in their current organization. We more rigorously examine this characteristic in a dyadic, longitudinal context:
Hypothesis 2. Higher levels of protégé and mentor openness relate to higher levels of career
and psychosocial mentoring reported by both parties in the formal mentoring relationship.
While individual characteristics are important to a relationship, variables concerning
the dyad itself are also critical (Hinde, 1997). For example, individual characteristics aVect
relationship success, but perceptions of one another are also important. We concentrate
here on one dyad variable, perceived similarity of one’s relationship partner, that has
attracted attention in both the relationship and the informal mentoring literature. Relationship research suggests that, on average, people prefer others who they perceive as similar to them (Hinde, 1997). The mentoring literature has likewise shown that protégés who
perceive themselves as similar to their mentors in regard to issues such as values, perspectives, and work styles report receiving higher levels of both career and psychosocial mentoring (Ensher, Grant-Vallone, & Marelich, 2002; Turban, Dougherty, & Lee, 2002).
Studies examining the role of both demographic match variables and perceived similarity
have shown perceived similarity to be more strongly associated with outcomes than demographic match variables (Allen & Eby, 2003; Ensher et al., 2002; Turban et al., 2002), likely
because there are so many dimensions on which people may diVer. In line with this
research, we hypothesize that individuals in a formal mentoring context will feel they are
receiving more from (or providing more to) someone they perceive is “like” themselves. We
propose:
Hypothesis 3. Protégé perceptions of similarity to the mentor relate to higher levels of
career and psychosocial mentoring reported by the protégé.
Hypothesis 4. Mentor perceptions of similarity to the protégé relate to higher levels of
career and psychosocial mentoring reported by the mentor.
The relationship literature acknowledges that relationships exist within the context of
groups, other individuals, and the external environment in which they reside (Hinde, 1997).
Particularly relevant in a formal mentoring context is perceived organizational support for
mentoring. While an organization can have a formal mentoring program, organizational
culture norms that promote and encourage mentoring may be powerful incentives. Allen,
Poteet, and Burroughs (1997) found that perceptions of organizational support for
employee learning and development relate positively to mentors’ motivation to mentor.
We propose that mentors’ perceived organizational support for mentoring will contribute
to the mentoring provided in a formal mentoring context beyond the individual and dyad
characteristics examined in the proposed model.
Hypothesis 5. Mentor perceptions of support for mentoring relate to higher levels of career
mentoring reported by both parties in the formal mentoring program.
The primary goals of the mentoring programs in our study, as reported by program
coordinators, were to promote the career development, performance, and retention of the
protégés. Our study collected information about the relationship between the mentoring
414
C.R. Wanberg et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 410–423
received and four self-report protégé outcomes complimentary to these program goals.
Our Wrst protégé outcome was a reaction measure, representing an aVective report from
the protégés about their general satisfaction with their mentor. The second protégé outcome was a report by the protégés about the extent to which they felt the mentoring program had a positive inXuence on their job performance. The last two outcomes were
measures of change, examining improvements in protégé career goal clarity and decreases
in intentions to leave the organization from the beginning to the end of the study. We currently know very little about formal mentoring program outcomes. Our examination provides new insight into the relationship between mentoring and important protégé
vocational and career-related outcomes including improvements in career goal clarity and
desires to stay with the organization, important pre-post (change) outcomes that have not
received attention in the mentoring literature, in either formal or informal contexts. Based
upon the research available in the informal mentoring domain that suggests that the
receipt of psychosocial and career mentoring is associated with both subjective and objective career outcomes (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004), and the likelihood that
one’s own perceptions of the mentoring that occurred will be related to reactions, learning,
and behavioral outcomes, we propose:
Hypothesis 6. Higher psychosocial and career mentoring reported by the protégé relate to
higher protégé satisfaction with one’s mentor, perceived positive inXuence of the program
on one’s job performance, improvements in career goal clarity, and increased intentions to
stay with the organization.
It is also of interest to evaluate the extent to which mentors beneWt from the mentoring
experience. Early theoretical work proposed that mentoring serves as a mechanism for
career rejuvenation for individuals in the middle and late career phase (Kram, 1985). However, empirical research on mentoring outcomes has focused almost exclusively on the
impact of mentoring on protégés (Wanberg, Welsh, & Hezlett, 2003). One exception to this
is a qualitative study by Allen et al. (1997). Mentors reported several beneWts to mentoring,
primarily self-satisfaction, job-related advantages such as increasing the mentor’s own
knowledge, and building a support network within the organization. Protégés give mentors
an audience for their ideas and feelings, gratifying the mentors’ desire for generativity. To
examine the perspective that mentoring provides a forum for mentor rewards, rejuvenation, and possibly increased organizational commitment, we propose:
Hypothesis 7. Higher levels of career and psychosocial mentoring reported by the mentor
relate to higher mentor reports of the experience as rewarding, perceived positive inXuence
of the program on one’s job performance, and to improved organizational commitment.
2. Method
2.1. Participant and procedures
Participants were part of a 12-month formal mentoring program designed and implemented by a company specializing in organizational mentoring systems since 1991. The
standardized program included protégé and mentor orientation, communications, evaluations, and follow-up. Mentors were matched with less-experienced protégés in their own
organization based on information the protégé gave on a brief Wll-in-the-blank survey (i.e.,
C.R. Wanberg et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 410–423
415
career goals and developmental concerns). Personality measures were not used in the
match. Standard decision rules were not used in the matching process and a diVerent person matched the individuals for each organization. Each mentor was assigned to only one
protégé. The dyads were asked to meet for a minimum of 90 minutes per month. Data were
collected at three time points from 13 launches of the program in nine diVerent organizations. Two additional organizations began the study, but no pairs Wnished the study from
these two organizations due to organizational downsizing resulting in layoVs of most of
the individuals in the mentoring program. At Time 1, the mentors and protégés were asked
to complete a survey at their separate orientation meetings. Time 2 took place six months
into the program, and Time 3 took place one year after program launch at the end of the
program.
At Time 1, 369 protégés and 300 mentors enrolled in the study, for a participation rate
of 90% of the potential protégés and 73% of the potential mentors. At Time 2, 276 protégés
(75% retention rate) and 216 mentors (72% retention rate) completed the survey. At Time
3, 235 protégés (85% retention rate) and 188 mentors (87% retention rate) completed the
survey. Because of instances where a protégé responded and his or her mentor did not (or
vice versa) or where individuals responded to only one or two time waves, the number of
matched pairs across the three time waves was n D 96 (23% of the original pairs). In our
analyses, we focus on these 96 dyads that completed surveys at all three time waves of our
study.
Of the 96 matched dyads, 70% were same-gender dyads (n D 38 male mentors with male
protégés and n D 29 female mentors with female protégés) and 30% were diVerent-gender
dyads (n D 28 male mentors with female protégés and n D 1 female mentor with male protégé).
Sixty-seven percent of the participants were matched with someone of their same race, while
33% were diVerent race dyads. Protégés reported having met with their mentor an average of
5.5 times (SD D 1.6) in the Wrst six months of the program and 5.3 times (SD D 2.1) in the last
six months of the program. With only one exception [mentors in the Wnal sample had slightly
lower proactivity than mentors not in the Wnal sample [M D 4.0 (SD D .48) versus M D 4.2
(SD D .42), t D 2.4 (331), p < .05], there were no signiWcant diVerences in the demographics or
study variables between the protégés and mentors who began the study versus those who
were retained in our Wnal sample. Eight interclass correlations (ICC) were estimated through
one-way random eVects ANOVA to examine dependencies in mentoring received according
to the protégé and mentor at Times 2 and 3 for both career and psychosocial mentoring
within each mentoring program launch. The ICCs were small, ranging from .00 to .12, suggesting organizational eVects did not play a major role in this data.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Predictors
Mentor and protégé proactivity and openness to experience were assessed at Time 1
using the 10-item proactive personality scale (Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999) and the 12item NEO openness subscale (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Perceived similarity of the protégé
to the mentor and the mentor to the protégé (Ensher & Murphy, 1997) and mentors’ perceptions of support for participation in the mentoring program (e.g., “Mentors in my organization obtain positive recognition for assuming a mentoring role”; Ragins & Cotton,
1999) were measured at Time 2. We measured these latter two variables at Time 2 because
the dyads had not yet met each other when the Wrst survey was administered and because
416
C.R. Wanberg et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 410–423
the most meaningful assessments of perceived organizational support for mentoring would
be after the launch of the program after mentors have had a chance to communicate with
others about their involvement in the program.
2.2.2. Mentoring
Levels of career and psychosocial mentoring were assessed at Times 2 and 3 of the study
from both the protégés and the mentors with the Mentor Role Instrument (MRI; Ragins &
McFarlin, 1990). Career mentoring was computed by combining the sponsorship, coaching,
protection, challenge, and exposure items. Psychosocial mentoring was computed with the
friendship, role modeling, counseling, and acceptance items. Items from the MRI were
reworded for the mentor survey to reXect their perspective.
2.2.3. Protégé outcomes
Satisfaction with mentor was assessed at Time 3 with four items (e.g., “My mentor failed
to meet my needs”; reverse scored) from Ragins and Cotton (1999). EVect on protégé’s job
was assessed at Time 3 with three items based on Ragins and Scandura (1999) improved
job performance scale (e.g., “Being a protégé has improved my job performance”). We
attempted to garner performance appraisal data to compare from the start to the end of
the program but were unable to do this across the eleven organizations in the study. Career
goal clarity (5 items; e.g., “I have a clear picture of my short and long term career goals”)
and intentions to turnover (3 items; Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1983) were
assessed at both Times 1 and 3 of the study. The assessment of these latter two outcomes at
the start and end of the study allows an assessment of improvement. If we only assessed
career goal clarity, for example, at Time 3, an observed relationship between mentoring
and career goal clarity could mean mentoring promotes career goal clarity, or that individuals with more career goal clarity elicit more mentoring. By controlling for Time 1 levels of
career goal clarity in our analyses, we can examine whether levels of mentoring are related
to improvements in career goal clarity from the start to the end of the program (Cronbach
& Furby, 1970) without incurring the typical problems found in change scores.
2.2.4. Mentor outcomes
Two terminal mentor outcomes (rewarding experience and eVect on mentor’s job) were
measured at the end of the mentoring program. Ragins and Scandura (1999)’s seven item
“rewarding experience” scale was used to assess the extent to which mentors reported their
experience as a mentor in the program had been rewarding. The items were changed
slightly to report about the current mentoring experience as opposed to mentoring experiences in general. For example, the question, “Serving as a mentor can be one of the most
positive experiences of one’s career,” was changed to, “Serving as a mentor has been one of
the most positive experiences of my career”(italics added here for distinction). EVect on
mentor’s job was assessed with three items based on Ragins and Scandura (1999) improved
job performance scale (e.g., “Being a mentor has improved my job performance”).
Our study included one additional mentor outcome that we were able to assess at both
program launch and at program close. SpeciWcally, mentor organizational commitment was
assessed at both Time 1 and Time 3 with the short form (9 items) of the organizational
commitment questionnaire developed by Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979). This measure
has consistently demonstrated high internal consistency reliability and prediction of a
number of related constructs (cf. Cohen, 1993; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Similar to our
C.R. Wanberg et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 410–423
417
assessment of two of the protégé outcomes at both Times 1 and 3, this assessment at the
start and end of the study represents a methodological advancement over the measurement
of the outcome at the end of the program only and allows us to assess improvement in
organizational commitment from program launch to program close.
2.3. Analyses
Hypotheses 1–5 involve predicting the amount of mentoring that occurred in the relationship. For these analyses, we predict Time 3 levels of psychosocial and career mentoring. Time 3 mentoring received, rather than Time 2 mentoring received, was used to most
comprehensively represent the mentoring received up to the end of the program, and to
avoid common method bias (PodsakoV, MacKenzie, Lee, & PodsakoV, 2003) since our
predictors were assessed at Times 1 and 2. Hypotheses 6 and 7 examined protégé and mentor outcomes of the mentoring relationship. Consistent with our aim of reducing criticisms
arising from common method bias, we used Time 2 reports of mentoring to predict the
protégé and mentor outcomes assessed at Time 3.
3. Results
Table 1 portrays descriptive statistics. The correlations between career mentoring
reported by mentors and protégés were moderate: r D .38 at Time 2 and r D .44 at Time 3.
The correlations between psychosocial mentoring reported mentors and protégés were also
moderate: r D .14 at Time 2 and r D .31 at Time 3. While the level of correlation between
mentor and protégé reports increased from Time 2 to Time 3, the increase in correlations
was not statistically signiWcant.
Table 2 portrays predictors of protégé and mentor reports of mentoring received/provided (Hypotheses 1–4). The results show that mentor proactivity (measured at the launch
of the program) relates positively to both protégé and mentor reports of career-related
mentoring and to mentor reports of psychosocial mentoring (measured at the end of the
program, one year later). Protégé perceptions of similarity to mentor positively relate to
protégé and mentor reports of psychosocial mentoring received/provided. The other variables shown in Table 2, including perceived organizational support (Hypothesis 5), were
not signiWcantly associated with the level of mentoring reported at the close of the program.
Table 3 portrays predictors of program-relevant outcomes reported by the protégé
(Hypothesis 6). The results show that protégé reports of psychosocial mentoring at Time 2
relate positively to protégé satisfaction at Time 3, and that both forms of mentoring relate
to protégé reports that the mentoring had positively inXuenced important aspects of their
job. Higher levels of career mentoring reported by the protégé at Time 2 relate to improved
career goal clarity over the duration of the study. Protégé reports of career and psychosocial mentoring were not associated with reduced intention to turnover from Time 1 to
Time 3 of the program.
Table 4 portrays predictors of program-relevant outcomes reported by the mentor
(Hypothesis 7). Mentor-reported psychosocial mentoring at Time 2 relates to mentor
reports at Time 3 that the mentoring was a positive experience. In addition, mentorreported career mentoring at Time 2 relates to mentor reports at Time 3 that being a
mentor had a positive impact on his or her job. Mentor reports of career and psychosocial
418
Table 1
Means, standard deviations, correlations, and coeYcient alphas for study variables
Variable
Ma SD 1
Protégé characteristics
1. Proactivity (T1)
2. Openness (T1)
3.93 .46
3.46 .57
Mentor characteristics
3. Proactivity (T1)
4. Openness (T1)
4.03 .48 .12 ¡.04
3.53 .60 ¡.15 ¡.01
Partner similarity
5. Protégé: similarity to mentor (T2)
6. Mentor: similarity to Protégé (T2)
3.89 .60
3.64 .70
Support for mentoring
7. Mentor: support for mentoring (T2)
2.41 .87 ¡.06 ¡.07 ¡.05
Protégé outcomes
8. Psychosocial mentoring received (T2)
9. Psychosocial mentoring received (T3)
10. Career mentoring received (T2)
11. Career mentoring received (T3)
12. Satisfaction with mentor (T3)
13. EVect on the job (T3)
14. Career goal clarity (T1)
15. Career goal clarity (T3)
16. Intention to turnover (T1)
17. Intention to turnover (T3)
3.89
4.04
2.24
2.20
4.39
3.77
3.52
3.94
1.94
1.81
Mentor outcomes
18. Psychosocial mentoring provided (T2)
19. Psychosocial mentoring provided (T3)
20. Career mentoring provided (T2)
21. Career mentoring provided (T3)
22. Rewarding experience (T3)
23. EVect on the job (T3)
24. Organizational commitment (T1)
25. Organizational commitment (T3)
4.10
4.20
2.23
2.21
3.70
3.07
4.09
4.08
2
.84
.11
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 19 20
21
22 23 24 25
.72
.78
¡.06 .31
.06 .14
¡.18 .21
¡.05 .25
¡.02 .27
.13 .21
.02 .12
¡.01 .15
.03 ¡.13
.00 ¡.01
.44 .02 ¡.05
.46 .06 .07
.65 .22 .05
.66 .22 .09
.71 .02 .09
.91 ¡.07 .01
.50 .03 ¡.13
.58 .18 ¡.09
.06
.84
.35
.86
.14
.03
.83
¡.06 .44 .06 .03 .86
¡.12 .35 .15 .14 .54 .83
¡.18 .28 .21 .06 .48 .43 .90
¡.19 .16 .11 ¡.02 .33 .46 .73 .85
¡.01 .29 .12 .17 .42 .69 .25 .32 .92
¡.13 .16 .12 ¡.06 .47 .55 .36 .36 .56 .93
.08 .15 .03 ¡.12 .26 .16 .10 .16 .11 .07 .76
¡.06 .17 .20 .06 .19 .42 .28 .30 .31 .42 .40 .86
.08 .05 ¡.12 .12 .00 ¡.24 ¡.08 ¡.18 ¡.18 ¡.14 ¡.17 ¡.25
.25 ¡.11 ¡.21 .04 ¡.08 ¡.17 ¡.19 ¡.24 ¡.07 ¡.19 ¡.15 ¡.38
.11 .11 .25 .28 .18
.21 ¡.02 .24 .21 ¡.02
.31 ¡.10 .17 .16 .11
.33 ¡.07 .18 .01 ¡.09
.26 .04 .20 .13 .03
.36 .02 .04 ¡.13 .02
.32 .10 ¡.05 .11 ¡.02
.20 .04 .24 .13 .05
.14
.24
.35
.34
.25
.12
.12
.29
.19
.31
.24
.19
.30
.05
.06
.21
.19
.25
.38
.32
.19
.09
.11
.12
.10
.23
.42
.44
.26
.17
.06
.08
.13 .15
.33 .37
.19 .27
.18 .27
.31 .38
.16 .23
.09 ¡.05
.08 .10
.62
.39
.71
¡.08 ¡.01 .12 .13 .79
¡.06 .03 .10 .17 .62 .83
¡.02 .03 ¡.09 .00 .38 .36 .88
.11 .02 ¡.12 ¡.07 .28 .51 .74 .89
¡.05 .11 .01 ¡.01 .51 .60 .34 .35 .92
¡.16 ¡.05 .02 .10 .15 .26 .28 .34 .52 .91
.00 ¡.08 ¡.09 .21 .13 .07 ¡.07 ¡.08 .07 .16 .82
.08 .05 ¡.07 .08 .10 .03 ¡.01 ¡.02 .09 .00 .63 .87
Note. ND96. T1DTime 1 (program launch), T2DTime 2 (six months into the program), T3DTime 3 (program close) of the study. Values in bold on the diagonal are coeYcient alphas. Correlations 7.20, p<.05. Correlations 7.26, p<.01.
a
Scales were scored as a total of their items and then divided by the number of items in the scale. All of the scale items were assessed with 5-point likert scales, so the scale averages have
a potential range of 1–5 (with higher scores representing higher levels of the construct).
C.R. Wanberg et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 410–423
.84
.17
.14 ¡.06 ¡.01 ¡.25
.11 .08 .03 ¡.24
.66 .19
.62 .11
.66 .17
.73 .21
.79 .03
.98 .16
.64 .41
.75 .41
1.03 ¡.09
1.02 ¡.20
6
C.R. Wanberg et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 410–423
419
Table 2
Regression results for protégé and mentor reports of mentoring at Time 3
Variables
T3 protégé report of
mentoring received T3 mentor report of
mentoring provided Psychosocial
Career
Psychosocial
Career
.03
.09
.16
¡.06
.32¤¤
.00
.11
.14
¡.05
.26¤
¡.19
.09
.02
¡.01
¡.02
.08
.20¤¤
.04
.22¤
.13
¡.04
.14
.11
.34¤¤
¡.08
.20
¡.10
¡.08
.13¤
.20¤
Protégé proactivity (Tl)
Protégé openness (Tl)
Mentor proactivity (Tl)
Mentor openness (Tl)
Protégé’s perceived similarity to mentor (T2)
Mentor’s perceived similarity to protégé (T2)
Support for mentoring (Mentor perception) (T2)
R2
.16¤
.15¤
Note. N D 96. Tl D Time 1 (program launch), T2 D Time 2 (six months into the program), T3 D Time 3 (program
close) of the study. *p 6 .05; **p < .01.
Table 3
OLS regression results for protégé outcomes at Time 3
Variables
1. Time 1 values for outcome
variable
2. Time 2 protégé reported
psychosocial mentoring
3. Time 2 protégé reported
career mentoring
R2
Time 3 satisfaction
with mentor Time 3 eVect on
protégés job Time 3 career
goal clarity .37¤¤
.39¤¤
.38¤¤
.07
.18¤¤
.25¤
.18¤¤
.24¤¤
.21¤¤
Time 3 intention
to turnover .38¤¤
¡.03
¡.01
¡.16
.18¤¤
*p < .05; **p < .01. N D 96.
Table 4
OLS regression results for mentor outcomes at Time 3
Variables
1. Time 1 values for outcome variable
2. Time 2 mentor reported
psychosocial mentoring
3. Time 2 mentor reported
career mentoring
R2
Time 3 rewarding
experience Time 3 eVect on
mentor’s job Time 3 organizational
commitment .63¤¤
.45¤¤
.05
.00
.16
.27¤¤
.04
.29¤¤
.08¤
.39¤¤
* p < .05; ** p < .01. N D 96.
mentoring were not associated with improved organizational commitment from Time 1 to
Time 3 of the program.
We examined the role of protégé gender, mentor gender, protégé/mentor match on gender, protégé race, mentor race, protégé/mentor match on race, and years of mentor work
experience in the above results. These seven control variables were entered into the regressions shown in Tables 2–4. Table 2 results stayed the same with one exception; protégé per-
420
C.R. Wanberg et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 410–423
ceived similarity to mentor was no longer signiWcant in the prediction of Time 3 mentor
report of psychosocial mentoring. There was only one equation in Table 2 where any of the
controls were signiWcant. SpeciWcally, protégés in matched gender pairs reported less career
mentoring. In Tables 3 and 4 results remained the same when the controls were included
with one exception; Time 2 protégé reported career mentoring was no longer a signiWcant
predictor of Time 3 eVect on protégé’s job. There was only one equation in Tables 3 and 4
where any of the controls were signiWcant. SpeciWcally, in Table 4, mentors with male protégés were least likely to report that their mentoring had beneWted their job. We report these
analyses with controls as supplemental analyses rather than core analyses due to our small
n. For example, with the controls, the equations shown in Table 2 include 14 variables with
n D 96.
4. Discussion
One purpose of this study was to use a relationships framework to examine predictors
of the amount of mentoring that occurs within a one-year, formal mentoring relationship.
While protégé proactivity and mentor and protégé openness were not signiWcant predictors
of mentoring reported, the results portrayed relationships between mentor proactivity and
reported mentoring. SpeciWcally, mentor proactivity was related to more career-related
mentoring reported by the protégé and also to more career and psychosocial mentoring
reported by the mentor. Importantly, an open-ended question included in the Time 3 survey provided insight into the ways in which mentor proactivity is important to the mentoring that occurs in the formal relationship. For example, a number of protégés noted that
they took the initiative to contact their mentors, but that sometimes their mentors did not
show up for a scheduled meeting or did not answer e-mails. Another protégé recognized
that he was responsible for asking his mentor questions, but added, “I could have beneWted
from my mentor bringing her perspective on things in her world (managerial level) that I
have no idea about.” Last, another protégé noted that it was intimidating as a junior person to schedule meetings with his mentor; that it would have been helpful if the mentor
took some initiative in this regard. He noted, “ƒI felt as an imposition on my mentor, not
due to anything she did or said, but just because of the fact that she was a higher level person than I am. It was hard for me to see as ‘normal’ calling meetings with her and take time
from her. Mentors should be [encouraged to] drive the relationship tooƒ” Our Wnding that
proactive mentors are likely to provide more mentoring suggests that organizations should
involve mentors that are more proactive as well as encourage mentors to be proactive.
The results further portrayed relationships between protégé reported similarity to the
mentor and psychosocial mentoring. It makes intuitive sense that friendship, role modeling, counseling, and acceptance would occur more often among pairs for whom there was a
perception of similarity, although there have been other studies that have shown perceived
similarity to be related to both career and psychosocial mentoring (e.g., Ensher et al., 2002).
It could be that perceived similarity is not as important to the receipt of career mentoring
in a formal context. In a formal context, the pairs have a business directive to meet to work
on the protégé’s career development. We propose that this developmental directive makes
it is more likely that career mentoring will occur in the absence of perceived similarity.
Although more examination is needed, this Wnding represents a preliminary extension of
informal mentoring results regarding perceived similarity to the formal mentoring context.
This Wnding suggests that when matching mentors with protégés, an attempt should be
C.R. Wanberg et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 410–423
421
made to develop matches where the paired individuals have at least something in common
(e.g., whether it be a common interest in a sport, or both having children the same age).
Complicating the issue, however, matches in terms of actual similarity do not guarantee
that individuals will perceive each other as similar (Hinde, 1997), and similarity cannot be
taken too far—the mentor must have some skills or background that is unfamiliar to the
protégé in order to be helpful to the protégé’s development. Some time during an initial
orientation event might be used for the mentoring dyad to uncover points of similarity.
A second purpose of this study was to examine program outcomes reported from both
the perspectives of the protégé and the mentor. Higher levels of career-related mentoring
reported at Time 2 were associated with both the protégé and the mentor reporting that the
relationship had a positive eVect on his or her job at Time 3; for protégés, there was also a
signiWcant relationship between psychosocial mentoring and perceived eVect on the job. In
addition, higher levels of career mentoring reported at Time 2 were related to improvements
in protégé’s career clarity scores over the one-year duration of the study, representing a new
insight into an important outcome that may reaped from formal mentoring. Psychosocial
mentoring seemed to be more important than career mentoring in the aVective evaluation of
the relationship. Higher levels of psychosocial mentoring occurring in the relationship (but
not career-related mentoring) were related to protégé satisfaction with one’s mentor and to
the mentor reporting the relationship was a rewarding experience. Although Allen et al.
(2004) found that career-related mentoring was related to aVective evaluations of the relationship, psychosocial mentoring was the stronger correlate of the two.
The Wndings that higher levels of career mentoring reported by the mentor were associated with the mentor feeling the experience had an impact on his/her job was borne out by
several responses to an open-ended question at the end of the Time 3 survey. For example,
one mentor noted that mentoring had “pointed out some of the things that I seem to be
doing right in comparison with the mentee’s boss, and also some things to be alert for in
my own behavior.” Another mentor noted how it had improved his/her job performance,
saying, “It has changed the way that I interact with my staV. I’ve passed on advice that I’ve
given my mentee to my own staV.” Finally, another mentor noted, “It’s given me a better
understanding of the types of problems and issues faced by younger people in the organization, including some of my direct reports who are not very good at verbalizing certain
types of issues.” Our results along with these comments portray insight into advantages of
formal mentoring to participating mentors that provide higher levels of mentoring.
Consistent with the few studies that have examined mentor/protégé dyads, our Wndings
suggest there is not a strong correlation between reports of mentoring from mentors and
protégés (Armstrong, Allinson, & Hayes, 2002; Raabe & Beehr, 2003; Waters, McCabe,
Kiellerup, & Kiellerup, 2002). Lack of stronger agreement between the mentor and the
protégé may be for several reasons. First, the protégé may beneWt from information provided by the mentor unbeknownst to the mentor. For example, the mentor may describe an
event from his or her day, and the discussion can be enlightening to the protégé in a way
that the mentor does not realize. Second, the mentor may provide mentoring that the protégé forgets, does not understand, or does not Wnd useful. Finally, it is possible that the
mentor provides some mentoring for the protégé, such as mentoring involving protection
or sponsorship, when not in the presence of the protégé. This mentoring would be reported
by the mentor, but not by the protégé. Because of this lack of agreement, organizations
may want to note, in orientation, that the two members of the dyad may beneWt from discussing what each member is getting out of the relationship.
422
C.R. Wanberg et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 410–423
A limitation of this study stems from its small n and our inability to study a broader
array of potentially important predictors. The use of a dyadic longitudinal design is
challenging for investigators. When collecting this data, we sought the participation of
eleven organizations conducting 15 launches of a best-practices formal mentoring program. While response rates to individual surveys were quite good, our dyadic design
required that individuals and their partners respond to every survey. There were cases
where individuals responded, but his or her mentor or protégé did not, and cases where
individuals or dyads responded to only one or two of the three time waves. Recognizing
the diYculty of (a) securing higher response rates (our lowest response rate was 72%,
with the highest being 90%; it is the dyadic matching process that reduces the n), (b)
soliciting more organizations to participate, and (c) encouraging management-level
employees to respond to surveys, it should nevertheless be the goal of future research to
aim for a larger sample of matched dyads. Larger samples of matched dyads in future
studies will allow a larger number of potentially important variables to be included in
the analysis.
In conclusion, the results of this study suggest that mentor proactivity and protégé perceptions of similarity to one’s mentor are related to the amount of mentoring that occurs in
a formal mentoring relationship. Higher levels of mentoring were associated with positive
program-relevant outcomes for both the protégé and the mentor. Our study contributes to
the mentoring literature through its basis in relationship theory, inclusion of both members
of the relationship dyad (mentors and protégés), as well as through its focus on predictors
and outcomes of mentoring received in formal mentoring relationships in an organizational setting, an understudied context.
References
Allen, T. D., & Eby, L. T. (2003). Relationship eVectiveness with mentors: Factors associated with learning and
quality. Journal of Management, 29, 469–486.
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career beneWts 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.
Armstrong, S. J., Allinson, C. W., & Hayes, J. (2002). Formal mentoring systems: An examination of the eVects of
mentor/protégé cognitive styles on the mentoring process. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 1111–1138.
Asendorpf, J. B. (2002). Personality eVects on personal relationships over the life span. In A. L. Vangelisti, H. T.
Reis, & M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Stability and change in relationships (pp. 35–56). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press..
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103–118.
Bozionelos, N. (2004). Mentoring provided: Relation to mentor’s career success, personality, and mentoring
received. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 24–46.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1983). Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. In S. E. Seashore, E. E. Lawler III, P. H. Mirvis, & C. Cammann (Eds.), Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures, and practices (pp. 71–138). New York: Wiley.
Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentored counterparts. Personnel Psychology, 45, 619–636.
Cohen, A. (1993). Organizational commitment and turnover: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal,
36(5), 1140–1157.
Coley, D. B. (1996). Mentoring two-by-two. Training and Development, 50, 46–48.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory and NEO Wve-factor inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
C.R. Wanberg et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 410–423
423
Cronbach, L. J., & Furby, L. (1970). How we should measure “change”: Or should we? Psychological Bulletin, 74,
68–80.
Ensher, E. A., Grant-Vallone, E. J., & Marelich, W. D. (2002). EVects of perceived attitudinal and demographic
similarity on protégé’s support and satisfaction gained from their mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 32, 1407–1430.
Ensher, E. A., & Murphy, S. E. (1997). EVects of race, gender, perceived similarity, and contact on mentor relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 460–481.
Feldman, D. C., Folks, W. R., & Turnley, W. H. (1999). Mentor-protege diversity and its impact on international
internship experiences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 597–611.
Hegstad, C. D., & Wentling, R. M. (2004). The development and maintenance of exemplary formal mentoring
programs in Fortune 500 companies. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15, 421–448.
Hinde, R. A. (1997). Relationships: A dialectical perspective. East Sussex. UK: Psychology Press.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott
Foresman.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences
of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171–194.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical contexts
for the Wve-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The Wve-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives
(pp. 51–87). New York: Guilford Press.
Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of organizational.
Neyer, F. J. (2004). Dyadic Wts and transactions in personality and relationships. In F. R. Lang & K. L. Fingerman
(Eds.), Growing together: Personal relationships across the life span (pp. 290–316). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
PodsakoV, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & PodsakoV, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral
research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,
879–903.
Raabe, B., & Beehr, T. A. (2003). Formal mentoring versus supervisor and coworker relationships: DiVerences in
perceptions and impact. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 271–293.
Ragins, B. R. (2002). Understanding diversiWed mentoring relationships: DeWnitions, challenges, and strategies. In
D. Clutterbuck & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Mentoring and diversity: An international perspective (pp. 23–53).
Woburn, MA: Butterworth Heinemann.
Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 529–550.
Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: The eVects of type of mentor, quality of
relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1177–
1194.
Ragins, B. R., & McFarlin, D. B. (1990). Perceptions of mentor roles in cross-gender mentoring relationships.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 321–339.
Ragins, B. R., & Scandura, T. A. (1999). Burden or blessing? Expected costs and beneWts of being a mentor. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 493–509.
Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84, 416–427.
Turban, D. B., Dougherty, T. W., & Lee, F. K. (2002). Gender, race, and perceived similarity eVects in developmental relationships: The moderating role of relationship duration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 1–23.
Wanberg, C. R., Welsh, E. T., & Hezlett, S. A. (2003). Mentoring: A review and directions for future research. In J.
Martocchio & J. Ferris (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (vol. 22, pp. 39–124).
Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science LTD.
Waters, L., McCabe, M., Kiellerup, D., & Kiellerup, S. (2002). The role of formal mentoring on business success
and self-esteem in participants of a new business start-up program. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17,
107–121.