Hong Kong Baptist University
HKBU Institutional Repository
Open Access Theses and Dissertations
Electronic Theses and Dissertations
2014
The formal mentoring program and socialization
outcomes :testing the assimilation process
Zhenyao Cai
Hong Kong Baptist University
Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.hkbu.edu.hk/etd_oa
Recommended Citation
Cai, Zhenyao, "The formal mentoring program and socialization outcomes :testing the assimilation process" (2014). Open Access
Theses and Dissertations. 111.
http://repository.hkbu.edu.hk/etd_oa/111
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Electronic Theses and Dissertations at HKBU Institutional Repository. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Open Access Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of HKBU Institutional Repository. For more
information, please contact [email protected].
The Formal Mentoring Program and Socialization Outcomes: Testing the
Assimilation Process
CAI Zhenyao
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Principal Supervisor: Prof. CHIANG Flora
Hong Kong Baptist University
December 2014
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this thesis represents my own work which has been done after
registration for the degree of PhD at Hong Kong Baptist University, and has not been
previously included in a thesis, dissertation submitted to this or other institution for a
degree, diploma or other qualification.
Signature: _______________
December 2014
i
ABSTRACT
Organizations use the formal mentoring program as a human resource
intervention in the socialization of newcomers. Mentoring scholars have found that
effective mentoring leads to various socialization outcomes of newcomers, partially
because mentors, seen as organizational agents, can facilitate the learning process in
the socialization. Despite this progress, several limitations can be found in the
literature. First, it is largely unknown how mentoring influences socialization
outcomes in addition to the learning process (e.g. assimilation process). Second, the
assumption that mentors are organizational agents in the socialization has never been
tested. Third, previous studies of mentoring mainly focused on the white-collar
workers, calling into the question about the generality of the findings in the mentoring
literature.
To fill the research gaps, this study applied the belongingness theory as the
theoretical basis to explain how mentoring functions influence socialization outcomes
through assimilation process. Drawing on the belongingness theory, this study
proposed a research model and tested the mediation effects of organization based
self-esteem (OBSE) and person-organization fit on the relationship between
mentoring functions and three socialization outcomes (i.e. affective organizational
commitment, job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior). In addition,
this study also tested the moderating effect of mentor’s organizational prototypicality
on the relationship between mentoring functions and two mediation variables.
ii
Two-wave dyadic data have been collected from blue-collar workers in a
manufacturing company. The results supported most of the hypotheses in the model.
Specifically, OBSE and person-organization fit significantly mediated the relationship
between mentoring functions and two socialization outcomes (i.e. affective
organizational commitment and job satisfaction). Only person-organization fit
significantly
mediated
the
relationship
between
mentoring
functions
and
organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). In addition, mentor’s organizational
prototypicality significantly moderated the relationship between mentoring functions
and two mediation variables.
This study advanced our understanding on how mentoring influences
socialization outcomes through assimilation process. It also contributed to the
literature by testing the role of mentor’s organizational prototypicality as the boundary
condition of mentoring-outcome link. Finally, data from blue-collar workers increased
the generality of findings in mentoring literature. Limitations and suggestions for
future research have been discussed at the end of the study.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to dedicate this thesis to my principal supervisor,
Prof. Flora CHIANG and my co-supervisor, Prof. Ji LI. They always support my
research idea with helpful suggestions. Without them, it is impossible to finish this
thesis. Their efforts and wisdom always encourage me in the difficult period of my
study.
I also appreciate the support from the Department of Management, Hong Kong
Baptist University. Particularly, special thanks are due to Prof. Edward SNAPE, Prof.
Liqun WEI, Prof. Randy CHIU, Dr. Michael YOUNG, Dr. Alicia LEUNG, Dr. Amy
CHEN, Dr. Jamie CHEUNG, Dr. Sally CHEUNG, Dr. Emily HUANG, Dr. Susanna
LO, Dr. March TO, Dr. Erica XU, Dr. Yoyo HUO, Mr. Simon SO, Mr. SW LAM, Ms.
Lily TSUI, Ms. Celia SZE, Ms. Jessica LAI.
I would also like to express my great thankfulness to the chairman and the
external panel members of evaluating this thesis. Special thanks are due to Dr. Henry
FOCK, Prof. Liyun SUN and Prof. Irene CHOW. They gave me valuable suggestions
and comments on this thesis.
In addition, I want to thank my great friends and classmates who provided me
continuous support on my study and life in Hong Kong. Special thanks are due to
Junbang LAN, Xin YANG, Julie ZHU, Caleb CHEN, Joyce WANG, Emmy VAN
ESCH, Jiachen ZHANG, Wenlan ZHANG, Yifei LU, Haomin ZHANG, Zhimin TIAN,
Alice SONG, Alice HU, Ho Yan KWAN, Amy, CHEN, Jieying XU, Yang CHEN,
iv
Cronin WANG.
Besides, I also would like to thank my friends who helped me to collect data,
since data collection was one of the most challenges of this thesis and my study.
Last, but certainly not least, I am grateful to thank my parents, without whom
this thesis would have been impossible.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1
1.1 Research Background ........................................................................................... 1
1.2 Research Objectives ............................................................................................. 7
1.3 Intended Theoretical Contributions .................................................................... 10
1.4 Organization of the Dissertation ........................................................................ 11
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................. 12
2.1 The Definitional Issues of Mentoring ................................................................ 12
2.1.1 The Challenges of Mentoring Definitions ................................................... 16
2.1.2 Similar Constructs to Mentoring in the Workplace ..................................... 17
2.1.3 Different types of mentoring ....................................................................... 24
2.1.4 Summary of the Definition Issues ............................................................... 30
2.2 Mentoring Functions .......................................................................................... 32
2.3 Mechanisms and Consequences of Mentoring Functions .................................. 33
2.4 Formal Mentoring Program ................................................................................ 34
2.4.1 The Empirical Studies on Formal Mentoring .............................................. 35
2.5 Organizational Socialization .............................................................................. 37
2.5.1 Socialization Tactics .................................................................................... 37
2.5.2 Newcomer’s Adjustment during Organizational Socialization ................... 38
2.6 Research Gaps .................................................................................................... 40
2.7 Belongingness Theory ........................................................................................ 42
2.7.1 Need for Belonging and Organizational Socialization ................................ 43
2.7.2 Organization-Based Self-Esteem ................................................................. 45
2.7.3 Person-Organization Fit ............................................................................... 49
2.8 Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 54
CHAPTER 3 THEORETICAL MODEL AND HYPOTHESES .......................... 56
3.1 The Theoretical Model of the Research ............................................................. 56
3.2 Mentoring Functions and OBSE ........................................................................ 59
vi
3.3 Mentoring Functions and Person-Organization Fit ............................................ 61
3.4 The Mediating Role of OBSE and Person-Organization Fit .............................. 63
3.4.1 Affective Organizational Commitment ....................................................... 64
3.4.2 Job Satisfaction ............................................................................................ 67
3.4.3 OCB ............................................................................................................. 69
3.5 The Moderating Role of Mentor’s Organizational Prototypicality .................... 71
CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 76
4.1 Research context ................................................................................................ 76
4.2 Data Collection Procedure ................................................................................. 78
4.3 Measures............................................................................................................. 83
4.3.1 Independent Variable ................................................................................... 83
4.3.2 Mediators ..................................................................................................... 85
4.3.3 Moderators ................................................................................................... 85
4.3.4 Dependent Variables.................................................................................... 86
4.3.5 Control Variables ......................................................................................... 86
4.3 Data Analysis Technique ................................................................................... 87
CHAPTER 5 RESULTS ............................................................................................ 91
5.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis ............................................................................ 91
5.2 Descriptive Statistics .......................................................................................... 95
5.3 Hypothesis Testing ............................................................................................. 97
5.3.1 Design Effect ............................................................................................... 97
5.3.2 Structural Equation Modeling ..................................................................... 97
5.3.3 The Main Effects and the Mediation Effects ............................................... 98
5.3.4 The Moderation Effects ............................................................................. 103
CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .............................................. 107
6.1 Review of the Research Findings ..................................................................... 107
6.1.1 The Main Effects of Formal Mentoring on Psychological Adjustment .... 107
6.1.2 The Mediating Effects of OBSE and Person-Organization Fit ................. 108
6.1.3 The Moderating Effects of Mentor’s Organizational Prototypicality ....... 111
vii
6.2 Theoretical Implications ................................................................................... 112
6.3 Practical Implications ....................................................................................... 114
6.4 Strengths of the Research ................................................................................. 117
6.5 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research............................................ 118
6.6 Conclusion........................................................................................................ 124
REFERENCE ........................................................................................................... 126
APPENDICES .......................................................................................................... 126
APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................ 165
APPENDIX B ........................................................................................................ 173
APPENDIX C ........................................................................................................ 176
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Examples of Mentoring Definitions ............................................................... 14
Table 2. Comparison of Mentoring with Other Similar Constructs in the Workplace . 24
Table 3. Comparison of Formal Mentoring and Informal Mentoring .......................... 29
Table 4. The Sources and Measuring Time of the Scale Used in the Study ................ 82
Table 5. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis ....................................................... 94
Table 6. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations .............................................. 96
Table 7. Results of Model Comparison...................................................................... 101
Table 8. Results of Bootstrapping .............................................................................. 102
Table 9. Summary of the Data Analysis Results ........................................................ 106
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. A Conceptual Model ..................................................................................... 58
Figure 2. SEM Results of Mediation Test .................................................................. 100
Figure 3. SEM Results of Moderation Test................................................................ 104
Figure 4. The Moderation Effect of Mentor’s Organizational Prototypicality on the
Relationship between Mentoring Function and OBSE ........................................ 105
Figure 5. The Moderation Effect of Mentor’s Organizational Prototypicality on the
Relationship between Mentoring Function and Person-Organization Fit ........... 105
x
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research Background
Organizational socialization refers to a process by which newcomers make the
transition from being organizational outsiders to being insiders (Ashforth, 2000;
Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo, & Tucker, 2007). During the organizational
socialization, newcomers adjust to their surroundings and learn the behaviors and
skills to fulfill their new roles effectively as an organizational member. Successful
socialization adjustments often reduce uncertainty and anxieties about fitting in, and
increase job satisfaction, organizational commitment and work performance (Cable &
Parsons, 2001). From the perspective of organizations, ineffective socialization
adjustments are often the primary reason of low performance and turnover of
newcomers, which cost organizations on the investments of recruitment, selection and
training (Bauer et al., 2007; Fang, Duffy, & Shaw, 2010).
Due to the benefits of effective socialization, organizations employ various
socialization tactics and programs to enhance socialization experience of newcomers
(Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Formal mentoring program, which refers to an activity that
the organization formally assigns an employee to a more experienced or senior
organizational member with the purpose of providing support and direction (Chun,
Sosik, & Yun, 2012; Day & Allen, 2004), can be one of the tactics that facilitate
1
socialization. Through the provision of three types of supports, including career
support (e.g. sponsorship,
exposure-and-visibility, coaching, protection and
challenging assignments), psychosocial support (e.g. acceptance-and-confirmation,
counseling and friendship) and role modeling, formal mentors may help newcomers to
obtain a better understanding of organizational values, mission, structure and systems
leading to positive work attitudes and improved performance (Baugh &
Fagenson-Eland, 2007; Scandura, 1992).
Both socialization and mentoring literatures suggest the notion that mentors can
facilitate the organizational socialization. For example, by introducing a concept of
localized socialization, Ashforth (2000) indicated that the socialization experience of
newcomers relies largely on the localized work environment, including the
interpersonal and group-based interactions with the experienced supervisors and
coworkers around them. Therefore, organizational insiders, such as experienced
supervisors and coworkers, are seen as organizational agents who play important roles
in socialization of newcomers (Ashforth, Sluss, & Harrison, 2007; Slaughter & Zickar,
2006). From the perspective of mentoring literature, mentoring relationship is a major
source of information and knowledge acquiring which enhances newcomer’s personal
learning during early organizational socialization (Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1993).
Enhanced personal learning leads to various outcomes of newcomers, including work
attitudes and performance (Saks & Ashforth, 1997). In addition, effective mentoring
can also reduce stress and anxiety of newcomers, which may further enhance
socialization experience and organizational commitment (Allen, McManus, & Russell,
2
1999; Heimann & Pittenger, 1996; Thomas & Lankau, 2009).
Despite the impacts of mentoring on socialization, research on the
mentoring-socialization link has at least three research gaps. First, literature has not
fully captured the underlying mechanisms of how mentoring influences socialization
outcomes. Socialization scholars indicate that successful socialization should contain
two processes in order to facilitate socialization adjustment of newcomers (Fang et al.,
2010; Morrison, 2002). One is the learning process, which includes acquiring job and
organizational knowledge, leading to role clarity and self-efficacy (Chao,
O'Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein, & Gardner, 1994; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). The other is
the assimilation process, which includes feeling of social acceptance and value
congruence with the organization (Grant & Brush, 1996; Kammeyer-Mueller &
Wanberg,
2003;
Moreland
&
Levine,
2001).
However,
research
on
mentoring-outcome link has mainly focused on the learning process (Kwan, Mao, &
Zhang, 2010; Lankau & Scandura, 2002; Liu & Fu, 2011; Pan, Sun, & Chow, 2011).
No empirical study has investigated how mentoring helps newcomers feel socially
accepted and value congruence with the organization. This omission is significant
because newcomers not only acquire knowledge, information and feedback from
organizational agents (e.g., supervisors, mentors), but also seek for social acceptance
and affiliation to the organization (Ashforth, 2000). The interactions with
organizational agents are important conduits for newcomers to feel attached and
committed to the organization (Allen & Shanock, 2013; Ashforth, 2000). Empirical
studies have supported this statement by finding that the relationship with the
3
supervisor (i.e. leader-member exchange) influences subordinate’s feelings of social
inclusion and person-organization fit (Ferris, Brown, & Heller, 2009; Sluss &
Thompson, 2012). The results of meta-analysis showed that social acceptance is a
strong predictor of socialization outcomes including job satisfaction, organizational
commitment and intention to remain (Bauer et al., 2007). Therefore, it is particular
important to examine the assimilation mechanism, although the learning process is
surely significant to understand mentoring-socialization link. Due to this importance,
this study focuses on the assimilation mechanism suggesting that mentoring supports
enhance newcomer’s socialization outcomes through feelings of social acceptance and
value congruence.
Second, in addition to the assumption that mentors are organizational agents,
who can influence socialization of newcomers, researchers begin to criticize this
assumption by indicating that organizational insiders may differ in the extent to which
they are seen as prototypical organizational agents (Eisenberger et al., 2010).
Prototypicality of organizational insiders, which refers to the degree that the
organizational member is perceived to be a typical and exemplary representative of
the organization, can affect how newcomers interpret their interactions with
organizational insiders (Sluss, Ployhart, Cobb, & Ashforth, 2012). For example, prior
study has focused on the supervisor’s role as prototypical organizational agents by
finding that supervisor’s prototypicality strengthens the effect of supervisor
identification on organizational identification of newcomers, because supervisor’s
prototypicality may influence the extent to which newcomers generalize their
4
relationship from the supervisor to the organization (Sluss et al., 2012). Despite the
findings on supervisor’s role, no study has empirically tested this assumption in the
context of mentoring. The omission is significant in two ways. On the one hand,
similar to the role of supervisor, it is possible that newcomers might see their mentors
not only as the representative of the organization, but also as individuals in their own
right. When perceived similarity between the mentor and the organization is high,
newcomers tend to see their mentors as the prototypical organizational agents. Given
that mentors provide various supports including career, psychosocial and role
modeling that can affect protégé’s personal adjustments and the understanding of the
organization, the effect of mentoring supports on protégés’ socialization outcomes to
the organization may be varied if newcomers consider that their mentors are not
typical organizational agents. Examining the prototypicality of the mentor in
newcomer’s eyes is helpful to fully understand the boundary condition of
mentoring-socialization link. On the other hand, newcomer’s socialization outcomes
largely rely on the localized work environment through the interactions with the
organizational members around them, such as supervisors and mentors (Ashforth,
2000). In addition to the interaction between supervisor and subordinate (i.e.
Leader-member exchange), mentoring functions provided by the mentors have been
found to explain additional variance on the socialization of newcomers (Thomas &
Lankau, 2009). Newcomers who have mentors are more likely to assimilate into the
organization because mentors may not only convey the organizational culture and
values, but also transmit encouragement, counsel and social support (Chao, Walz, &
5
Gardner, 1992; Thomas & Lankau, 2009). The lack of considering the role of mentors
as prototypical organizational agents makes it difficult to fully understand how
newcomers adjust to be organizational members in the process of socialization.
Third, meta-analysis reveals that the effectiveness of mentoring varies across
different disciplines and different occupations. For example, in terms of the different
disciplines, the effect of workplace mentoring on protégé’s sense of affiliation is
significantly stronger than the effect of academic mentoring. Besides, the
psychosocial support by workplace mentors is a stronger predictor of protégé’s
self-efficacy and situational satisfaction than academic mentors (Eby, Allen, Evans,
Ng, & Dubois, 2008a; Eby et al., 2013). In addition, researchers indicate that the
meaning of mentoring may vary across different occupations (Haggard, Dougherty,
Turban, & Wilbanks, 2010). In the early date, organizations use mentoring as part of a
personal development program for managers and professionals (Noe, 1988; Wilson &
Elman, 1990; Zey & Zey, 1984). Therefore, majority of mentoring studies focus on
white-collar workers (Kwan, Liu, & Yim, 2011). However, recent mentoring
researchers indicate that organizations also use mentoring program on blue-collar
workers (Kwan et al., 2010). One major difference between white-collar workers and
blue-collar workers is that the jobs of white-collar workers are more complex than
blue-collar workers (Hu, Kaplan, & Dalal, 2010). Owning to this complexity,
white-collar workers may have different work motivation from blue-collar workers. In
support of this argument, Huang (2011) found that white-collar workers have higher
motivation for autonomy and learning than blue-collar workers. In contrast,
6
blue-collar workers tend to reciprocate more to the organization than white-collar
workers when blue-collar workers have higher relational identification with their
supervisors (Cem Ersoy, Born, Derous, & van der Molen, 2011). Since work
motivation is central to predict individual behaviors and attitudes (Mitchell & Daniels,
2003), lack of the empirical studies on blue-collar workers, who may have different
work motivation from white-collar workers, makes it difficult to capture the full
picture of how mentoring facilitates socialization of newcomers. In addition, because
the dominant workforce in China is the blue-collar workers in manufacturing
companies (Editorial Board of the China Commerce, 2009), it is also interesting and
significant to conduct more research on blue-collar workers to increase the generality
of findings in workplace mentoring (Bozionelos & Wang, 2006).
1.2 Research Objectives
In light of the above research gaps and discussions, the first objective of this
study is to examine how mentoring influence socialization outcomes of newcomers
through feelings of social acceptance and value congruence. Belongingness theory
provides a theoretical foundation to understand this process. According to the
belongingness theory, human beings are motivated to form and maintain stable and
quality interpersonal relationship with others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). When
entering a new organization, newcomers often feel anxiety and stress partially because
of the uncertainty to fulfill their needs for belonging (Ashforth, 2000; Ashforth et al.,
7
2007). Previous studies also mentioned that feelings of social acceptance and value
congruence are rooted on the basic need for belonging of employees (Ferris et al.,
2009; Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995; Van Vianen, Stoelhorst, & De Goede,
2013; Yu & Yang, 2013). Therefore, I argued that mentoring supports can affect
socialization outcomes of newcomers through the feeling of social acceptance and
value
congruence,
by
integrating
the
belongingness
theory
into
mentoring-socialization link. Accordingly, this study proposes that organization-based
self-esteem (social acceptance) and person-organization fit (value congruence with the
organization) as two mediators to explain the effect of mentoring supports on
socialization outcomes. On the one hand, self-esteem can be a relational evaluation
referring to the extent to which an individual sees his or her relationships with others
as “valuable, important or close” (Leary & Baumeister, 2000, p.9). It will be enhanced
or reduced in accordance with the feeling of social acceptance and rejection (Williams,
2007). In the organizational context, self-esteem is often assessed with the measure of
organization-based self-esteem (OBSE), defined as the extent to which individuals
believe they are capable, significant, and worthy at work (Pierce, Gardner, Cummings,
& Dunham, 1989). On the other hand, person-organization fit reflects employee’s
perception of fit into the organization. It is often operationalized as the value
congruence between the employee and the organization (Cable & Parsons, 2001). I
operationalize these two constructs more broadly, encompassing the feelings of being
accepted by the organization and value congruence with the organization, because
previous studies suggested that protégé’s perceptions and attitudes to the organization
8
can be developed through supports from the mentors (Baranik, Roling, & Eby, 2010).
The second objective of this study is to investigate the boundary condition that
influences the effect of mentoring in the socialization process. Specifically, this study
examines the moderating role of mentor’s organizational prototypicality on the
relationship between mentoring and two mediation variables (i.e. OBSE and
person-organization it). I argue that mentor’s prototypicality is an important boundary
condition of mentoring-socialization link by proposing that when mentor’s
organizational prototypicality is high, the relationship between mentoring and
newcomer’s OBSE and person-organization fit will be stronger.
The third objective is to investigate mentoring in the context of blue-collar
workers. In the past two decades, Chinese young adults have moved out of the
agriculture into industry, which contribute to the dominant workforce in
manufacturing industries (Banister, Bloom, & Rosenberg, 2010). Since mentoring can
help both organization and newcomers by facilitating newcomers’ efficient and
effective adjustments to the new positions (Chao, 2007), it is appropriate and
significant to investigate the effect of formal mentoring program in the context of
blue-collar workers in China.
In summary, this study contains three major objectives: (a) to test the mediation
effect of OBSE and person-organization fit on the relationship between mentoring and
three protégé’s outcomes (i.e. affective organizational commitment, job satisfaction
and organizational citizenship behavior), (b) to explore the moderating effect of
mentor’s organizational prototypicality on the relationship between mentoring
9
function
and
two
mediation
variables,
including
protégé’s
OBSE
and
person-organization fit, (c) to conduct the research in blue-collar workers in China.
1.3 Intended Theoretical Contributions
This study intends to make four major theoretical contributions. First, drawing
on the belongingness theory, it extends the mentoring literature by investigating how
mentoring influences newcomer’s feeling of acceptance and fit during the
socialization process. Specifically, by proposing OBSE and person-organization fit as
mediators, this study advances our knowledge of how mentoring program enhances
protégé’s sense of acceptance and value congruence, leading to more distal
socialization outcomes. Second, person-organization fit is an important proximal
outcome of organizational socialization. Researcher proposes that socialization
program such as formal training and formal mentoring may be related to newcomer’s
person-organization fit (Ostroff, 2012). However, no previous research has
empirically tested this relationship. Therefore, this study contributes to the
person-organizational fit literatures by empirically testing the relationship between
mentoring and person-organization fit in early socialization stage of newcomers.
Third, by testing the moderating role of mentor’s organizational prototypicality, this
study advances our understanding of mentor’s characteristic and boundary condition
of socialization process of newcomers. Fourth, this study examines formal mentoring
program by collecting the data from blue-collar workers in a manufacturing company,
10
which contributes to the generality of mentoring findings at workplace.
1.4 Organization of the Dissertation
This study is separated into six chapters. Chapter 1 has introduced the research
background of the topic, identified the research gap and outlined the purpose of the
study as well as the contributions. Chapter 2 reviews the literatures including
mentoring, socialization adjustments, belongingness theory, person-organization fit
and OBSE. Chapter 3 discusses ten hypotheses that have been tested in the later part
of the study. Chapter 4 introduces the methodology of the empirical study including
data collection procedure, measurements and analytical method. Chapter 5 shows the
results of the empirical study. Chapter 6 contains the discussion, limitation as well as
the conclusion.
11
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter provides a literature review of the mentoring research,
organizational socialization and the belongingness theory. In the first section, the
definition and functions of mentoring, the empirical studies on formal mentoring and
socialization tactics and processes will be reviewed. Research gaps will be identified
on the basis of the literature review. In the second section, I will review belongingness
theory as well as the constructs of organization based self-esteem and
person-organization fit. On the basis of the review in this chapter, the theoretical
framework and hypotheses arguments will be discussed in the next chapter.
2.1 The Definitional Issues of Mentoring
The original concept of mentoring can be traced back to Homer’s Odyssey and
other literary works, including Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The
Great Gatsby, and Shakespeare’s Much Ado about Nothing (Eby, Rhodes, & Allen,
2007). Mentoring research starts from the study on the development of adult men by
Levinson (1978). In his work, the mentoring relationship, as a learning and
development resource, is regarded as one of the most important experiences in young
adulthood. In addition to his work, other studies, including Kanter (1977), Dalton,
12
Thompson, and Price (1977), and Shapiro, Haseltine, and Rowe (1978), have also
investigated the influence of relationships between young and old adults on personal
growth and career development. These works identified this specific type of
relationship and created the foundations of mentoring theory. Researchers in various
areas, including education, sports, arts, and management, have paid increasing
attention to the topic of mentoring during recent decades. Since Kram (1985)
published her seminal book on workplace mentoring, mentoring in the workplace
context has aroused great interest among management scholars. Through an in-depth
qualitative study on mentor-protégédyads, Kram examined the role of mentoring in
the development network and identified two types of functions in organization
settings. The details of mentoring functions will be discussed later in the thesis.
In spite of the increasing interest, there is still no consistent definition of what a
mentoring relationship is in the management literature (Haggard et al., 2010). Kram
(1985) mentioned that the word mentor means different things to different people.
Eby et al. (2007) discussed various constructs that are related to mentoring, such as
supervisor and subordinate, teacher and student, advisor and advisee, coach and client.
Even in the context of mentoring, within-construct variance is criticized by various
researchers for lacking consistency in terms of the “general concept” of mentoring
(Wanberg, Welsh, & Hezlett, 2003). Table 1 shows some examples of mentoring
definitions. What’s more, Allen, Eby, O’Brien, and Lentz (2008) indicated in their
review of research methodology in the mentoring literature that around 40% of the
articles published between 2006 and 2008 did not specify the types of mentoring
13
being studied. It makes even more difficult to compare different findings in the
mentoring literature. Therefore, it is essential to conduct a review on the definitional
issues of mentoring, including both within and cross-construct variance, and provide a
clear definition of the mentoring being studied. In the following sections, I will first
discuss the challenges of the definitions used in the mentoring literature. I will then
compare and distinguish similar constructs with the mentoring concept, and discuss
the within-construct variance by introducing different types of mentoring.
Table 1. Examples of Mentoring Definitions
Levinson et al.,
“The mentor relationship is one of the most complex, and
1978 (p. 98)
developmentally important, a person can have in early
adulthood…No word currently in use is adequate to convey
the nature of the relationship we have in mind
here…Mentoring is defined not in terms of formal roles but in
terms of the character of the relationship and the functions it
serves.”
Kram, 1985; Allen,
“Mentors are typically defined as individuals with advanced
2003 (p. 134)
experience and knowledge who are committed to providing
support to and increasing the career advancement of junior
organizational members, their protégés.”
Murray, 1991 (p.
“A deliberate pairing of a more skilled or experienced person
xiv)
with a lesser skilled or experienced one, with the agreed-upon
goal of having the lesser skilled person grow and develop
specific competencies.”
Scandura & Ragins, “Respondents were asked to indicate if they had experienced a
1993 (p.256)
working relationship that significantly affected their career
mobility in their firm.”
Godshalk & Sosik,
“Mentoring is defined as a pairing of a more skilled or
2000 (p. 299);
experienced person with a lesser skilled or experienced one,
Godshalk & Sosik,
with the goal [either implicitly or explicitly stated] of having
2003 (p. 424)
the lesser skilled person grow and develop specific
career-related competencies. Your mentor may or may not be
your manager.”
Scandura &
“Mentoring is described as a one to one relationship between a
Williams, 2001 (p.
more experienced and senior person (Mentor) and a new
14
349)
Armstrong, Allinson
& Hayes, 2002 (p.
1112)
Day & Allen, 2004
(p. 77)
Solansky, 2010 (p.
676)
Allen et al., 2009 (p.
1119)
entrant or less experienced person (his/her protégé) in the
organizational setup. The Mentor need not be the supervisor or
department head and not necessarily from the same
department. A mentor can generally be defined as an
influential individual in your work environment who has
advanced work experience and knowledge and who is
committed to providing upward mobility and support to your
career.”
“A developmental, caring, sharing, helping relationship where
one person invests time, know-how and effort in increasing
and improving another person’s growth, knowledge and skills”
“A mentor is an experienced employee who serves as a role
model, provides support, direction and feedback regarding
career plans and interpersonal development. A mentor is also
someone who is in a position of power, who looks out for you,
gives you advice and/or brings your accomplishments to the
attention of people who have power in the company.”
“Mentoring is defined as the matching of a novice with a more
experienced person in the same role.”
“A mentor is generally defined as a higher-ranking, influential
individual in your work environment who has advanced
experience and knowledge and is committed to providing
upward mobility and support in your career.”
15
2.1.1 The Challenges of Mentoring Definitions
Mentoring scholars believe that the word mentor means different things to
different people (Kram, 1985). Therefore, providing a universal definition that can be
applied to every mentoring context is challenging. One of the challenges is the level
of specificity. In their review article, Haggard et al. (2010) discussed how specific the
definition of mentoring should be. They mentioned that restrictive definitions can
ensure that the relationship being studied across the mentoring research is
substantially consistent. However, such definitions are less sensitive in terms of
detecting the existence of a mentoring relationship. Broad definitions, on the other
hand, provide space for different interpretations. However, they might also include
relationships that would have strong overlaps with other similar constructs. For
example, Scandura and Ragins (1993) described the mentoring relationship as “if the
respondents had experienced a working relationship that significantly affected their
career mobility in their firm”. This definition is a broad definition which would be
more likely to result in self-identified protégés and to become mixed up with other
similar constructs such as coaching and feedback seeking.
In addition to the level of specificity, some researchers describe the types of
support and commitment provided by the mentor in their definition of mentoring. For
example, Scandura and Williams (2001) stated that the role of a mentor is to be
someone “who is committed to providing upward mobility and support to your
career.” Day and Allen (2004) defined a mentor as the person “who looks out for you,
16
gives you advice and/or brings your accomplishments to the attention of people who
have power in the company.” The advantage of describing types of mentoring support
and commitment in the definition is that protégés are more likely to be able to identify
who the mentor around them is. However, some protégés may not be able to see the
mentor’s commitment to the relationship since they might not have enough sources
and information regarding the levels of mentor commitment (Haggard et al., 2010).
Besides, mentor commitment and mentoring functions might not be perceived by
protégés in a negative mentoring context since the protégés might not consider their
mentors to be committed and qualified.
2.1.2 Similar Constructs to Mentoring in the Workplace
In the workplace, several types of relationships may share some similar
characteristics with the concept of mentoring. In the following sections, I discuss the
overlaps as well as the distinctiveness between mentoring and supervising, coaching,
advising, and counselling. Table 2 shows a summary of the comparison among the
different constructs.
2.1.2.1 Supervision
The dyadic relationship between supervisor and subordinate is one of the most
typical relationships in the workplace. Hundreds of research articles have examined
this topic from different perspectives, including leadership styles, trust, and
17
relationship quality. The supervisor-subordinate relationship is related to the
mentoring relationship in several ways. First, both mentoring and supervisory
relationship are one-to-one relationships in the workplace. Each supervisor and
mentor may have several dyadic relationships with subordinates and protégés
respectively. Second, supervisors may provide some mentoring functions. Recent
research articles have investigated the role of the supervisor in providing subordinates
with various types of mentoring functions, including career support, psychosocial
support, and role modeling (Baranik et al., 2010; Pan et al., 2011; Sun, Pan, & Chow,
2014). I will discuss this specific type of mentoring (i.e. supervisory mentoring) later
in the thesis. Third, the supervisor-subordinate relationships and supervisors’
leadership styles are often considered and compared with mentoring in research
studies. For example, Raabe and Beehr (2003) compared the effects of formal
mentoring with the supervisory relationship and the coworker relationship. Scandura
and Williams (2004) examined the role of mentoring and transformational leadership
in shaping employees’ work attitudes. Thomas and Lankau (2009) studied the effects
of mentoring and leader-member exchange (LMX) on employees’ organizational
socialization and job burnout. In spite of the common characteristics between the
supervisory relationship and the mentoring relationship, mentoring is often treated as
a distinct construct beyond the supervisory relationship (Scandura & Williams, 2004)
for several reasons. First, the supervisor has legitimate power over the subordinate
(Cobb, 1980; Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1990), while the mentor does not have
legitimate power. The relationship between mentor and protégé depends on mutual
18
trust and commitment (Allen & Eby, 2008; Wang, Tomlinson, & Noe, 2010). Second,
the supervisory relationship and mentoring are different in terms of the nature of the
relationship. It is the job of the mentor to provide mentoring support for the personal
growth and development of the protégé (Kram, 1985). However, the job of the
supervisor is to monitor and evaluate the subordinate’s work and to reach work goals,
although some supervisors may also provide mentoring function to subordinates (e.g.
supervisory mentoring).
2.1.2.2 Coaching
The second related research stream is coaching in the workplace. Coaching is
defined as the “process of equipping people with the tools, knowledge, and
opportunities they need to develop themselves and become more effective” (Peterson
& Hicks, 1995). It has been widely used as a management and developmental tool in
organizations. Coaching involves facilitating learning, providing feedback, counseling
about work related issues, and improving effectiveness (Ellinger & Bostrom, 1999;
Evered & Selman, 1989; Feldman & Moore, 2001). Although it shares some similar
characteristics with mentoring in terms of the training and support provided by
coaches, mentoring and coaching are different in at least three ways including the
formation of relationships, duration and the development of personal bonds. First, the
initiation of the mentoring relationship can be based on mutual trust in an informal
way (e.g. informal mentoring) or on the assignment by the organization in a formal
way (e.g. formal mentoring). Unlike mentoring relationships, coaching relationships
19
are formally contracted rather than informally developed (Feldman & Lankau, 2005).
Some may argue that the initiation of a formal mentoring relationship is similar to the
coaching relationship. However, although the protégé is assigned to a mentor in a
formal mentoring program through a matching process, the formal mentoring
relationship still depends on the mutual trust and commitment between the protégé
and the mentor. It is normally a voluntary relationship. In contrast, coaching has
explicit job duties to guide the behaviors of coaches. The coaches normally charge
coaching fee to the clients. Second, researchers have mentioned that the coaching
relationship is normally shorter in duration than the mentoring relationship (Feldman
& Lankau, 2005). Third, most of the mentors are in the same organization with the
protégés, while most of the coaches are outside the organization (Feldman & Lankau,
2005). Fourth, the mentoring relationship involves a high level of psychosocial
support including friendship and counselling (Kram, 1985; Wanberg et al., 2003).
Therefore, a close relationship and personal bonds are important in a mentoring
relationship. In contrast, it is not necessary to have a personal bond and attachment
between a coach and a client.
2.1.2.3 Advising
The third related research stream of organizational behavior concerns employee’s
advice seeking and taking. Employees may sometimes seek advice from others in the
workplace. According to the Oxford Dictionary, the word advice is defined as
guidance or recommendations offered with regard to prudent action. In the workplace,
20
the purpose of advice seeking and taking is to help to make decisions and avoid
mistakes (Bonaccio & Dalal, 2006). Some researchers have mentioned that advisors
may provide different types of advice, including job related, career, and social support
advice, which are similar to the functions of mentoring in a mentoring relationship
(Heath & Gonzalez, 1995). Other researchers have also indicated that mentoring falls
within the nature of advice seeking and resembles advice in which someone provides
particular recommendations regarding an action or an alternative (Bonaccio & Dalal,
2006). However, mentoring differs from advice seeking and taking in at least two
ways. First, mentoring is a relationship-based construct, while advice is decision
based. In the mentoring context, mentor and protégé form a stable relationship in a
certain period of time. During a mentoring relationship, the mentor provides the
protégé with career and psychosocial support which may relate to the different
decisions the protégé makes. Therefore, if no relationship between mentor and
protégéexists, mentoring does not exist. On the other hand, advice is based on each
decision. For each important decision, the employee may seek advice from different
people. Employees, for example, may seek advice from former employees on some
work-related procedures and policies. Newcomers may seek advice from parents,
friends, or colleagues on the proper behaviors to adopt in a new organization. Some
may have a short-term advisory relationship with an advisee as an advisor depending
on the different decisions the advisee needs to make, but the relationship is not
necessary. Second, mentor and protégé typically have a shared common goal
regarding the purpose of mentoring. The mentoring functions provided by the mentor
21
are based on this goal (e.g. helping the career development and socialization of the
protégé). On the other hand, the purpose of advice seeking and taking is to help
employees make a decision (Bonaccio & Dalal, 2006). Once the decision has been
made, the advice seeking is finished before the next decision has to be made.
2.1.2.4 Workplace counselling
Workplace counselling refers to a psychological therapy given by an internal or
external counsellor for solving work-related psychological problems of employees
(Carroll & Walton, 1997). It is a human resource intervention which is normally paid
by the organization where such therapy has an impact on work functioning (McLeod,
2010; McLeod & Henderson, 2003). Although mentor may provide some degree of
counselling to help protégé solve work-related psychological problems, workplace
counselling and mentoring are different mainly in three ways. First, mentoring is
normally voluntary while workplace counselling needs fee for service which is
normally paid by the organization. Second, different from the mentors who may also
provide other supports for personal development including the provision of training
and teaching on work-related skills and knowledge, counsellors may only focus on
solving the psychosocial problem (Stokes, 2003). Third, the purpose of mentoring is
for the personal adjustment and development of protégés (Kram, 1985), while
counselling aims to help employees to solve the psychosocial problems that they have
at the workplace (McLeod & Henderson, 2003).
22
2.1.2.5 Summary of Similar Constructs to Mentoring in the Workplace
It is noted that mentoring has some degree of overlaps with the similar constructs
discussed above. For example, organization can assign a direct supervisor to an
employee as the mentor. On the other hand, direct supervisors may also provide
mentoring functions although they are not assigned as formal mentors to the
employees. Besides, mentors may provide supports similar to the above constructs
including coaching, feedback and counselling to the protégés as parts of the
mentoring functions. Despite these overlaps, mentoring can be mainly distinguished
with these similar constructs in five ways. First, mentoring involves both work-related
and psychosocial-related supports while other constructs mainly focus on one area.
Second, mentoring is normally voluntary while others including counselling and
coaching need fee for service. Third, mentoring is a relationship based service while
others such as counselling and advising are problem based. It is necessary for mentors
to form friend relationships with the protégés because friendship is one of the
mentoring functions that mentors should provide. On the other hand, it is not
necessary to form a relationship of friendship for other constructs. Fourth, mentoring
relationship may not have a clear time bound depending on the mutual agreement
between mentors and protégés. Other constructs such as counselling, coaching and
supervision normally have a clear time bound at the beginning of the service. Fifth,
the relationships in the context of counselling, coaching and supervision are formally
initiated by the organization, while mentoring relationship can be informally or
formally initiated.
23
Table 2. Comparison of Mentoring with Other Similar Constructs in the
Workplace
Primary
Nature of
Service Time- Relationship
Construct
scope of
service
fee
bound
initiation
influence
Job related and Relationship
Informal or
Mentoring
psychosocial
based service
No
Varies
formal
support
Relationship
Supervising
Job related
Yes
Yes
Formal
based service
Relationship
Coaching
Job related
Yes
Yes
Formal
based service
Job related and
Problem
Informal or
Advising
psychosocial
based service
No
Varies
formal
support
Psychosocial
Relationship
Counselling
Yes
Yes
Formal
support
based service
2.1.3 Different types of mentoring
2.1.3.1 Supervisory and non-supervisory mentoring
One of the major variances among different mentoring contexts is whether the
immediate supervisors of the employees are also their mentors. Supervisory
mentoring occurs when a protégé’s mentor is also his or her immediate supervisor,
while non-supervisory mentoring occurs when the mentor is not the immediate
supervisor. Researchers have studied various topics in both supervisory (Pan et al.,
2011; Scandura & Williams, 2004; Sun et al., 2014) and non-supervisory (Liu & Fu,
2011; Liu, Wang, & Wayne, in press) mentoring contexts. In spite of the separation,
many researchers have included both supervisory and non-supervisory mentoring in
their mentoring studies (Thomas & Lankau, 2009; Wang et al., 2010). In addition,
24
most of the mentoring definitions allow a protégé’s immediate supervisor to be the
mentor (e.g. Godshalk & Sosik, 2000; Scandura & Williams, 2001). Researchers have
also indicated that 85% of mentoring relationships take place between a supervisor
and a subordinate dyadic (Burke & McKeen, 1997) and that 97% of self-identified
protégés mention that their supervisors have more or less provided mentoring
functions during their career (Day & Allen, 2004). Therefore, immediate supervisors
can be seen as a valuable mentoring resource in an organization (Kram, 1985).
In terms of the mentoring effectiveness, protégés in a supervisory mentoring
relationship tend to receive more mentoring functions than protégés in a
non-supervisory mentoring relationship (Burke & McKeen, 1997; Fagenson-Eland,
Marks, & Amendola, 1997). However, other researchers have indicated that
immediate supervisors are more likely to provide a higher level of job-related skills
and support rather than the exposure and visibility functions provided by higher-level
executives (Haggard et al., 2010). This may be due to the power and resources
immediate supervisors have in providing mentoring functions.
2.1.3.2 Internal and external mentoring
In addition to the hierarchical status within of an organization, mentors can also
be persons outside the organization. External mentoring refers to the mentoring
relationship where the mentor does not work in the same organization as the protégé.
Although most studies have examined the mentoring relationships which take place in
the same organization, a few studies have allowed the mentor to be outside the
25
organization (e.g. Nielson, Carlson, & Lankau, 2001; Ragins & McFarlin, 1990). In
terms of the mentoring, internal mentors may provide more organizational resources
to support protégés and may be more physically accessible than external mentors
(Ragins, 1997). Internal mentors can provide more support, such as challenging
assignments, job-related skills and feedback, than external mentors. On the other hand,
due to their position outside the organization, external mentors are unlikely to provide
support such as sponsorship, protection, or challenging assignments. However, they
are more likely to provide protégés with career mobility and long-term career
advancement (Haggard et al., 2010).
2.1.3.3 Formal and informal mentoring
The differences between formal mentoring and informal mentoring have often
been discussed in previous studies (see the summary in Table 3). First, the informal
mentoring relationship is initiated spontaneously by the mentor and the protégé.
Protégés tend to find more senior and experienced people who are willing to provide
career-related support and advice. Meanwhile, mentors tend to select protégés who
have potential for career development and are considered to be “rising stars” in the
workplace (Singh, Ragins, & Tharenou, 2009). Therefore, the initiation of the
relationship is based on perceived competence, mutual identification, and
interpersonal comfort (Allen, Poteet, & Burroughs, 1997; Kram, 1983; Kram, 1985).
On the other hand, formal mentoring is initiated by the organization or the program
coordinators with the aim of training, socializing, and developing employees in the
26
organization. Formal mentors are recruited and assigned to protégés. In some cases,
formal mentors do not even meet with the protégés until the formal mentoring
program starts. Therefore, in contrast to informal mentoring, the formal mentoring
relationship is based on the willingness and commitment of mentors to engage in the
formal mentoring program (Ragins & Cotton, 1999).
Second, researchers have indicated that the length of formal mentoring
relationships often lasts between six months and one year, while the length of
informal mentoring relationships lasts between three and six years (Kram, 1985; Zey,
1985). A formal mentoring relationship begins when the mentor is assigned to the
protégé and ends when the mentoring program is over. Researchers have indicated
that formal mentors tend to focus more on the short-term goals while informal
mentors are more concerned with the long-term needs of the protégés (Ragins &
Cotton, 1999). Informal mentors may adjust the goals of the mentoring according to
the changes of protégé’s career status. Sometimes, informal mentors may suggest and
recommend the protégés to change jobs and work for another organization if the
current jobs of are not in line with the personal goals of the protégés. In some cases,
informal mentors and protégés can still maintain the mentoring relationship even
when the protégés have left the company. Therefore, the duration of informal
mentoring is normally longer than that of formal mentoring.
Third, researchers have indicated that due to the difference in the initiation of the
relationship, the mentor’s motivation to engage in mentoring may be different in the
two mentoring contexts (Ragins & Cotton, 1991; Ragins & Cotton, 1999). Allen
27
(2003) found that mentors can have different motivations, including self-enhancement
motivation, prosocial motivation, and intrinsic motivation. Since formal mentors are
recruited and assigned by the organization or program coordinators, they may be
motivated to engage in a formal mentoring program by their needs to be good
organizational citizens (Ragins & Cotton, 1999). On the other hand, informal mentors
have more commitment to their protégés than formal mentors. Therefore, informal
mentors are more likely to focus on the career needs of protégés and to provide
long-term support (Ragins & Cotton, 1999).
In spite of the differences between formal and informal mentoring, the
effectiveness of both types of mentoring has been debated intensely. However, the
evidence is mixed (Baugh & Fagenson-Eland, 2007). For example, some studies have
found that protégés report a higher career function in informal mentoring than in
formal mentoring (Allen, Day, & Lentz, 2005; Chao et al., 1992; Ragins & Cotton,
1999), but other studies have found no such difference (Fagenson-Eland et al., 1997;
Sosik, Lee, & Bouquillon, 2005; Tepper, 1995). Some studies have also found less
psychosocial function reported by protégés in formal mentoring than in informal
mentoring (Fagenson-Eland et al., 1997; Ragins & Cotton, 1999; Scandura &
Williams, 2001; Sosik et al., 2005), whereas other studies have found no such
difference (Allen et al., 2005; Chao et al., 1992; Tepper, 1995). Therefore, rather than
assumes that formal mentoring mirrors the informal mentoring, formal mentoring
deserves more research in its own right due to their difference in nature (Wanberg et
al., 2003).
28
Table 3. Comparison of Formal Mentoring and Informal Mentoring
Formal mentoring
Informal mentoring
Initiation of the relationship Assigned and matched by Relationship formed
the program coordinator
simultaneously on the
basis of mutual
identification and trust
Duration
6 months to 1 year
3 to 6 years
Structure of the relationship Structured
Unstructured
Implementation
Focus on short-term goals Focus on protégé’s
set by the formal
long-term career goals
mentoring program
Mentor’s commitment
Commitment to the
Commitment to the
mentoring program
protégé
2.1.3.4 Electronic mentoring
Due to the development of computer and internet technologies, a new form of
mentoring has been introduced in the workplace. Electronic mentoring (e-mentoring)
takes place when mentors and protégés communicate and implement mentoring
functions through computer-mediated technologies (Ensher, Heun, & Blanchard,
2003). In addition to the face-to-face mentoring, electronic mentoring allows both
mentoring parties to employ different communication methods, including phone,
instant messages, and emails. Recent research on electronic mentoring has found that
mentoring parties have more interactive dialogue through electronic mentoring than
through traditional face-to-face mentoring. In addition, the communication method of
electronic chatting facilitates the effect of dialogue interactivity on the protégé’s
post-mentoring self-efficacy (Smith-Jentsch, Scielzo, Yarbrough, & Rosopa, 2008).
29
2.1.4 Summary of the Definition Issues
Although the inconsistency of the mentoring definitions has been criticized by
mentoring researchers (Allen et al., 2008), none of the existing study provides a
universal definition that can be applied to every mentoring context. Due to the various
types of mentoring and contexts discussed above, it is also impossible to provide such
a universal definition. Therefore, researchers use different definitions in their
mentoring studies (see the examples in Table 2). Haggard et al. (2010) indicated that
the optimal definition should reflect the purpose of the study and the very specific
type of mentoring the researchers would like to study, but the core characteristics and
fundamental attributes of the mentoring construct should be consistent across different
definitions so that the mentoring construct can be distinct from other similar
constructs.
Haggard et al. (2010) concluded that three key attributes should clarify in
workplace mentoring. First, mentoring requires a reciprocal notion which involves a
social exchange relationship. For example, Ragins (2012) mentioned that high quality
mentoring relationship should facilitate mutual learning, growth and development
between mentors and protégés. In support of this argument, Chun et al. (2012) found
that not only the protégés who can have various mentoring outcomes, mentors can
also gain transformational leadership, affective well-being and organizational
commitment from the mentoring relationship. A pure one-way relationship may not be
defined as a mentoring relationship. Second, a mentor should produce developmental
30
benefits to protégé’s job. The primary goal of a mentoring relationship is to help the
protégé to advance in his or her organization. By receiving both job-related and
psychosocial support, protégés not only learn the job skills and knowledge from the
mentors, but also establish reciprocal relationship with the organization given that
mentors are organizational agents (Baranik et al., 2010; Lankau & Scandura, 2002).
Third, a mentoring relationship involves regular interaction between mentor and
protégé over some period of time. Haggard et al. (2010) also suggested to include
additional information, such as the relationship initiation and the mentor’s
hierarchical location, which is helpful to clarify the nature of the mentoring
relationship.
Considering the focus of this thesis which is on the formal mentoring context, I
adopt the definition of a formal mentor as a more skilled and experienced person who
is assigned by the company to a less experienced person in order to form an
interpersonal relationship with the purpose of providing ongoing job-related and
psychosocial supports for the personal adjustments and development in the
organization. The mentor may or may not be the immediate supervisor of the protégé.
This definition shares common fundamental attributes with other mentoring
definitions (Day & Allen, 2004; Godshalk & Sosik, 2000; Payne & Huffman, 2005) in
terms of the reciprocal relationship, developmental benefits, and regular interaction.
The hypotheses arguments and the design of the empirical study in this thesis are
based on this definition.
31
2.2 Mentoring Functions
In Kram’s (1985) original work, she concludes two types of mentoring functions
provided by a mentor. Career functions include sponsorship (e.g. public support of a
protégé; nominating a protégé for desirable lateral moves and promotions),
exposure-and-visibility (e.g. introducing a protégé to senior managers in the
organization who may judge his/her potential for further advancement), coaching (e.g.
providing suggestions for achieving work and career objectives), protection (e.g.
intervening in situations where a protégé is unable to achieve a satisfactory result),
and challenging assignments (e.g. assigning a challenging task followed by training
and feedback). Psychosocial functions include acceptance-and-confirmation (e.g.
exhibiting support and encouragement regarding the performance of a protégé),
counseling (e.g. listening to a protégé’s personal concerns and giving ongoing
feedback), friendship (e.g. social interaction with protégés after work; eating lunch
and sharing personal experiences), and role modeling (e.g. working as a model for
protégés to emulate the mentor’s attitudes, values, and behaviors). Despite the two
types of mentoring functions mentioned by Kram (1985), Scandura (1992) indicated
that role modeling is a separate mentoring function in addition to the career function
and the psychosocial function. In this study, I adopt Scandura’s (1992) approach. The
justification and the details of measurement will be discussed in Chapter 4.
32
2.3 Mechanisms and Consequences of Mentoring Functions
Previous research has found that mentoring has various outcomes which can
benefit not only protégés but also mentors and organizations. For example, scholars
have found that mentoring can lead to various outcomes for protégés such as job
satisfaction (Baranik et al., 2010), job performance (Pan et al., 2011), work-family
enrichment (Kwan et al., 2010), career success (Byrne, Dik, & Chiaburu, 2008),
career satisfaction (Pan et al., 2011), personal learning (Lankau & Scandura, 2002),
and affective well-being (Chun et al., 2012). Mentors can also benefit from mentoring.
Prior research has found that by providing mentoring functions, mentors can have a
high level of job effectiveness (Wanberg, Kammeyer-Mueller, & Marchese, 2006) and
affective well-being and can exhibit transformational leadership (Chun et al., 2012).
In recent research, scholars have been changing the focus to outcomes for the
organization. Research has found that mentoring is positively related to organizational
commitment (Chun et al., 2012; Payne & Huffman, 2005; Weinberg & Lankau, 2010),
organizational citizenship behavior (Kwan et al., 2011), organizational career
satisfaction (Byrne et al., 2008), and organizational socialization (Thomas & Lankau,
2009).
Despite the various outcomes of mentoring for protégés, researchers know little
about how mentoring works. Most of the studies focus on the personal learning of
protégés. For example, Lankau and Scandura (2002) found that personal learning
mediates the relationship between mentoring functions and outcomes. They divided
33
personal learning into two dimensions: relational job learning and personal skill
development. Furthermore, Kwan et al. (2010) used the same dimensions of personal
learning and found that two dimensions mediate the relationship between role
modeling and work-family enrichment. Pan et al. (2011) used personal learning as a
mediator in the context of supervisory mentoring. By using the same measurement
developed by Lankau and Scandura (2002), they found that personal learning
mediated the relationship between supervisory mentoring and two outcomes,
including job performance and career satisfaction. In addition to personal learning,
some scholars have tried to provide explanations from other perspectives. For
example, drawing from role theory, Lankau, Carlson, and Nielson (2006) found that
role stressors, including role ambiguity and role conflict, mediated the relationship
between mentoring functions and job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
Baranik et al. (2010) used social exchange theory and found that perceived
organizational support partially explained the effect of various mentoring functions on
job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intention. Sun et al. (2014)
found that psychological empowerment and OBSE mediated the relationship between
supervisory mentoring and two outcomes including contextual performance and
promotability.
2.4 Formal Mentoring Program
Formal mentoring program has become a popular employee development tool in
34
the organization (Allen, Eby, & Lentz, 2006a). Organizations use formal mentoring
program as a strategy for human resource development (HRD) practices (Hegstad,
1999). HRD is defined as “the integrated use of training and development, career
development and organization development to improve individual and organizational
effectiveness” (McLagan, 1989, p.7). Formal mentoring program is one type of HRD
practices because it can help protégés on their career and organization development
(Hezlett & Gibson, 2005).
As mentioned above, a formal mentor is a powerful agent in the organizational
socialization process (Chao, 2007). Companies invest in formal mentoring programs
with the aim of enhancing the socialization of newcomers. However, if protégés do
not believe that the mentoring functions provided by the mentors are supported by the
organization, the benefits of a formal mentoring program to the organization,
including organizational socialization, will hardly materialize. Therefore, it is
important for companies to ensure that mentoring functions provided in formal
mentoring programs contribute to protégé’s outcomes to the organization (Baugh &
Fagenson-Eland, 2007).
2.4.1 The Empirical Studies on Formal Mentoring
Similar to the studies on informal mentoring, researchers have examined the
effects of mentoring functions on protégé outcomes, including organizational
commitment (Seibert, 1999), job satisfaction (Raabe & Beehr, 2003), work role stress
35
(Seibert, 1999), mentorship quality (Allen et al., 2006a), and organizational
citizenship behavior (Okurame, 2012). In addition, researchers have also investigated
the outcomes related to a particular formal mentoring program, including perceived
program effectiveness (Allen, Eby, & Lentz, 2006b), satisfaction with the formal
mentoring program, and mentor effectiveness (Weinberg & Lankau, 2010). In terms
of the predictors of mentoring functions, researchers have examined the role of
similarity between formal mentors and protégés, including cognitive similarity and
gender composition (Armstrong, 2002). In addition, protégés’ personalities, such as
proactivity and openness, have been found to be positively related to the mentoring
functions provided (Wanberg et al., 2006). In terms of the boundary conditions,
researchers have found some moderators that can influence the effect of formal
mentoring on various outcomes. These moderators include protégé’s learning goal
orientation (Allen & O'Brien, 2006), power distance orientation (Chen, Liao, & Wen,
2014), emotional intelligence (Chun, Litzky, Sosik, Bechtold, & Godshalk, 2010),
perceived mentor responsiveness (Wanberg, Welsh, & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2007), and
protégé’s need for dominance (Horvath, Wasko, & Bradley, 2008).
In spite of the research on the predictors, outcomes, and boundary conditions in
the formal mentoring context, research on the underlying mechanisms between formal
mentoring functions and outcomes has received less attention in the literature. To the
best of my knowledge, only two studies have investigated the mediators, including
perceived psychological safety (Chen et al., 2014) and protégé’s commitment and
trust (Son & Kim, 2013), on the relationship between mentoring functions and
36
outcomes. Appendix A shows the summary of the empirical studies on formal
mentoring in the field of organizational behavior and psychology.
2.5 Organizational Socialization
In this section, I focus on the socialization tactics and newcomer’s adjustment in
the socialization, because this study focuses on how formal mentoring, which is a
program used as a socialization tactic, affects newcomer’s socialization outcomes
through socialization adjustments. Specifically, I will first introduce the several types
of socialization tactics. Then, I will briefly review the process of how newcomers
adjust in the organizational socialization.
2.5.1 Socialization Tactics
Organization may use different types of methods and programs to socialize
newcomers. Van Maanen and Schein (1977) have summarized these methods and
programs into six bipolar tactics. First, the collective (vs. individual) tactic involves
grouping newcomers together and transferring the organization knowledge through
common experiences. Second, the formal (vs. informal) tactics includes providing
training and orientation classes to socialize newcomers. Third, the sequential (vs.
random) tactic involves training the newcomers step by step through sequence. Fourth,
the fixed (vs. variable) tactic makes the socialization training by following a fixed
37
schedule. Fifth, the serial (vs. disjunctive) tactic involves providing a role model, such
as a supervisor, mentor or other experienced coworkers in the organization
socialization. Finally, investiture (vs. divestiture) affirms newcomer’s identity,
capabilities and attributes after entering into the organization. Following this approach,
Jones (1986) further grouped these six types of tactics into two categories.
Institutionalized socialization, including collective, formal, sequential, fixed, serial
and investiture tactics, reflects a structured program of socialization that reduces the
uncertainty and encourages newcomers to accept organizational values. Individualized
socialization, including individual, informal, random, variable, disjunctive and
divesture tactics, involves leaving the newcomers along without providing clear
guidance which may create ambiguity and encourage the newcomers to develop
through their own approach. Based on this definition, formal mentoring program can
be seen as an institutionalized socialization tactic because it is a formal and structured
program by assigning a mentor to provide guidance and training for newcomers.
2.5.2 Newcomer’s Adjustment during Organizational Socialization
In the seminal work of organizational socialization, Saks and Ashforth (1997)
concluded that institutionalized (vs. individualized) socialization tactics related to
various socialization outcomes, including job satisfaction, organizational commitment
and intention to stay. They also mentioned that these socialization tactics affect the
outcomes through various proximal adjustments. The proximal adjustments include
38
role clarity, person-organization fit, motivation, skill acquisition, social integration,
social identification and others. Socialization scholars try to classify these proximal
adjustments into different categories. For example, Bauer and Erdogan (2014) used
four categories including role ambiguity, self-efficacy, social acceptance and cultural
fit for newcomer’s adjustments. Bauer et al. (2007) concluded three categories,
including role clarity, self-efficacy and social acceptance. Saks, Uggerslev, and
Fassina (2007) used three categories including role conflict, role ambiguity and
perceived fit. Although socialization scholars use different approaches to classify
newcomer’s adjustments into different categories, these categories mainly reflect two
processes: learning and assimilation (Fang et al., 2010). Learning process includes
clarifying roles, acquiring organizational knowledge and mastering tasks, while
assimilation process includes identifying with organization and becoming socially
integration (Fang et al., 2010). This study adopts Fang and co-authors’ approach by
identifying newcomer’s adjustments into two processes (i.e. learning and
assimilation). The reason is that Fang et al’s approach is mostly consistent with the
mentoring literature by identifying learning as one of the important processes, because
majority of mentoring articles focus on the learning process between mentoring
functions and outcomes (see the review above). Adopting this approach makes it easy
to connect two streams of literature and examine how formal mentoring program
affects socialization outcomes through newcomer’s adjustments.
39
2.6 Research Gaps
From the above review of the mentoring and socialization literature, several
research gaps can be identified. First, we know little about how mentoring affects
socialization outcomes of newcomers in addition to the learning process. The
omission is significant because mentors may not only transfer the skills and
knowledge to the protégés through learning process, but also form a friend
relationship and show the care and concern on protégé’s personal growth. In support
of this argument, previous studies have found that mentoring function can also affect
protégé’s perceived organizational support and psychological safety (Baranik et al.,
2010; Chen et al., 2014). The lack of understanding how mentoring affects
newcomer’s socialization outcomes in addition to the learning process creates
significant research gap for both mentoring and socialization literature.
Second, we still know little about the role of mentor characteristics in
organizational socialization of newcomers. From the perspective of formal mentoring
program, the organization needs to recruit the appropriate mentors and assigned them
to protégés, because inappropriate mentor is a primary reason of low quality
mentoring relationship (Eby & Lockwood, 2005). From the perspective of
socialization, mentor is seen as the organizational agent that can facilitate the
socialization and influence newcomer’s interpretation of work environment (Ashforth,
2000). Therefore, mentor characteristic is a key factor that can influence the
effectiveness of both the formal mentoring program and socialization (Wanberg et al.,
40
2003). Future studies can contribute to this area of research by focusing on more
mentor characteristics that may influence formal mentoring program and
socialization.
Third, previous mentoring studies mainly focus on the professional and
white-collar workers (Bozionelos & Wang, 2006; Chun et al., 2012; Eby, Durley,
Evans, & Ragins, 2008b; Singh et al., 2009). Research examining the role of
mentoring on blue-collar workers is limited. Given that the dominant component of
the Chinese workforce is blue-collar workers in manufacturing companies (Editoral
Board of the China Commerce Yearbook, 2009), the insufficient mentoring research
on blue-collar workers makes it difficult to generalize the findings on mentoring
across different occupational settings and contexts. Researchers have been encouraged
to investigate the role of mentoring in different occupations since the meaning of
mentoring varies across different occupations (Haggard et al., 2010).
In a word, several research gaps can be identified in both mentoring and
socialization literature. Specifically, we know little about how (a) mentoring affects
newcomer’s outcomes in addition to the learning process (b) how mentor
characteristic can affect the effectiveness of formal mentoring program and
socialization outcomes, and (c) how mentoring works in the context of blue-collar
workers. Therefore, in order to fill the research gaps mentioned above, this thesis
investigates both the underlying mechanisms and the boundary conditions of formal
mentoring program by the use of the blue-collar sample. Drawing on the
belongingness theory, I propose that mentoring functions can affect newcomer’s
41
socialization outcomes through assimilation process. In the next section,
belongingness
theory
and
two
mediating
variables
(i.e.
OBSE
and
person-organization fit) are discussed.
2.7 Belongingness Theory
Belongingness theory proposes that people have a fundamental need to form and
maintain high quality relationships with others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Therefore,
a lack of need for belonging would cause adverse reactions and a variety of ill effects
(Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996; Thau, Aquino, & Poortvliet, 2007).
Belongingness is a powerful psychological motivation. It can be found in all
individuals across different cultures, although it may have different strength and
intensity for different people (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Ever since the
belongingness theory was introduced into the literature, it has received great attention
(being cited over 7000 times in the past two decades via Google Scholar) in different
research areas, including organizational behavior, clinical psychology, educational
psychology, and child psychology.
The belongingness needs of human beings can be explained by the evolutionary
theory. The basic view of evolutionary theory is that human beings, similar to other
animal species, have to face external selection pressures. In this view, human
behaviors can be understood as ways to adapt these pressures (Laland & Brown,
2011). One of the ways is to form and maintain social bonds and cooperate with
42
others for the purposes of survival and reproduction (Moreland, 1987; Nowak, 2006).
Therefore, human beings are motivated to establish social connections with others
(Brewer & Harasty, 1996; Dasgupta, Banaji, & Abelson, 1999; De Cremer, 2004).
This represents the basic need of human beings to “maintain high quality relationships
with others” (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Perceptions of social exclusion by others
lead to psychological pains and ill effects (Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams,
2003). Another view in the evolutionary theory is that human beings have to compete
for limited resources. According to Baumeister and Leary (1995), forming groups
provides favorable conditions for sharing and obtaining resources. Belonging to a
group facilitates cooperation with others. This helps human beings to obtain resources
and protect them against external pressures.
2.7.1 Need for Belonging and Organizational Socialization
Organizational socialization refers to the process by which newcomers adjust
themselves
psychologically
from
being
organizational
outsiders
to
being
organizational insiders (Bauer et al., 2007). It facilitates a newcomer’s adjustments to
work. Saks and Ashforth (1997) indicated that the effectiveness of socialization
program is related to various adjustment outcomes, including both proximal outcomes
(e.g. role clarity, social identification, and learning) and distal outcomes (e.g. job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, and work performance). One of the
underlying motives of newcomers to achieve these personal adjustments is their needs
43
for belonging (Ashforth, 2000). According to the belongingness theory (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995), people are motivated to maintain high quality relationships with others.
When newcomers enter an organization, they are motivated to form stable
interpersonal relationships with other organizational members. The cues perceived by
the newcomers for social inclusion or exclusion are seen as acceptance or rejection by
the organization. Researchers have found that workplace social inclusion affects
employee job performance (Pearce & Randel, 2004). A high quality of leader-follower
relationship and organizational supports reduce the likelihood of employee deviant
behavior by fulfilling their need for belonging (Ferris et al., 2009). In addition,
uncertainty reduction theory also explains newcomers’ need for belonging.
Newcomers face a high level of stress and anxiety when they enter a new organization
(Cable & Parsons, 2001; Van Maanen & Schein, 1977). This stress and anxiety mainly
comes from uncertainty about the work environment. According to uncertainty
reduction theory (Falcione & Wilson, 1988; Lester, 1987), newcomers are motivated
to reduce stress and anxiety by establishing social interactions with other
organizational members (Saks & Ashforth, 1997).
On the basis of the belonging theory, I propose that mentoring function can
satisfy newcomer’s need for belonging through two mediators: OBSE and
person-organization fit.
44
2.7.2 Organization-Based Self-Esteem
2.7.2.1 The Development of the Construct
Self-esteem is defined as a person’s overall self-evaluation of his or her
competencies (Rosenberg, 1965). It reflects how the person sees himself or herself “as
a competent and need-satisfying person” (Korman, 1970, p. 32). Self-esteem has been
studied in various fields such as psychology, management, and education. Researchers
have found different consequences related to self-esteem, including work, life, and
health outcomes (Orth, Robins, & Widaman, 2012; Sowislo & Orth, 2013; Steiger,
Allemand, Robins, & Fend, 2014). Many researchers have argued that self-esteem
should be a hierarchical and multifaceted construct. Therefore, in addition to global
self-esteem, which refers to the overall evaluation of competence and self-worth,
researchers have identified role-specific self-esteem and situation-specific self-esteem
in the literature. Role-specific self-esteem is the self-evaluation arising from one of a
person’s life roles, and situation-specific self-esteem is the self-evaluation resulting
from a specific situation (Simpson & Boyle, 1975).
On the basis of the concept of self-esteem and its hierarchical and multifaceted
nature, Pierce et al. (1989) defined OBSE as the degree to which a person sees
himself or herself as competent, significant, and self-worthy as an organizational
member. People with high OBSE are more likely to satisfy their needs through their
organizational roles (Pierce & Gardner, 2004). In this thesis, I focus on OBSE rather
than the other types of self-esteem because it is superior to other types of self-esteem
45
in terms of predicting organization-related outcomes (Pierce & Gardner, 2004). First,
global self-esteem has frequently been found to be insignificantly related to outcomes
in the organizational context. Second, little research has validated the construct of
global self-esteem in organizational research. Third, the measurement of self-esteem
should be aligned with the level of the research (Pierce et al., 1989).
2.7.2.2 Theorizing on Organization Based Self-Esteem
OBSE is a specific type of self-esteem. Pierce et al. (1989) argued that the
determinants of OBSE should be similar to the determinants of global self-esteem.
Researchers have suggested that global self-esteem can be affected in three ways
(Pierce & Gardner, 2004), including (a) the implicit signals sent by the organizational
structures, (b) messages sent from significant others, and (c) feelings of competence
from one’s past experiences.
In addition to the antecedents, researchers have employed various theories to
explain why self-esteem affects people’s attitudes, motivation, and behaviors. For
example, self-consistency motivation theory (Korman, 1970) posits that people tend
to engage in behaviors that maximize their sense of consistency and cognitive balance.
Therefore, people who have a positive image of themselves will engage in behaviors
that can enhance this self-image (Korman, 1970). Self-enhancement theory proposes
that people have the fundamental need to enhance their self-esteem. People with low
self-esteem are more likely to engage in behaviors that can prevent a further reduction
in their self-esteem (Campbell, 1990). Behavioral plasticity theory posits that people
46
with low self-esteem are more sensitive to external cues (Brockner, 1988). It provides
an alternative view on self-esteem, namely that individual differences in self-esteem
can influence the relationship between work environment conditions and employee
outcomes (Pierce & Gardner, 2004). Due to the similarity between global self-esteem
and OBSE (Pierce et al., 1989), these theories have also been used to explain OBSE in
the organizational context (Gardner, Dyne, & Pierce, 2004; Hui & Lee, 2000; Liu, Lee,
Hui, Kwan, & Wu, 2013b).
2.7.2.3 Organization-Based Self-Esteem and Belongingness Theory
In spite of the antecedents and consequences of self-esteem, researchers have
indicated that the motivation of people to pursue self-esteem is rooted in their
fundamental need for belonging (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Leary & Baumeister,
2000). According to the sociometer theory (Leary et al., 1995), an individual seeks
self-esteem not only for positive self-evaluation but also for relational evaluation,
which refers to the extent to which an individual sees his or her relationships with
others as “valuable, important or close” (Leary & Baumeister, 2000, p.9). Leary et al.
(1995) indicated that self-esteem is “an internal, subjective index or marker of the
degree to which the individual is being included versus excluded by other people” (p.
519). Therefore, individuals are motivated to monitor the environment to gather
information about the inclusion or exclusion in important relationships (Leary &
Baumeister, 2000). When people perceive that they have been accepted by a group,
their self-esteem will rise. On the other hand, low levels of acceptance or simply
47
being rejected by a group will lead to low levels of self-esteem (Williams, 2007).
Belongingness theory proposes that self-esteem is an indicator of the satisfaction of
one’s need for belonging (Leary & Downs, 1995). In the organizational setting, OBSE
is employed to measure employee self-esteem in the workplace. It has been shown to
reflect the satisfaction of the need for belonging of employees (Ferris et al., 2009).
2.7.2.4 Organization-Based Self-Esteem and Organizational Socialization
Researchers have found that organizational efforts on newcomers’ socialization
process help newcomers in the initial development of their OBSE. For example, in
their longitudinal study, Riordan, Weatherly, Vandenberg, and Self (2001) found that
institutionalized socialization tactics are significantly related to new employee OBSE.
They mentioned that a newcomer’s OBSE can be affected by the organizational
efforts on newcomer’s socialization, such as “providing role models, accepting and
respecting newcomers’ values, and providing information regarding career paths
within the organization” (p. 164). Researchers have also found that other
organizational factors, such as perceived organizational support (Ferris et al., 2009;
Lee, 2003), idiosyncratic employment arrangements (Liu et al., 2013b), and job
complexity (Lee, 2003), significantly affect employee OBSE. In addition to the
organizational factors, newcomers also gather information about the organization
from organizational insiders, including supervisors, coworkers, and other newcomers,
during the socialization process (Settoon & Adkins, 1997). Therefore, relationships
with organizational insiders play an important role in forming employees’ OBSE.
48
Researchers have found that interpersonal relationships with supervisors and
coworkers, such as workplace incivility (Chen et al., 2013), leader-member exchange
(Aryee, Budhwar, & Tan, 2003; Ferris et al., 2009), guanxi with a supervisor (Liu,
Hui, Lee, & Chen, 2013a), feeling trusted by a supervisor (Lau, Lam, & Wen, 2014),
and supervisory mentoring functions (Sun et al., 2014), are significantly related to
OBSE.
2.7.3 Person-Organization Fit
2.7.3.1 Definition of Person-Organization Fit
The concept of person-environment fit is defined as the compatibility between an
individual and a work environment that occurs when their characteristics are well
matched (Kristof ‐ Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). It is rooted in
interactional psychology, which focuses on the interactional effects of individual and
environment on human behaviors (Feldman, 1976; Jones, 1986; Lewin, 1951; Terborg,
1981). The foundations of person-environment fit are supported by various theories.
For example, the needs-press theory developed by (Murray, 1938) assumes that an
individual’s needs can be fulfilled by what Murray referred to as “press” (i.e.
environment; p. 151). It also distinguishes between actual and perceived press.
Lewin’s (1935, 1951) field theory makes a contribution to the concept of
person-environment fit by stating that human behavior is the interactional function of
both the person and the environment, not the person or the environment.
49
Person-environment fit has several dimensions in terms of different targets such as the
organization, the job, the vocation, and the group. Person-organization fit is one of
these dimensions. It is defined as the compatibility between people and organizations
that occurs when one or both of the following conditions exist: (a) at least one entity
provides what the other needs; (b) both entities share similar fundamental
characteristics.
2.7.3.2 Person-Organization Fit and Person-Organization Value Congruence
The word fit has two different meanings. Supplementary fit refers to the
congruence of characteristics between individual and organization, whereas
complementary fit occurs when the characteristics of one party complement the needs
or characteristics the other party lacks (Kristof, 1996). Of these two types of fits,
congruence between the individual’s and the organizational values is the most
frequently used operationalization of person-organization fit (Boxx, Odom, & Dunn,
1991; Chatman, 1989; O'Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991). Values represent the
individual’s conscious desires because values contain preferences, interests, motives,
and goals (O'Reilly et al., 1991; Van Vianen et al., 2013). Research has found that
people seek the organization that fits with their values. Value congruence influences
employees’ feelings of attachment to the organization (Cable & DeRue, 2002; Lauver
& Kristof-Brown, 2001). Therefore, values are “fundamental and relatively enduring”
to self-identity, and value congruence is a significant form of fit (O'Reilly et al., 1991,
p.459). The present study followed previous studies (e.g. Cable & DeRue, 2002;
50
Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001) to operationalize person-organization fit as value
congruence between the person and the organization.
2.7.3.3 Measurements of Person-Organization Fit
Three types of measurements are commonly used to assess person-organization
fit. The objective approach measures the actual fit between person and environment.
This measurement is used to compare characteristics (e.g. values) between the
separately rated individual and environment. Then, the index of actual fit is calculated
to assess the person-organization fit. In contrast to the objective approach, the
subjective approach measures the fit by asking the same respondents about both
individual and organizational values (Cable & Judge, 1996; French, Rodgers, & Cobb,
1974). For example, O'Reilly et al. (1991) used the Q-sort technique to assess
person-organization fit by calculating and comparing the individual’s and the
organizational value congruence. The individual’s values and the organizational
values are rated by the same sources. Similar to the subjective fit, the third type of
measurement is to assess the perception of person-organization fit instead of
calculating the fit index between individuals and the organization (Greguras &
Diefendorff, 2009; Vogel & Feldman, 2009). Respondents are invited to make a direct
assessment of the compatibility between them and the organization.
In this study, I will use the perceived fit approach to assess person-organization
fit for two reasons. First, this approach has been the most widely used in assessing
person-organization fit. It tends to have larger effect sizes than other types of
51
measurement (Resick, Baltes, & Shantz, 2007). Second, perceived fit provides a
psychological driven for attitudes and behaviors. Researchers have mentioned that the
influence of objective fit on the outcomes still needs to go through individual’s
perceptions (Kristof‐Brown et al., 2005). Therefore, compared with objective fit and
subjective fit, perceived fit is a more proximal determinant of attitudes and behaviors
(Cable & DeRue, 2002). This may be due to individuals’ propensity to interpret
environmental cues in ways that allow them to maintain a positive self-concept
(Endler & Magnusson, 1976; Kristof‐Brown et al., 2005).
2.7.3.4 Person-Organization Fit and Belongingness Theory
Researchers have indicated that people’s motivation to fit the social environment
is rooted in their need to belong (Kammeyer‐Mueller, Schilpzand, & Rubenstein,
2013; Van Vianen et al., 2013). Both evolutionary and psychological theories point
out that people try to seek out similar others in the workplace in order to fulfill their
need for affiliation and belonging (see the review above). For example, the
evolutionary perspective emphasizes that human beings choose to cooperate with
others in order to face and adapt to external selection pressures (Nowak, 2006). In this
process, similar others may reduce the uncertainty through cooperation. Therefore,
people are more likely to have a feeling of belonging when they perceive that there
are similar others in the social environment (Van Vianen et al., 2013). In addition,
various psychological theories, including the similarity-attraction paradigm (Byrne,
1971) and the self-affirmation theory (Steele, 1988), indicate that people like those
52
who hold similar opinions and views consistent with their belief system. Given their
fundamental need for belonging, people are motivated to monitor their social
environment for cues to assess their perception of person-organization fit. Researchers
have found that the perception of fit correlated to a sense of belonging (Mitchell,
Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, & Erez, 2001) and value congruence satisfies people’s need
for belonging and affiliation (Edwards & Shipp, 2007).
2.7.3.5 Person-Organization Fit and Organizational Socialization
People tend to search for and choose jobs in organizations that match their
personal self-concepts (Tom, 1971). On the other hand, organizations consider the fit
between job applicants and the organization as an important criterion in the
recruitment and selection process (Chatman, 1989; Ferris & Judge, 1991; Judge &
Ferris, 1992). However, researchers have indicated that person-organization fit may
change after organizational entry. For example, when tenure increases, employees
learn and accept the values and goals of the organization (Hall, Schneider, & Nygren,
1970; Hinrichs, 1964). In addition, person-organization fit is also a proximal outcome
of organizational socialization (Saks & Ashforth, 1997). For example, Cable and
Parsons (2001) discussed the effects of different organizational tactics on
person-organization fit. Furthermore, (Kim, Cable, & Kim, 2005) found that positive
framing, general socializing, and relationship building moderate the relationship
between institutionalized socialization and person-organization fit. In addition,
person-organization fit may also be linked to more distal socialization outcomes such
53
as employee attitudes and behaviors. For example, in the meta-analyses of
person-organization fit (Hoffman & Woehr, 2006; Kristof‐Brown et al., 2005;
Verquer, Beehr, & Wagner, 2003), research has found that person-organization fit has
a moderate to strong correlation with job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
intention to leave, and organizational satisfaction. Most of the research studying
organizational socialization adopts the value congruence approach by operationalizing
person-organization fit as the value congruence between individual and organization
(Cable & Parsons, 2001; Chatman, 1989; Kim et al., 2005; O'Reilly et al., 1991; Sluss
& Thompson, 2012). In this study, I adopt the same approach, because value system
of the organization affects what the organization wants to offer to the employees. In a
similar way, employee’s value system affects what the employee desires from the
organization (Cable & Edwards, 2004; Edwards & Shipp, 2007). Therefore, the
degree of the value congruence between the employee and the organization is more
influential to affect the satisfaction of psychological needs and adjustment (Greguras
& Diefendorff, 2009).
2.8 Conclusion
This chapter reviewed the concept of mentoring as well as the research gaps in
the mentoring literature. Then, the belongingness theory, which is the main theory
used in the thesis, was reviewed. Two variables (i.e. OBSE and person-organization fit)
employed to reflect the satisfactions of one’s need for belonging were respectively
54
reviewed. In the next section, I will discuss the details and arguments of the
hypotheses on the basis of the theory reviewed.
55
CHAPTER 3
THEORETICAL MODEL AND HYPOTHESES
This chapter provides the theoretical model and hypotheses of the study.
Specifically, it first introduces the theoretical model. Then, ten hypotheses are
discussed regarding (a) the effect of mentoring functions on OBSE, (b) the effect of
mentoring functions on person-organization fit, (c) the mediating effect of OBSE and
person-organization fit on the relationship between mentoring functions and three
socialization outcomes (i.e. affective organizational commitment, job satisfaction and
organizational citizenship behavior), (d) the moderating effect of mentor’s
organizational prototypicality on the relationship between mentoring functions and
two mediation variables, including OBSE and person-organization fit.
3.1 The Theoretical Model of the Research
This study examines the underlying mechanism between mentoring functions
and newcomer’s outcomes in the organizational socialization. Drawing on the
belongingness theory, employee’s assimilation process in the socialization was
considered to explain why their affective organizational commitment, job satisfaction
and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) would be affected by the supports
provided by their formal mentors.
56
Specifically, due to the needs for belonging, newcomers are motivated to monitor
their work environment for cues to assess social acceptance and value congruence.
Once newcomers feel socially accepted by other organizational members and perceive
fit into the organization, the increased OBSE and person-organization fit will lead to
more distal socialization outcomes including affective organizational commitment,
job satisfaction and OCB. Moreover, this study proposes that mentor’s organizational
prototypicality as a moderator on the relationship between mentoring functions and
two mediation variables. See Figure 1 for the conceptual model.
57
Figure 1. A Conceptual Model
Mentor’s
prototypicality
Protégé’s attitudes
Organizational
commitment
OBSE
Job satisfaction
Mentoring
Functions
Protégé’s behavior
PO fit
OCB
58
3.2 Mentoring Functions and OBSE
Self-esteem is not only a self-evaluation of competence and ability, but also a
relational evaluation regarding the focal individual feels social inclusion or exclusion
by others (Leary et al., 1995). As an indicator of one’s satisfaction of belongingness
needs, it varies according to one’s being accepted and rejected by others (Williams,
2007). In the organizational context, self-esteem is measured by OBSE which is an
indicator of social acceptance in the organization (e.g. “I am trusted around here” and
“I am valuable around here”; Ferris et al., 2009). Researchers have identified several
factors that can influence OBSE. Pierce and Gardner (2004) categorized these factors
into three sources: (a) the implicit signals of organizational structures, (b) messages
sent by the significant others at the workplace, (c) feelings of self-efficacy in building
role conditions. In this study, I argue that mentoring functions affects newcomer’s
OBSE because it reflects “messages sent by the significant others at the workplace”.
Support from the organization is an important source for social acceptance and
belongingness of employees (Ferries et al., 2009), because it signals that the
employees are significant, valued and accepted to be an effective organizational
member. Previous studies have supported this argument by finding that perceived
organizational support enhance employee’s feeling of social acceptance, and thus,
increase employee’s OBSE (Ferries et al., 2009). In contrast, failing to provide
support which communicates to the individuals that they are not valued promotes a
sense of exclusion and thwarts the need for belonging (Leary, Twenge, & Quinlivan,
59
2006). In addition to the supports from the organization, the interaction and
relationship between the organizational agent and the employee may also signal that
the employee is valued and socially accepted, which enhance employee’s OBSE. For
example, previous studies have demonstrated that employee’s feelings of being
respected and being trusted by the supervisor are positively related to OBSE (Pierce et
al., 1989; Lau et al., 2014).
Following this research line, I argue that supports from the formal mentors can
increase newcomer’s feeling of social acceptance, and thus, enhance newcomer’s
OBSE. For example, in terms of providing career function, publicly supporting the
newcomers (sponsorship) and introducing the newcomers to more senior managers for
the future advancement (exposure and visibility) signals that newcomers are valuable
and significant organizational members. Mentor may also teach and encourage the
newcomer to be an effective organizational member (coaching, acceptance and
confirmation), which may increase newcomer’s feeling of social acceptance. In terms
of providing psychosocial function, stable and quality friend relationship between the
mentor and newcomer (friendship) fosters newcomer’s attachment to the mentor.
Given that the interaction between mentor and protégéis a conduit for protégéto form
attitudes to the organization (Allen & Shanock, 2013; Ashforth, 2000), newcomers
may feel attached to the organization through their interaction and friendship with the
mentors. Newcomers may also see their mentors as role models and emulate mentor’s
behaviors and attitudes (role modeling). Once newcomers internalize mentor’s values
and attitudes to be an effective organizational member, they will be more likely to feel
60
social acceptance in the organization. In support of the above argument, findings from
previous study found that mentoring functions provided by the supervisor are
positively related to protégé’s OBSE (Sun et al., 2014).
Hypothesis 1: Mentoring functions provided by the formal mentors are positively
related to newcomer’s OBSE.
3.3 Mentoring Functions and Person-Organization Fit
Person-organization fit is an important indicator of newcomer’s socialization
adjustment (Saks & Ashforth, 1997). It is often operationalized as the perception of
value congruence between the focal individual and the organization (O’Reilly et al.,
1991), because value represents individual’s desirable states, objects, or goals which
are normative standards to judge the level of fit and guide the behaviors (Huang,
Cheng, & Chou, 2005).
Socialization scholars have mentioned that formal mentoring can increase
protégé’s perception of person-organization fit (Ostroff, 2012), although this
proposition has not been empirically tested. If mentors can increase newcomer’s
perception of person-organization fit, one explanation is that mentoring functions
provided by the formal mentors affect newcomer’s interpretation of the work
environment. Researchers indicate that individual’s assessment of person-organization
fit can be an affective and subjective response to the work environment (Edwards,
61
Cable, Williamson, Lambert, & Shipp, 2006). During the organization socialization,
mentors may provide several types of supports including career function,
psychosocial function and role modeling (Kram, 1985). High level of mentoring
functions provided by the formal mentors signals that the work environment is caring
and supportive, engendering the positive affect to the organization. Therefore,
newcomers may assess person-organization fit as the affective response to the
organization based on their perceptions of how well the organization satisfies their
needs, make effort to meet their expectations and build the high quality exchange
relationships (Sluss & Thompson, 2012). Besides, caring and supportive work
environment build the mutual and reciprocal relationship between the newcomers and
the organization (Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996). In this case, newcomers will be
more likely to accept organizational values rather than “rocking the boat”, when their
relational uncertainty has been reduced through the high quality relationship with the
organization (Cable & Parsons, 2001).
Another explanation is that mentoring functions foster newcomer’s value
congruence with the organization by accepting mentor’s values. When mentors
provide high level of mentoring functions, protégés may consider the mentoring
relationship to be effective (Weinberg & Lankau, 2010). The high quality mentoring
relationship motivates the protégé to take the mentor’s advice (Son & Kim, 2013),
which helps to internalize mentor’s values. Findings from leadership studies support
this argument by demonstrating that transformational leadership enhances follower’s
person-supervisor value congruence (Hoffman, Bynum, Piccolo, & Sutton, 2011). The
62
reason is that a leader who displays personal concern for the well-being of the
subordinate is likely to foster a strong sense of pride and commitment, leading to
subordinate’s acceptance of leader’s values (Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater, & Spangler,
2004; Hoffman et al., 2011). In the organizational context, employee’s values can be
congruent to the organizational values when the employee internalizes the values of
organizational agents. For example, charismatic leader can “shape” follower’s values
to be congruent with the organizational values by encouraging the follower to identify
with the leader and internalize leader’s values (Huang et al., 2005). Following the
same logic, I argue that newcomers will be more likely to perceive value congruence
with the organization once they have identified with the mentor and internalized
mentor’s values.
Hypothesis 2: Mentoring functions provided by the formal mentor are positively
related to newcomer’s person-organization fit.
3.4 The Mediating Role of OBSE and Person-Organization Fit
Organizational socialization literatures indicate that newcomer’s assimilation
process is an important mediating mechanism that links between socialization and
outcomes (Bauer et al., 2007; Fang et al., 2010). In newcomer’s socialization, mentors
play an important role as well as other organizational agents such as peers and
supervisors (Ashforth et al., 2007; Sluss & Thompson, 2012). Through mentoring
63
relationship, mentors not only transfer knowledge (Lankau & Scandura, 2002; Viator
& Scandura, 1991), but also fulfill newcomer’s needs for belonging. Building on the
belongingness theory, this study argues that formal mentoring affect newcomer’s
feeling of social acceptance and fit. Specifically, it proposes that mentoring functions
link to three employees outcomes including affective organizational commitment, job
satisfaction and OCB through two mediators: (a) the evaluation of social acceptance
(OBSE), and (b) the perception of fit into the organization (person-organization fit).
3.4.1 Affective Organizational Commitment
Affective
organizational
commitment
refers
to
“employee’s
emotional
attachment to, identification with and involvement in the organization” (Meyer &
Allen, 1991, p. 67). In a meta-analytic review of protégé’s outcomes, Allen, Eby,
Poteet, Lentz, and Lima (2004) mentioned that the most consistent protégé’s
outcomes are favorable affective reactions to the workplace. Affective organizational
commitment offers a frequently studied outcome of formal mentoring at workplace.
Scandura (1997) indicated three reasons to explain the relationship between
mentoring functions and affective organizational commitment: (a) mentoring
promotes organizational values which enhances the attachment to the organization, (b)
mentoring helps protégés cope with the stress and anxiety at the workplace, and
thereby, lead to positive attitudes to the organization, (c) protégés see mentors as role
models and imitate mentor’s positive attitudes.
64
In the present study, I argue that mentoring functions affect newcomer’s affective
organizational commitment through two assimilation mechanisms: OBSE and
person-organization fit. First, sociometer theory posits that self-esteem can be a
relational evaluation of being socially accepted by others (Leary et al., 1995). It
provides information about one’s status of social inclusion or exclusion (Leary et al.,
1995). Individuals with high self-esteem tend to feel good about themselves including
feelings of pride, self-satisfaction and confidence (Scheff, Retzinger, & Ryan, 1989).
In the organizational context, newcomers with high OBSE evaluate themselves to be
capable, significant and self-worth at workplace (Pierce et al., 1989). As noted before,
such evaluation reflects newcomer’s feeling of social acceptance and fulfillment of
belongingness need. Due to individual’s motivation to fulfill the fundamental needs
for belonging, newcomers are to seek social inclusion by maintaining quality and
stable relationship with others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Therefore, I expect that
newcomer’s with high OBSE tends to adjust themselves to feel attached and
committed to the organization in the socialization process, because failing of such
commitment may reduce the perception of an effective organizational member, which
engenders the feeling of social exclusion and thwarts sense of belongingness.
Empirical findings from previous studies supported this argument by demonstrating
that OBSE positively relates to affective organizational commitment (Hui & Lee,
2000; Lee & Peccei, 2007; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004). In the present study, I argue
that mentoring functions from formal mentors signal that newcomers are valued and
socially accepted by the organization, increasing OBSE. OBSE further engenders
65
positive affective response to the organization leading to affective organizational
commitment.
Hypothesis 3a: Newcomer’s OBSE mediates the relationship between mentoring
functions provided by formal mentors and affective organizational commitment.
Second, as noted in the last chapter, the motivation to seek person-organization
fit is rooted on human’s fundamental needs for belonging. A feeling of belonging is
most likely to be achieved when individuals perceive fit into the environment (Van
Vianen et al., 2013), because individuals who share similar values with other
organizational members should find it easier to work and commitment with others
(Cable & DeRue, 2002), which fulfill their belongingness needs to the organization.
Such fulfillment of psychological needs enhance their emotional bonds to the
organization, which leads to affective organizational commitment. Previous studies
supported this argument by finding that person-organization fit significantly related to
affective organizational commitment through satisfaction of psychological needs
(Greguras & Diefendorff, 2009). In the present study, I argue that mentoring functions
provided by the formal mentors bias newcomer’s perception of value congruence with
the organization. Such value congruence satisfies newcomer’s psychological needs
and further leads to affective organizational commitment.
Hypothesis 3b: Protégé’s person-organization fit mediates the relationship between
66
formal mentoring and affective organizational commitment.
3.4.2 Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction refers to a positive emotional state resulting from one’s job
experience (Locke, 1976). It can be derived from both intrinsic and extrinsic factors
(Herzberg, 1959). Intrinsic factors include development and opportunities for career
growth and job accomplishment, while extrinsic factors include reward satisfaction
and company policies (Walker, Churchill, & Ford, 1977). Mentoring can enhance
protégé’s job satisfaction in both intrinsic and extrinsic ways. For example, mentoring
functions such as career function, psychosocial function and role modeling aiming for
the personal development in one’s work increase the intrinsic satisfaction of the job.
Job satisfaction can be also achieved when mentor provides psychosocial supports
such as counseling, acceptance and confirmation display the supports from the mentor
and organization, which enhance the extrinsic satisfaction of the job. Previous
research has demonstrated direct relationship between mentoring and job satisfaction
(Baranik et al., 2010; Lankau et al., 2006; Lankau & Scandura, 2002). Meta-analysis
for mentoring outcomes also found a moderate correlation between mentoring and job
satisfaction (Allen et al., 2004; Underhill, 2006).
In the present study, I argue that mentoring functions provided by formal mentors
can enhance newcomer’s job satisfaction in two ways. First, newcomers with high
OBSE tend to hold the positive relational evaluation of being accepted as an effective
67
organizational member. These newcomers are motivated to maintain such evaluations
by focusing on the positive relational features of the work environment, such as
coworker and organizational supports. These relational features contribute to higher
job satisfaction by promoting positive job affect and preventing stress outcomes
(Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008). The findings of meta-analysis supported this argument
by demonstrating a strong correlation between OBSE and job satisfaction (Pierce &
Gardner, 2004). Following the discussion of Hypothesis 1, I argue that mentoring
functions provided by the formal mentors enhance newcomer’s OBSE, which further
leads to higher job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 4a: Newcomer’s OBSE mediates the relationship between mentoring
functions provided by formal mentors and job satisfaction.
Previous studies indicated that job satisfaction can be enhanced through the
perceptions of favorable job characteristics, coworker relationships and fulfillment of
psychological needs (Edwards & Cable, 2009; Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, 2010;
Russell et al., 2004). Employees who perceive fit into the organization tend to have
high level of psychological needs fulfillment (Greguars & Diefendorff, 2009).
Person-organization fit also promotes communication and trust within the
organization (Edwards & Cable, 2009), which facilitates job completion. Needs
fulfillment and job completion foster positive job feelings and emotion toward the job,
further leading to job satisfaction (Staw, Sutton, & Pelled, 1994). Meta-analysis has
68
supported the positive relationship between person-organization fit and job
satisfaction by identifying large effect size for this relationship (p=.56). Following the
discussion of Hypothesis 2, I argue that newcomers will be more likely to perceive fit
into the organization through the lens of mentoring relationship when their formal
mentors provide high level of mentoring functions. Then, person-organization fit will
further lead to job satisfaction. Therefore, I expect that person-organization fit
mediates the relationship between mentoring functions and job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 4b: Newcomer’s person-organization fit mediates the relationship between
mentoring functions provided by the formal mentors and job satisfaction.
3.4.3 OCB
OCB refers to “the individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or
explicitly recognized by the formal reward system and that in the aggregate promotes
the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1988, p. 4). Previous literatures
have investigated the role of mentoring on protégé’s OCB and argued that mentoring
affects protégé’s OCB because it facilitates socialization process, promotes positive
attitudes toward organization and role modeling from the mentors (Donaldson, Ensher,
& Grant-Vallone, 2000; Kwan et al., 2011; Tepper & Taylor, 2003). .
In addition to the relationship between mentoring and OCB, researchers have
found that OBSE and person-organization fit are significantly related to OCB. First,
69
researchers indicate that when employees perceive valuable and self-worthy in the
organization, they try to maintain such positive status through positive attitudes and
behaviors (Pierce & Gardner, 2004). In other words, employees are motivated to
engage in the behaviors that can reinforce this positive evaluation. Due to the
belongingness needs, individuals are willing to maintain high quality of interpersonal
relationship (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Therefore, high OBSE, which reflects
positive relational evaluation of social inclusion in the organization, fosters the
motivation to cooperate and comply with social groups (Den Hartog, De Hoogh, &
Keegan, 2007). When individuals have a strong sense of belongingness to the
collective group, they tend to pay more attention to the collective interests which
engender the sense of responsibility to benefit for the group (De Cremer & Van
Knippenberg, 2002). In support of this argument, researchers have found that the
sense of belongingness directly relates to OCB (Den Hartog et al., 2007). Previous
literatures have also demonstrated significant relationship between OBSE and OCB
(Chattopadhyay, 1999; Lee, 2003). In the present study, I argue that mentoring
functions enhance newcomer’s OCB through the satisfaction of social acceptance.
Hypothesis 5a: Newcomer’s OBSE mediates the relationship between mentoring
functions provided by formal mentors and OCB.
Second, person-organization fit affects OCB through both cognitive and affective
processes (Resick, Giberson, Dickson, Wynne, & Bajdo, 2013). When people
70
perceive fit with the organization, they tend to have high organizational identification
(Cable & DeRue, 2002), which actives the cognitive process to engage in the
citizenship behavior. In addition, person-organization fit also induces positive
affective experience, leading to cooperation and helping behavior in the organization
(Resick et al., 2013; Spector & Fox, 2002). In support of this argument, previous
studies have found significant relationship between person-organization fit and OCB
(Kristof, 1996; Hoffman & Woehr, 2006). Following the discussion of Hypothesis 2, I
expect that person-organization fit mediates the relationship between mentoring
functions and OCB of newcomers.
Hypothesis 5b: Newcomer’s person-organization fit mediates the relationship between
mentoring functions provided by formal mentors and OCB.
3.5 The Moderating Role of Mentor’s Organizational Prototypicality
Leadership researchers defined organizational prototypicality as the extent to
which the supervisor is perceived to be a typical and exemplary representative of the
organization (Sluss et al., 2012). A prototypical organizational member shares some
common characteristics including goals, values, beliefs and norms with the
organization (Pierro, Cicero, Bonaiuto, van Knippenberg, & Kruglanski, 2005; Sluss
& Ashforth, 2008). The more prototypicality organizational members have, the more
organizational members share similar characteristics which align with the collective
71
organization. Previous research has examined the role of supervisor’s organizational
prototypicality on leadership effectiveness. For example, researchers have found that
supervisor’s organizational prototypicality links to leadership effectiveness (Pierro et
al., 2005). It also moderates the relationship between leadership style and leadership
effectiveness (van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005), and leader-member
exchange and affective organizational commitment (Eisenberger et al., 2010). In the
eyes of the subordinate, supervisor differs in the degree of similarity to the
organization. Subordinates not only see their supervisors as organizational agents, but
also as individuals on behalf of their own right. The perception of similarity between
the supervisor and the organization affects subordinate’s exchange relationship and
identification from the supervisor to the organization (Eisenberger et al., 2010; Sluss
et al., 2012).
Organization employs formal mentoring program for the newcomer’s
organizational socialization. There is an assumption that mentoring functions
provided by the mentors are believed to be carried out on behalf of the organization.
Therefore, newcomers form the attitudes and perception to the organization through
the lens of mentoring relationship with the mentors who are seen as organizational
agents (Chao, 2007). Mentoring literatures support this view. For example, social
exchange theory proposes that mentoring functions provided by the mentors are
positively related to protégé’s perception of organizational support (Baranik et al.,
2010). In contrast, protégé’s psychological contract breach by the mentor results in the
perception of psychological contract breach by the organization (Haggard, 2011).
72
Despite these findings, it is essential to test this assumption. Consistent to the
leadership research on supervisor’s organizational prototypicality, I define mentor’s
organizational prototypicality as the extent to which the mentor is perceived to be a
typical and exemplary representative of the organization. I argue that formal mentor
differs in the degree of similarity with the organization in the eyes of protégés. When
organizational prototypicality is high, mentor is seen as organizational agent to
transmit organization values to protégés and facilitate protégés’ learning and
socialization process. In contrast, when organizational prototypicality is low, mentor’s
supports to the protégés are more likely to be regarded as mentor’s own behavior.
Prototypicality affects the interpretation of organizational support through the lens of
formal mentoring, and the attachment to the organization through the organization
agent (Sluss et al., 2012). Therefore, I argue that the effect of mentoring function on
newcomer’s adjustments (i.e. OBSE and person-organization fit) depends on the
prototypicality of the mentor.
OBSE reflects the satisfaction of being valued and included by the organizational
members (Williams, 2007). It derives from messages sent by the meaningful and
significant others at the workplace (Pierce & Gardner, 2004). Prototypical
organizational agents can be the meaningful and significant others because they
represent the organization in the eyes of the newcomers. Therefore, I argue that the
prototypicality of the mentor moderates the relationship between mentoring function
and OBSE. When the perception of mentor’s organizational prototypicality is high,
newcomers tend to see the mentor as a “meaningful and significant other” due to the
73
similarity between the mentor and the collective organization. In contrast, when the
perception of mentor’s organizational prototypicality is low, protégés are difficult to
form the perception of being valued and included by the collective organization,
because the messages from a non-prototypical organizational member cannot
represent other organizational members.
Hypothesis 6a: Mentor’s organizational prototypicality moderates the relationship
between mentoring functions provided by formal mentors and OBSE, such that the
relationship is stronger when mentor’s organizational prototypicality is high.
Although the proposition that newcomer’s person-organization fit derives from
prototypical organizational members has not been tested yet, researchers argue that
the values and behaviors of prototypical organizational member affect the
identification process to the organization and the perception of person-organization fit
(Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008; Sluss & Thompson, 2012; Van Vianen et al.,
2013). Due to the need for belonging, newcomers are motivated to monitor the work
environment to seek information from other organizational members about whether
they fit into the organization. Prototypical organizational members, such as
supervisors, formal mentors and coworkers, are important sense making resources in
the socialization process (Settoon & Adkins, 1997). When formal mentors are
perceived to have high level of organizational prototypicality, they are seen as
organizational agent. Protégé is more likely to form the perception of
74
person-organization fit based on the values and attitudes of the formal mentors in the
socialization process. In contrast, when formal mentors are perceived to have low
level of organizational prototypicality, newcomers will be less likely to adopt
mentor’s values as organizational values. In this case newcomers will be more likely
to seek information from other sources (e.g. coworkers, supervisors and other
organizational members) about information to assess fit or misfit into the organization.
As a result, the relationship between mentoring functions and person-organization fit
will be weakened when newcomers believe that their mentors are not prototypical
organizational members.
Hypothesis 6b: Mentor’s organizational prototypicality moderates the relationship
between mentoring functions provided by formal mentors and person-organization fit,
such that the relationship is stronger when mentor’s organizational prototypicality is
high.
75
CHAPTER 4
METHODOLOGY
This chapter outlines the research methods and the detailed information about the
samples. First, it introduces the information of research context. Second, this chapter
discusses the data collection procedure. A time-lag data collection procedure was used
to collect data from the perspectives of both mentors and protégés in the current study.
Third, this chapter provides the details of all the measures used in the analysis
including independent variables, mediator variables, moderator variable and
dependent variables. Finally, it discusses the data analysis technique and briefly
explains its appropriateness in the current study.
4.1 Research context
Research on mentoring has mainly focused on the professions or white-collar
workers (Lankau, Riordan, & Thomas, 2005; Weinberg & Lankau, 2010). Based on
the reasons mentioned in Chapter 1, it is interesting and significant to investigate the
effects of mentoring in other occupational groups such as blue-collar workers
(Bozionelos & Wang, 2006; Kwan et al., 2011). In addition, given the predominant
role of blue-collar workers in Chinese workforce (Editorial Board of the China
Commerce Yearbook, 2009), it is also important to access the generality of mentoring
76
research in China into blue-collar workers. Therefore, to address the aforementioned
contributions in Chapter 1, the current study collected data from blue-collar workers
in China.
Data were collected from a manufacturing company producing audio equipment
in Guangdong Province of China in late 2013. This company has over 1,200 full time
employees in Guangdong manufacturing base. Majority of the employees are
production line workers. Haggard et al. (2010) indicated that researches use
considerable variety of mentoring definitions in the mentoring literature. The
inconsistent definition of mentoring would call into question the conclusions from the
findings. Therefore, before the data collection, I had short interviews with the general
manager and HR director and four protégés to understand the nature of formal
mentoring program in this company. The company has a one-year formal mentoring
program designed for all the newcomers. After new employees enter into the company,
each of them will be assigned as a protégé by the company to one experienced
employee (i.e. mentor). The company launched the formal mentoring program two
years ago. The purpose of the formal mentoring program is to socialize newcomers
and reduce the turnover rate. The rationale for implementing the program is to transfer
the job and organizational knowledge to the newcomers, so that the newcomers can
better understand their job. In the meanwhile, mentors can provide help and support in
protégé’s life after work because most of the mentors and protégés live in the
dormitory of the company. Therefore, it is in line with the definition of mentoring
provided in Chapter 2 which is an activity that the organization formally assigns a
77
newcomer to a more experienced or senior organizational members with the purpose
of providing support and direction (Day & Allen, 2004; Chun et al., 2012). Normally,
the experienced employees, also called mentor, come from the same production
department with the new employees. The company believes that mentors and protégés
working in the same production department can share expertise and response to both
work and non-work related concerns in the organization. Mentors can be either the
direct team leader or other senior employees in the production department. It is
common for the direct supervisors to be the mentors in the formal mentoring program
in China (Wang et al., 2010). All the employees who have over two-year
organizational tenure can join the program as mentors. The participation of mentors is
on a voluntary basis. But the process of matching the dyadic of mentors and protégés
are made by the program coordinators. One mentor can have several protégés,
depending on the number of qualified mentors and new employees in the production
department. Before protégés are assigned to mentors, HR department will deliver a
short seminar to the mentors about the company value and communication skills.
4.2 Data Collection Procedure
Most prior mentoring research is based on protégé’s self-report of both
mentoring functions and outcomes (Allen et al., 2008). In order to avoid the common
method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003), I followed prior
studies (Chun et al., 2012; Weinberg & Lankau, 2010) to collect data from both
78
mentors and protégés in different waves. Specifically, mentoring was accessed by
mentor’s rating of mentoring functions provided in Time 1. It was employed to predict
protégé’s self-report outcomes measured in both Time 1 and Time 2. Table 4 shows
the detailed information of data collection sources and schedule. Time 2 protégé’s
self-report measures were accessed three weeks later than Time 1 protégé’s measures.
The time lag was enough to create temporal separation (Podsakoff et al., 2003), which
was applied by prior organizational behavior studies (Neubert, Kacmar, Carlson,
Chonko, & Roberts, 2008; Tsai, Chen, & Liu, 2007).
Samples were selected from the employees who are currently in the formal
mentoring program. In order to encourage the participation of the data collection,
small gifts were prepared for each protégés who finished the questionnaires every
time. Both mentors and protégés who had answered all the questions in the given
questionnaires could have opportunities to win more valuable prizes by the lucky
draw at Time 2. All the newcomers who were engaged in the formal mentoring
program were selected as the potential sample. At Time 1, department of human
resource helped to distribute the questionnaires to both newcomers and their mentors.
Newcomers were asked to write down their names and ID. Mentors were asked to
write down both their protégés’ names and their own names. The respondents were
informed by the statements at the beginning of the questionnaires that all the
information collected would be kept confidential. After filling in the questionnaires,
the respondents returned the questionnaires in the sealed envelopes which were
provided by me along with each questionnaire. 342 sets of questionnaires were
79
distributed to both mentors and protégés. 246 questionnaires for protégés and 241
questionnaires for mentors were returned back, representing the response rates of 72%
and 70% respectively. At Time 2, similar to the procedure of Time 1, the second sets
of questionnaires were sent to the protégés who have returned their questionnaires at
Time 1. Finally, 209 questionnaires for protégés were returned back, representing the
response rates of 85%. After deleting some questionnaires due to the missing values
of key variables, 203 paired samples (including 203 protégés and 114 mentors) were
included in the final sample. I tested for nonresponse bias by comparing the
demographic information between the final sample and those who did not participate
at Time 2, as well as between the final sample and those were excluded due to the
missing values of key variables. Specifically, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
conducted on protégé’s age (response versus nonresponse: F=0.82 n.s.; completed
versus dropped: F=0.01 n.s.), gender (response versus nonresponse: F=0.18 n.s.;
completed versus dropped: F=0.02 n.s.), educational level (response versus
nonresponse: F=0.02 n.s.; completed versus dropped: F=2.02 n.s.), organizational
tenure (response versus nonresponse: F=0.07 n.s.; completed versus dropped: F=0.80
n.s.). The results showed that no significant difference between the response and
nonresponse, and the completed questionnaires and the dropped questionnaires.
Of these respondents, 141 protégés were male (69.5%) and 62 protégés were
female (30.5%). The average age of protégés was 25.8 years old. 123 protégés (60.6%)
had secondary school or lower education level, 56 protégés (27.6%) had high school
education level and 24 protégés (11.8%) had college or higher education level. The
80
average organizational tenure of protégés was 4.63 months. 110 protégés (54.2%)
indicated that their mentors were their direct supervisors. Of the 114 mentors, the
average age of mentors was 30.0 years old. 76 mentors were male (66.7%) and 38
mentors were female (33.3%). 54 mentors (44.7%) had secondary school or lower
education level, 45 mentors (39.5%) had high school education level and 15 mentors
(11.4%) had college or higher education level. The average organizational tenure of
mentors was 3.5 years.
One may argue that the average tenure of newcomers was 4.63 months, which
was too small to see the change of newcomers in the socialization process. However,
the job nature of the blue-collar workers in this company were more routine and
simple than other white-collar workers. Therefore, the participants in this study may
have shorter learning and assimilation curve in the organization socialization, which
may support short socialization period. In addition, previous researchers have also
indicated that short socialization period (e.g. 4 months) is enough for socialization
outcomes (Saks, Gruman, & Cooper-Thomas, 2011).
81
Table 4. The Sources and Measuring Time of the Scale Used in the Study
Variables
Independent
variable
Mentoring
functions
Person-organization
fit
Mediators
Moderator
Organizational
based self-esteem
(OBSE)
Organizational
prototypicality
Affective
organizational
commitment
Scale source
Scandura and
Ragins (1993)’s
15-item scale
Cable and
DeRue (2002)’s
3-item scale
Pierce and
co-authors
(1989)’s 10-item
scale
Hirst, Van Dick
and van
Knippenberg
(2009)’s 5-item
scale
Allen and Meyer
(1990)
3-item scale
from Michigan
Organizational
Assessment
Dependent
Job satisfaction
Questionnaire
variables
(Cammann,
Fichman,
Jenkins & Klesh,
1979)
Organizational
Lee and Allen
citizenship
(2002)’s 16-item
behavior (OCB)
scale
Note: Time 2 was measured three weeks after Time 1.
82
Data source
Data
collection
Mentor
Time 1
Protégé’s
self-report
Time 1
Protégé’s
self-report
Time 1
Protégé’s
self-report
Time 1
Protégé’s
self-report
Time 2
Protégé’s
self-report
Time 2
Protégé’s
self-report
Time 2
4.3 Measures
All the measures for both mentors and protégés used in the current study were
employed from the established scale. Unless otherwise stated, respondents answered
all the measures based on five-point Likert scales, ranging from 1 “strongly disagree”
to 5 “strongly agree”. Since data were collect in China and all the measures in the
current study were originally developed and validated in English, back-translation
procedure was applied to translate the measures from English to Chinese (Brislin,
1980). First, measures were translated into Chinese, and another bilingual
management scholar translated the measures back into English. Second, the
back-translated English measures were compared with the original English measure to
make sure that no important keywords were missing during the translation. Before I
distributed the questionnaires, the human resource manager of the target company was
invited to review the measures to make sure that the questions were appropriate for
the respondents. Appendix B shows the measures used in the current study.
4.3.1 Independent Variable
Mentoring function was measured by Scandura and Ragins (1993)’s 15-item
scale, adapted from Scandura (1992)’s Mentorship Scale. Researchers use different
scales to measure mentoring function. The measurements which are often used
include the 18-item scale developed by Dreher and Ash (1990), the 17-item scale by
83
Noe (1988), the 33-item scale by Ragins and McFarlin (1990), and the 15-item scale
used by Scandura and Ragins (1993). In this study, I used Scandura and Ragins
(1993)’s scale because recent meta-analysis has found that this scale is more strongly
related to protégé outcomes than other mentoring measures (Kirkpatrick-Husk,
Weaver & Kendall, 2014). Previous literatures have demonstrated satisfactory levels
of reliability and validity for the three-factor structure of this scale (Scandura &
Ragins, 1993; Scandura & Williams, 2001). It has been widely used to measure
mentoring functions in the context of formal mentoring by various studies (Allen et al.,
2006b; Wang et al., 2010; Weinberg & Lankau, 2010). Following previous study
(Chun et al., 2012), I worded the questions to ask mentors about their mentoring
function provided to the protégés. Six items measured career support, five items
measured psychosocial support and four items measured role modeling. Sample items
include “I take a personal interest in his/her career/job” (career function); “My
protégé shares personal problems with me” (psychosocial function); and “My protégé
respects my knowledge of the profession” (role modeling). The scale showed an
acceptable reliability in the current study (α=0.90). A second-order confirmative
factor analysis (CFA) produced satisfactory fit indices (χ2[87] = 212.45, p≤.001;
RMSEA= 0.08, CFI =0.96, TLI = 0.95), which demonstrated that the distinct three
factors would also collectively reflect an overall construct.
84
4.3.2 Mediators
Protégé’s organization-based self-esteem was measured by Pierce et al (1989)’s
10-item scale. This scale was developed and validated by Pierce et al (1989), and has
been previously used in Chinese context (Chen & Aryee, 2007; Liu et al., 2013b).
Sample items include “I count around here”, “I am taken seriously around here” and
“I am important around here”. Cronbach’s alpha of this measure was 0.84.
Protégé’s person-organization fit was measured by Cable and DeRue (2002)’s
3-item scale. I followed previous research and measured person-organization fit as
value congruence between employee and organization (Chatman, 1989; Lauver &
Kristof-Brown, 2001). Sample item includes “The things that I value in life are very
similar to the things that my organization values”. Cronbach’s alpha of this measure
was 0.79.
4.3.3 Moderators
Mentor’s organizational prototypicality was measured by Hirst, Van Dick and
van Knippenberg (2009)’s 5-item scale, which was adapted from the previous works
on leader’s prototypicality (Platow & van Knippenberg, 2001; van Knippenberg &
van Knippenberg, 2005). Previous research has used this scale to measure leader’s
group prototypicality (Cicero, Pierro, & van Knippenberg, 2007; Hirst, 2009) and
leader’s organizational prototypicality (Koivisto, Lipponen, & Platow, 2013). In the
current study, I worded the questions to ask the protégés about their mentor’s
85
organizational prototypicality. Cronbach’s alpha of this measure was 0.81.
4.3.4 Dependent Variables
Affective organizational commitment was measured by Allen and Meyer
(1990)’s affective commitment scale. This measure has eight items. A sample item
includes “This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me”. Cronbach’s
alpha of this measure was 0.84.
Job satisfaction was measured by a 3-item scale from Michigan Organizational
Assessment Questionnaire (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1983). A sample
item includes “In general, I don’t like my job”. Cronbach’s alpha of this measure was
0.87.
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) was measured by Lee and Allen
(2002)’s 16-item scale. Respondents were asked to indicate how often they engaged in
these behaviors by the use of 5-point scales (1 = never, 5 = always). Sample items
include “I adjust my work schedule to accommodate other employees’ requests for
time off” and “I keep up with developments in the organization”. Cronbach’s alpha of
this measure was 0.94.
4.3.5 Control Variables
Prior studies on formal mentoring (Chun et al., 2012; Wanberg et al., 2003) have
86
identified several potential confounders that should be considered in the mentoring
study. Following their research, I considered protégé’s age, gender, education level,
organizational tenure and supervisory status as potential control variables in the
current study. Respondents were asked to write down their actual age. Gender was
measured by “1 = male” and “2 = female”. Education level was measured by “1 =
primary school or below”, “2 = secondary school”, “3 = high school”, “4 = associate
degree or professional diploma” and “5 = university degree or above”. Organizational
tenure was measured by asking the respondents to indicate the time they had worked
for the current organization. Supervisory status was measured by asking the
respondents whether their mentors were direct supervisor. It was indicated by “1 =
yes” and “2 = no”. Gender composition between protégés and mentors were coded by
“1 = same gender” and “2 = different gender”. It is noted that non-significant control
variables will reduce the statistical power of the structural equation modeling (Becker,
2005). Therefore, following previous studies (Sluss et al., 2012; Wu, Tsui, & Kinicki,
2010), I will only control the significant variables on the particular endogenous
variables in the research model.
4.3 Data Analysis Technique
I will test the hypotheses mentioned in Chapter 3 by the following steps. First, I
will conduct confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to check both the convergent and
discriminant validity of the measurement model. Second, a serious of tests will be
87
conducted to provide additional information of the sample, including means, standard
deviations and correlations. Third, I will use structural equation modeling (SEM) the
hypotheses in the research model.
Two methodological approaches have been widely used to test mediation effects
in the management and organizational behavior research literature (James, Mulaik, &
Brett, 2006; Schneider, Ehrhart, & Mayer, 2005). The two approaches are Baron and
Kenny (1986)’s four-step mediation test and James and Brett (1984)’s structural
equation modeling (SEM). In the following section, I will briefly discuss the reasons
of using SEM in the current study.
Structure equation modeling (SEM) examines the structure of interrelationships
among different variables (Hair, Tatham, Anderson, & Black, 2006). When
researchers test the mediation effects by multiple regressions, the independent
variable in one regression equation can be the dependent variable in another
regression equation. For example, the role of the mediator variable at the step 2 of
Baron and Kenny (1986)’s method is the dependent variable. Meanwhile, the role of
the mediator variable at the step 3 is the independent variable. One major advantage
of SEM is that SEM allows for all of the relationships among different variables in the
model to be estimated simultaneously (Hair et al., 2006). The current research model
contains one moderation variable and two mediation variables, which too complicated
to use hierarchical linear regression. Therefore, it is more appropriate to use SEM to
test the model simultaneously. According to James et al. (2006), mediation effects can
be supported when all parameter estimates in the hypothesized model are significant,
88
and the overall model has an acceptable goodness-of-fit. The full and partial
mediation can be determined by the comparison of two mediation models by
examining the significance of chi-square change.
Bootstrapping is considered as a more effective way to confirm mediation effect
compared with other methods (Hayes, 2009). Although some researchers suggest the
Sobel (1982) test to check the indirect effect between the independent variable and the
dependent variable via the mediator, the Sobel test is not appropriate in the current
study for several reasons based on the review by Preacher and Hayes (2008) and
Hayes (2009): (1) it requires the assumption of normal sampling distribution of the
indirect effect. Therefore, it is more appropriate in large samples; (2) the current
research model contains two mediators. Examining the total indirect effects between
the independent variable to the dependent variable via two mediators by the Sobel test
is questionable. Bootstrapping is a process that resamples from the original samples to
obtain a larger sample size (Hayes, 2009). It makes no assumption that the samples
are normally distributed, which is suggested and applied by various researchers for
mediation test following SEM approach (e.g. de Stobbeleir, Ashford, & Buyens, 2011;
Dong, Seo, & Bartol, 2013). Therefore, I will first use SEM approach to test the two
mediators (i.e. OBSE and person-organization fit). Then, I will conduct bootstrapping
to investigate the total indirect effect and each individual indirect effect in a single
multiple mediation model. This step can help to confirm the total indirect effect as
well as the specific indirect effect conditional on the inclusion of the other mediator
(Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Bias Corrected Confidence Intervals (BC CI) will be used
89
to determine the significance of the indirect effects, which is superior to the
product-of-coefficients strategy in terms of statistical power and Type I error rates
(Williams & MacKinnon, 2008).
90
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS
This chapter presents the results of the data analysis from the empirical study. It
is organized into four sections. The first section presents the results of confirmatory
factor analysis to show the validation of the measured variables. The second section
shows the results of the means, standard deviation and correlations the variables. The
third section presents the results of hypothesis testing. As mentioned in the last
chapter, there are two steps for the hypothesis testing. SEM will be used to test the ten
hypotheses. Then, the six mediation hypotheses will be confirmed by the
bootstrapping method.
5.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Since the measurements in the current study were adopted from different studies
in the literatures, I conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in structure equation
modeling (SEM) to check both the convergent and discriminant validity of the
measurement model. Bentler and Chou (1987) indicate that the sample-to-parameters
ratio for SEM should be between 5:1 and 10:1. However, the sample-to-parameters
ratio of this study is out of this range. Therefore, I followed the previous literature
(Landis, Beal, & Tesluk, 2000) to parcel the items of each construct which contains
over five items. This partial disaggregation technique (Bagozzi & Edwards, 1998)
91
reduces the total number of parameters to be estimated in the measurement model,
and thus it is more suitable for the study with small sample size. It is superior to other
parceling strategies in terms of the better representation of the true factor structure,
the likelihood of biased estimates of parameters and the inflation of fit indices
(Eisenberger et al., 2010; Hall, Snell, & Foust, 1999). Specifically, I applied the
parceling strategy on the constructs containing over five items, including mentoring
functions, OBSE, affective organizational commitment and OCB. I created three
subsets of items for the mentoring functions and two subsets for organizational
citizenship behavior by parceling the items to each dimension (i.e. career function,
psychosocial function and role modeling for mentoring functions, and OCBO and
OCBI for OCB). The two constructs were represented by three indicators and two
indicators respectively. I also created five subsets of items for OBSE and four subsets
for affective organizational commitment. The procedure of parceling was followed the
recommendation by Little, Cunningham, and Shahar (2002). The item of the highest
loading was combined with the item of the lowest loading to create the first parcel.
Then, the item of the second highest loading was combined with the item of the
second lowest loading to create the second parcel, and so on. The further SEM test
was also based on these parceled constructs.
A series of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to check the
convergent and discriminant validity of the measured variables. Convergent validity
examines the extent to which indicators of a specific construct share a high proportion
of variance in common, while discriminant validity examines the extent to which a
92
construct is distinct from others (Hair et al., 2006). The model fit was accessed by the
overall model’s chi-square, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)
(Browne, Cudeck, & Bollen, 1993), comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990) and
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI; Tucker & Lewis, 1973). First, I examined the seven-factor
model including the variables of mentoring function, organizational prototypicality,
OBSE, person-organization fit, affective organizational commitment, job satisfaction
and OCB. This model fitted the data well (χ2(254) = 379.99, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.97; TLI
= 0.96; RMSEA = 0.050) and all the factor loadings were significant. Therefore, the
convergent validity was supported.
Since all the measured variables were rated by the protégés, except for the
mentoring function which was rated by the mentor, I conducted a series of alternative
CFA models and compared them with the baseline model. The model comparison
results were accessed by the change of chi-square test. The results showed in Table 5
revealed that the baseline model (seven-factor model) was better than any other
alternative models. Hence, both convergent and discriminant validity demonstrated
the distinctiveness of the seven variables in the current study. Given the results, all the
variables were used in the subsequent analysis.
93
Table 5. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis
∆df
∆χ2
0.086
0.074
0.099
0.075
6
6
6
6
268.58**
165.61**
391.19**
0.070
0.069
6
6
139.40**
127.77**
One-factor Model
2030.09
275
0.57
0.53
0.178
21
Notes: *p<0.05; **p<0.01.
TLI is Tucker-Lewis Index; CFI is the comparative fit index; and RMSEA is the root-mean-square error of approximation.
1650.10**
Seven-factor model
Six-factor models
PO fit and OBSE combined
Prototypicality and PO fit combined
Protoypicality and OBSE combined
Job satisfaction and Affective organizational
commitment combined
Job satisfaction and OCB combined
Affective organizational commitment and Job
satisfaction combined
χ2
df
CFI
TLI
RMSEA
379.99
254
0.97
0.96
0.050
648.57
545.60
771.18
559.14
260
260
260
260
0.90
0.93
0.87
0.93
0.89
0.92
0.85
0.92
519.39
507.76
260
260
0.94
0.94
0.93
0.93
94
5.2 Descriptive Statistics
Table 6 shows the means, standard deviation and zero-order Pearson correlations
of the variables used in the analysis. As expected, mentoring function was positively
correlated to OBSE (r = .15, p ≤ .05) and person-organization fit (r = .32, p ≤ .01).
OBSE was positively correlated to affective organizational commitment (r = .25, p
≤ .01), job satisfaction (r = .26, p ≤ .01) and OCB (r = .17, p ≤ .05).
Person-organization fit was also positively correlated to affective organizational
commitment (r = .27, p ≤ .01), job satisfaction (r = .28, p ≤ .01) and OCB (r = .32, p
≤ .01). In addition, some control variables were found to be significantly correlated to
the measured variables. For example, protégé’ age was positively correlated to
person-organization fit (r = .23, p ≤ .01), affective organizational commitment (r = .18,
p ≤ .05), job satisfaction (r = .21, p ≤ .01) and OCB (r = .14, p ≤ .05). Protégé’s
gender was negatively correlated affective organizational commitment (r = -.17, p
≤ .05) and OCB (r = -.19, p ≤ .01). Protégé’s education was positively correlated to
OBSE (r = .15, p ≤ .05). Supervisory status was negatively correlated to OCB (r =
-.14, p ≤ .05) and gender composition was negatively correlated to OBSE (r = -.16, p
≤ .05). The results of Pearson correlations were in line with the predictions. In the
next section, I used SEM approach and bootstrapping to further test the hypothesized
relationships.
95
Table 6. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1. Age
2. Gender
.03
3. Education
-.08
-.18*
4. Tenure
.17*
-.11
.06
5. Supervisory status
-.03
.12
-.06
-.20**
6. Gender composition -.04
-.42** .08
.15*
.04
7. Mentoring
-.02
-.02
-.05
.14*
.06
-.03
(.90)
8. Prototypicality
.06
.08
-.06
-.19** .10
-.06
.09
(.81)
9. OBSE
.11
-.01
.15*
-.03
-.02
-.16*
.15*
.32** (.84)
10. PO fit
.23** .10
-.09
-.02
-.06
-.11
.32** .45** .29** (.79)
11. Org commitment
.18*
-.17*
.13
-.01
-.00
-.04
.22** .20** .25** .27**
12. Job satisfaction
.21** -.09
.07
-.09
.04
-.08
.18*
.14*
.26** .28**
13. OCB
.14*
-.19** .06
.01
-.14*
-.08
.05
.24** .17*
.32**
Mean
25.82 1.30
2.47
4.63
.46
.79
3.78
3.52
3.61
3.29
SD
7.57
.46
.80
3.65
.50
.41
.46
.59
.46
.65
Notes: N=203. Values in parentheses along the diagonal represent the reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) for the scale.
96
11
12
13
(.84)
.57**
.37**
3.36
.53
(.87)
.35**
3.57
.64
(.94)
3.23
.69
5.3 Hypothesis Testing
5.3.1 Design Effect
In the current study, mentoring function provided was rated by 114 mentors. It
was possible that one mentor rated the variable of mentoring function for more than
one protégé, which would cause a nested effect. That is, one mentor’s rating of
mentoring function to one protégémay influence his or her rating to another protégé.
Therefore, following the previous studies (Wei, Chiang, & Wu, 2012; Xu, Huang,
Lam, & Miao, 2012), I calculated the design effect to see whether the data needed to
aggregate into group level. The design effect is superior to ICC(1) in terms of
checking the nested effect because ICC(1) is very sensitive to the average group size
(Kaiser, Woodruff, Bilukha, Spiegel, & Salama, 2006).
The results indicated that the design effect was 1.49 for mentoring function,
which was below the conventional cutoff value of 2 (Kaiser et al., 2006). In other
words, mentor’s rating was relatively independent and not significantly influenced the
results of the study. Therefore, the results of design effects supported to use SEM to
analyze data at the individual level.
5.3.2 Structural Equation Modeling
Since the model of this study included both mediation and moderation effects, I
followed the approach came from Mathieu, Tannenbaum, and Salas (1992) to create
97
the interaction term. The variables of mentoring function and organizational
prototypicality were centered to create the interaction term because this could help to
prevent multicollinearity. Following the suggestions by Mathieu et al. (1992) and
Cortina, Chen, and Dunlap (2001), I set the error and measurement path of the
interaction term by the following formula:
 = sqrt ()
2 = 1 × (1 - )
 = (1 ×2 + r2)/(1 + r2)
Notes:  is the value for the path from the latent construct to its indicator; sqrt ()
means the square roots of the reliabilities of the variables; r means the correlation
between the components of the interaction term.
5.3.3 The Main Effects and the Mediation Effects
The results (see Table 7) indicated that the hypothesized mediation model fitted
the data well (χ2(257) = 461.67, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.93; TLI = 0.92; RMSEA = 0.063).
The results (see Figure 2) also showed that mentoring function was significantly
related to OBSE (ß= .19, p ≤ .05) and person-organization fit (ß= .38, p ≤ .01), which
supported Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2. In addition, OBSE was positively related to
affective organizational commitment (ß= .26, p ≤ .01) and job satisfaction (ß= .27, p
≤ .01), but was not significantly related to OCB (ß= .10, n.s.). Person-organization fit
was significantly related to affective organizational commitment (ß= .33, p ≤ .01), job
98
satisfaction (ß = .29, p ≤ .01) and OCB (ß = .40, p ≤ .01). In order to test the partial
and full mediation effects, three alternative models were conducted by linking
mentoring function and three protégé’s outcomes. The results of the change of
chi-square test indicated that three alternative models were not significantly improved
and all the three additional paths were not significant, which supported the full
mediation models. In addition, I conducted another two alternative models by linking
OBSE and person-organization fit as a process model instead of the two-mediator
structure. The results revealed that the hypothesized mediation model (two-mediator
structure) was better than any of these two alternative models. Therefore, the above
results supported Hypothesis 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b and 5b, but not supported Hypothesis 5a
due to the insignificant relationship between OBSE and OCB.
To further support for the hypotheses, I bootstrapped with 1000 samples to
construct bias-corrected confidence intervals for the significant tests of the indirect
effect (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Results in Table 8 showed that the indirect effect of
OBSE, person-organization fit and the total indirect effect for affective organizational
commitment and job satisfaction were significant at 95% confidence intervals
(confidence intervals exclude zero). The indirect effect of person-organization fit and
the total effect for OCB were also significant at 95% confidence intervals (confidence
intervals exclude zero). But the indirect effect of OBSE for OCB was insignificant at
95% confidence intervals (confidence intervals include zero). The above
bootstrapping results provided further support to Hypothesis 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b and 5b.
99
Figure 2. SEM Results of Mediation Test
0.26**
OBSE
Affective
organizational
commitment
0.27**
0.19*
0.10 n.s.
Job
satisfaction
Mentoring
0.33**
0.38**
0.29**
PO fit
0.40**
OCB
Notes: N = 203; This is a simplified version of the actual model. It does not show indicators, error terms, exogenous factor variances, and
correlations between exogenous factors. Control variables and their paths are not shown for the sake of clarity; *p<0.05; **p<0.01.
100
Table 7. Results of Model Comparison
χ2
Models
Hypothesized mediation model
461.67
Partial mediation models
Adding Mentoring to organizational
459.51
∆df
∆χ2
0.063
1
-2.16 n.s.
df
CFI
TLI
RMSEA
257
0.93
0.92
0.063
256
0.93
0.92
commitment
Adding Mentoring to job satisfaction
Adding Mentoring to OCB
459.27
461.28
256
256
0.93
0.93
0.92
0.92
0.063
0.063
1
1
-2.40 n.s.
-0.39 n.s.
Alternative models
Mentoring OBSE PO fit
Mentoring PO fit  OBSE
487.01
471.91
260
260
0.93
0.93
0.91
0.92
0.066
0.064
3
3
25.34**
10.24*
Hypothesized moderation model
391.76
253
0.96
0.94
0.052
4
Notes: N = 203; *p<0.05; **p<0.01.
TLI is Tucker-Lewis Index; CFI is the comparative fit index; and RMSEA is the root-mean-square error of approximation..
101
-69.91**
Table 8. Results of Bootstrapping
Percentile 95%
CI
Affective
OBSE
0.031
0.006, 0.071
organizational
PO fit
0.074
0.017, 0.148
commitment
Total effect
0.104
0.037, 0.187
OBSE
0.040
0.003, 0.095
Job satisfaction
PO fit
0.069
0.004, 0.166
Total effect
0.109
0.031, 0.207
OBSE
0.018
-0.119, 0.066
OCB
PO fit
0.157
0.064, 0.264
Total effect
0.175
0.077, 0.282
Notes: BC=bias corrected; BCa=bias corrected and accelerated; 1,000 bootstrap samples.
Mediators
Effect
102
BC 95%
CI
0.003, 0.077
0.022, 0.161
0.040, 0.191
0.005, 0.099
0.009, 0.173
0.031, 0.209
-0.008, 0.080
0.072, 0.278
0.087, 0.292
BCa 95%
CI
0.003, 0.079
0.022, 0.157
0.040, 0.191
0.006, 0.099
0.009, 0.172
0.032, 0.210
-0.008, 0.080
0.076, 0.284
0.090, 0.293
5.3.4 The Moderation Effects
Results on Table 7 showed that the hypothesized moderation model fitted the
data well (χ2(253) = 391.76, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.96; TLI = 0.94; RMSEA = 0.052). In
addition, the relationship between the interaction term on OBSE (ß= .19, p ≤ .05) and
person-organization fit (ß = .19, p ≤ .05) were significant, supporting Hypothesis 6a
and 6b. Then I plotted the interactions on Figure 4 and Figure 5 with the values of the
moderator plus and minus one standard deviation from the means (Aiken & West,
1991). Figure 4 showed that the relationship between mentoring function and OBSE
was significant (ß = .28, p ≤ .01) when mentor’s organizational prototypicality was
high, but was not significant (ß = -.10, n.s.) when mentor’s organizational
prototypicality was low. Similarly, Figure 5 showed that the relationship between
mentoring function and person-organization fit was significant (ß= .63, p ≤ .01) when
mentor’s organizational protoypicality was high, but was not significant when
mentor’s organizational prototypicality was low (ß = .09, n.s.). The above results
further supported Hypothesis 6a and 6b. The summary of the findings were shown on
Table 9.
103
Figure 3. SEM Results of Moderation Test
Mentor’s
prototypicality
0.41**
0.24**
0.19*
OBSE
Affective
organizational
commitment
0.24**
0.08 n.s.
0.10 n.s.
Job
satisfaction
Mentoring
0.32**
0.29**
0.27**
PO fit
0.19*
0.41**
Mentor’s
prototypicality
OCB
0.52**
Notes: N = 203; This is a simplified version of the actual model. It does not show indicators, error terms, exogenous factor variances, and
correlations between exogenous factors. Control variables and their paths are not shown for the sake of clarity; *p<0.05; **p<0.01.
104
Figure 4. The Moderation Effect of Mentor’s Organizational Prototypicality on
the Relationship between Mentoring Function and OBSE
Figure 5. The Moderation Effect of Mentor’s Organizational Prototypicality on
the Relationship between Mentoring Function and Person-Organization Fit
105
Table 9. Summary of the Data Analysis Results
Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1
Mentoring  OBSE
Hypothesis 2
Mentoring  PO fit
Hypothesis 3a
Mentoring  OBSE  Org commitment
Hypothesis 3b
Mentoring  PO fit  Org commitment
Hypothesis 4a
Mentoring  OBSE  Job satisfaction
Hypothesis 4b
Mentoring  PO fit  Job satisfaction
Hypothesis 5a
Mentoring  OBSE  OCB
Hypothesis 5b
Mentoring  PO fit  OCB
Hypothesis 6a
Prototypicality moderates Mentoring 
OBSE
Hypothesis 6b
Prototypicality moderates Mentoring 
PO fit
106
Results
Supported
Supported
Full mediation
Full mediation
Full mediation
Full mediation
Not supported
Full mediation
Supported
Supported
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This chapter offers the discussion and conclusion of the study. Specifically, it
will first discuss the results from the empirical study. Second, both theoretical and
practical implications will be discussed to point out the contributions of this study.
Third, this chapter will present both strengths and limitations of this study.
Suggestions for future research will be discussed based on the limitations. Finally, a
conclusion will be made to summarize the findings of this study.
6.1 Review of the Research Findings
6.1.1 The Main Effects of Formal Mentoring on Psychological Adjustment
The results supported the first two hypotheses linking formal mentoring to
protégé’s psychological adjustment. Specifically, first, mentoring functions provided
by the formal mentors positively affected protégé’s OBSE. This finding is consistent
with previous studies linking supervisory mentoring and OBSE (Sun et al., 2014).
Second, the results indicated that mentoring functions positively affected protégé’s
perception of person-organization fit in the in newcomer’s organizational socialization.
Although no previous study has empirically tested this relationship, the finding is
consistent with the research findings of socialization tactics from socialization
107
literature. For example, researchers found that institutionalized tactics were positively
related to newcomer’s perception of person-organization fit (Cable & Parsons, 2001;
Kim et al., 2005). Institutionalized tactics refer to a structured and systematic program
of socialization that reduces newcomer’s stress and ambiguity and encourages them to
accept the organizational values and norms (Cable & Parsons, 2001). Formal
mentoring program is seen as a form of institutionalized socialization tactics because
it is intervened by the organization to provide newcomers systematic guidance to be
the organizational members in the socialization process. The significant relationship
between mentoring functions provided by the formal mentors and newcomer’s
perception of person-organization fit supports the proposition that newcomers tend to
accept and conform to the organizational values when an organization provides
planned and systematic socialization tactics (Cable & Parsons, 2001).
6.1.2 The Mediating Effects of OBSE and Person-Organization Fit
Hypothesis 3, 4 and 5 proposed that protégé’s OBSE and person-organization fit
mediated the relationship between mentoring function and three socialization
outcomes. The two-mediator structure was tested and confirmed by the SEM and
Preacher and Hayes (2008)’s bootstrapping method. First, the results supported
Hypothesis 3a and 3b that OBSE and person-organization fit mediated the
relationship between mentoring function and affective organizational commitment.
The results of the SEM suggested the full mediation model that mentoring function
108
indirectly affected protégé’s affective organizational commitment through OBSE and
person-organization fit. Significant results of bootstrapping indicated that both
mediators (i.e. OBSE and person-organization fit) explained unique variance between
mentoring function and affective organizational commitment. Second, similar to the
results of Hypothesis 3, Hypothesis 4a and 4b were supported. Specifically, OBSE
and person-organization fit fully mediated the relationship between mentoring
function and job satisfaction, suggesting that mentoring function indirectly affected
job satisfaction through these two mediators. These findings are in line with the
previous studies which indicate that fulfilling sense of belongingness is an important
source of organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Mathieu, 1991;
Winter-Collins & McDaniel, 2000).
The results also indicated that person-organization fit fully mediated the
relationship between mentoring function and OCB, supporting Hypothesis 5a. This
finding is consistent with previous studies on the relationship between
person-organization fit and OCB (Chen & Chiu, 2008; Shin & Choi, 2010). It also
supports the findings from previous studies suggesting that fulfilling need for
belonging is a motivation to engage in helping and citizenship behaviors (Den Hartog
et al., 2007; Kidwell, Mossholder, & Bennett, 1997). However, Hypothesis 5b was not
supported due to the insignificant relationship between OBSE and OCB, which was
not in line with my prediction. At first glance, this result was in contradiction with the
findings in the previous studies that have found the significant relationship between
OBSE and OCB (Chattopadhyay, 1999; Lee, 2003; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004).
109
Specifically, the results indicated that when OBSE and person-organization fit were
tested simultaneously, person-organization fit mediated the relationship between
mentoring function and OCB, but OBSE did not. One possible explanation is that
previous studies only focused on one factor (OBSE or person-organization fit), giving
less attention to compare the impacts of the two. This study tested the mediating
effects of OBSE and person-organization fit simultaneously. When both OBSE and
person-organization fit were included in the research model, the relationship between
OBSE and OCB became non-significant. However, when I re-analyzed the model
again by removing the variable of person-organization fit, OBSE became significantly
related to OCB. Bootstrapping results showed that OBSE significantly mediated the
relationship between mentoring function and OCB (BC CI ranged from 0.002 to 0.096
excluding zero) when person-organization fit was omitted. This result suggested that
person-organization fit is more influential to explain the effect of mentoring function
on newcomer’s OCB. Another explanation is that newcomers with low OBSE,
indicating they currently have low level of social acceptance, will still work harder to
help others because they want to seek for social acceptance by other organizational
members in the future. The findings by DeWall, Baumeister, and Vohs (2008) have
supported this argument. Through a series of experiments, they found that people with
thwarted belongingness were motivated to work harder and perform better on the next
task when the next task is helpful to recover the feeling of social acceptance. If this is
the case, OBSE is less important to predict OCB of newcomers. The results of this
study suggested that newcomers with low OBSE may still report high OCB when
110
person-organization fit of newcomers are high. However, this idea is speculation
because it is based on the pattern of the findings. Future research is needed test this
idea.
6.1.3 The Moderating Effects of Mentor’s Organizational Prototypicality
The results supported Hypothesis 6a and 6b, suggesting that mentor’s
organizational prototypicality moderated the relationship between mentoring function
and the two mediator variables. Specifically, when mentor’s organizational
prototypicality is high, which represents that mentors share similar characteristics
with the organization in the eyes of the protégés, the effect of mentoring function on
OBSE and person-organization fit will be stronger than the effect when mentor’s
organizational prototypicality is low. Although no previous study has investigated the
role of mentor’s organizational prototypicality in literature, studies in the leadership
literature provide some evidences. For example, Eisenberger et al. (2010) found that
when leader shared characteristics with the organization in the eyes of the followers,
the relationship between leader-member exchange and affective organizational
commitment was stronger. Shoss, Eisenberger, Restubog, and Zagenczyk (2013) also
found that when followers perceived to be abused by such leader, they would attribute
this mistreatment to the negative evaluation by the organization. Sluss et al. (2012)
demonstrated that leader’s organizational prototypicality moderated the relationship
between relational identification and organizational identification. Therefore, the
111
findings of these two hypotheses are consistent with the previous studies examining
the role of organizational prototypicality on how the relationship with the
organizational agents influences the attitudes to the organization.
6.2 Theoretical Implications
This study makes three distinctive contributions to the literature. First, it extends
the belongingness theory to explain how mentoring function affects socialization
outcomes of newcomers through assimilation process. Specifically, this study
investigated the underlying mechanism of mentoring function by proposing two
mediators (i.e. OBSE and person-organization fit). According to the belongingness
theory (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), newcomers are motivated to monitor the work
environment for cues about their social acceptance by other organizational members
and value congruence with the organization. The results indicated that fulfilling the
sense of belongingness from the supports of formal mentors enhanced protégé’s
OBSE and person-organization fit leading to positive socialization outcomes.
Previous studies on the mediation effects of mentoring mainly focused on the learning
process (Liu & Fu, 2011; Pan, Sun & Chow, 2011; Lankau & Scandura, 2002; Kwan
et al., 2010). This study contributes to the mentoring literature by proposing an
alternative insight on how mentoring function affect socialization outcomes of
newcomers through assimilation process. It also responsed to the call for more
research on the mechanism which can reveal the “black box” of mentoring (Chandler,
112
Kram, & Yip, 2011).
Second, this study provides empirical evidence on the relationship between
mentoring function and person-organization fit. Previous researcher proposed that
socialization program such as formal training and formal mentoring might be related
to newcomer’s person-organization fit (Ostroff, 2012). However, no previous research
has empirically tested this relationship. Therefore, this study contributes to the
socialization and person-organizational fit literature by empirically testing this
relationship during early socialization stage of newcomers.
Third, leadership studies have mentioned the importance of leader’s
organizational prototypicality in the process when subordinates transfer the positive
attitudes from the leader to the organization (Eisenberger et al., 2010; Shoss et al.,
2013; Sluss et al., 2012). This is the first study to examine the role of mentor’s
organizational prototypicality in the mentoring-socialization link, which extends our
knowledge about the role of mentor’s characteristic in the organizational socialization
of newcomers. This study shows similar findings that when mentor’s organizational
prototypicality is high, support from formal mentors is more likely to lead protégés to
form positive attitude and judgment to the organization, such as feeling of social
acceptance and value congruence with the organization. The findings of this study
also responses to the call for considering “mentor’s shared identity with the
organization” in the mentoring process (Hu, Wang, Yang, & Wu, 2014).
Fourth, this study extends our understanding on how blue-collar workers react to
the formal mentoring program in the organizational socialization. The jobs of
113
blue-collar workers have traditionally seen as “largely routine and repetitive” (Halle,
1984, p. 105). Both academic scholars and practitioners have paid increasing attention
on this type of work force from different perspectives (e.g. Iverson & Roy, 1994;
Huang, 2011; Lucas, 2011). One of these perspectives is how blue-collar workers are
assimilated into the organization in the socialization process, because one of the key
work motivations for blue-collar workers is the acceptance of organizational norms,
values and practices (Burawoy, 1979; Gibson & Papa, 2000). Therefore, the findings
of this study contribute to the socialization literature by demonstrating how
blue-collar workers react to the formal socialization program (i.e. formal mentoring).
This study also responses to the call for investigating the effect of mentoring in
different occupations (Bozionelos & Wang, 2006).
6.3 Practical Implications
The findings of this study provide several practical implications for human
resources managers to design and implement the formal mentoring program. First,
this study provides evidence that formal mentoring program works on the blue-collar
workers in a manufacturing company in China. It is also noted that the mean value
and the median value of protégé’s age in the sample are 25.8 and 23.0 respectively.
Therefore, almost half of the respondents were post-90s young workers. Given that
manufacturing industry in China suffers large turnover rate, especially for the
post-90s young workers (Li & Lu, 2014), managers may implement the effective
114
formal mentoring program because formal mentors can help protégéincrease OBSE
and person-organization fit, leading to both organizational commitment and job
satisfaction. Employee’s turnover intention can be reduced when the employee
perceives high organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Tett & Meyer, 1993).
Second, the results indicate that formal mentoring can affect protégé’s OBSE and
person-organization fit, leading to both attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. Therefore,
managers may carefully monitor the quality of mentoring relationship to ensure that
formal mentors provide effective and appropriate support to the protégés. If formal
mentors do not provide high quality support to the protégés, protégé’s may not only
have negative self-evaluation as an effective organizational member and perceive
person-organization misfit, but also may suffer from the negative experience. Recent
mentoring scholars have shifted the research interest from positive mentoring
experience to negative mentoring experience (Eby, Butts, Lockwood, & Simon, 2004;
Eby et al., 2008b). Formal mentoring relationship, which is formed and intervened by
the organization, is more likely to involve negative mentoring experience than
informal mentoring due to the mismatch of the dyadic and lack of mentor’s expertise
(Eby et al., 2004). Since negative mentoring experience can lead to protégé’s
depressed mood and psychological job withdrawal (Eby et al., 2004), it is essential for
managers to ensure the supports from the formal mentors are effective.
Third, the significant effects of OBSE and person-organization fit on both
attitudinal and behavioral outcomes, except for the insignificant effect of OBSE on
OCB, suggest that fulfilling employee’s belongingness needs is an important source of
115
positive attitudes and behaviors. Managers may consider ways to enhance employee’s
perception of social acceptance and value congruence with the organization. On the
other hand, managers may promote organizational values and encourage the
employees to accept the values. Recruiting people who have similar value to the
organization may also help because employee’s value congruence with the
organization directly affects the attitudes and behaviors.
Fourth, the moderating effect of mentor’s organizational prototypicality provides
the implication for managers to select the appropriate mentor. Since the mentor and
the protégé from a formal mentoring relationship are often matched by the
organization, mentor’s and protégé’s common characteristics such as similarity and
congruence on motivational orientations have been examined in the previous studies
(Hirschfeld, Thomas, & Lankau, 2006; Lankau et al., 2005). This study provides an
additional boundary condition that mentor’s organizational prototypicality can
influence the effectiveness of mentoring process. Managers are suggested to not only
consider the common characteristics in the matching process, but also to consider the
prototypicality of the mentor. The findings of the study help managers select
appropriate mentors for the formal mentoring program. In addition, managers may
suggest the formal mentors to show their prototypicality to the protégés which may
also enhance the effectiveness of the formal mentoring. One possible way is to
encourage the formal mentors to express their favorable attitudes toward the
organization in the mentoring process (Eisenberger et al., 2010).
Finally, the results of this study demonstrated the significant effect of mentoring
116
function on the socialization outcomes of newcomers. Researchers have indicated that
formal mentoring is one of the human resource development (HRD) practice in the
organization (Marchington & Wilkinson, 2008). HR professionals play an important
role to provide information and develop a successful mentoring program (Hirschfeld
et al., 2006). Therefore, the findings of this study provide implication for HR
professions to include formal mentoring program in the HR and socialization system
of the organization.
6.4 Strengths of the Research
This study has several strengths. First, it is theory driven. Drawing on the
belongingness theory (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), this study examines both the
mediation and moderation effects in the mentoring process and responses to the calls
by various mentoring scholars to advance the explanatory theory of mentoring
(Bozeman & Feeney, 2007; Chandler et al., 2011).
Second, this study collected data from both mentors and protégés perspectives.
The lack of dyadic data from both sources in the mentoring literature has been
criticized by various mentoring scholars (Allen et al., 2008; Eby, Lockwood, & Butts,
2006). The data collection method used in the current study can help to reduce the
common method bias and strengthen the causal relationships in the model (Cook,
Campbell, & Day, 1979; Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Third, in addition to collecting the data from dyadic sources, this study also
117
collected data from protégé’s perspectives in two waves. The design of the data
collection procedure can further reduce the possibility of common method bias
(Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Fourth, the sample size in the study is large (N=203) comparing to other
empirical studies on formal mentoring (see the summary in Appendix A). The large
sample size obtains higher statistical power for testing the interaction effects in SEM,
since interaction effect is often hard to detect in small sample size (Champoux &
Peters, 1987; McClelland & Judd, 1993).
Fifth, this study used SEM to test the model of two mediators, and then used the
bootstrapping method suggested by Preacher and Hayes (2008) to confirm the
structural model of the two mediators. To be specific, Preacher and Hayes’s (2008)
model can help to confirm the indirect effects of one mediator after controlling the
effect of the other mediator. This approach has been widely accepted to test mediation
effects with multiple mediators, which is superior to the method only using regression
or SEM (Christian & Ellis, 2011; Dong et al., 2013).
6.5 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
In spite of the strengths mentioned above, this study still has several limitations
deserving to specifically mention. First, although I collected data to measure the two
mediator variables (i.e. OBSE and person-organization fit) and the three outcome
variables in two waves, all these five variables were assessed by protégé’s self-report
118
which might still suffer the threat for common method bias (Podsakoff & Organ,
1986). However, I followed the common practice by using Harman’s one factor test to
check the variance explained by each factor and conducting confirmatory factor
analyses to show the distinctiveness of the constructs (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986;
Richard, Ismail, Bhuian, & Taylor, 2009). Therefore, I believe this is not a major
concern in the current study. However, future research may still consider to collect
information from different sources. For example, collecting the information about
OCB from mentors or coworkers perspective may see whether the results of the study
can be repeated.
Second, this study collected data in two waves which is superior to the majority
of mentoring studies collecting data in one time. However, mentoring functions and
two mediator variables were collected in the same wave which is still in the nature of
cross sectional data. Therefore, it is still hard to determine the causality of the
variables
(Cook
et
al.,
1979).
For
example,
researchers
indicated
that
person-environment fit can be a response to job satisfaction (Yu & Yang, 2013). It is
possible that mentoring functionss affect person-organization fit through job
satisfaction. Although the effect of person-organization fit on job satisfaction has been
studied by previous research (Kristof‐Brown et al., 2005), the causality of how
formal mentoring influences person-organization fit and job satisfaction may be still
not clear. Future research should employ longitudinal method to explore how
person-organization fit and job satisfaction changes over time after newcomers enter
the organization.
119
Third, this study did not consider other types of supports in newcomer’s
socialization process. For example, in the context of this study, supports from the
supervisors and coworkers who are not protégé’s formal mentors may still influence
newcomer’s socialization outcomes (Raabe & Beehr, 2003; Settoon & Adkins, 1997).
Consider other sources (e.g. supervisors and coworkers) may also provide supports
similar to the formal mentors, future research should include these factors and show
that whether formal mentoring can explain additional variance.
Fourth, data were collected from one formal mentoring program, the generality
of the findings from the study is open to the question. Given that different companies
may have different designs, including matching process and mentor training, for the
formal mentoring program which influences the effectiveness of the mentoring (Allen
et al., 2006a, b), future research should replicate this study by collecting data from
multiple formal mentoring programs. In addition, because the meaning of mentoring
varies across different occupations (Haggard et al., 2010), future research should
examine the effect of formal mentoring in other industries. One particular industry
that has received insufficient research on mentoring program is the hospitality
industry. Hospitality industry has high turnover rate of employees (Shen & Huang,
2012), partially because the hospitality employees suffer from high level of job
burnout (Kang, Twigg & Herzman, 2010) and low level of job satisfaction (Shen &
Huang, 2012), organizational support (Cho, Johanson, & Guchait, 2009) and
socialization (Yang, 2010). Mentoring program may be important for hospitality
employees because mentors may provide not only the job-related supports, but also
120
the psychosocial supports, which may reduce the job burnout and enhance the
socialization, career advancement and job satisfaction of hospitality employees. For
example, mentors may teach the protégés how to communicate with the emotional
customers and handle their complaints. In the meanwhile, mentors may provide
counselling by talking about the stress and troubles with the protégés. Therefore, more
research should focus on whether and how mentoring can help the hospitality
employees.
In spite of the limitations, future research may consider several other areas. First,
drawing on the belongingness theory, this study explored the mediation process on the
relationship between formal mentoring and employee outcomes. It also identified the
moderating role of mentor’s organizational prototypicality in the mentoring process.
Future research may consider other boundary conditions that may influence the effect
of formal mentoring. For example, newcomer’s proactive personality has been found
to be positively related to socialization adjustments (Fang et al., 2010;
Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003). It has also been found to moderate the
relationship between socialization tactics and person-organization fit. Proactive
person is more likely to receive high quality mentoring functions (Liang & Gong,
2013). Therefore, future research may consider the role of protégé’s proactive
personality in the formal mentoring relationship. Another possible boundary condition
is mentor’s motivation. Allen (2003) mentioned three motives for mentoring others,
including self-enhancement, benefiting others and intrinsic motivation. According to
self-determination theory, human motivations are different in the level of
121
self-motivated and self-determined which may affect human behaviors and
performance (Grant, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000). It is possible that formal mentors
participate in the formal mentoring program because they have one or several
motivations. Future research may consider mentor’s motivations in the formal
mentoring relationship and how the motivations influence the mentor’s providing of
mentoring functions and protégé’s perception of mentor’s and organizational support.
Second, future research should investigate more protégé’s outcomes in the
formal mentoring context. For example, this study has demonstrated the effect of
formal mentoring on protégé’s OCB through person-organization fit. Allen (2003)
mentioned that mentoring is a specific form of OCB. Therefore, future research may
consider protégé’s intention to be the mentor as an additional formal mentoring
outcome. This outcome can be significant for formal mentoring program because
protégés, who have already understood the nature and purpose of the mentoring, are
able to transmit organizational knowledge and values to the future protégés based on
their own mentoring experience.
Third, in addition to the protégé’s outcomes, mentoring scholars have recently
shifted the research interest from protégé’s outcomes to mentor's outcomes.
Researchers have demonstrated that formal mentors can have various positive
outcomes such as mentor's program satisfaction, transformational leadership, affective
well-being and organizational commitment (Chun et al., 2012; Weinberg & Lankau,
2010). Future research may consider the underlying mechanisms of why providing
mentoring functions in the formal mentoring program can affect mentor’s outcomes.
122
One potential explanation is that being selected as a formal mentor increases mentor’s
OBSE, because mentors may consider them to be valuable, significant and worthy
persons in the organization.
Fourth, most of the studies use narrow lens to assess the quality of mentoring
relationship. They only focus on the instrumental measure instead of relational
measure. Just as the previous studies, this study used mentoring functions to assess
the quality of the formal mentoring. However, Ragins (2012) mentioned that
mentoring is not a one-side relationship. She defined a new latent construct, called
“relational mentoring”, to reflect the relational state of high quality mentoring.
Relational mentoring refers to an "interdependent and generative developmental
relationship that promotes mutual growth, learning and development within the career
context" (Ragins, 2012, p. 519). It includes several dimensions such as mutual
learning, self-affirmation, commitment and trust. Current measures of mentoring
functions do not consider the relationship quality, mutual trust and learning in the
mentoring relationship. It is possible that formal mentors provide a high quality
mentoring functions as a citizenship behavior, but have low level of trust and
commitment to the protégés. Researchers have found that relationship quality,
commitment and trust can affect mentoring functions and employee outcomes (Chun
et al., 2010; Kwan et al., 2011; Son & Kim, 2013). Therefore, future research may
build on this latent construct to examine the quality of mentoring and provide a more
comprehensive picture of how and why mentoring works.
Fifth, this study investigated the moderating role of formal mentor’s
123
organizational prototypicality in the organization socialization of newcomers. It is
possible that informal mentors may also differ in the extent to which they are seen as
the prototypical organizational members. Hu et al. (2014) indicated that mentors,
including both formal and informal mentors, are “important agents who represent
their organizations” (p. 33). Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that organizational
prototypicality of informal mentors may be a potential moderator in the socialization
of newcomers.
6.6 Conclusion
Building on the belongingness theory, this study tested a research model about
the mediation process between mentoring function provided by the formal mentors
and socialization outcomes of newcomers in the organizational socialization. The
results indicated that mentoring supports positively affected newcomer’s OBSE and
perception of person-organization fit. Further, person-organization fit mediated the
relationship between mentoring function and three socialization outcomes including
affective organizational commitment, job satisfaction and OCB. OBSE mediated the
relationship between mentoring function and two socialization outcomes including
affective organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Moreover, mentor’s
organizational prototypicality moderated the relationship between mentoring function
and two mediator variables including OBSE and person-organization fit, suggesting
that when protégé’s perception of mentor’s organizational prototypicality is high, the
124
effect of formal mentoring on OBSE and person-organization fit will be stronger.
This study extends our understanding about the assimilation process of
mentoring-socialization link. It also provides evidence for the boundary condition of
how mentoring influences newcomer’s adjustment in the organizational socialization.
In addition, this study collected data from blue-collar workers in China, which
contributes to the generality of mentoring findings in the literature. With the
theoretical and practical implication discussed above, the findings of this study
provide evidence and implications for future research on the mechanisms of formal
mentoring.
125
REFERENCE
Allen, D. G., & Shanock, L. R. (2013). Perceived organizational support and
embeddedness as key mechanisms connecting socialization tactics to
commitment and turnover among new employees. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 34(3), 350-369.
Allen, T. D. (2003). Mentoring others: A dispositional and motivational approach.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62(1), 134-154.
Allen, T. D., Day, R., & Lentz, E. (2005). The role of interpersonal comfort in
mentoring relationships. Journal of Career Development, 31(3), 155-169.
Allen, T. D., & Eby, L. T. (2008). Mentor commitment in formal mentoring
relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(3), 309-316.
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., & Lentz, E. (2006a). Mentorship behaviors and mentorship
quality associated with formal mentoring programs: closing the gap between
research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 567-578.
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., & Lentz, E. (2006b). The relationship between formal
mentoring program characteristics and perceived program effectiveness.
Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 125-153.
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., O’Brien, K. E., & Lentz, E. (2008). The state of mentoring
research: A qualitative review of current research methods and future research
implications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(3), 343-357.
126
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits
associated with mentoring for protégeé: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89(1), 127-136.
Allen, T. D., McManus, S. E., & Russell, J. E. a. (1999). Newcomer socialization and
stress: Formal peer relationships as a source of support. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 54(3), 453-470.
Allen, T. D., & O'Brien, K. E. (2006). Formal mentoring programs and organizational
attraction. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 17(1), 43-58.
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(1), 70-89.
Allen, T. D., Smith, M. a., Mael, F. a., Gavan O'Shea, P., & Eby, L. T. (2009).
Organization-level
mentoring
and
organizational
performance
within
substance abuse centers. Journal of Management, 35(5), 1113-1128.
Armstrong, S. J. (2002). Formal mentoring systems: An examination of the effects of
mentor/protégé cognitive styles on the mentoring process. Journal of
Management, 39(8), 1111-1137.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P., & Tan, H. (2003). Leader–member exchange and contextual
performance:
An
examination
of
the
mediating
influence
of
organization-based self-esteem. Paper presented at the A paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Seattle.
Ashforth, B. (2000). Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based
127
perspective. Mahwah, New Jersey: Routledge.
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in
organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of
Management, 34(3), 325-374.
Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D. M., & Harrison, S. H. (2007). Socialization in
organizational contexts, International Review of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 22: 1-70. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, J. R. (1998). A general approach for representing
constructs in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1),
45-87.
Banister, J., Bloom, D. E., & Rosenberg, L. (2010). Population aging and economic
growth in China. In M. Aoki, & J. Wu (Eds.), The Chinese Economy: A New
Transition: 114-149. New York, US: International Economic Association.
Baranik, L., Roling, E., & Eby, L. T. (2010). Why does mentoring work? The role of
perceived organizational support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(3),
366-373.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in
social
psychological
research:
Conceptual,
strategic,
and
statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173.
Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S. (2007).
Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: a meta-analytic
review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology,
128
92(3), 707-721.
Bauer, T. N., & Erdogan, B. (2014). Delineating and reviewing the role of newcomer
capital in organizational socialization. Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 439-457.
Baugh, S. G., & Fagenson-Eland, E. A. (2007). Formal Mentoring Programs: A poor
cousin to informal relationships. In B. R. Ragins, & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The
Handbook of Mentoring at Work: Theory, Research, and Practice: 249-271.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin,
117(3), 497-529.
Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism
to violence and aggression: the dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological
Review, 103(1), 5-33.
Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in
organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations.
Organizational Research Methods, 8(3), 274-289.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological
Bulletin, 107(2), 238-246.
Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C.-P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling.
Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 78-117.
Bonaccio, S., & Dalal, R. S. (2006). Advice taking and decision-making: An
129
integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(2), 127-151.
Boxx, W. R., Odom, R. Y., & Dunn, M. G. (1991). Organizational values and value
congruency and their impact on satisfaction, commitment, and cohesion: An
empirical examination within the public sector. Public Personnel Management,
20(2), 195-205.
Bozeman, B., & Feeney, M. K. (2007). Toward a useful theory of mentoring a
conceptual analysis and critique. Administration & Society, 39(6), 719-740.
Bozionelos, N., & Wang, L. (2006). The relationship of mentoring and network
resources with career success in the Chinese organizational environment.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(9), 1531-1546.
Brewer, M. B., & Harasty, A. S. (1996). Seeing groups as entities: The role of
perceiver motivation. In E. T. Higgins, & R. M. Sorrentin (Eds.), Handbook of
Motivation and Cognition, Vol. 3: 347-370. New Yord: Guilford.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In
H. C. Triandis, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology,
Vol. 2: 389-444. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Brockner, J. (1988). Self-esteem at work: Research, theory, and practice: Lexington
Books/DC Heath and Com.
Browne, M. W., Cudeck, R., & Bollen, K. A. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing
model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230-258.
Burawoy, M. (1979). Manufacturing consent: Changes in the labor process under
130
monopoly capitalism. University of Chicago Pres: Chicago.
Burke, R. J., & McKeen, C. a. (1997). Benefits of mentoring relationships among
managerial and professional women: A cautionary tale. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 51(1), 43-57.
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Byrne, Z. S., Dik, B. J., & Chiaburu, D. S. (2008). Alternatives to traditional
mentoring in fostering career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(3),
429-442.
Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of
subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875-884.
Cable, D. M., & Edwards, J. R. (2004). Complementary and supplementary fit: a
theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5),
822-834.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person–organization fit, job choice decisions,
and organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 67(3), 294-311.
Cable, D. M., & Parsons, C. K. (2001). Socialization tactics and person-organization
fit. Personnel Psychology, 54(1), 1-23.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G. D., & Klesh, J. 1979. The michigan
organizational assessment questionnaire. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Campbell, J. D. (1990). Self-esteem and clarity of the self-concept. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59(3), 538-549.
131
Carroll, M., & Walton, M. (1997). Handbook of Counselling in Organizations.
London: Sage.
Cem Ersoy, N., Born, M. P., Derous, E., & van der Molen, H. T. (2011). Antecedents
of organizational citizenship behavior among blue-and white-collar workers in
Turkey. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(3), 356-367.
Champoux, J. E., & Peters, W. S. (1987). Form, effect size and power in moderated
regression analysis. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60(3), 243-255.
Chandler, D. E., Kram, K. E., & Yip, J. (2011). An ecological systems perspective on
mentoring at work: A review and future prospects. Academy of Management
Annals, 5(1), 519-570.
Chao, G. (2007). Mentoring and organizational socialization: Networks for work
adjustment. In B. Ragins, & K. Kram (Eds.), The Handbook of Mentoring:
Theory, Research and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chao, G. T., O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J., & Gardner, P. D. (1994).
Organizational socialization: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79(5), 730-743.
Chao, G. T., Walz, P., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A
comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentored
counterparts. Personnel Psychology, 45(3), 619-636.
Chatman, J. a. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of
person-organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 333-349.
Chattopadhyay, P. (1999). Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: The influence of
132
demographic dissimilarity on organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of
Management Journal, 42(3), 273-287.
Chen, C.C., & Chiu, S.F. (2008). An integrative model linking supervisor support and
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology,
23(1-2), 1-10.
Chen, C., Liao, J., & Wen, P. (2014). Why does formal mentoring matter? The
mediating role of psychological safety and the moderating role of power
distance orientation in the Chinese context. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 25(8), 1112-1130.
Chen, Y., Ferris, D. L., Kwan, H. K., Yan, M., Zhou, M., & Hong, Y. (2013).
Self-love's lost labor? A self-enhancement model of workplace incivility.
Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1199-1219.
Chen, Z. X., & Aryee, S. (2007). Delegation and employee work outcomes: An
examination of the cultural context of mediating processes in China. Academy
of Management Journal, 50(1), 226-238.
Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual
synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes,
OCBs, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1082-1103.
Cho, S., Johanson, M. M., & Guchait, P. (2009). Employees intent to leave: A
comparison of determinants of intent to leave versus intent to stay.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(3), 374-381.
Christian, M. S., & Ellis, a. P. J. (2011). Examining the Effects of Sleep Deprivation
133
on Workplace Deviance: A Self-Regulatory Perspective. Academy of
Management Journal, 54(5), 913-934.
Chun, J. U., Litzky, B. E., Sosik, J. J., Bechtold, D. C., & Godshalk, V. M. (2010).
Emotional intelligence and trust in formal mentoring programs. Group &
Organization Management, 35(4), 421-455.
Chun, J. U., Sosik, J. J., & Yun, N. Y. (2012). A longitudinal study of mentor and
protégé outcomes
in
formal
mentoring
relationships.
Journal
of
Organizational Behavior, 33, 1071-1094.
Cicero, L., Pierro, A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2007). Leader group prototypicality
and job satisfaction: The moderating role of job stress and team identification.
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11(3), 165-175.
Cobb, A. T. (1980). Informal influence in the formal organization: Perceived sources
or power among work unit peers. Academy of Management Journal, 23(1),
155-161.
Cook, T. D., Campbell, D. T., & Day, A. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design &
Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Cortina, J. M., Chen, G., & Dunlap, W. P. (2001). Testing interaction effects in
LISREL: Examination and illustration of available procedures. Organizational
Research Methods, 4(4), 324-360.
Dalton, G. W., Thompson, P. H., & Price, R. L. (1977). The four stages of
professional careers—A new look at performance by professionals.
Organizational Dynamics, 6(1), 19-42.
134
Dasgupta, N., Banaji, M. R., & Abelson, R. P. (1999). Group entitativity and group
perception: Associations between physical features and psychological
judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 991-1003.
Day, R., & Allen, T. D. (2004). The relationship between career motivation and
self-efficacy with protégé career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
64(1), 72-91.
De Cremer, D. (2004). The closer we are, the more we are alike: The effect of
self-other merging on depersonalized self-perception. Current Psychology,
22(4), 316-324.
De Cremer, D., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2002). How do leaders promote cooperation?
The effects of charisma and procedural fairness. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(5), 858-866.
de Stobbeleir, K. E. M., Ashford, S. J., & Buyens, D. (2011). Self-regulation of
creativity at work: The role of feedback-seeking behavior in creative
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 811-831.
Den Hartog, D. N., De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Keegan, A. E. (2007). The interactive
effects of belongingness and charisma on helping and compliance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1131-1139.
DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2008). Satiated with belongingness?
Effects of acceptance, rejection, and task framing on self-regulatory
performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6),
1367-1382.
135
Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E., & Spangler, W. D. (2004).
Transformational leadership and team performance. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 17(2), 177-193.
Donaldson, S. I., Ensher, E. A., & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2000). Longitudinal
examination of mentoring relationships on organizational commitment and
citizenship behavior. Journal of Career Development, 26(4), 233-249.
Dong, Y., Seo, M. G., & Bartol, K. (2013). No Pain, No Gain: An Affect-based
Model of Developmental Job Experience and the Buffering Effects of
Emotional Intelligence. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4), 1056-1077.
Dreher, G. F., & Ash, R. a. (1990). A comparative study of mentoring among men
and women in managerial, professional, and technical positions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 75(5), 539-546.
Eby, L., Butts, M., Lockwood, A., & Simon, S. A. (2004). Protégés negative
mentoring experiences: Construct development and nomological validation.
Personnel Psychology, 57(2), 411-447.
Eby, L. T., Allen, T. D., Evans, S. C., Ng, T., & Dubois, D. (2008). Does mentoring
matter?
A
multidisciplinary meta-analysis
comparing mentored
and
non-mentored individuals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(2), 254-267.
Eby, L. T., Durley, J. R., Evans, S. C., & Ragins, B. R. (2008). Mentors' perceptions
of negative mentoring experiences: scale development and nomological
validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 358-373.
Eby, L. T., & Lockwood, A. (2005). Protégés’ and mentors’ reactions to participating
136
in formal mentoring programs: A qualitative investigation. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 67(3), 441-458.
Eby, L. T., Lockwood, A. L., & Butts, M. (2006). Perceived support for mentoring: A
multiple perspectives approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(2),
267-291.
Eby, L. T., Rhodes, J., & Allen, T. D. (2007). Definition and evolution of mentoring.
In T. D. Allen, & L. T. Eby (Eds.), The Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring: A
Multiple Perspectives Approach: 7-20. MA, US: Blackwell.
Eby, L. T. D. T., Allen, T. D., Hoffman, B. J., Baranik, L. E., Sauer, J. B., Baldwin, S.,
Morrison, M. A., Kinkade, K. M., Maher, C. P., Curtis, S., & Evans, S. C.
(2013). An interdisciplinary meta-analysis of the potential antecedents,
correlates, and consequences of protégé perceptions of mentoring.
Psychological Bulletin, 139(2), 441-476.
Editoral Board of the China Commerce Yearbook. (2009). Yearbook of China's
foreign economic relations and trade. China Commerce and Trade Press:
Beijing, China.
Edwards, I. R., & Shipp, A. I. (2007). The relationship between person-environment
fit and outcomes: An integrative theoretical framework. In C. L. Ostroff, & T.
Judge (Eds.), Perspectives on Organizational Fit: 209-258. Oxford, UK:
Taylor & Francis.
Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. (2009). The value of value congruence. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94(3), 654-677.
137
Edwards, J. R., Cable, D. M., Williamson, I. O., Lambert, L. S., & Shipp, A. J. (2006).
The phenomenology of fit: linking the person and environment to the
subjective experience of person-environment fit. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(4), 802-827.
Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt?
An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302(5643), 290-292.
Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamber, F., Neves, P., Becker, T. E.,
Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., & Steiger-Mueller, M. (2010). Leader-member
exchange and affective organizational commitment: the contribution of
supervisor's organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6),
1085-1103.
Ellinger, A. D., & Bostrom, R. P. (1999). Managerial coaching behaviors in learning
organizations. Journal of Management Development, 18(9), 752-771.
Ensher, E. A., Heun, C., & Blanchard, A. (2003). Online mentoring and
computer-mediated communication: New directions in research. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 63(2), 264-288.
Evered, R. D., & Selman, J. C. (1989). Coaching and the art of management.
Organizational Dynamics, 18(2), 16-32.
Fagenson-Eland, E. a., Marks, M. a., & Amendola, K. L. (1997). Perceptions of
mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51(1), 29-42.
Falcione, R. L., & Wilson, C. E. (1988). Socialization processes in organizations. In G.
M. Goldhaber, & G. A. Barnett (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational
138
Communication, 151-169. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Fang, R., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2010). The organizational socialization
process: Review and Development of a social capital model. Journal of
Management, 37(1), 127-152.
Feldman, D. C. (1976). A contingency theory of socialization. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 21, 433-452.
Feldman, D. C., & Lankau, M. J. (2005). Executive coaching: A review and agenda
for future research. Journal of Management, 31(6), 829-848.
Feldman, D. C., & Moore, D. (2001). Career coaching: What HR professionals and
managers need to know. Human Resource Planning, 24(2), 26-35.
Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., & Heller, D. (2009). Organizational supports and
organizational deviance: The mediating role of organization-based self-esteem.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 279-286.
Ferris, G. R., & Judge, T. A. (1991). Personnel/human resources management: A
political influence perspective. Journal of Management, 17(2), 447-488.
French, J. R., Rodgers, W., & Cobb, S. (1974). Adjustment as person-environment fit.
In C. GV, H. DA, & A. JE (Eds.), Coping and Adaptation: 316-333. NY:
Basic Books.
Gardner, D. G., Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). The effects of pay level on
organization-based self-esteem and performance: A field study. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(3), 307-322.
Gibson, M. K., & Papa, M. J. (2000). The mud, the blood, and the beer guys:
139
Organizational osmosis in blue‐collar work groups. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 28(1), 68-88.
Godshalk, V. M., & Sosik, J. J. (2000). Does mentor-protégé agreement on mentor
leadership behavior influence the quality of a mentoring relationship? Group
& Organization Management, 25(3), 291-317.
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(3), 417-437.
Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational
synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93(1), 48-58.
Grant, E. S., & Bush, A. J. (1996). Salesforce socialization tactics: Building
organizational value congruence. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 16(3), 17-32.
Greguras, G. J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). Different fits satisfy different needs:
Linking person-environment fit to employee commitment and performance
using self-determination theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2),
465-477.
Haggard, D. L. (2011). Mentoring and psychological contract breach. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 27(2), 161-175.
Haggard, D. L., Dougherty, T. W., Turban, D. B., & Wilbanks, J. E. (2010). Who Is a
mentor? A review of evolving definitions and implications for research.
140
Journal of Management, 37(1), 280-304.
Hair, J. F., Tatham, R. L., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W. (2006). Multivariate Data
Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hall, D. T., Schneider, B., & Nygren, H. T. (1970). Personal factors in organizational
identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), 176-190.
Hall, R. J., Snell, A. F., & Foust, M. S. (1999). Item parceling strategies in SEM:
Investigating the subtle effects of unmodeled secondary constructs.
Organizational Research Methods, 2(3), 233-256.
Halle, D. (1984). America’s working man: Work, home, and politics among
blue-collar property owners. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the
new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408-420.
Heath, C., & Gonzalez, R. (1995). Interaction with others increases decision
confidence but not decision quality: Evidence against information collection
views of interactive decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 61(3), 305-326.
Hegstad, C. D. (1999). Formal mentoring as a strategy for human resource
development: A review of research. Human Resource Development Quarterly,
10(4), 383-390.
Heimann, B., & Pittenger, K. K. (1996). The impact of formal mentorship on
socialization and commitment of newcomers. Journal of Managerial Issues,
VIII, 108-117.
141
Herzberg, F. M. (1959). The Motivation to Work. New Yord: John Wiley & Sons.
Hezlett, S. A., & Gibson, S. K. (2005). Mentoring and human resource development:
Where we are and where we need to go. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 7(4), 446-469.
Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1990). Relationships between subordinate
perceptions of supervisor influence tactics and attributed bases of supervisory
power. Human Relations, 43(3), 221-237.
Hinrichs, J. R. (1964). The attitudes of research chemists. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 48(5), 287-293.
Hirschfeld, R. R., Thomas, C. H., & Lankau, M. J. (2006). Achievement and
avoidance motivational orientations in the domain of mentoring. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 524-537.
Hirst, G. (2009). A social identity perspective on leadership and employee creativity.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(7), 963-982.
Hoffman, B. J., Bynum, B. H., Piccolo, R. F., & Sutton, A. W. (2011).
Person-organization
value
congruence:
How
transformational
leaders
influence work group effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4),
779-796.
Hoffman, B. J., & Woehr, D. J. (2006). A quantitative review of the relationship
between person–organization fit and behavioral outcomes. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 389-399.
Horvath, M., Wasko, L. E., & Bradley, J. L. (2008). The effect of formal mentoring
142
program characteristics on organizational attraction. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 19(4), 323-349.
Hu, C., Wang, S., Yang, C. C., & Wu, T.-y. (2014). When mentors feel supported:
relationships with mentoring functions and protégés' perceived organizational
support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(1), 22-37.
Hu, X., Kaplan, S., & Dalal, R. S. (2010). An examination of blue-versus white-collar
workers’ conceptualizations of job satisfaction facets. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 76(2), 317-325.
Huang, M.P., Cheng, B.S., & Chou, L.F. (2005). Fitting in organizational values: The
mediating role of person-organization fit between CEO charismatic leadership
and employee outcomes. International Journal of Manpower, 26(1), 35-49.
Huang, T.P. (2011). Comparing motivating work characteristics, job satisfaction, and
turnover intention of knowledge workers and blue-collar workers, and testing
a structural model of the variables' relationships in China and Japan.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(4), 924-944.
Hui, C., & Lee, C. (2000). Moderating effects of organization-based self-esteem on
organizational uncertainty: Employee response relationships. Journal of
Management, 26(2), 215-232.
Iverson, R. D., & Roy, P. (1994). A causal model of behavioral commitment:
Evidence from a study of Australian blue-collar employees. Journal of
Management, 20(1), 15-41.
James, L. R., & Brett, J. M. (1984). Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation.
143
Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2), 307-321.
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (2006). A tale of two methods.
Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 233-244.
Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers' adjustments
to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29(2), 262-279.
Judge, T., & Ferris, G. R. (1992). The elusive criterion of fit in human resources
staffing decisions. Human Resource Planning, 15(4), 47-67.
Kaiser, R., Woodruff, B. A., Bilukha, O., Spiegel, P. B., & Salama, P. (2006). Using
design effects from previous cluster surveys to guide sample size calculation
in emergency settings. Disasters, 30(2), 199-211.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Wanberg, C. R. (2003). Unwrapping the organizational
entry process: disentangling multiple antecedents and their pathways to
adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 779-794.
Kammeyer‐Mueller, J. D., Schilpzand, P., & Rubenstein, A. L. (2013). Dyadic fit
and the process of organizational socialization. In A. Kristof-Brown, & J.
Billsberry (Eds.), Organizational Fit: Key Issues And New Directions: 50-73.
MA, US: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. NY: Basic Books.
Kirkpatrick-Husk, K., Weaver, JD., & Kendall, DL. (2014). A Meta-Analytic
Comparison of Mentoring Scales Currently in Use, Annual Conference of
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Honolulu, US.
Kidwell, R. E., Mossholder, K. W., & Bennett, N. (1997). Cohesiveness and
144
organizational citizenship behavior: A multilevel analysis using work groups
and individuals. Journal of Management, 23(6), 775-793.
Kim, T.Y., Cable, D. M., & Kim, S.P. (2005). Socialization tactics, employee
proactivity, and person-organization fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2),
232-241.
Koivisto, S., Lipponen, J., & Platow, M. J. (2013). Organizational and supervisory
justice effects on experienced threat during change: The moderating role of
leader in-group representativeness. Leadership Quarterly, 24(4), 595-607.
Korman, A. K. (1970). Toward an hypothesis of work behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 54, 31-41.
Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management
Journal, 26(4), 608-625.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in
Organizational Life. US: University Press of America.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of
individuals'fit at work: A meta‐analysis of person–job, person–organization,
person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2),
281-342.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person ‐ organization fit: An integrative review of its
conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology,
49(1), 1-49.
Kwan, H. K., Liu, J., & Yim, F. H.-k. (2011). Effects of mentoring functions on
145
receivers' organizational citizenship behavior in a Chinese context: A
two-study investigation. Journal of Business Research, 64(4), 363-370.
Kwan, H. K., Mao, Y., & Zhang, H. (2010). The impact of role modeling on protégés'
personal learning and work-to-family enrichment. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 77(2), 313-322.
Laland, K. N., & Brown, G. (2011). Sense and nonsense: Evolutionary perspectives
on human behaviour. UK: Oxford University Press.
Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. (2000). A comparison of approaches to
forming composite measures in structural equation models. Organizational
Research Methods, 3(2), 186-207.
Lankau, M. J., Carlson, D. S., & Nielson, T. R. (2006). The mediating influence of
role stressors in the relationship between mentoring and job attitudes. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 68(2), 308-322.
Lankau, M. J., Riordan, C. M., & Thomas, C. H. (2005). The effects of similarity and
liking in formal relationships between mentors and protégés. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 67(2), 252-265.
Lankau, M. J., & Scandura, T. A. (2002). An investigation of personal learning in
mentoring relationships: Content, antecedents, and consequences. Academy of
Management Journal, 45(4), 779-790.
Lau, D. C., Lam, L. W., & Wen, S. S. (2014). Examining the effects of feeling trusted
by supervisors in the workplace: A self-evaluative perspective. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 127, 112-127.
146
Lauver, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2001). Distinguishing between employees'
perceptions of person–job and person–organization fit. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 59(3), 454-470.
Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem:
Sociometer theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 1-62.
Leary, M. R., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Interpersonal functions of the self-esteem
motive. In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, Agency, and Self-Esteem: 123-144.
NY: Springer.
Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an
interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 68(3), 518-530.
Leary, M. R., Twenge, J. M., & Quinlivan, E. (2006). Interpersonal rejection as a
determinant of anger and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 10(2), 111-132.
Lee, J. (2003). An analysis of organization-based self-esteem as a mediator of the
relationship between its antecedents and consequences. The Korean Personnel
Administration Journal, 27(2), 25-50.
Lee, J., & Peccei, R. (2007). Perceived organizational support and affective
commitment: the mediating role of organization‐based self‐esteem in the
context of job insecurity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(6), 661-685.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace
deviance: the role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology,
147
87(1), 131-142.
Lester, R. E. (1987). Organizational culture, uncertainty reduction, and the
socialization of new organizational members. In S. Thomas (Ed.), Culture and
Communication: Methodology, Behavior, Artifacts, and Institutions: 105-113.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Levinson, D. J. (1978). The seasons of a man's life. NY: Random House LLC.
Lewin, K. (1935). A Dynamic Theory of Personality. US: McGraw-Hill.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers.
Oxford, UK: Harpers.
Li, P., & Lu, H. (2014). Research on initiative turnover rate of the post-90s
workforce―taking labor-intensive enterprises as an example. Journal of
Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, 2(1), 1-14.
Liang, J., & Gong, Y. (2013). Capitalizing on proactivity for informal mentoring
received during early career: The moderating role of core self‐evaluations.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(8), 1182-1201.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., & Shahar, G. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel:
Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling,
9(2), 151-173.
Liu, D., & Fu, P.-P. (2011). Motivating protégés' personal learning in teams: a
multilevel investigation of autonomy support and autonomy orientation.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1195-1208.
Liu, D., Wang, S., & Wayne, S. J. (in press). Is Being a Good Learner Enough? An
148
Examination of the Interplay Between Learning Goal Orientation and
Impression Management Tactics on Creativity. Personnel Psychology.
Liu, J., Hui, C., Lee, C., & Chen, Z. X. (2013). Why do I feel valued and why do I
contribute? A relational approach to employee's organization‐based self‐
esteem and job performance. Journal of Management Studies, 50(6),
1018-1040.
Liu, J., Lee, C., Hui, C., Kwan, H. K., & Wu, L.-Z. (2013). Idiosyncratic deals and
employee
outcomes:
the
mediating
roles
of
social
exchange
and
self-enhancement and the moderating role of individualism. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 98(5), 832-840.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology: 1297-1349. NY: Holt,
Reinhart & Winston.
Lucas, K. (2011). Blue-collar discourses of workplace dignity: Using outgroup
comparisons to construct positive identities. Management Communication
Quarterly, 25(2), 353-374.
Marchington, M., & Wilkinson, A. (2008). Human Resource Management at Work.
People Management and Development, 4th ed. CIPD, London.
Mathieu, J. E. (1991). A cross-level nonrecursive model of the antecedents of
organizational commitment and satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology,
76(5), 607-618.
Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (1992). Influences of individual and
149
situational characteristics on measures of training effectiveness. Academy of
Management Journal, 35(4), 828-847.
McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting
interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114(2), 376-390.
McLagan, P. A. (1989). Models for HRD Practice. Training and Development
Journal, 43(9), 49-59.
McLeod, J. (2010). The effectiveness of workplace counselling: A systematic review.
Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 10(4), 238-248.
McLeod, J., & Henderson, M. (2003). Does workplace counselling work? The British
Journal of Psychiatry, 182(2), 103-104.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of
organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1),
61-89.
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why
people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy
of Management Journal, 44(6), 1102-1121.
Moreland, R. L. (1987). The formation of small groups. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review
of Personality and Social Psychology: 80-110. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (2001). Socialization in organizations and work
groups. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at Work: Theory and Research: 69-112.
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Morrison, E. W. (2002). Newcomers' relationships: The role of social network ties
150
during socialization. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1149-1160.
Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in Personality. US: Oxford University Press.
Murray, M. (1991). Beyond the Myths and Magic of Mentoring: How to Facilitate an
Effective Mentoring Program. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. a. (2008).
Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and
servant leadership on employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,
93(6), 1220-1233.
Nielson, T. R., Carlson, D. S., & Lankau, M. J. (2001). The supportive mentor as a
means of reducing work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
59(3), 364-381.
Noe, R. A. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned
mentoring relationships. Personnel Psychology, 41(3), 457-479.
Nowak, M. A. (2006). Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science, 314(5805),
1560-1563.
O'Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational
culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit.
Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 487-516.
Okurame, D. (2012). Impact of career growth prospects and formal mentoring on
organisational
citizenship
behaviour.
Leadership
&
Organization
Development Journal, 33(1), 66-85.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier
151
Syndrome. MA, England: Lexington Books.
Orth, U., Robins, R. W., & Widaman, K. F. (2012). Life-span development of
self-esteem and its effects on important life outcomes. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1271-1288.
Ostroff, C. (2012). Person-Environment Fit in Organizational Settings. UK: Oxford
University Press.
Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. (1993). The role of mentoring in the information
gathering processes of newcomers during early organizational socialization.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42(2), 170-183.
Pan, W., Sun, L.-Y., & Chow, I. H. S. (2011). The impact of supervisory mentoring
on personal learning and career outcomes: The dual moderating effect of
self-efficacy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78(2), 264-273.
Parise, M. R., & Forret, M. L. (2008). Formal mentoring programs: The relationship
of program design and support to mentors’ perceptions of benefits and costs.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(2), 225-240.
Payne, S. C., & Huffman, A. H. (2005). A longitudinal examination of the influence
of mentoring on organizational commitment and turnover. Academy of
Management Journal, 48(1), 158-168.
Pearce, J. L., & Randel, A. E. (2004). Expectations of organizational mobility,
workplace social inclusion, and employee job performance. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 25(1), 81-98.
Peterson, D. B., & Hicks, M. D. (1995). Development First: Strategies for
152
Self-Development. US: Minneapolis, MN: Personnel Decisions International.
Pierce, J. L., & Gardner, D. G. (2004). Self-Esteem within the work and
organizational context: A review of the organization-based self-esteem
literature. Journal of Management, 30(5), 591-622.
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989).
Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and
validation. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 622-648.
Pierro, A., Cicero, L., Bonaiuto, M., van Knippenberg, D., & Kruglanski, A. W.
(2005). Leader group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness: The
moderating role of need for cognitive closure. Leadership Quarterly, 16(4),
503-516.
Platow, M. J., & van Knippenberg, D. (2001). A social identity analysis of leadership
endorsement: The effects of leader ingroup prototypicality and distributive
intergroup fairness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(11),
1508-1519.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common
method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research:
Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531-544.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for
assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models.
153
Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891.
Raabe, B., & Beehr, T. A. (2003). Formal mentoring versus supervisor and coworker
relationships:
Differences
in
perceptions
and
impact.
Journal
of
Organizational Behavior, 24(3), 271-293.
Ragins, B. R. (1997). Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations: A power
perspective. Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 482-521.
Ragins, B. R. (2012). Relational mentoring: A positive approach to mentoring at work.
In K. Cameron, & G. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Handbook of Positive
Organizational Scholarship: 519-536. US: Oxford University Press.
Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1991). Easier said than done: Gender differences in
perceived barriers to gaining a mentor. Academy of Management Journal,
34(4), 939-951.
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(4), 529-550.
Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: The effects of
type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career
attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1177-1194.
Ragins, B. R., & McFarlin, D. B. (1990). Perceptions of mentor roles in cross-gender
mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37(3), 321-339.
Resick, C. J., Baltes, B. B., & Shantz, C. W. (2007). Person-organization fit and
work-related attitudes and decisions: examining interactive effects with job fit
154
and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1446-1455.
Resick, C. J., Giberson, T. R., Dickson, M. W., Wynne, K. T., & Bajdo, L. M. (2013).
Person–organization fit, organizational citizenship, and social ‐ cognitive
motivational mechanisms. In A. Kristof-Brown, & J. Billsberry (Eds.),
Organizational Fit: Key Issues and New Directions: 99-123. Wiley & Sons:
UK.
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. a., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job Engagement: Antecedents
and Effects on Job Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3),
617-635.
Richard, O. C., Ismail, K. M., Bhuian, S. N., & Taylor, E. C. (2009). Mentoring in
supervisor–subordinate dyads: Antecedents, consequences, and test of a
mediation model of mentorship. Journal of Business Research, 62(11),
1110-1118.
Riordan, C. M., Weatherly, E. W., Vandenberg, R. J., & Self, R. M. (2001). The
effects of pre-entry experiences and socialization tactics on newcomer
attitudes and turnover. Journal of Managerial Issues, XIII, 159-176.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image US: Wesleyan
University Press.
Russell, S. S., Spitzmüller, C., Lin, L. F., Stanton, J. M., Smith, P. C., & Ironson, G.
H. (2004). Shorter can also be better: The abridged job in general scale.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(5), 878-893.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
155
intrinsic
motivation,
social
development,
and
well-being.
American
Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Organizational socialization: making sense of
the past and present as a prologue for the future. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 51(2), 234-279.
Saks, A. M., Uggerslev, K. L., & Fassina, N. E. (2007). Socialization tactics and
newcomer adjustment: A meta-analytic review and test of a model. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 70(3), 413-446.
Saks, A. M., Gruman, J. A., & Cooper-Thomas, H. (2011). The neglected role of
proactive behavior and outcomes in newcomer socialization. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 79(1), 36-46.
Scandura, T. A. (1992). Mentorship and career mobility: An empirical investigation.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 169-174.
Scandura, T. A. (1997). Mentoring and organizational justice: An empirical
investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51(1), 58-69.
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(3), 251–265.
Scandura, T. a., & Williams, E. a. (2001). An investigation of the moderating effects
of gender on the relationships between mentorship initiation and protégé
perceptions of mentoring functions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(3),
342-363.
156
Scandura, T. a., & Williams, E. a. (2004). Mentoring and transformational leadership:
The role of supervisory career mentoring. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
65(3), 448-468.
Scheff, T. J., Retzinger, S. M., & Ryan, M. T. (1989). Crime, violence, and
self-esteem: Review and proposals. In A. M. Mecca, N. J. Smelser, & J.
Vasconcellos (Eds.), The Social Importance of Self-esteem: 165-199. US:
University of California Press.
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Mayer, D. M. (2005). Understanding
organization-customer links in service settings. Academy of Management
Journal, 48(6), 1017-1032.
Seibert, S. (1999). The effectiveness of facilitated mentoring: A longitudinal
quasi-experiment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(3), 483-502.
Settoon, R. P., & Adkins, C. L. (1997). Newcomer socialization: The role of
supervisors, coworkers, friends and family members. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 11(4), 507-516.
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations:
Perceived organizational support, leader–member exchange, and employee
reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 219-227.
Shapiro, E. C., Haseltine, F. P., & Rowe, M. P. (1978). Moving up-role models,
mentors, and patron system. Sloan Management Review, 19(3), 51-58.
Shen, H., & Huang, C. (2012). Domestic migrant workers in China's hotel industry:
An exploratory study of their life satisfaction and job burnout. International
157
Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(4), 1283-1291.
Shin, Y., & Choi, J. N. (2010). What makes a group of good citizens? The role of
perceived group‐level fit and critical psychological states in organizational
teams. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(2),
531-552.
Shoss, M. K., Eisenberger, R., Restubog, S. L. D., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2013).
Blaming the organization for abusive supervision: the roles of perceived
organizational support and supervisor's organizational embodiment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 98(1), 158-168.
Simpson, C. K., & Boyle, D. (1975). Esteem construct generality and academic
performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 35(4), 897-904.
Singh, R., Ragins, B. R., & Tharenou, P. (2009). What matters most? The relative role
of mentoring and career capital in career success. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 75(1), 56-67.
Slaughter, J. E., & Zickar, M. J. (2006). A new look at the role of insiders in the
newcomer socialization process. Group & Organization Management, 31(2),
264-290.
Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2008). How relational and organizational
identification converge: Processes and conditions. Organization Science, 19(6),
807-823.
Sluss, D. M., Ployhart, R. E., Cobb, M. G., & Ashforth, B. E. (2012). Generalizing
newcomers' relational and organizational identifications: Processes and
158
prototypicality. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 949-975.
Sluss, D. M., & Thompson, B. S. (2012). Socializing the newcomer: The mediating
role of leader–member exchange. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 119(1), 114-125.
Smith-Jentsch, K. a., Scielzo, S. a., Yarbrough, C. S., & Rosopa, P. J. (2008). A
comparison of face-to-face and electronic peer-mentoring: Interactions with
mentor gender. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(2), 193-206.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural
equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290-312.
Solansky, S. T. (2010). The evaluation of two key leadership development program
components: Leadership skills assessment and leadership mentoring.
Leadership Quarterly, 21(4), 675-681.
Son, S., & Kim, D.Y. (2013). What makes protégés take mentors’ advice in formal
mentoring relationships? Journal of Career Development, 40(4), 311-328.
Sosik, J. J., Lee, D., & Bouquillon, E. A. (2005). Context and mentoring: Examining
formal and informal relationships in high tech firms and K-12 schools. Journal
of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12(2), 94-108.
Sowislo, J. F., & Orth, U. (2013). Does low self-esteem predict depression and
anxiety? A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin,
139(1), 213-240.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary work
behavior: Some parallels between counterproductive work behavior and
159
organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review,
12(2), 269-292.
Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. I., & Pelled, L. H. (1994). Employee positive emotion and
favorable outcomes at the workplace. Organization Science, 5(1), 51-71.
Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of
the self. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 261-302.
Steiger, A. E., Allemand, M., Robins, R. W., & Fend, H. A. (2014). Low and
decreasing self-esteem during adolescence predict adult depression two
decades later. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(2), 325-338.
Stokes, P. (2003). Exploring the relationship between mentoring and counselling.
British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 31(1), 25-38.
Sun, L. Y., Pan, W., & Chow, I. H. S. (2014). The role of supervisor political skill in
mentoring: Dual motivational perspectives. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 35(2), 213-233.
Tepper, B. J. (1995). Upward maintenance tactics in supervisory mentoring and
nonmentoring relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 38(4),
1191-1205.
Tepper, B. J., & Taylor, E. C. (2003). Relationships among supervisors' and
subordinates' procedural justice perceptions and organizational citizenship
behaviors. Academy of Management Journal, 46(1), 97-105.
Terborg, J. R. (1981). Interactional psychology and research on human behavior in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 6(4), 569-576.
160
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
turnover intention, and turnover: path analyses based on meta ‐analytic
findings. Personnel Psychology, 46(2), 259-293.
Thau, S., Aquino, K., & Poortvliet, P. M. (2007). Self-defeating behaviors in
organizations: the relationship between thwarted belonging and interpersonal
work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 840-847.
Thomas, C. H., & Lankau, M. J. (2009). Preventing burnout: The effects of LMX and
mentoring on socialization, role stress, and burnout. Human Resource
Management, 48(3), 417-432.
Tom, V. R. (1971). The role of personality and organizational images in the recruiting
process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6(5), 573-592.
Tsai, W.-C., Chen, C.-C., & Liu, H.-L. (2007). Test of a model linking employee
positive moods and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6),
1570-1583.
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood
factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1-10.
Underhill, C. M. (2006). The effectiveness of mentoring programs in corporate
settings: A meta-analytical review of the literature. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 68(2), 292-307.
Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of
possession:
three
field
studies
predicting
employee
attitudes
and
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
161
25(4), 439-459.
van Knippenberg, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self-sacrifice and
leadership effectiveness: the moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 25-37.
Van Maanen, J. E., & Schein, E. H. (1977). Toward a Theory of Organizational
Socialization. NY: JIP Press.
Van Vianen, A. E., Stoelhorst, J., & De Goede, M. E. (2013). The construal of
person–organization fit during the ASA stages: Content, source, and focus of
comparison. In A. Kristof-Brown, & J. Billsberry (Eds.), Organizational Fit:
Key Issues and New Directions: 143-169. UK: Wiley & Sons.
Verquer, M. L., Beehr, T. a., & Wagner, S. H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations
between person–organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 63(3), 473-489.
Viator, R. E., & Scandura, T. A. (1991). A study of mentor-protégérelationships in
large public accounting firms. Accounting Horizons, 5(3), 20-30.
Vogel, R. M., & Feldman, D. C. (2009). Integrating the levels of person-environment
fit: The roles of vocational fit and group fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
75(1), 68-81.
Walker, O. C., Churchill, G. A., & Ford, N. M. (1977). Motivation and performance
in industrial selling: present knowledge and needed research. Journal of
Marketing Research, XIV, 156-168.
Wanberg, C. R., Kammeyer-Mueller, J., & Marchese, M. (2006). Mentor and protégé
162
predictors and outcomes of mentoring in a formal mentoring program. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 69(3), 410-423.
Wanberg, C. R., Welsh, E. T., & Hezlett, S. A. (2003). Mentoring research: A review
and dynamic process model. Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, 22, 39-124.
Wanberg, C. R., Welsh, E. T., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. (2007). Protégéand mentor
self-disclosure: Levels and outcomes within formal mentoring dyads in a
corporate context. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70(2), 398-412.
Wang, S., Tomlinson, E. C., & Noe, R. a. (2010). The role of mentor trust and protégé
internal locus of control in formal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95(2), 358-367.
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(1),
107-121.
Wei, L. Q., Chiang, F. F., & Wu, L. Z. (2012). Developing and utilizing network
resources: roles of political skill. Journal of Management Studies, 49(2),
381-402.
Weinberg, F. J., & Lankau, M. J. (2010). Formal mentoring programs: A
mentor-centric and longitudinal analysis. Journal of Management, 37(6),
1527-1557.
Williams, J., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Resampling and distribution of the product
163
methods for testing indirect effects in complex models. Structural Equation
Modeling, 15(1), 23-51.
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 425-452.
Wilson, J. A., & Elman, N. S. (1990). Organizational benefits of mentoring. The
Executive, 4(4), 88-94.
Winter-Collins, A., & McDaniel, A. M. (2000). Sense of belonging and new graduate
job satisfaction. Journal for Nurses in Professional Development, 16(3),
103-111.
Wu, J. B., Tsui, A. S., & Kinicki, A. J. (2010). Consequences of differentiated
leadership in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 90-106.
Xu, E., Huang, X., Lam, C. K., & Miao, Q. (2012). Abusive supervision and work
behaviors: The mediating role of LMX. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
33(4), 531-543.
Yang, J.T. (2010). Antecedents and consequences of job satisfaction in the hotel
industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(4), 609-619.
Yu, K. Y. T., & Yang, K. (2013). A motivational model of person-environment fit:
Psychological motives as drivers of change. Organizational fit: Key issues and
new directions, 21-49.
Zey, M. G. (1985). Mentor programs: Making the right moves. Personnel Journal,
64(2), 53-57.
Zey, M. G., & Zey, M., G. (1984). The Mentor Connection. Homewood, IL: Dow
Jones-Irwin.
164
APPENDIX A
EMPIRICAL STUDIES ON FORMAL MENTORING
Study
Ragins & Cotton,
1999
Journal of Applied
Psychology
Sample
352 female and
257 male
protégés
Predictor
Gender
composition
Seibert, 1999
Journal of
Vocational
Behavior
72 newly hired
mechanical and
electrical
engineers
Mentoring
functions
Moderator
Type of
mentoring
relationship
Mediator
Outcomes
Mentoring
functions,
compensation and
promotions.
Organizational
commitment, job
satisfaction, work
role stress, and
self-esteem at work
165
Main findings
Protégés from informal
mentoring receive higher
effective and receive
greater compensation than
protégés from formal
mentoring. The gender
composition affects
mentoring functions and
outcomes. Type of
relationship moderates the
relationship between
protégé’s gender and
mentoring functions.
Employees who have
formal mentors report a
higher level of
organizational
commitment and job
Ragins et al., 2000
Academy of
Management
Journal
1162 employees
Satisfaction of
mentoring
relationship, type
of relationship,
design of a
formal mentoring
program
Cognitive
similarity, gender
composition
Job and career
attitudes
Armstrong, 2002
Journal of
Management
Studies
53 pairs of
mentors and
protégés
Waters, McCabe,
Kiellerup &
Kiellerup , 2002
Journal of Business
and Psychology
Raabe & Beehr,
77 pairs of
mentors and
protégés
Mentoring
functions,
frequency of
mentor contact
Protégé’s
perception of
business success
and self-esteem
61 pairs of
Mentoring, LMX,
Job satisfaction,
Mentoring
functions
166
satisfaction than
non-mentored employees.
There is no significant
difference between
mentored and
non-mentored employees
in terms of work role stress
and self-esteem at work.
Satisfaction with
mentoring relationship
explains more variance on
protégé’s attitudes than the
type of relationship and
design of a formal
mentoring program.
Similarity of cognitive
styles and gender
composition enhance the
quality of mentoring
relationships.
Protégé’s perceptions of
business success were
predicted by the frequency
of mentor contact and
career mentoring support.
Mentors and mentees had
2003
Journal of
Organizational
Behavior
mentors and
protégés from
two companies
and relationship
with coworkers
Allen, Eby & Lentz
2006a
Journal of Applied
Psychology
175 protégés and
110 mentors from
12 different
formal mentoring
programs
Allen, Eby &
Lentz, 2006b
Personnel
Psychology
175 protégés and
110 mentors from
12 different
formal mentoring
programs
Voluntary,
involved in
matching process,
geographic
proximity,
differences in
rank, training
Voluntary
participation,
math input,
training
Wanberg,
Kammeyer-Mueller
& Marchese, 2006
Journal of
Vocational
96 pairs of
mentors and
protégés from 12
companies
organizational
commitment,
turnover intent.
Interaction
frequency
Mentorship quality
Mentor
Perceived program
commitment effectiveness
, program
understandi
ng.
Proactivity,
openness,
perception of
similarity and
support
Mentoring
functions, protégé’s
satisfaction with
mentor, perceived
positive influence
167
different perceptions in
terms of the nature of the
mentoring relationship.
Supervisory and coworker
relationships were more
significantly related to
mentee outcomes than to
mentoring.
Participant input into
mentoring process,
differences in rank, and
formal mentoring training
were significantly related
to formal mentoring
functions.
Mentor commitment and
program understanding
mediated the relationship
between the three
predictors and perceived
program effectiveness.
Mentor’s proactivity and
protégé’s perceptions of
similarity were
significantly related to
mentoring functions.
Behavior
Allen & O’Brien,
2006
Human Resource
Development
Quarterly
Wanberg, Welsh &
Kammeyer-Mueller,
2007
Journal of
Vocational
Behavior
190
undergraduate
students
Horvath, Wasko &
Bradley, 2008
Human Resource
Development
Quarterly
254
undergraduate
students
Allen & Eby, 2008
Journal of
91 pairs of
mentors and
75 pairs of
mentors and
protégés from a
large
multinational
organization
Formal mentoring Learning goal
orientation,
self-efficacy,
and proactive
personality
Protége’s and
Perceived
mentor’s
mentor
self-disclosure
responsiveness
Voluntary,
protégéinput into
the choice of
mentor, mentor’s
rank, and
mentoring
functions
Mentor
commitment
Need for
dominance
Gender
168
of the program,
career goal clarity,
intention to stay,
and organizational
commitment
Organizational
attraction
Mentoring functions were
related to positive
outcomes for both mentors
and protégés.
Mentoring
functions,
protégé-reported
relationship
satisfaction, and the
positive influence
of the mentoring.
Organizational
attraction
Protégé’s self-disclosure
was related to mentoring
functions received,
relationship satisfaction,
and the positive influence
of mentoring.
Relationship
quality
The relationship between
mentor commitment and
Formal mentoring program
could attract potential
applicants who have a high
learning goal orientation.
Some characteristics of the
formal mentoring program
can influence potential job
applicants’ pre-hire
perceptions of
organizations.
Vocational
Behavior
protégés from 4
organizations
Parise & Forret,
2008
Journal of
Vocational
Behavior
97 mentors from
a financial
institution
Voluntary
participation,
input into
matching process,
perception of
training
effectiveness, and
managerial
support
Wang, Tomlinson &
Noe, 2010
Journal of Applied
Psychology
140 pairs of
mentors and
protégés from a
company in
China
Affective trust,
cognition-based
trust, and
protégé’s internal
locus of control
Mentor’s
perception of costs
and benefits
The
interaction of
trust and
internal locus
of control
169
Mentoring
functions
protégé’s reported
mentorship quality was
significant. The
relationship was stronger
for male protégés than for
female protégés.
Voluntary participation
was significantly related to
rewarding experiences.
Input into the matching
process was related to
nepotism. Training was
related to generativity.
Management support was
related to rewarding
experience, recognition,
generativity, and
reflection.
Protégé’s internal locus of
control moderated the
relationship between
cognition-based trust and
mentoring functions but
could not moderate the
relationship between
affect-based trust and
Weinberg &
Lankau, 2010
Journal of
Management
110 pairs of
mentors and
protégés from a
large insurance
company
Mentor gender,
gender
composition,
hours spent
together, protégé
perceived
mentoring
support
Chun et al., 2010
Group and
Organization
Management
147 pairs of
mentors and
protégés from
several
professional
industries
Mentor emotional
intelligence and
protégéemotional
intelligence
Chun et al., 2012
Longitudinal
Mentoring
The
interaction of
mentor and
protégé
emotional
intelligence
170
Trust in
mentor
mentoring functions.
Mentoring function Gender composition and
provided, mentor
total hours spent together
satisfaction with
were related to the
the formal
mentoring function
mentoring program, provided. Psychosocial
and protégé-rated
support and role modeling
mentor
were positively related to
effectiveness
mentor satisfaction with
the formal mentoring
program. Only
psychosocial support was
significantly related to
protégé-rated mentor
effectiveness.
Mentoring
Mentor’s and protégé’s
functions and
emotional intelligence
protégé’s
were related to mentoring
willingness to
provided through protégé’s
mentor others
trust in mentors. The
interaction effect of mentor
and protégéemotional
intelligence on protégé’s
trust in mentor was also
significant.
Protégé’s
Career support affected
Journal of
Organizational
Behavior
study of 111
mentor-protégé
dyadic among
white-collar
employees from
nine Korean
companies.
functions
organizational
commitment and
affective
well-being;
Mentor’s
transformational
leadership,
affective well-being
and organizational
commitment
Okurame, 2012
Leadership &
Organization
Development
Journal
72 supervisors
and 182 of their
subordinates in
branches of a
bank.
Formal mentoring
program
OCB
Son & Kim, 2013
Journal of Career
Development
184 protégés
from 2 different
organizations
Protégéperceived
relationship
quality
Protégé
Protégéto take
commitment advice from the
and trust
mentors
171
mentor’s transformational
leadership and
organizational
commitment. It also
affected protege's
organizational
commitment and affective
well-being. Psychosocial
support affected mentor's
organizational
commitment. Role
modeling affected mentor's
transformational
leadership and affective
well-being.
Formal mentoring program
significantly related to
three dimensions of OCB,
namely sportsmanship,
courtesy, and altruism.
Protégé’s trust was found
to partially mediate the
relationship between
relationship quality and
taking advice, and
Chen, Liao & Wen,
2014
International
Journal of Human
Resource
Management
208
Mentoring
mentor-protégé
functions
dyads from China
Power
distance
orientation
Perceived
psychologic
al safety
Protégé’s affective
commitment,
turnover intention.
Note: This review starts with Ragins and Cotton’s (1999) seminal work on formal and informal mentoring.
172
protégé’s commitment was
found to fully mediate this
relationship.
Perceived psychological
safety partially mediated
the relationship between
mentoring and affective
commitment and turnover
intention. Power distance
orientation moderated the
relationship between
mentoring and
psychological safety.
APPENDIX B
MEASUREMENT SCALES USED IN THE SURVEY
Mentoring Function
Scandura, T.A., & Ragins, B.R. (1993). The effects of sex and gender role orientation
on mentorship in male-dominated occupation. Journal of vocational Behavior, 43,
251-265.
I take a personal interest in my protégé’s career.
I have placed my protégéin important assignments.
I give my protégéspecial coaching on the job.
I advise my protégéof promotional opportunities.
I help my protégécoordinate professional goals.
I have devoted special time and consideration to my protégé’s career.
I share personal problems with my protégé.
I socialize with my protégéafter work.
I exchange confidences with my mentor.
I consider my protégéto be a friend.
I often go to lunch with my protégé.
My protégétries to model his/her behavior after me.
My protégéadmires my ability to motivate others.
My protégérespects my knowledge of the profession.
My protégérespects my ability to teach others.
Person-organization fit
Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of
subjective fit perceptions. Journal of applied psychology, 87(5), 875.
The things that I value in life are very similar to the things that my organization
values
My personal values match my organization’s values and culture
My organization’s values and culture provide a good fit with the things that I value in
life.
OBSE
173
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989).
Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation.
Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 622-648.
I count around here;
I am taken seriously around here;
I am important around here;
I am trusted around here;
There is faith in me around here;
I can make a difference around here;
I am valuable around here;
I am helpful around here;
I am efficient around here
I am cooperative around here.
Mentor’s organizational prototypicality
Van Knippenberg, B., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self-sacrifice and
leadership effectiveness: the moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90(1), 25.
My mentor is a good example of the kind of people that are members of my
organization.
My mentor has very much in common with the members of my organization.
My mentor represents what is characteristic of the organization.
My mentor is very similar to the members of my organization.
My mentor resembles the members of my organization.
Job satisfaction
Cammann C, Fichman M, Jenkins GD, Klesh J. (1983). Michigan organizational
assessment
questionnaire. In Seashore SE, Lawler EE, Mirvis PH, Camman C (Eds.),Assessing
organizational change: A guide to methods, measures, and practices(pp. 71–138).
New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience.
In general, I like working here.
All in all, I am satisfied with my job.
In general, I don’t like my job.
Affective Organizational Commitment
174
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997).Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research,
and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
This company has a great deal of personal meaning for me.
I do feel emotionally attached to this company.
I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career working for this company.
I feel like part of the family at this company.
I really feel as if this company’s problems are my own.
I feel a strong sense of belonging to this company.
I enjoy discussing my organization with people outside it.
I think that I could easily become as attached to another organization as I am to this
one.
OCB
Lee, Kibeom, and Natalie J. Allen. "Organizational citizenship behavior and
workplace deviance: the role of affect and cognitions." Journal of Applied Psychology
87.1 (2002): 131-142.
Help others who have been absent.
Willingly give my time to help others who have work-related problems.
Adjust my work schedule to accommodate other employees’ requests for time off.
Go out of the way to make newer employees feel welcome in the work group.
Show genuine concern and courtesy toward coworkers, even under the most trying
business or personal situations.
Give up time to help others who have work or nonwork problems.
Assist others with their duties.
Share personal property with others to help their work.
Attend functions that are not required but that help the organizational image.
Keep up with developments in the organization.
Defend the organization when other employees criticize it.
Show pride when representing the organization in public.
Offer ideas to improve the functioning of the organization.
Express loyalty toward the organization.
Take action to protect the organization from potential problems.
Demonstrate concern about the image of the organization.
175
APPENDIX C
QUESTIONNAIRES USED IN THE SURVEY
Questionnaire 1: The Formal Mentoring Program and Socialization Outcomes
(For Protégés in Time 1)
企业师徒制度调查问卷（学徒版）
尊敬的先生、女士：
您好!
我们正在开展一项以“企业师徒制度调查”为题的研究。我们拟在全国进
行大规模调研，并基于此调研数据的科学分析作出研究结论及给出政策性建
议。您的支持与及时客观的反馈将对此项研究的顺利进行意义重大。本次调查
研究将分两次进行。因此希望阁下在问卷（即第一部分）留下您的姓名和员工编
号等信息。目的是为了将两次调查的数据相互联系。请您放心，我们仅是为了
纯粹的科研目的，关心的是普适的理论规律，并无意刺探贵单位与您个人的情
报。您所提供的信息将与其它人士的信息一并做分析而得出客观而普适的科研
结论。我们郑重承诺：我们所搜集的信息将仅用作学术研究使用，绝对不会向
第三方（包括您的公司）泄露。
香港浸会大学
研究项目
第一部分（请务必填写）：
您的姓名：____________
员工编号：____________
176
第二部分：
以下语句描述的是您和企业的适合度，请按照您认
同的程度进行评价，在符合的数字上打勾“√”或
划圈“○”。
1. 我个人的价值观和这个企业的价值观很相似。
2. 我个人的价值观和这个企业的价值观和文化很
匹配。
3. 这个企业的价值观和文化很符合我人生的价值
观。
非常
不
不同
同
意
意
1
2
1
同
非常
意
同意
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
4. 我在这里是有价值的。
5. 我在这里是被重视的。
6. 我在这里是重要的。
7. 我在这里是被信任的。
8. 这里的人都相信我。
9. 我在这里是有影响力的。
10. 我在这里是有宝贵的。
11. 我在这里是有用的。
12. 我在这里是有效率的。
13. 我在这里是能和人合作的。
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
14. 我的导师是这个企业员工很好的一个例子。
15. 我的导师和这个企业的成员有很多相同点。
16. 我的导师代表了这个企业的特征。
17. 我的导师和这个企业的员工很相似。
18. 我的导师很像这个企业的员工。
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
中立
第三部分：请按照您的实际情况填写或勾选，在符合的字母上打勾“√”或划
圈“○”。
1.
2.
3.
A.
4.
5.
您的年龄：______岁
您的性别：
A. 男性
B. 女性
您的教育程度：
小学
B.初中
C.高中
D. 大专或职业院校
您在这个企业工作了多久？ _____个月
您的导师是否是您的直属领导（顶头上司）？
A. 是
B. 不是
问卷结束，谢谢！
177
E.大学本科及以上
Questionnaire 2: The Formal Mentoring Program and Socialization Outcomes
(For Protégés in Time 2)
企业师徒制度调查问卷（学徒版）
尊敬的先生、女士：
您好!
我们正在开展一项以“企业师徒制度调查”为题的研究。我们拟在全国进
行大规模调研，并基于此调研数据的科学分析作出研究结论及给出政策性建
议。您的支持与及时客观的反馈将对此项研究的顺利进行意义重大。本次调查
研究将分两次进行。因此希望阁下在问卷（即第一部分）留下您的姓名和员工编
号等信息。目的是为了将两次调查的数据相互联系。请您放心，我们仅是为了
纯粹的科研目的，关心的是普适的理论规律，并无意刺探贵单位与您个人的情
报。您所提供的信息将与其它人士的信息一并做分析而得出客观而普适的科研
结论。我们郑重承诺：我们所搜集的信息将仅用作学术研究使用，绝对不会向
第三方（包括您的公司）泄露。
香港浸会大学
研究项目
第一部分（请务必填写）：
您的姓名：____________
员工编号：____________
以下语句描述的是您对工作的态度，请按照认同的
程度进行评价，在符合的数字上打勾“√”或划圈
“○”。
1. 总的来说，我喜欢在这里工作。
2. 总而言之，我很满意这份工作。
3.
总的来说，我不喜欢我的工作。
4.
我帮助那些自我感觉茫然的员工。
5.
我愿意利用我的时间帮助那些有工作问题的人。
178
非常
不
不同
同
意
意
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
同
非常
意
同意
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
3
3
4
4
5
5
中立
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
即使在最艰难的工作或个人环境中，我依然对同事表
现礼貌以及真诚的关心。
1
2
3
4
5
我利用我的时间去帮助那些有工作或非工作问题的
人。
1
2
3
4
5
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
6.
我调节我的工作计划来适应其它员工休假的请求。
7.
我特意让新员工感受到团队对他们的欢迎。
8.
9.
10. 我愿意帮助别人完成任务。
11. 我与其他人分享个人物品来帮助他们的工作。
12. 我会出席一些非必须但能够帮助提升团队形象的活
动。
13. 我能紧跟团队的发展。
14. 当其他同事批评我的团队时，我为自己团队辩护。
15. 在公共场合代表团队时我会表现出自豪。
16. 我为提升团队运作提供想法。
17. 我对团队展现忠诚。
18. 我用实际行动保护团队免于潜在的问题。
19. 我会表现出对团队形象的关心。
20. 这个企业对我来说有很大的个人意义。
21. 我对这个企业有一种情感上的依赖。
22. 我很乐意在我的职业生涯中一直为这个企业工作。
23. 我在这个企业中感到自己像这个大家庭的一部分。
24. 这个企业的问题就好像是我的问题一样。
25. 我对这个企业感到很强烈的归属感。
26. 我喜欢和外人讨论我工作的这个企业。
27. 我觉得我不能很轻易地对另一个企业产生依赖感，就
像现在对这个企业这样。
第三部分：请按照您的实际情况填写或勾选，在符合的字母上打勾“√”或划
圈“○”。
1.
2.
3.
A.
4.
5.
您的年龄：______岁
您的性别：
A. 男性
B. 女性
您的教育程度：
小学
B.初中
C.高中
D. 大专或职业院校
您在这个企业工作了多久？ _____个月
您的导师是否是您的直属领导（顶头上司）？
A. 是
B. 不是
问卷结束，谢谢！
179
E.大学本科及以上
Questionnaire 3: The Formal Mentoring Program and Socialization Outcomes
(For Mentors)
企业师徒制度调查问卷（导师版）
尊敬的先生、女士：
您好!
我们正在开展一项以“企业师徒制度调查”为题的研究。我们拟在全国进
行大规模调研，并基于此调研数据的科学分析作出研究结论及给出政策性建
议。您的支持与及时客观的反馈将对此项研究的顺利进行意义重大。请您放
心，我们仅是为了纯粹的科研目的，关心的是普适的理论规律，并无意刺探贵
单位与您个人的情报。您所提供的信息将与其它人士的信息一并做分析而得出
客观而普适的科研结论。我们郑重承诺：我们所搜集的信息将仅用作学术研究
使用，绝对不会向第三方（包括您的公司）泄露。
香港浸会大学
研究项目
第一部分（请务必填写）：
您的姓名：____________
您的员工编号：____________
您的学徒的姓名：____________
第二部分：
以下语句描述的是您对学徒的行为，请按照您认同
的程度进行评价，在符合的数字上打勾“√”或划
圈“○”。
28. 我会关注他/她的职业发展。
29. 我会让他/她完成重要的任务。
30. 我在工作上给他/她提供专门的指导。
31. 在升迁机会上，我会给他/她建议。
32. 我会协助他/她调整职业目标。
33. 我会花时间去思考他/她的职业发展。
34. 我和他/她互相分享个人问题。
180
非常
不
不同
同
意
意
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
中立
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
同
非常
意
同意
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
35. 我和他/她会在下班后交际一下。
36. 我会同他/她互相说说心里话。
37. 我把他/她看作是朋友。
38. 我经常和他/她共进午餐。
39. 他/她把我看作是榜样。
40. 他/她钦佩我激励他人的能力。
41. 他/她尊重我的专业知识。
42. 他/她尊重我教导他人的能力。
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
第三部分：请按照您的实际情况填写或勾选，在符合的字母上打勾“√”或划
圈“○”。
1.
2.
3.
A.
4.
您的年龄：______岁
您的性别：
A. 男性
B. 女性
您的教育程度：
小学
B.初中
C.高中
D. 大专或职业院校
您在这个企业工作了多久？ _____年
问卷结束，谢谢！
181
E.大学本科及以上
CURRICULUM VITAE
Academic qualifications of the thesis author, Mr. CAI Zhenyao:

Received the degree of Bachelor of Business Administration (Honours) from
Hong Kong Baptist University, November 2009.

Received the degree of Master of Science in E-Commerce from Hong Kong
Polytechnic University, November 2010.
December 2014
182