USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

The link between the career plateau and mentoring

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The link between the career plateau and mentoring addressing the empirical gap
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Lentz, Elizabeth
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
mentor experience
mentor benefits
job satisfaction
job performance
organizational commitment
turnover intentions
career plateau
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- Masters -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to empirically investigate the relationship between career plateauing and mentoring. First, the relationship between career plateauing and work-related attitudes was investigated. Next, the relationship between mentoring experience and work-related attitudes was examined. Finally, both experience as a mentor and mentoring provided were examined as moderators between career plateauing and work-related attitudes. Three hundred and six government employees located in the southeastern United States completed surveys (50.08% response rate). Of those, 110 reported mentor experience and 196 reported no mentor experience. In general, results provided support for the relationship between job content and hierarchical plateauing and negative work-related attitudes. No support was found for the relationship between job tenure and work-related attitudes. Support was found for the relationship between mentoring experience and positive work-related attitudes. With the exception of contextual performance, the relationship between mentoring provided and work-related attitudes was not supported. Little support was found for the interaction between mentor experience and plateauing, suggesting that mentoring others may not alleviate the negative effects of career plateauing. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2004.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Elizabeth Lentz.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 111 pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001469405
oclc - 55731136
notis - AJR1159
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0000307
usfldc handle - e14.307
System ID:
SFS0025002:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001469405
003 fts
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 040524s2004 flua sbm s000|0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0000307
035
(OCoLC)55731136
9
AJR1159
b SE
SFE0000307
040
FHM
c FHM
090
BF121
1 100
Lentz, Elizabeth.
4 245
The link between the career plateau and mentoring
h [electronic resource] :
addressing the empirical gap /
by Elizabeth Lentz.
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
2004.
502
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2004.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 111 pages.
520
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to empirically investigate the relationship between career plateauing and mentoring. First, the relationship between career plateauing and work-related attitudes was investigated. Next, the relationship between mentoring experience and work-related attitudes was examined. Finally, both experience as a mentor and mentoring provided were examined as moderators between career plateauing and work-related attitudes. Three hundred and six government employees located in the southeastern United States completed surveys (50.08% response rate). Of those, 110 reported mentor experience and 196 reported no mentor experience. In general, results provided support for the relationship between job content and hierarchical plateauing and negative work-related attitudes. No support was found for the relationship between job tenure and work-related attitudes. Support was found for the relationship between mentoring experience and positive work-related attitudes. With the exception of contextual performance, the relationship between mentoring provided and work-related attitudes was not supported. Little support was found for the interaction between mentor experience and plateauing, suggesting that mentoring others may not alleviate the negative effects of career plateauing. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.
590
Adviser: Allen, Tammy D.
653
mentor experience.
mentor benefits.
job satisfaction.
job performance.
organizational commitment.
turnover intentions.
career plateau.
0 690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Psychology
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.307



PAGE 1

The Link Between the Career Plateau and Mentoring Addressing the Empirical Gap by Elizabeth Lentz A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Psychology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Tammy D. Allen, Ph.D. Walter Borman, Ph.D. Judith Becker Bryant, Ph.D. Date of Approval: April 6, 2004 Keywords: career plateau, me ntor experience, mentor be nefits, job satisfaction, job performance, organizational co mmitment, turnover intentions Copyright 2004, Elizabeth Lentz

PAGE 2

Acknowledgments Completing my masters research has truly been a rewarding and enlightening experience for me. I would like to thank th e government employees who participated in this study and recognized the valu e their feedback would have. I would also like to thank my committee members, Drs. Wally Borman and Judy Bryant, for sharing their expertise and insight with me throughout this process. And of course, I w ould like to thank my advisor and mentor, Dr. Tammy Allen, to whom I am truly indebted. This research would not have been possible without her co ntinuous support, guidanc e, and commitment to my success. Each day, I am truly amazed by her dedication and wisdom. On a personal note, I woul d like to thank my parents for their endless support, encouragement, and love. I could not have ma de it this far without them. They truly are my source of inspiration. Finally, a speci al thank you to my fianc, who has always encouraged me to pursue my dreams and strive to be the best I can be.

PAGE 3

i Table of Contents List of Tables iii List of Figures iv Abstract v Chapter One Introduction 1 The Career Plateau 1 Mentoring 6 Mentoring Phases 6 Mentor Functions 8 Protg Perspective 8 Mentor Perspective 10 Integration of the Mentoring and Career Plateauing Research 12 Study Hypotheses 14 Chapter Two Methods 21 Participants 21 Procedure 22 Measures 23 Career Plateau 23 Mentoring Experience 25 Mentoring Provided 25 Job Satisfaction 26 Job Performance 26 Organizational Commitment 27 Intent to Turnover 28 Demographic Variables 28 Control Variables 28 Chapter Three Results 29 Preliminary Analyses 29 Hypothesis Testing 31 Mentor Experience Moderator Analysis 35 Career Mentoring Moderator Analysis 44 Psychosocial Mentoring Moderator Anal ysis 46

PAGE 4

ii Chapter Four Discussion 63 Hypotheses 1a and 1b: Career plateauing and work-related attitudes 63 Hypotheses 2a and 2b: Ment or experience and work-related attitudes 65 Hypotheses 3a and 3b: Ment oring provided and work-related attitudes 66 Hypothesis 4a: Mentor experience as a moderator 67 Hypothesis 4b: Career ment oring as a moderator 69 Hypothesis 4c: Psychosocial mentoring as a moderator 69 Limitations and Future Research 71 Conclusions 73 References 74 Appendices 79 Appendix A: Job Content and Hierarchi cal Plateau Scales 80 Appendix B: Mentoring Experience Items 81 Appendix C: Mentor Function Scale 82 Appendix D: Job Satisfaction Scale 84 Appendix E: Task and Contextual Performance Scales 85 Appendix F: Organizational Commitment Scale 86 Appendix G: Intent to Turnover Scale 87 Appendix H: Demographic Items 88 Appendix I: Information Email 89 Appendix J: Question and Answer Document 90 Appendix K: Email Template That Contains Survey Link 92 Appendix L: Reminder Email Template 94 Appendix M: Complete Employee Opinion Survey 95

PAGE 5

iii List of Tables Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables 32 Table 2 Coefficient Alpha Reliability Estima tes and Intercorrelations 33 Among Study Variables Table 3 Mentor Experience Moderator Analysis for Job Satisfaction 38 Table 4 Mentor Experience Moderator Analysis for Task Performance 39 Table 5 Mentor Experience Moderator Analysis for Contextual Performance 40 Table 6 Mentor Experience Moderator Analysis for Organizational 41 Commitment Table 7 Mentor Experience Moderator Analysis for Intent to Turnover 42 Table 8 Career Mentoring Mode rator Analysis for Job Satisfaction 50 Table 9 Career Mentoring Mode rator Analysis for Task Performance 51 Table 10 Career Mentoring Moderator Analysis for Contextual Performance 52 Table 11 Career Mentoring Moderator Analys is for Organizational 53 Commitment Table 12 Career Mentoring Moderator Analysis for Intent to Turnover 54 Table 13 Psychosocial Mentoring Moderator Anal ysis for Job Satisfaction 55 Table 14 Psychosocial Mentoring Moderator Anal ysis for Task Performance 56 Table 15 Psychosocial Mentoring Moderator An alysis for Contextual 57 Performance Table 16 Psychosocial Mentoring Moderator An alysis for Organizational 58 Commitment Table 17 Psychosocial Mentoring Moderator Analysis for Intent to Turnover 59

PAGE 6

iv List of Figures Figure 1 Proposed moderator relationships 16 Figure 2 Predicted moderating effects of being a mentor for job satisfaction, 17 job performance, and organizational commitment Figure 3 Predicted moderating effects of being a mentor for intent to 18 turnover Figure 4 Predicted moderating e ffects of mentor functions fo r job satisfaction, 19 job performance, and organizational commitment Figure 5 Predicted moderating effects of mentor functions for intent to 19 turnover Figure 6 Interaction of Mentor Experience an d Job Tenure for Task 43 Performance Figure 7 Interaction of Mentor Experience and Job Tenure for 43 Organizational Commitment Figure 8 Interaction of Mentor Experience and Hierarchical Plateauing 44 for Intent to Turnover Figure 9 Interaction of Psychosocial Mentorin g and Job Content Plateau 60 for Job Satisfaction Figure 10 Interaction of Psychosocial Mentor ing and Job Tenure for 60 Task Performance Figure 11 Interaction of Psychosocial Mentor ing and Job Tenure for 61 Contextual Performance Figure 12 Interaction of Psychosocial Mentorin g and Job Content Plateau 61 for Organizational Commitment Figure 13 Interaction of Psychosocial Mentorin g and Hierarchical Plateau 62 for Organizational Commitment

PAGE 7

v The Link Between the Career Plateau and Mentoring Addressing the Empirical Gap Elizabeth Lentz ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to empiri cally investigate the relationship between career plateauing and mentoring. First, th e relationship between career plateauing and work-related attitudes was investigated. Next, the relationship between mentoring experience and work-related attitudes was examined. Finally, both experience as a mentor and mentoring provided were examined as moderators between career plateauing and work-related attitudes. Three hundred and six government employees located in the southeastern United States completed surveys (50.08% response rate). Of those, 110 reported mentor experience and 196 reported no mentor experien ce. In general, results provided support for the relationship between job content and hierarch ical plateauing and negative work-related attitudes. No support was found for the relationship between job tenure and work-related attitudes. Suppor t was found for the relationship between mentoring experience and positive work-related attitudes. With the exception of contextual performance, the relationship between mentoring provi ded and work-related attitudes was not supported. Little support was found for the interaction between mentor experience and plateauing, suggesting that mentoring others may not alleviate the negative effects of career plateau ing. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.

PAGE 8

1 Chapter One Introduction Two of the major streams of research w ithin the career literature include career plateauing and mentoring. For the most pa rt, these topics have been examined independently, with minimal consideration gi ven to empirical relationships between the two. Research that has considered the relationship between plateauing and mentoring has been from a theoretical perspective or as a suggestion for future research (e.g. Appelbaum & Santiago, 1997; Chao, 1990; Elsass & Ralson, 1989; Greenhaus & Callanan, 1994; Rotondo & Perrewe, 2000; Sl ocum, Cron, Hansen, & Rawlings, 1985; Sterns & Miklos, 1995). Although a relationship has been su ggested throughout both of the research streams, there ha s been limited direct examin ation of the constructs in relation to each other. The purpose of the present research was to investigate the relationship between career plateauing and mentoring. Specifica lly, mentoring and career plateauing were analyzed to determine whether experience as a mentor moderates the relationship between career plateauing and wo rk-related outcomes. In the next sections, the relevant plateauing and mentoring lit erature are reviewed, follo wed by discussion of the theoretical framework supporting th e integration of the two. The Career Plateau Plateauing has received considerable attention within the career literature. Traditionally, a plateau has been defined as a point where the likelihood of additional

PAGE 9

2 hierarchical promotion is low (Ference, Stoner, & Warren, 1977). Specifically, two sources were identified and used to categorize plateaued individuals as either organizationally plateaued or personally pl ateaued. An organizationally plateaued worker describes an employee who has the abil ity to perform effectiv ely in a higher-level position, but a lack of job openings may preven t his/her promotion (F erence et al., 1977). This type of plateau is a function of the pyram id-like structure of organizations. That is, career plateauing results because the number of available positions decreases as one advances hierarchically in the organization. In contrast, a personally plateaued worker is viewed by the organization as either lacking the ability or the desire to move into a higher-level position. A lack of technical skill, career skill, or sufficient desire for a higher-level position may contribute to an indi viduals lack of promotional opportunity (Ference et al., 1977). Plateauing research was expanded to consider plateauing from more than a hierarchical or promotional perspective. Focusing on the multidimensionality of the construct, Bardwick (1986) extended the definition to include hierar chical, job content, and life plateauing. Hierarchical (structural) plateauing results when an individuals vertical movement within an organization dec lines. Job content plateauing refers to the lack of challenge, decrease in responsibilities, and overall staleness of the job itself. Life plateauing describes an indivi duals feelings of being tra pped or stuck in their roles outside of work (Allen, Russell, Poteet, & D obbins, 1999; Bardwick, 1986). In terms of organizations, managers not only need to be concerned with the promotional opportunities available, but also the overall sense of enrich ment employees are receiving

PAGE 10

3 from their job. Feldman and Weitz (1988) revised the career pl ateau definition to consider an individual plateaued if his or her likelihood of receiving further assignments of increased responsibility is low (p. 70) In addition, a six-factor taxonomy of individual, job, and organizati onal sources of plateauing was presented. On an individual level, deficiencies in individual skills and ab ilities or a particular configuration of needs and values may contribute to poor performan ce and job attitudes. Focusing on the job perspective, a job that lacks intrinsic mo tivation or extrinsic rewards may result in minimal or poor job performance and job attitudes. Finally, at the organizational level, stress and burnout, as well as slow organizational growth may contribute to negative effects on job performance and job attitudes (Feldman & Weitz, 1988). Researchers have found significant diffe rences in outcomes when comparing plateaued and non-plateaued employees. N ear (1985) surveyed 199 managers from diverse occupations, such as public administration, bank officers, and retail managers, and found significant differences in terms of absenteeism and relationships with supervisors. Managers who we re hierarchically plateaued we re absent more frequently from work and tended to rate their supervisor s less favorably than did their non-plateaued counterparts (Near, 1985). Additional research looked at reports of career plateau among police officers. Burke (1989) found that plateaued police officers reported less job satisfaction, greater psychologi cal burnout, less commitment, and higher intentions of turnover. Moreover, Stout, Slocum, and Cron (1988) examined the wo rk related attitudes of salespeople across a longitudinal study. Ac ross a three year time period, individuals who were plateaued from the start of th e study reported less commitment to their

PAGE 11

4 organization and a greater propensity to l eave the organization than did nonplateaued salespeople. Individuals who became platea ued during the course of the study reported being less marketable to other companies th an did nonplateaued salespeople. Finally, those employees who were not plateaued fo r the duration of the study reported being more marketable, had a greater desire to re ceive a promotion, and improved their sales volume for the year than did both groups of pl ateaued salespeople (St out et al., 1988). More recent research has explored differences across nonplateaued, content plateaued, hierarchically plateaued, and bot h content and hierarchically plateaued managers. Allen, Poteet, and Russell (1998) investigated attitudinal differences in plateau categories for 607 state government ma nagers. Findings indicated that double plateaued managers (those bot h job content and hierarchi cal plateaued) reported less favorable job attitudes than did managers w ho were either job cont ent or hierarchically plateaued, including less job involvement, lower levels of commitment, and lower levels of job satisfaction. With regard to only be ing hierarchically plat eaued or job content plateaued, results indicated that managers w ho were job content pl ateaued reported less favorable job attitudes than did hierarchical plateaued managers. Specifically job content plateaued managers reported lowe r levels of job satisfaction and greater intentions to turnover than did hierarchical plateaued ma nagers (Allen et al., 1998). The plateau literature has also focused on the measurement of career plateaus. Initially, age, organizational tenure, job tenure, or frequency of promotion were used to measure whether a worker was plateaued. For example, Near (1985) classified participants as plateaued if th ey did not expect to receive a promotion in the next twenty

PAGE 12

5 years. Burke (1989) categorized participants by tenure, identifying police officers with sixteen or more years of experience as caree r plateaued. Furthermore, Slocum et al. (1985) recognized the la ck of substantial evidence establ ishing when a plateau actually occurs and chose to classify salespersons as plateaued if they had not been promoted or received a lateral job change in five years or more. Rather than relying solely on objective measures, Chao (1990) suggested th e importance of perception in assessing a plateau. Simply stated, it is not sufficient to categorize an employee with tenure in an organization or who has not received a recent promotion as plateaued. Chao was the first to introduce the notion of subjective measur es stating, The subjective evaluation of future career development is the appropriate focal point because it emphasizes how the individual perceives, assesses, and reacts to the present work situation (Chao, p. 182, 1990). Various research studies have provide d support for the util ity of subjective measures. Research from 1,755 managers found that perceptions of plateau were negatively related to intrinsic and extrin sic job satisfaction, ca reer planning, and organizational identification and contribut ed unique variance beyond job tenure (Chao, 1990). Another study found that subjective plat eau measures were able to explain 12% of variance in job attitudes, compared to only 1% explained by objective measures (Tremblay, Roger, & Toulouse, 1995). Chao (1990) also pointed out the need to treat plateauing along a continuum. Instead of viewing a career plateau as a dic hotomous variable, categorizing an individual

PAGE 13

6 as either plateaued or nonplateaued, plateauing should be asse ssed in terms of degree or magnitude. Despite the considerable extant resear ch investigating plateauing, few studies have examined the construct as Chao (1990) suggests. The present study will contribute to the plateauing literature by examining work-r elated attitudes in relation to the career plateau, which will be measured from both a subjective and objective perspective as a continuous variable. Mentoring The mentoring relationship can be define d as an interpersonal experience between a junior and a senior employee, in which the senior employee (mentor) supports, guides, and orients the junior employee (protg) to the various tasks, functions, and culture within the organization (Kram, 1985). Si nce Krams (1985) seminal research on mentoring in organizational settings, mentor ing has been a popular topic within the careers literature. Research has focused on phases, function, type, outcomes, and dyadic composition of those involved in a mentor ing relationship (e.g. Allen, Day, & Lentz, 2000; Chao, Walz, & Gardner, 1992; Dreher & Ash, 1990; Kram, 1983; Noe, 1988;). For the present study, the scope of the review is limited to mentoring phases, mentoring provided, and outcomes. Mentoring Phases Mentoring can be further described as a developmental relationship with unique phases and functions. Based on interviews from younger and older managers involved in developmental relationships, Kram ( 1983) proposed four phases to describe the

PAGE 14

7 individual experiences and in teractions between a senior manager (mentor) and a younger manager (protg): initiation, cultivation, separation, and redefinition. The initiation phase has been used to desc ribe the initial interactions during the first 6 to 12 months of the relationship. The senior manager is often admired and viewed as competent and capable of supporting the younger manager. On the other hand, the younger manager is perceived by the senior manager as someone with great potential that would benefit from his/her coaching and expe rtise. These initial interactions and expectancies lay the foundation for the pa th, direction, and involvement each member will have. The next 2 to 5 years have been described as the cultivation phase. During this period, the relationship continues to grow, as the initial expectancies become reality. The senior manager may feel a sense of empowerment from supporting the younger manager by assigning challenging tasks or serving as a role model. The younger manager is often gaining a sense of comp etence and self-confidence from the senior manager. For some, this is a positive experience, with each member benefiting from both personal and organizational rewards. Yet for others, unfulfilled developmental needs may lead to reports of a dysfunctional relationship or a negative mentoring relationship (Eby, McManus, Simon, & Russell, 2000). Both the positive and ne gative relationships will eventually enter the separation phase. For various reasons, such as organizational restructuring or individual psychological changes, the protg will become more independent and the mentor will take a le ss active role. Eventually, both members will conclude the developmental relationship is no longer warranted. The younger manager, who may now have similar organizational stat us, may continue to feel gratitude and

PAGE 15

8 appreciation for the senior manager. Fo r the senior manager, the younger managers success may be viewed as proof of his or he r own effectiveness and competence. Often, the relationship will transform into a friendship. New boundaries are set and one anothers role is redefined to mark the be ginning of the redefiniti on phase (Kram, 1983). Mentor Functions Krams phase model explores how a mentor ship forms and later dissipates, paying special attention to a mentors function and role within the dynamics of the relationship. Specifically, Kram noted that mentoring f unctions are most prevalent within the cultivation phase and can be described and categorized as career-related and psychosocial. Career-related mentoring focuses on the advancement of the protg, including sponsorship, exposure, coaching, protection, and providing challeng ing assignments. Psychosocial mentoring focuses on instilling a sense of competence and identity in the protg and include role modeling, acceptance, and friendship (Kram, 1983). Protg Perspective Although Kram (1985) noted that both members of a mentorship accrue developmental rewards, the majority of me ntoring literature has focused on perceived benefits and outcomes for the protg. Chao (1997) conducted a longitudinal study across a five-year time span. Individuals who reported not ha ving (had) a mentor (N=93), protgs in current mentorships (N=82), and protgs who had former mentor relationships (N=69) participated and were su rveyed after 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years. These three groups were compared on car eer outcomes (career planning and career

PAGE 16

9 involvement), organizational socialization (p erformance, people, goals/values, politics, and history), job satisfaction, and income. Examination of mean differences across groups shows that protgs reported more favorable outcomes than non-protgs. Moreover, significant long-term differences were found for career planning, career involvement, socialization goals/values, social ization politics, soci alization history, job satisfaction, and income for the mentored co mpared to the non-mentored group (Chao, 1997). Other studies have investigated outcomes in relation to the degree of mentoring received. Dreher and Ash (1990) examin ed the correlations between mentoring experiences and outcome variables of 320 busin ess graduates. Results indicated that individuals who reported more mentori ng experiences reported receiving more promotions, higher incomes, and more sati sfaction with their pa y and benefits in comparison to individuals reporting less mentoring experiences. Another study by Scandura (1992) found a relationship between vocational and psychosocial mentoring and salary level and the numb er of promotions received throughout the careers of 244 randomly sampled manufacturing managers. Later work by Koberg, Boss, and Goodman (1998) focused on outcomes associated with psychosocial mentoring functions among health-care professionals. The results reveal ed that psychosocial mentoring was related to increased levels of job involvement and self-esteem at work, as well as decreased levels of intentions to leave the organization. Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, and Lima ( 2004) recently synthesized the existing mentoring literature concerning the outcome s and benefits associated with being a

PAGE 17

10 protg. The authors used meta-analysis to examine protg benefits in terms of objective and subjective career outcomes. Objective career outcomes included compensation and promotion. Subjective care er outcomes included career satisfaction, expectations for advancement, career comm itment, job satisfaction, satisfaction with mentor, and intentions to stay with the organization. A co mparison of mentored versus non-mentored individuals indi cated that protgs reporte d higher compensation, more promotions, higher levels of career satisfaction, greater expectations for advancement, more commitment to their career, and higher le vels of job satisfaction. However, there was no difference between mentors and non-mentors with regard to intentions to turnover (Allen et al., 2004). Mentor Perspective Thus far, the empirical research prim arily has focused on protg benefits. However, current research has begun to focus on the mentor, suggesting that mentors also derive benefits from mentoring relationships. With this in mind, researchers have begun to examine the qualities that contribute to being a good mentor and th e perceived benefits associated with being a mentor. Allen, Poteet, and Burroughs (1997) interviewed 27 supervisors regarding their experiences as a mentor, focusing specifically on the decision to become a mentor. The reasons for beco ming a mentor were content analyzed and categorized into two dimensions: other-focus ed and self-focused. Examples of otherfocused reasons included comments pertaining to the desire to pass information on to others and the desire to build a competent work force. Examples of self-focused decisions included comments related to gratification of seeing others succeed/grow and a personal

PAGE 18

11 desire to work with others. In addition, the authors identified four higher-order factors of positive benefits for mentors, including build ing support networks, se lf-satisfaction, and self-focused and other-focused job related be nefits. Comments regarding the perceived negative consequences of mentoring primar ily emphasized extensive time requirements involved in mentoring others (Allen et al., 1997). Similarly, Ragins and Scandura (1999) expl ored the anticipated costs and benefits of being a mentor, mentoring experiences, and intentions to become a mentor. Specifically, the authors utilized existing ca reer and mentoring research to develop a measure that focused on the benefits and cost s of being a mentor. Five categories of benefits were identified and include rewardi ng experience, job performance, loyal base of support, recognition by others, and generativit y. As part of a separate study, 275 executives were surveyed and provided respons es on the measure. Findings indicated that the anticipated costs and benefits were related to prior mentoring experience. Individuals who had experience with mentoring, either as a mentor or as a protg, reported gaining a sense of satisfaction and fulfillment from engaging in a mentor role. On the other hand, individuals without mentor ing experience expected more costs and fewer benefits (i.e., more trouble than worth) associated with becoming a mentor. These results suggest the importance of experien ce in anticipating ment or outcomes (Ragins & Scandura, 1999). Two recent studies focused on mentors and outcome variables. One study examined the relationship between objective and subjective career success variables and mentoring others. Allen, Lentz, and Da y (2003) surveyed 164 employees from a

PAGE 19

12 southeastern healthcare organi zation. Results from a hierar chical regression analysis indicated that individuals with mentoring experience reported a higher current salary, greater rate of promotion, a nd higher perceptions of career success than those with no experience as a mentor. Interestingly, findings did not suggest that mentoring others was related to higher levels of job satisfaction. Bozionelos (2004) examined the relationship between mentors perception of career su ccess, mentoring received, and amount of mentoring provided among 176 administrators. Results provided support that individuals who reported providing more mentoring report ed higher levels of subjective career success and received more promotions. Overall, although the research on the bene fits of being a mentor is not as extensive as that on protg benefits, recent studies do suggest that mentors benefit from mentoring relationships. The present study cont ributes to this literat ure by examining the extent to which mentoring mitigates the ne gative effects associated with plateauing. Integration of the Mentoring and Career Plateauing Research Theoretical support for linking plateauing and mentoring is embedded within the career and life stage literature, specifi cally Levinsons life cycle theory. Seasons of a Mans Life (1978) was one of the first attempts to examine adult development as a continuous life journey. Levi nson proposed four eras in th e male life cycle: childhood and adolescence, early adulthood, middle adulth ood, and late adulthood. Inherent within each era is a period of transition or adjustme nt that signifies the ending of one era and beginning of the next. For the present rese arch, middle adulthood and mid-life transition were the focal point.

PAGE 20

13 Mid-life transition, occurring approximately between the ages of 40 and 45, can best be described as a period of change a nd reappraisal. It is a time with doubt and questions about the contributions one has made throughout the first half of the journey of life. Although this may be a positive period fo r some, it is rather bleak for many others. Levinson pays special attention to the concer ns of a worker during this transition. He may gain in seniority or in small advantag es, but he has almost no prospects for major advance or for creative fulfillment in the j ob (Levinson, pp. 201). These characteristics parallel the concepts of hierar chical and job content plateauing. In addition, a need arises to pass on a leg acy in the form of family, work, or other subjectively valued contribution. It is this legacy that fosters adult development and serves the purpose of enrichment and persona l fulfillment. As Levinson suggests, it is a time to give up ones mentor and the role of a protg, in favor of becoming a mentor yourself. He is making productive use of hi s knowledge and skill in middle age. He is learning in ways not otherwise possible (Levinson, 1978, p. 253). In sum, mid-life transition can mark a career plateau for ma ny individuals, but mentoring can be an effective solution and coping mechanism that revitalizes and redirects ones knowledge and focus. Rotondo and Perrewe (2000) did expand upon this framework and explore mentoring as a coping response to plat eauing, suggesting that mentoring younger employees may help plateaued employees to cognitively manipulate the meaning of being plateaued (pp. 2627). Results indicated that mentoring was associated with higher levels of satisfaction, commitment, and performance among plateaued employees.

PAGE 21

14 However, the focus of the study was not on this relationship, but rath er mentoring as one of many coping responses (e.g., expanding job assignments) to plateauing. Moreover, mentoring was measured by one item stating, I have tried to become a mentor to younger employees that was only answered by em ployees identified as being plateaued. Although these results are suppor tive of the integration of mentoring and plateauing, an expanded investigation that exam ines the role of mentoring in relation to plateauing and work-related outcomes is necessary. Study Hypotheses Although career plateauing is somewhat unavoidable, Ference et al. (1977) differentiates an individual as either a solid citizen or deadwood by their level of performance. A solid citizen refers to an employee whose promo tional opportunities are limited, but who still performs at a satisfactor y level. A deadwood employee also has minimal opportunity for advancement, but performs at a level below satisfactory. Additional research has supporte d the notion that older workers still have the capacity to remain productive and make contributions to the work-place (Els ass & Ralston, 1989; Hansson, DeKoekkoek, Neece, & Patters on, 1997; Rotondo & Perrewe, 2000). Ettington (1988) categorized a successful car eer plateau when an employee maintains both high levels of satisfaction and effective levels of job performance. Moreover, Allen and Meyer (1996) provided support for the di stinction and constr uct validity of organizational commitment, defining commitme nt as a psychological link between and employee and the organization that aff ects the employees willingness to leave voluntarily. Lease (1998) revi ewed the literature pertai ning to work attitudes and

PAGE 22

15 outcomes and identified job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions as key constructs in organizational models. Consistent with previous research, job satisfaction, job performance, intent to turnover, and organizat ional commitment are the most appropriate work-related attitude and behavioral measures to explore in relation to plateauing and were used in this st udy. Therefore the following hypotheses were proposed: Hypothesis 1a: Plateauing will be negatively re lated to job satisfaction, job performance, and organizational commitment. Hypothesis 1b: Plateauing will be positively related to intent to turnover. Although the research is so mewhat limited, research has begun to focus on the mentor from an empirical perspective. Sp ecifically, recent studies have found support for both subjective and objective measures of car eer success (Allen et al, 2003; Bozionelos, 2004). It was predicted that the benefits of being a ment or would also be related positively to work attitudes and behaviors. Mentoring experience can be assessed in two ways. First, mentors and non-mentors can be compared in relation to outcome measures. Second, the amount of career-r elated and psychosocial mentoring provided by mentors can be correlated with organizational outco mes. For the present study, both types of mentoring experience were investigated and the following hypotheses were proposed: Hypothesis 2a: Mentors will report greater job satisfaction, higher levels of job performance, and more organizational commitment than will non-mentors. Hypothesis 2b: Mentors will report lower intent ions to turnover than will nonmentors.

PAGE 23

Hypothesis 3a: Career-related and psychosocial support provided by the mentor will positively relate to job satisfaction, job performance, and organizational commitment. Hypothesis 3b: Career-related and psychosocial support provided by the mentor will negatively relate to intentions to turnover. Based upon research examining mentoring as a positive response to plateauing and Levinsons life cycle theory, I expected to provide support for a moderator relationship when both constructs were examined. Specifically, I predicted that being a mentor would moderate the relationship between plateauing and work-related attitudes. Also, career-related and psychosocial mentoring provided by mentors would moderate the relationship between plateauing and work-related attitudes. A model for the proposed relationships is provided in Figure 1. Figure 1. Proposed moderator relationships Mentor Experience Mentor/Non-mentor Career-Related Mentoring Psychosocial Mentoring Job Satisfaction Job Performance Organizational Commitment Intent to Turnover Career Plateau Job Content Hierarchical Tenure 16

PAGE 24

In addition, it is important to examine the nature of the moderator effects (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Ahearne, & Bommer, 1995). It was proposed that career plateauing would be significantly related to work outcomes. When comparing mentors and non-mentors, it was expected that these relationships would only be significant at one level of the moderator. The specific moderating effects in relation to job satisfaction, job performance, and organizational commitment are illustrated in Figure 2. The specific moderating effects in relation to intent to turnover are illustrated in Figure 3. Podsakoff et al. (1995) suggest that the nature of this type of interaction could imply that employees should engage in mentoring relationships, regardless of plateauing, because participating in mentoring will never hurt an employee but not mentoring may be harmful. Figure 2. Predicted moderating effects of being a mentor for job satisfaction, job performance, and organizational commitment High Non-mentor 17 DV Mentor Low Low High Career Plateau

PAGE 25

Figure 3. Predicted moderating effects of being a mentor for intent to turnover High Non-mentor 18 DV Mentor Low Low High Career Plateau When comparing the levels of career-related and psychosocial mentoring provided by mentors, it was expected that these relationships would be significant at both levels of the moderator. Lower levels of mentoring functions provided were expected to be associated with a stronger relationship between plateauing and work-related attitudes and behaviors than higher levels of mentoring functions provided when mentors reported higher levels of career plateauing. The relationship was not expected to be as strong when mentors reported lower levels of career plateau. Although the effect may be stronger for career-related mentoring, the nature of the effect was anticipated to be similar. The specific moderating effects of mentor functions in relation to job satisfaction, job performance, and organizational commitment are illustrated in Figure 4. The specific moderating effects of mentor functions in relation to intent to turnover are illustrated in Figure 5. Podsakoff et al. (1995) suggest the nature of this moderating effect may imply that the level of mentor functions provided may weaken the negative

PAGE 26

impact for mentors experiencing higher levels of career plateau. The effect of mentor functions provided may not be as strong for lower levels of career plateau. Figure 4. Predicted moderating effects of mentor functions for job satisfaction, job performance, and organizational commitment High Low Functions 19 DV High Functions Low Low High Career Plateau Figure 5. Predicted moderating effects of mentor functions for intent to turnover High Low Functions DV High Functions Low Low High Career Plateau

PAGE 27

20 Therefore, the following hypotheses were proposed: Hypothesis 4a: Mentor experience will moderate the relationship between plateauing and work-related outcomes. Th e relationship will be significant for employees who do not have mentor expe rience, but will not be significant for employees who do have mentor experience. Hypothesis 4b: Career-related mentoring provided by mentors will moderate the relationship between plateauing and work-re lated outcomes. The relationship will be stronger for lower levels of career -related mentoring provided than higher levels of career-related mentoring pr ovided, indicating that career-related mentoring mitigate the effects of plateauing. Hypothesis 4c: Psychosocial mentoring provided by mentors will moderate the relationship between plateauing and work-re lated outcomes. The relationship will be stronger for lower levels of psychoso cial mentoring provided than higher levels of psychosocial mentoring pr ovided, indicating that psychosocial mentoring mitigates the effects of plateauing.

PAGE 28

21 Chapter Two Method Participants The participants consisted of 306 gover nment employees from three government offices in the southeastern United Stat es. Of the 306 respondents, 110 reported experience as a mentor and 196 reported no e xperience as a mentor. For the mentor sample, 69 mentors were female (64.5%), 98 were Caucasian/White (92.5%), and the mean age was 46.82 years ( SD =10.61). The median educa tion level was a two-year college degree. For the non-mentor sample 156 non-mentors were female (83%), and the majority were Caucasian/White (8 1.9%) with a mean age of 40.86 years ( SD =11.76). The median education level for the non-ment or sample was some college coursework completed. The entire sample included a va st range of job title s and organizational levels. Example job titles include Engineer ing Manager, Senior Accounting Clerk, Code Officer, Department Director, Planner, and Building Inspector. The organizational levels included Staff, First Line Supervisors, Mi ddle Management, and Senior Management. Six hundred and eleven government employ ees were recruited to participate via email using an intra-office global listserve. Specifically, three government offices from two adjacent counties comprised the sample. In order to protect the anonymity of the offices, Office A and Office B will be used to refer to the two government offices located in the same county. Office C will be used to refer to the third government office.

PAGE 29

22 Of the 279 employees from Office A, surveys were returned for 211 employees. Of those, 23 surveys were excluded because of missing data. Therefore the final sample from Office A included 188 employees (67.38% response rate). Of the 58 employees from Office B, surveys were returned for 51 employees. Of those, 3 surveys were excluded because of missing data. The final sample from Office B included 48 employees (82.76% response rate). Of the 274 employees from Office C, surveys were returned for 98 employees. Of those, 28 surv eys were excluded due to missing data. The final sample from Office C included 70 empl oyees (25.55% response rate). Although the response rate for Office C is low, management a ttributes this to the timing of the survey. Specifically, data from Office C was colle cted during the month of December. Management later reported the majority of th e sample was not in the office for regularly scheduled days during the holiday month due to scheduled vacation and holiday hours. The overall response rate for this study wa s 50.08%. Participation was voluntary, and all individual responses were kept confidential. Procedure Online and paper versions of the surv ey were created to measure the study variables. Data collection began with an information email sent to all participants via a global office list-serve. The information email included information about me and the purpose of the study, an assurance of confid entiality, support from members of senior management, and specific information regarding timelines to complete. A template of the information email is provided in Appendix I. In addition, a s hort Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document was attached to the email that pertained to important

PAGE 30

23 questions and answers regardi ng the study. A template of the FAQ document is provided in Appendix J. Approximately one week following the information email, all participants were emailed the link to the online inventory. Part icipants were asked to access the website, complete the survey, and submit their respons es online. Participants were given approximately two weeks to complete th e survey. Again the FAQ document was attached to answer additional questions that pertained to the study. In addition, participants were given appr opriate contact information to obtain a paper copy of the survey if this format was more convenient. A template of the em ail containing the online link is provided in Appendix K. Approximately one week after the survey was distributed, a reminder email was sent to all participants. A template for the reminder email is available in Appendix L. The online survey was designed to re cognize individual computer browser systems and allow respondents to exit the survey and return back to the point where they left off at their convenience during work ing hours. Several employees reported not having twenty minutes of interrupted time on th eir computer to complete the survey and requested a paper version. Ov erall, the final sample cons isted of data from 47 paper surveys and 259 online surveys. Measures Career Plateau. Career plateau was measured as a continuous multidimensional construct both subjectively and objectively. Sp ecifically, job conten t, hierarchical, and tenure forms of plateauing were measured.

PAGE 31

24 Six items from Milliman (1992) were used to examine job content plateauing. A sample item includes, I have an opportunity to learn and grow a lot in my current job. Responses were scored on a five-point scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Responses were scored such that higher scores in dicated higher levels of job content plateauing. Milliman (1992) re ported an internal c onsistency of 0.87. In the present study, the coefficient alpha for the job content plateau scale was 0.81. Six items from Milliman (1992) were used to measure hierarchical plateauing. A sample item includes, I expect to advance to a higher level in my company in the near future. Responses were scored on a five-point scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Responses were scored such that higher scores in dicated higher levels of hierarchical plateauing. Milliman (1992) reported an internal consistency estimate of 0.90. The coefficient alpha for the hierarch ical scale in the present study was 0.89. Tenure was measured by one item inquiring about job tenure: How long have you worked in your current job title. Participants were asked to indicate the duration in both years and months. This variable was computed in months for subsequent analysis unless otherwise noted. Allen, Russell, Poteet, and Dobbins (1999) provided evidence to support the distinction between hierarchical and job content plateauing and the reliability of the measures. Although both types of plateauing related to support from top management, career planning, job involvement, and education level, low correlations and factor analytic results supporte d two separate constructs (All en et al., 1999). All items are available in Appendix A.

PAGE 32

25 Mentor Experience Based on Allen (2003), the fo llowing question was used to screen for mentoring experience: Is ther e an individual in the organization who you have taken personal interest in; who you ha ve guided, sponsored, or otherwise had a positive and significant influence on their prof essional career development? In other words, have you ever been a mentor? Following the mentoring definition, the participant was asked to indicate yes or no. Mentor experi ence was coded as no = 0 (non-mentor) and yes = 1 (mentor). If res pondents answered yes, they were asked two additional questions requesting more specific information about the mentoring experience (How many mentoring relationships have you had and What were the dates of each relationship). If respondents answered n o regarding their mentoring experience, they were directed to the next section of the survey. Mentoring Provided. Career and psychosocial me ntoring were assessed by a modified version of Noes (1988) mentoring m easure. The items were modified in order to reflect the mentors perspective. Part icipants who indicated having experience as a mentor were instructed to respond to these items based upon their current or most recent mentoring relationship. Those who did not in dicate mentoring experience skipped this portion of the survey. Seven items were used to assess career-related mentoring. A sample item is As a mentor, I encourage my protg to prepare for advancement. Coefficient alpha was 0.73. Fourteen items were used to assess psychosocial mentoring. A sample item is As a mentor, I have shared personal experience s as an alternative perspective to my protgs problems. Coefficient alpha was 0.85. A five-point Likert scale was used

PAGE 33

26 with responses that ranged from Strongly Di sagree to Strongly Agree. Higher scores indicated more mentoring provided. Noe ( 1988) reported internal consistency estimates of .89 and .92 for career and psychosocial me ntoring respectively. However, these estimates are based upon the protg perspec tive of mentoring rece ived. Allen (2003) used an adapted version of the scale to refl ect the mentor perspective, obtaining internal consistency estimates of .76 and .84 for car eer and psychosocial mentoring provided respectively. Items are available in Appendix C. Job Satisfaction Job satisfaction was measured by three items from the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1979). A sample item is In general, I like working here. A five-point scale was used with responses that ranged from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Coefficient alpha was 0.82. Higher scores indicated higher j ob satisfaction. Items are available in Appendix D. Job Performance Previous research has provide d evidence that job performance can be partitioned into task and contextu al performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994). Therefore bot h aspects of performance were included in the present research. Task performance wa s measured with seven items from Williams and Andersons (1991) in-role behavior scale. These items were intended to assess behaviors that are recognized by an organizations formal re ward system and capture the performance requirements of a general job desc ription. The original items were modified for this study in order to allow ratings by the employee rather than a supervisor or manager. The participants were instructed to think about their performance on average

PAGE 34

27 and indicate how often he/she effectively performs specific job behaviors. A sample item includes, Perform tasks that are expected of me. Responses ranged from Never to Very Often. Coefficient alpha for task pe rformance was 0.70. Hi gher scores indicated better task performance. Contextual performance was measured w ith twelve items based on Coleman and Bormans (2000) taxonomy of citizenship performance dimensions. The dimensions include interpersonal citizenship performan ce, organizational citizenship performance, and job/task conscientiousness. Interp ersonal citizenship performance includes behaviors that assist, support, or develop organizational members beyond formal expectations. A sample item is Assist co-workers with their personal matters. Organizational citizenship perf ormance includes behaviors th at demonstrate commitment and loyalty to the organization. A sample item is Promote and defend the organization to others. Job/task conscientiousness pe rformance describes behaviors that go beyond role requirements by exhibiting persistence and the desire to maximize ones own job performance. A sample item is Persist w ith enthusiasm when completing my work. Again, respondents were inst ructed to think about thei r performance on average and indicate how often he/she engaged in the listed behaviors. Responses ranged from Never to Very Often. Higher scores indicated higher ratings of contextual performance. The coefficient alpha for c ontextual performance was 0.79. All task and contextual performance items are available in Appendix E. Organizational Commitment. Organizational commitment was measured with Allen and Meyers (1990) affective commitment scale. The scale cons ists of eight items

PAGE 35

28 that were scored on a five-point scale that ranged from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. A sample item is I really feel as if this organizations problems are my own. Coefficient alpha was 0.85. Higher scores indicated higher levels of organizational commitment. All items are available in Appendix F. Intent to Turnover. Four items were developed for this study to measure intentions to leave the organi zation. Responses were scored on a five-point scale that ranged from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. A sample item includes, I am currently looking for another organization to work for. Coefficient alpha was 0.88. Higher scores indicated higher intentions to leave the organization. All items are available in Appendix G. Demographic Variables In addition to the study variab les, participants were also asked to respond to demographic items. Thes e items included information regarding age, gender, ethnicity, education level, and empl oyment status. All demographic items are available in Appendix H. Control Variables Previous research has presente d evidence that gender and race impact the mentoring relationship (e.g., Burke & McKeen, 1997; Ragins & Cotton, 1999). In addition, previous research has pr ovided mixed support that an individuals age may also increase the likelihood of reaching a plateau (e.g., Slocum et al., 1985; Stout et al., 1988). Therefore, gender, race, and age were considered as potential control variables. Gender was coded as male = 1 and female = 2, race was coded as 1 = nonminority and 2 = minority, a nd age was coded in years.

PAGE 36

29 Chapter Three Results Preliminary Analyses The data was screened prior to hypothe sis testing to determine whether any assumptions of data had been violated. The first assumption of independence is analyzed by focusing on the design of the study. This design does not provide evidence that this assumption has been violated because the participants responses were independent of one another. The second assumption of normality concerns the distribution and skew of the data. To test this, boxplots were created and examined for each dependent variable. The boxplots did indicate the data was skewed due to the presence of outliers. Specifically, there was a slight negative skew for the distribution of scores for job satisfaction, performance, a nd organizational commitment. The skew was positive for turnover intentions. A re-examina tion of the individual data scores did not suggest that any of these outliers were unusua l. The dependent variables were measured on fixed scale formats (e.g., 5 point scale) a nd the responses did not suggest any extreme scores that were impossible or erroneous. Based upon this evidence, subsequent analyses include the complete response sets. Fi nally, the assumption of homogeneity was assessed. A Boxs M test was used to determ ine if the population covariance matrices for the dependent variables were equal. This assumption is important because it provides evidence as to whether the data from the different sources should be pooled into one dataset based upon the variance for each de pendent variable within each group.

PAGE 37

30 Specifically, the data was examined with regard to three group differenc es. First, the data was derived from government offices within tw o different counties. Second, within those two counties, the data was obtained from par ticipants within three different offices. Lastly, data was obtained from both online and pa per versions of the survey. In order to determine if it is appropriate to pool the data into one dataset, th ree separate Boxs M tests were performed to assess if variation between each of the vari ables were the same for the different groups. For differences between the two counties, the results of the test indicated the covariance matrices were equal = 20.72, p = .15). This suggests it is appropriate to pool the data across the two c ounties from which the samples were drawn. A second test for differences between government offices was significant = 109.03, p = .000). This suggests caution should be taken when pooling the covariance matrices for further analysis. Although this is a cause for concern, pragmatic reasoning suggests it is still appropriate to pool the data across offices. The populations appear to be homogenous and the former test suggested the grouping variable encompassing the office differences was not significant. From a st atistical perspective, Stevens (2002) provides evidence that the Boxs M test is extremely se nsitive to normality. Therefore, it may be possible that the test is significant because of a lack of normality rather than unequal covariance matrices in the population. The thir d test for differences between survey type were not significant = 21.27, p = .13). Overall, it was determined the third assumption was not seriously violated and da ta obtained from various sources could be pooled into one dataset and used in it s entirety for subsequent analyses.

PAGE 38

31 Hypothesis Testing Descriptive statistics for the study variab les are reported in Table 1. Cronbachs alpha and zero-order correlation coefficients of the study vari ables are presented in Table 2. Hypotheses 1a predicted a negative re lationship between plateauing and job satisfaction, job performance, and organizationa l commitment. Results indicated that job content plateauing was negatively related to job satisfaction (r= -.48, p=.000), contextual job performance (r= -.21, p=.000), and orga nizational commitment (r= -.47, p=.000). Hierarchical plateauing was si gnificantly related to job sa tisfaction (r= -.27, p=.000) and to organizational commitment (r= -.26, p=.000), but not significantly re lated to contextual performance (r= -.11, p=.066). Neither job content nor hierarchical plateau were significantly related to task performance (r= -.01 and -.00, respectively). Job tenure was not significantly related to any of the work-related attitudes. Hypothesis 1b predicted a positive relationship between plateauing and intent to turnover. Job content plateauing was positively related to turnover intentions (r= .40, p=.000). Hierarchical plateauing was positively related to turnover intentions (r= .27, p=.000). Again, job tenure was not significantly related to the career attitude Therefore, both Hypotheses 1a and 1b received partial support. Hypothesis 2a predicted that mentors woul d report greater job satisfaction, higher levels of job performance, and more organizational commitment than would nonmentors. Results indicated that mentors did report significantly higher levels of job satisfaction (r= .14, p=.015), or ganizational commitment (r= .14, p=.012), and contextual

PAGE 39

32 job performance (r= .33, p=.000). However, mentors did not report higher levels of task performance than did non-mentors (r= .09, p= .10). Therefore, Hypothesis 2a received partial support. Hypothesis 2b predicted that mentors would report lo wer intentions to Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables Variable # of Items N Mean SD Observed Min Observed Max Age* 1 279 43.06 11.67 18 74 Gender* 1 295 1.76 .43 Race* 1 294 1.14 .35 Job Content Plateau 6 306 2.45 .76 1.00 5.00 Hierarchical Plateau 6 306 3.59 .91 1.00 5.00 Job Tenure*,** 1 266 5.74 6.04 .08 29.25 Mentor Experience* 1 306 0.36 .48 Career Mentoring 7 110 3.80 .52 2.57 5.00 Psychosocial Mentoring 14 110 4.02 .44 2.36 4.93 Job Satisfaction 3 306 4.11 .67 1.33 5.00 Task Performance 7 306 4.67 .37 3.14 5.00 Contextual Performance 12 306 4.02 .46 2.83 5.00 Organizational Commitment 8 306 3.47 .74 1.00 5.00 Intent to Turnover 4 306 1.83 .84 1.00 5.00 All variables are measured on a 5-poin t response scale unless otherwise noted *5-point response scale not applicable **Job Tenure coded in years

PAGE 40

33

PAGE 41

34 turnover than non-mentors. Results indicated a significant negative relationship between mentoring experience and turnover intentions (r= -.11, p=.047). Therefore, Hypothesis 2b received full support. Hypothesis 3a and 3b focused only on indi viduals who reported experience as a mentor. Hypothesis 3a pred icted that career-related and psychosocial mentoring provided by the mentors would positively re late to mentor job satisfaction, job performance, and organizational commitment. Career-related mentoring was positively related to contextual job pe rformance (r= .22, p=.024), but no t significantly related to job satisfaction (r= .13, p=.179), task perfo rmance (r= .14, p=.134), or organizational commitment (r= .02, p=.858). Psychosocial me ntoring was also only significantly related to contextual job performance (r= .24, p=.011). Psychosocial mentoring was not significantly related to mentor job satisfaction (r= .09, p=.333) task performance (r= .05, p=.608), or organizational commitment (r= .12, p=.205). These results indicate partial support for Hypothesis 3a. Hypothesis 3b pr edicted career-related and psychosocial mentoring would negatively rela te to mentor intentions to leave the organization. Careerrelated mentoring was relate d to turnover inte ntions, but in th e opposite direction hypothesized (r= .24, p=.011). Psychosocial mentoring was not related to turnover intentions (r=.14, p=.146). Therefor e, Hypothesis 3b was not supported. Hypotheses 4a-c posited significant in teractions between the mentoring and plateauing variables. To test for these moderators, hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted. McClelland a nd Judd (1993) provide evidence for the difficulty in detecting moderator effects in field studies. The re search suggests that

PAGE 42

35 moderator effects in field st udies, contrasted with experi mental studies, have lower statistical power and a less efficient parameter estimate, in addition to problems with measurement error. For these reasons, a more liberal alpha level (p=.10) to test for significant interactions was warranted in the present study. The liberal alpha level seems further justified based upon the theoretical support for the pr oposed interactions, rather than mere data mining. If the interacti on variable was significant, the procedures recommended by Aiken and West (1991) for pl otting interaction effects were employed. For the mentor experience moderator, re gression equations for both levels of the categorical variable were created that included an interaction term. The interaction in the regression equation was formed by multiplying th e continuous variable (plateauing) by each of dummy variables for the categor ical variable (non-mentor = 0 and mentor = 1). For the second set of moderator analyses for the mentoring provided variables, regression equations for high and low levels of the variab le were created that included an interaction term. The interaction in the regressi on equation was formed by multiplying the plateauing variable by the mentor ing provided variable. Mentor Experience Moderator Analysis Hypothesis 4a proposed that mentor ing experience would moderate the relationship between career plateauing and job satisfa ction, job performance, organizational commitment, and intentions to turnover. For each analysis, control variables were entered at Step 1. At Step 2, mentoring experience and one of the three plateauing variables (job conten t, hierarchical, job tenure) was entered. At Step 3, the mentoring experience and plateauing interaction term was ente red. If the interaction was

PAGE 43

36 significant, the relationship was graphed with the criterion variable along the y axis and the predictor variable along the x axis. The low scale value for the moderator was 0 and the high value was 1, based upon the dummy coding for mentor experience. The low scale value for the predictor was one standard deviation below the scale mean, with the high value for the predictor being one st andard deviation above the scale mean. First, the relationship was tested for job satisfaction. As shown in Table 3, the interaction between mentor experience and j ob content plateauing fo r job satisfaction was not significant ( = .218, p=.270). The interaction between mentor experience and hierarchical plateauing was not significant ( = .119, p=.605). Finally, the interaction between mentor experience and job tenure was also not significant ( = .033, p=.772). Next, the relationship was tested for task performance. As shown in Table 4, the interaction between mentor experience and job content plateauing for task performance was not significant ( = -.098, p=.66). The results indicated the inte raction between mentor experience and hierarchical plateauing was also not significant ( = -.049, p=.84). Support was found for the interaction between mentor experience and job tenure on task performance ( = -.237, p=.036). A visual plot of the interacti on is presented in Figure 6. Mentor experience did moderate the re lationship between job tenure and task performance. However, the slope of the inte rcept was the opposite to that predicted for both groups. Contrary to pred iction, there was no main effect for the non-mentors, and as job tenure increased, mentors reported lo wer levels of task performance. Next, the interaction was examined for c ontextual performance. The interaction between mentor experience and job cont ent plateauing was not significant ( = -.157,

PAGE 44

37 p=.436). The interaction between mentor experience and hierarchical plateauing was not significant ( = .041, p=.852). Finally, the inte raction between mentor experience and job tenure was not significant ( = .023, p=.823). Results are provided in Table 5. Organizational commitment was examined next and is presented in Table 6. The interaction between mentor experience a nd job content plateauing for commitment was not significant ( = -.028, p=.885). The interacti on between mentor experience and hierarchical plateauing was not significant ( = .07, p=.758). Results did provide support for an interaction between mentor experience and job tenure for organizational commitment ( = .206, p=.065). This interaction is presented in Figure 7. The interaction supports th e proposed relationship such that as job tenure increases, mentors report significantly higher le vels of organizational commit ment compared to their nonmentor counterparts. Finally, as shown in Table 7, the inter action between mentor experience and plateauing was tested for turnover intentions. For job content plateauing, the interaction was not significant ( = -.308, p=.135). Results did pr ovide support for an interaction between mentor experience and hierarchical plateauing ( = -.411, p=.074). The plot of this interaction is presented in Figure 8. The plot does provide support for the hypothesis. As hierarchical plateauing increases, both mentors and non-mentors report increased turnover intentions, but the increase is steeper for non-mentors. The interaction between mentor experience and job tenure was not significant ( = -.096, p=.40). Overall, Hypothesis 4a received little support.

PAGE 45

38 Table 3. Mentor Experience Moderato r Analysis for Job Satisfaction Dependent Variable: Job Satisfaction Predictor R R2 Job Content Plateau Step 1 .23 .05*** Gender .07 Race -.09* Age .16*** Step 2 .50 .25*** Mentor Experience -.23 Job Content Plateau -.48*** Step 3 .50 .25 Mentor Experience by .22 Job Content Plateau F = 14.94*** Hierarchical Plateau Step 1 .23 .05*** Gender .09 Race -.11* Age .25*** Step 2 .39 .15*** Mentor Experience -.02 Hierarchical Plateau -.33*** Step 3 .39 .15 Mentor Experience by .12 Hierarchical Plateau F = 8.02*** Job Tenure Plateau Step 1 .22 .05*** Gender .04 Race -.08 Age .15** Step 2 .24 .06 Mentor Experience .09 Job Tenure Plateau .02 Step 3 .24 .06 Mentor Experience by .03 Job Tenure Plateau F = 2.61** *p<.10; **p<.05; ***p<.01 s are standardized regression weights from the final equation Fs are overall F from the final equation

PAGE 46

39 Table 4. Mentor Experience Moderato r Analysis for Task Performance Dependent Variable: Task Performance Predictor R R2 Job Content Plateau Step 1 .22 .05*** Gender .07 Race -.21*** Age .03 Step 2 .23 .05 Mentor Experience .17 Job Content Plateau .04 Step 3 .23 .05 Mentor Experience by -.10 Job Content Plateau F = 2.59** Hierarchical Plateau Step 1 .22 .05*** Gender .08 Race -.21*** Age .03 Step 2 .23 .05 Mentor Experience .11 Hierarchical Plateau -.02 Step 3 .23 .05 Mentor Experience by -.05 Hierarchical Plateau F = 2.59** Job Tenure Plateau Step 1 .24 .06*** Gender .08 Race -.21*** Age .05 Step 2 .26 .07 Mentor Experience .20** Job Tenure Plateau .04 Step 3 .29 .08** Mentor Experience by -.24** Job Tenure Plateau F = 3.74*** *p<.10; **p<.05; ***p<.01 s are standardized regression weights from the final equation Fs are overall F from the final equation

PAGE 47

40 Table 5. Mentor Experience Moderator An alysis for Contextual Performance Dependent Variable: Contextual Performance Predictor R R2 Job Content Plateau Step 1 .35 .12*** Gender .10* Race -.17*** Age .22*** Step 2 .47 .22*** Mentor Experience .40* Job Content Plateau -.14** Step 3 .47 .22 Mentor Experience by -.16 Job Content Plateau F = 12.66*** Hierarchical Plateau Step 1 .35 .12*** Gender .13** Race -.18*** Age .27*** Step 2 .48 .23*** Mentor Experience .24 Hierarchical Plateau -.20*** Step 3 .48 .23 Mentor Experience by .04 Hierarchical Plateau F = 13.39*** Job Tenure Plateau Step 1 .34 .12*** Gender .10 Race -.17*** Age .24*** Step 2 .45 .20*** Mentor Experience .28*** Job Tenure Plateau -.12 Step 3 .45 .20 Mentor Experience by .02 Job Tenure Plateau F = 10.31*** *p<.10; **p<.05; ***p<.01 s are standardized regression weights from the final equation Fs are overall F from the final equation

PAGE 48

41 Table 6. Mentor Experience Moderator An alysis for Organizational Commitment Dependent Variable: Or ganizational Commitment Predictor R R2 Job Content Plateau Step 1 .25 .06*** Gender .07 Race -.12** Age .16*** Step 2 .50 .25*** Mentor Experience .03 Job Content Plateau -.44*** Step 3 .50 .25 Mentor Experience by -.03 Job Content Plateau F = 15.11*** Hierarchical Plateau Step 1 .25 .06*** Gender .10 Race -.14** Age .25*** Step 2 .41 .17*** Mentor Experience .04 Hierarchical Plateau -.33*** Step 3 .41 .17 Mentor Experience by .07 Hierarchical Plateau F = 8.89*** Job Tenure Plateau Step 1 .26 .07*** Gender .04 Race -.14** Age .17** Step 2 .29 .08 Mentor Experience .02 Job Tenure Plateau -.08 Step 3 .31 .10 Mentor Experience by .21* Job Tenure Plateau F = 4.311*** *p<.10; **p<.05; ***p<.01 s are standardized regression weights from the final equation Fs are overall F from the final equation

PAGE 49

42 Table 7. Mentor Experience Moderator Analysis for Intent to Turnover Dependent Variable: Intent to Turnover Predictor R R2 Job Content Plateau Step 1 .21 .05*** Gender -.05 Race .12** Age -.13** Step 2 .42 .18*** Mentor Experience .34 Job Content Plateau .42*** Step 3 .43 .19 Mentor Experience by -.31 Job Content Plateau F = 10.28*** Hierarchical Plateau Step 1 .21 .05*** Gender -.08 Race .13** Age -.23*** Step 2 .39 .15*** Mentor Experience .34 Hierarchical Plateau .41*** Step 3 .40 .16* Mentor Experience by -.41* Hierarchical Plateau F = 8.56*** Job Tenure Plateau Step 1 .21 .04** Gender -.01 Race .12* Age -.13* Step 2 .22 .05 Mentor Experience -.00 Job Tenure Plateau .02 Step 3 .22 .05 Mentor Experience by -.10 Job Tenure Plateau F = 2.18** *p<.10; **p<.05; ***p<.01 s are standardized regression weights from the final equation Fs are overall F from the final equation

PAGE 50

Figure 6. Interaction of Mentor Experience and Job Tenure for Task Performance 44.254.54.755Low HighJob TenureTask Performance Non-mentor Mentor Figure 7. Interaction of Mentor Experience and Job Tenure for Organizational Commitment 2.52.7533.253.5Low HighJob TenureCommitment Non-mentor Mentor 43

PAGE 51

Figure 8. Interaction of Mentor Experience and Hierarchical Plateauing for Intent to Turnover 2.252.52.7533.25Low HighHierarchical PlateauIntent to Turnover Non-mentor Mentor Career Mentoring Moderator Analysis Hypothesis 4b proposed that career mentoring provided by the mentors would moderate the relationship between career plateauing and job satisfaction, job performance, organizational commitment, and intentions to turnover. To test these interactions, hierarchical regression analyses were performed and an alpha level of .10 was again used to test for significance. For each analysis, control variables were entered at Step 1. At Step 2, career mentoring provided and one of the three plateauing variables (job content, hierarchical, or job tenure) was entered. At Step 3, career mentoring provided and the plateauing interaction term was entered. This procedure was repeated for all possible combinations of the career mentoring and plateauing variables for each of the dependent variables. 44

PAGE 52

45 The first dependent variable to be tested was job satisfaction. As shown in Table 8, the interaction between career mentoring and job c ontent plateauing was not significant ( = -.39, p=.630). The interaction between career mentoring and hierarchical plateauing was also not significant ( = .88, p=.320). The interaction between career mentoring and job tenure was not significant ( = .36, p=.673). Next, task performance was tested. The interaction between career mentoring and job content plateauing was not significant ( = -.87, p=.298). The interaction between career mentoring and hierarchical plateauing was not significant ( = .52, p=.571). Finally, the interaction for career mentor ing and job tenure wa s not significant ( = -.17, p=.834). These results are provided in Table 9. The results for contextual performance ar e presented in Table 10. The interaction between career mentoring and job co ntent plateauing was not significant ( = .97, p=.222). The interaction between career mentoring and hierarchical plateauing was not significant ( = 1.30, p=.136). The interaction between career plateauin g and job tenure was not significant ( = -.13, p=.867). Organizational commitment was tested next. As shown in Table 11, the interaction between career me ntoring and job content plat eauing was not significant ( = .56, p=.482). The interaction be tween career mentoring and hi erarchical plateauing was not significant ( = .90, p=.300). The interaction be tween career mentoring and job tenure plateau was not significant ( = -.73, p=.373). Lastly, the interactions were tested for intentions to turnover. The interaction between career mentoring and job co ntent plateauing was not significant ( = .50,

PAGE 53

46 p=.525). The interaction between career mentoring and hierarchical plateauing was not significant ( = -.98, p=.246). The interaction betw een career mentoring and job tenure was also not significant ( = -.30, p=.704). These result s are presented in Table 12. Overall, the data did not provide evidence that career mentoring provided by the mentor alleviated the negative effects of plateauing. Therefore, Hypothesis 4b was not supported. Psychosocial Mentoring Moderator Analysis Hypothesis 4c proposed that psychosoc ial mentoring provided by the mentors would moderate the relationship between career plateauing and job satisfaction, job performance, organizational commitment, and intentions to turnover. To test these interactions, hierarchical regression analyses were performed and an alpha level of .10 was again used to test for significance. For each analysis, control variables were entered at Step 1. At Step 2, psychosocial mentori ng provided and one of the three plateauing variables (job content, hierar chical, or job tenure) was entered. At Step 3, psychosocial mentoring provided and the plateauing interact ion term was entered. This procedure was repeated for all possible combinations of the psychosocial mentoring and plateauing variables for each of the dependent variables. Again, if the interaction was significant, the relationship was graphed with the criteri on variable along the y ax is and the predictor variable along the x axis. The low scale value for the moderator and predictor were calculated such that the low value was one standard deviation below the mean and the high value was one standard deviation above the mean.

PAGE 54

47 First, job satisfaction was examined. As shown in Table 13, the interaction between psychosocial mentoring and job content plateauing was significant ( = 1.41, p=.063). A visual plot of the interaction is presented in Figure 9. As expected, the amount of psychosocial mentoring provided by the mentor did moderate the relationship between job content plateauing and job satisfaction at both levels of the moderator. Reports for job satisfaction are similar fo r mentors providing high and low degrees of psychosocial mentoring when less job conten t plateaued. As job content plateauing increases, mentors providing more psychosocia l mentoring reported higher levels of job satisfaction than did mentors providing less mentoring. The interaction between psychosocial mentoring and hierarchi cal plateauing was not significant ( = .35, p=.784). There was also no support for the interaction between psyc hosocial mentoring and job tenure ( = -.38, p=.693). Task performance was examined next, w ith results presented in Table 14. The interaction between psychosocial mentori ng and job content plateauing for task performance was not significant ( = .15, p=.854). The interaction between psychosocial mentoring and hierarchical plat eauing was also not significant ( = 1.68, p=.213). Results did provide support fo r the interaction between ps ychosocial mentoring and job tenure ( = -1.93, p=.033) and were plotted in Figure 10. Although significant, the interaction was not as expecte d. At the lower end of job tenure, mentors providing more psychosocial mentoring reported higher levels of task performance. However, as job tenure increased, the difference between the amount of psychosocial mentoring provided by the mentor did not effect task performance ratings.

PAGE 55

48 Next, the relationship was tested for cont extual performance. As shown in Table 15, the interaction between psychosocial mentoring and job content plateauing was not significant ( = .24, p=.745). The interaction be tween psychosocial mentoring and hierarchical plateauing wa s also not significant ( = .82, p=.515). Results indicated the interaction between psychosocial ment oring and job tenure was significant ( = -1.61, p=.070). The visual plot of this interacti on is presented in Figure 11. Although mentors providing more psychosocial mentoring did report higher levels of contextual performance overall, the rating of contextual performance for mentors providing higher mentoring began to approach the ratings fo r mentors providing lower mentoring as job tenure increased, contrary to the predicted relati onship of a main effect at both levels of the moderator. Next, organizational commitment was examined. The interaction between psychosocial mentoring and job content plateauing was significant ( = 1.70, p=.020). The interaction between psychosocial mentor ing and hierarchical plateauing was also significant ( = 2.80, p=.025). However, the interac tion between psychosocial mentoring and job tenure was not significant ( = -.95, p=.305). These re sults are presented in Table 16 and illustrated in Figures 12 and 13, respectively. These interactions both provided support for the hypotheses, such that the amount of psychosocial mentoring did moderate the relationship between job cont ent plateauing and organizational commitment and hierarchical plateauing and organizati onal commitment at both levels of the moderator. As posited, as mentors reported a greater plateau, those that provided more

PAGE 56

49 psychosocial mentoring reported higher levels of organizational commitment than did those providing less psychosocial mentoring. Finally, intentions to turnover were examined. The interaction between psychosocial mentoring and job cont ent plateauing was not significant ( = -.49, p=.526). The interaction between psychosocial mentor ing and hierarchical plateauing was not significant ( = -1.34, p=.303). The interaction betw een psychosocial mentoring and job tenure was also not significant ( = .66, p=.483). These result s are presented in Table 17. In sum, Hypothesis 4c received minimal support.

PAGE 57

50 Table 8. Career Mentoring Modera tor Analysis for Job Satisfaction Dependent Variable: Job Satisfaction Predictor R R2 Job Content Plateau Step 1 .14 .02 Gender -.06 Race -.06 Age .10 Step 2 .31 .10** Career Mentoring .22 Job Content Plateau .07 Step 3 .32 .10 Career Mentoring by -.39 Job Content Plateau F = 1.77 Hierarchical Plateau Step 1 .14 .02 Gender .03 Race -.09 Age .19* Step 2 .32 .10** Career Mentoring -.37 Hierarchical Plateau -1.09 Step 3 .33 .11 Career Mentoring by .88 Hierarchical Plateau F = 1.99* Job Tenure Plateau Step 1 .14 .02 Gender -.04 Race -.09 Age .05 Step 2 .17 .03 Career Mentoring -.01 Job Tenure Plateau -.25 Step 3 .18 .03 Career Mentoring by .36 Job Tenure Plateau F = 0.47 *p<.10; **p<.05; ***p<.01 s are standardized regression weights from the final equation Fs are overall F from the final equation

PAGE 58

51 Table 9. Career Mentoring Moderato r Analysis for Task Performance Dependent Variable: Task Performance Predictor R R2 Job Content Plateau Step 1 .10 .01 Gender .04 Race -.04 Age .01 Step 2 .21 .04 Career Mentoring .63 Job Content Plateau .77 Step 3 .23 .05 Career Mentoring by -.87 Job Content Plateau F = 0.89 Hierarchical Plateau Step 1 .10 .01 Gender .07 Race -.04 Age .06 Step 2 .21 .04 Career Mentoring -.06 Hierarchical Plateau -.50 Step 3 .22 .05 Career Mentoring by .52 Hierarchical Plateau F = 0.76 Job Tenure Plateau Step 1 .12 .01 Gender .09 Race -.00 Age .18 Step 2 .38 .14*** Career Mentoring .20 Job Tenure Plateau -.15 Step 3 .38 .14 Career Mentoring by -.17 Job Tenure Plateau F = 2.41** *p<.10; **p<.05; ***p<.01 s are standardized regression weights from the final equation Fs are overall F from the final equation

PAGE 59

52 Table 10. Career Mentoring Moderator An alysis for Contextual Performance Dependent Variable: Contextual Performance Predictor R R2 Job Content Plateau Step 1 .18 .03 Gender .07 Race -.06 Age .20* Step 2 .37 .13*** Career Mentoring -.28 Job Content Plateau -1.08 Step 3 .38 .15 Career Mentoring by .97 Job Content Plateau F = 2.74** Hierarchical Plateau Step 1 .18 .03 Gender .08 Race -.08 Age .21* Step 2 .36 .13*** Career Mentoring -.36 Hierarchical Plateau -1.35* Step 3 .38 .15 Career Mentoring by 1.30 Hierarchical Plateau F = 2.72** Job Tenure Plateau Step 1 .19 .04 Gender .07 Race -.07 Age .18 Step 2 .36 .13** Career Mentoring .31** Job Tenure Plateau .03 Step 3 .36 .13 Career Mentoring by -.13 Job Tenure Plateau F = 2.23** *p<.10; **p<.05; ***p<.01 s are standardized regression weights from the final equation Fs are overall F from the final equation

PAGE 60

53 Table 11. Career Mentoring Moderator An alysis for Organizational Commitment Dependent Variable: Or ganizational Commitment Predictor R R2 Job Content Plateau Step 1 .22 .05 Gender .03 Race -.16* Age .15 Step 2 .38 .15*** Career Mentoring -.36 Job Content Plateau -.82 Step 3 .39 .15 Career Mentoring by .58 Job Content Plateau F = 2.84** Hierarchical Plateau Step 1 .22 .05 Gender .08 Race -.21** Age .20* Step 2 .36 .13** Career Mentoring -.47 Hierarchical Plateau -1.10 Step 3 .37 .14 Career Mentoring by .90 Hierarchical Plateau F = 2.58** Job Tenure Plateau Step 1 .24 .06 Gender .05 Race -.23** Age .05 Step 2 .31 .09 Career Mentoring .03 Job Tenure Plateau .91 Step 3 .32 .10 Career Mentoring by -.73 Job Tenure Plateau F = 1.67 *p<.10; **p<.05; ***p<.01 s are standardized regression weights from the final equation Fs are overall F from the final equation

PAGE 61

54 Table 12. Career Mentoring Moderator Analysis for Intent to Turnover Dependent Variable: Intent to Turnover Predictor R R2 Job Content Plateau Step 1 .17 .03 Gender .04 Race .10 Age -.12 Step 2 .41 .17*** Career Mentoring .09 Job Content Plateau -.25 Step 3 .42 .17 Career Mentoring by .50 Job Content Plateau F = 3.30*** Hierarchical Plateau Step 1 .17 .03 Gender -.03 Race .12 Age -.20* Step 2 .42 .18*** Career Mentoring .79* Hierarchical Plateau 1.11 Step 3 .43 .19 Career Mentoring by -.98 Hierarchical Plateau F = 3.64*** Job Tenure Plateau Step 1 .17 .03 Gender .05 Race .12 Age -.06 Step 2 .38 .14*** Career Mentoring .36** Job Tenure Plateau .20 Step 3 .38 .14 Career Mentoring by -.30 Job Tenure Plateau F = 2.42** *p<.10; **p<.05; ***p<.01 s are standardized regression weights from the final equation Fs are overall F from the final equation

PAGE 62

55 Table 13. Psychosocial Mentoring Modera tor Analysis for Job Satisfaction Dependent Variable: Job Satisfaction Predictor R R2 Job Content Plateau Step 1 .14 .02 Gender -.03 Race -.05 Age .12 Step 2 .32 .10** Psychosocial Mentoring -.59* Job Content Plateau -1.68** Step 3 .36 .13* Psychosocial Mentoring by 1.41* Job Content Plateau F = 2.40** Hierarchical Plateau Step 1 .14 .02 Gender .00 Race -.11 Age .17 Step 2 .33 .11** Psychosocial Mentoring -.05 Hierarchical Plateau -.62 Step 3 .33 .11 Psychosocial Mentoring by .35 Hierarchical Plateau F = 1.95* Job Tenure Plateau Step 1 .14 .02 Gender -.06 Race -.10 Age .04 Step 2 .19 .04 Psychosocial Mentoring .15 Job Tenure Plateau .49 Step 3 .19 .04 Psychosocial Mentoring by -.38 Job Tenure Plateau F = 0.58 *p<.10; **p<.05; ***p<.01 s are standardized regression weights from the final equation Fs are overall F from the final equation

PAGE 63

56 Table 14. Psychosocial Mentoring Modera tor Analysis for Task Performance Dependent Variable: Task Performance Predictor R R2 Job Content Plateau Step 1 .10 .01 Gender .07 Race -.04 Age .06 Step 2 .12 .01 Psychosocial Mentoring -.01 Job Content Plateau -.18 Step 3 .12 .01 Psychosocial Mentoring by .15 Job Content Plateau F = 0.23 Hierarchical Plateau Step 1 .10 .01 Gender .08 Race -.04 Age .07 Step 2 .12 .01 Psychosocial Mentoring -.59 Hierarchical Plateau -1.59 Step 3 .17 .03 Psychosocial Mentoring by 1.68 Hierarchical Plateau F = 0.50 Job Tenure Plateau Step 1 .12 .01 Gender .12 Race .01 Age .22* Step 2 .34 .12*** Psychosocial Mentoring .33** Job Tenure Plateau 1.62* Step 3 .40 .16** Psychosocial Mentoring by -1.93** Job Tenure Plateau F = 2.78** *p<.10; **p<.05; ***p<.01 s are standardized regression weights from the final equation Fs are overall F from the final equation

PAGE 64

57 Table 15. Psychosocial Mentoring Moderator Analysis for Contextual Performance Dependent Variable: Contextual Performance Predictor R R2 Job Content Plateau Step 1 .18 .03 Gender -.02 Race -.08 Age .16 Step 2 .38 .14*** Psychosocial Mentoring .15 Job Content Plateau -.41 Step 3 .38 .14 Psychosocial Mentoring by .24 Job Content Plateau F = 2.61** Hierarchical Plateau Step 1 .18 .03 Gender .01 Race -.11 Age .20* Step 2 .38 .15*** Psychosocial Mentoring -.03 Hierarchical Plateau -.94 Step 3 .39 .15 Psychosocial Mentoring by .82 Hierarchical Plateau F = 2.79** Job Tenure Plateau Step 1 .19 .04 Gender .00 Race -.08 Age .20* Step 2 .40 .16*** Psychosocial Mentoring .57*** Job Tenure Plateau 1.51* Step 3 .44 .19* Psychosocial Mentoring by -1.61* Job Tenure Plateau F = 3.47*** *p<.10; **p<.05; ***p<.01 s are standardized regression weights from the final equation Fs are overall F from the final equation

PAGE 65

58 Table 16. Psychosocial Mentoring Moderator Analysis for Organizational Commitment Dependent Variable: Or ganizational Commitment Predictor R R2 Job Content Plateau Step 1 .22 .05 Gender .02 Race -.17* Age .12 Step 2 .38 .14*** Psychosocial Mentoring -.71** Job Content Plateau -1.99*** Step 3 .44 .19** Psychosocial Mentoring by 1.70** Job Content Plateau F = 3.76*** Hierarchical Plateau Step 1 .22 .05 Gender .05 Race -.22** Age .17 Step 2 .37 .14*** Psychosocial Mentoring -.99** Hierarchical Plateau -2.88** Step 3 .43 .18** Psychosocial Mentoring by 2.80** Hierarchical Plateau F = 3.52*** Job Tenure Plateau Step 1 .24 .06 Gender .02 Race -.22** Age .04 Step 2 .31 .10 Psychosocial Mentoring .23 Job Tenure Plateau 1.15 Step 3 .33 .11 Psychosocial Mentoring by -.95 Job Tenure Plateau F = 1.80 *p<.10; **p<.05; ***p<.01 s are standardized regression weights from the final equation Fs are overall F from the final equation

PAGE 66

59 Table 17. Psychosocial Mentoring Moderato r Analysis for Intent to Turnover Dependent Variable: Intent to Turnover Predictor R R2 Job Content Plateau Step 1 .17 .03 Gender -.01 Race .08 Age -.12 Step 2 .28 .08* Psychosocial Mentoring .40 Job Content Plateau .69 Step 3 .29 .08 Psychosocial Mentoring by -.49 Job Content Plateau F = 1.46 Hierarchical Plateau Step 1 .17 .03 Gender -.04 Race .12 Age -.15 Step 2 .29 .08* Psychosocial Mentoring .66 Hierarchical Plateau 1.45 Step 3 .30 .09 Psychosocial Mentoring by -1.34 Hierarchical Plateau F = 1.60 Job Tenure Plateau Step 1 .17 .03 Gender .03 Race .12 Age -.02 Step 2 .24 .06 Psychosocial Mentoring .04 Job Tenure Plateau -.78 Step 3 .25 .06 Psychosocial Mentoring by .66 Job Tenure Plateau F = 0.96 *p<.10; **p<.05; ***p<.01 s are standardized regression weights from the final equation Fs are overall F from the final equation

PAGE 67

Figure 9. Interaction of Psychosocial Mentoring and Job Content Plateau for Job Satisfaction 3.53.7544.254.5Low HighJob Content PlateauJob Satisfaction LowPsychosocial HighPsychosocial Figure 10. Interaction of Psychosocial Mentoring and Job Tenure for Task Performance 44.254.54.755Low HighJob TenureTask Performance LowPsychosocial HighPsychosocial 60

PAGE 68

Figure 11. Interaction of Psychosocial Mentoring and Job Tenure for Contextual Performance 3.253.53.7544.25Low HighJob TenureContextual Performance LowPsychosocial HighPsychosocial Figure 12. Interaction of Psychosocial Mentoring and Job Content Plateau for Organizational Commitment 2.533.54Low HighJob Content PlateauCommitment LowPsychosocial HighPsychosocial 61

PAGE 69

Figure 13. Interaction of Psychosocial Mentoring and Hierarchical Plateauing for Organizational Commitment 2.52.7533.253.53.75Low HighHierarchical PlateauCommitment LowPsychosocial HighPsychosocial 62

PAGE 70

63 Chapter Four Discussion The purpose of this study was to inve stigate the relationship between career plateauing and mentoring. More specifical ly, this study attempted to address an empirical gap in the literature by examining mentor experience as a moderator for career plateauing and work-related attitudes. First, the relationship betw een career plateauing and work-related attitudes was examined. These results support previous research relating plateauing to negative work outcomes. Next, the relationship between mentor experience and work-related attitudes was ex amined. These findings add to the limited empirical research devoted to investigating mentoring benefits from the mentor perspective. Finally, moderator relationshi ps were examined. The results provide minimal support for the idea that mentori ng can help reduce the negative effects associated with plateauing. Specific key findings are discussed further. Hypotheses 1a and 1b: Career plat eauing and work-related attitudes It was predicted that plateauing woul d be related to ne gative work-related attitudes. As expected, individuals who repor ted higher levels of job content plateau also reported lower levels of job satisfaction, lower contextual performance, less organizational commitment, and higher intentio ns to leave the organization. Individuals who reported higher levels of hierarchical plateau reported lower levels of job satisfaction, less organizational commitment and greater intentions to leave the organization. Job tenure was not significantl y related to any of the work attitudes.

PAGE 71

64 In general, the hypotheses were suppor ted for job content and hierarchical plateauing. However, support was not found for task performance for either measure of plateau. One explanation for this finding may relate to range restriction. The mean for the task performance measure is high, with minimal variability. Although this may be a function of selfreport data, an alternative explanation may be the nature of the job. A consistent theme emerged in the open-ende d comment section pertaining to task performance. Specifically, participants we re touting the importance of their job and public reliance on them to consistently perfor m their job effectively. For example, a few job requirements reported by participants incl uded assessing the publics property taxes, filing marriage licenses, and inspecting building permits. It is likely that failing to meet these performance requirements would be read ily noticed and cause for immediate action. Therefore, attention may be given to individu als to ensure that task requirements are consistently met. The data also did no t support a relationship between hierarchical plateauing and contextual performance. A lthough the relationship was in the expected direction, it was not significan t. These results suggest that limited upward advancement or promotional opportunities do not appear to relate significantly to contextual performance. A key finding of these results is furthe r support for the use of a multidimensional construct of career plateau. C onsistent with Allen et al. (1998), the relationships were stronger for job content plateaued employees th an for hierarchical plateaued employees. The rationale cited for these differences is that individuals may pe rceive hierarchical plateauing as an inevitable consequence, whereas job content plateauing may be

PAGE 72

65 perceived as avoidable. Therefore, if the em ployees believe they have little control over the fixed organizational structure, then the impact on negative work-related attitudes may be less. Further, none of the relationships were significant for the traditional measure of job tenure. This finding is consistent with previous research th at reports less variance explained by objective measures of plat eau than by subjective plateau measures (Tremblay et al., 1995). Hypotheses 2a and 2b: Mentor expe rience and work-related attitudes As predicted, mentor experience relate d to positive work-re lated attitudes. Specifically, employees who reported being a mentor reported higher levels of job satisfaction, higher contextual performance, more organizational commitment, and less turnover intentions than did employees with no mentor experience. These results lend further support to the idea that mentoring others can be associated with positive job attitudes and behaviors. Alt hough the research on mentor bene fits is limited, these results are consistent with recent st udies that suggest mentor expe rience is related to important work-related attitudes and to career success (Allen et al., 2003; Ragins & Scandura, 1999). Further, these results provide evidence for mentoring as a form of organizational citizenship behavior. Allen (2003) examined th e propensity to mentor others as a specific form of prosocial behavior, or behavior th at is performed for the benefit of another person, group, or organization. Allen found that prosocial dispositions (other-oriented empathy, helpfulness) were related to the prope nsity to mentor others. These dispositions have also been associated with citizen ship performance (Borman, Penner, Allen, &

PAGE 73

66 Motowidlo, 2001). The significant relations hip between mentoring experience and contextual performance found in the present study lends furt her support to the notion that mentoring others and citizenship perform ance are a similar class of behavior. Contrary to prediction, task performan ce was not significantly related to mentor experience. Again, this result may be due to the range restriction within the task performance variable. Although the rela tionship was positive, suggesting mentors reported higher levels of task pe rformance, it was not significant. Hypotheses 3a and 3b: Mentoring prov ided and work-related attitudes For the mentors, it was predicted that the amount of mentoring provided would relate to positive work-related attitudes. In general, this hypothesis was not supported. It appears that mentor experience, and not the amount of mentori ng provided, makes a difference. One explanation for these resu lts may be the nature of the mentoring relationship. Perhaps the relationship is curv ilinear in nature. That is, providing high levels of mentoring may become stressful a nd time consuming, resulting in high negative work-related attitudes. Moreover, providing low levels of me ntoring may be perceived as minimal interaction or not worthwhile, al so resulting in high negative work-related attitudes. However, it is possible that provi ding moderate levels of mentoring may be a good balance and, subsequently, relate to mo re positive work-related attitudes. The present study assumed a linear relationship, and thus, cannot rule out this alternative explanation. The relationship between mentoring provided and contextual performance was significant. Mentors who pr ovided more career and psychosocial mentoring reported

PAGE 74

67 higher levels of contextual performance. Again, these results provide evidence for mentoring as a form of prosocial behavior. Hypothesis 4a: Mentor exp erience as a moderator Based upon theoretical support, it was pred icted that serving as a mentor would moderate the relationship between career plateauing and work-related attitudes. More specifically, when comparing mentors and non-mentors, it was expected that the relationship would only be signi ficant at one level of the moderator. This type of interaction would suggest that being a mentor would not be harmful to an employee, but that not assuming a mentor role might be harmful. Of the 15 interactions examined, three were significant. Mentor experience did moderate the relationship between job tenure and task performance, as well as that between job tenure and organizational commitment. Results also indicated that mentor experience moderated the relationship betw een hierarchical pl ateauing and turnover intentions. Of these three inte ractions, none were consistent w ith the nature of interaction predicted. This does not necessarily imply the results should be discounted. For organizational commitment and turnover inte ntions, the results suggest that mentors report more positive work-related attitudes when job tenure and hierarchical plateauing increases, respectively. Generally speaki ng, these results are consistent with the theoretical model that suggest s that mentor experience w ill mitigate negative effects of plateauing. Contrary to pred iction, for the intera ction between mentor experience and job tenure for task performance, as job tenure increases, mentors report lower levels of task performance while non-mentors report consistent levels of performance. These results

PAGE 75

68 show that mentors with less job tenure report hi gher levels of task performance than nonmentors. Over time, mentors and non-mentors report similar levels of performance. This result again suggests potential costs associated with being a mentor such that mentoring may take a toll on performance over a given time span. An alternative explanation concerns the measure of task performance pr eviously mentioned. The measure of task performance suffers from serious range restriction, and results in cluding this measure should be interpreted with caution. Results of hierarchical regression analyses generally did not s upport an interaction between mentor experience and plateauing. However, the zero-order correlations between the variables suggest th at mentors report lower levels of job content plateau than non-mentors. This relationship provides some evidence that mentoring may serve as a coping response for plateauing or that mentor ing prevents the occurrence of job content plateauing. The present study does not allow for determination of the causal order of the relationship. Longitudinal resear ch would help in that regard. Taken together, these findings may also re flect the costs and benefits associated with mentoring. Ragins and Scandura (1999) provide evidence that suggests mentors do experience costs to mentoring (e.g., more troubl e than worth), as well as benefits (e.g., generativity). Further analyses is warrante d to determine how these costs and benefits interact with each other to produ ce positive work-related attitudes.

PAGE 76

69 Hypothesis 4b: Career me ntoring as a moderator For those reporting experience as a ment or, it was predicted that the amount of career mentoring provided by the mentor woul d moderate the relationship between career plateauing and work-related attitudes. This hypothesis was not supported. One explanation for this result may be the focus of career mentoring. Career mentoring focuses on the advancement of th e protg in the organization. Although reports of mentoring provided may not be hi ndered, mentors may not reap the rewards of providing career mentoring in a fixed government structure. For example, advancement within this type of organization appears more related to tenure than actual performance. This situation may be less rewarding for the mentor. The mentor may not gain a sense of satisfaction or see his/her efforts as a leg acy if the protgs advancement cannot be attributed to the mentor. Therefore, the negative effects of plateauing may not be alleviated because the mentor does not vi ew his/her role as a coping response. Although not part of the specified an alyses, examination of the zero-order correlation between job content plateaui ng and career mentoring does suggest a significant negative relationship. This resu lt does provide support for a relationship between mentoring provided and plateaui ng, even though evidence was not found for the interaction. Hypothesis 4c: Psychosocial mentoring as a moderator It was also expected that the amount of psychosocial mentoring provided by the mentors would moderate the relationship between career plateauing and work-related attitudes. This hypothesis received minimal support.

PAGE 77

70 Of the 15 interactions tested, five were significant. The in teraction between job content plateauing and psychosocial mentori ng was significant for job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The interac tion between hierarchical plateauing and psychosocial mentoring was significant for organizational commit ment. Finally, the interaction between job tenure and psychosocia l mentoring was signifi cant for contextual performance. Of these five interactions, two were not as predicted. More specifically, the interactions for job tenure and psychosocial me ntoring were not significant at both levels of the moderator. Rather, in both relati onships, there was no main effect for low psychosocial mentoring, and task and cont extual performance decreased as tenure increased for mentors providing high psychosocial mentoring. An explanation of these findings may again be related to the costs associated with mentoring. Mentors may actually be experiencing more negative work-related atti tudes the more mentoring provided. However, as previously mentioned, an alternative explan ation for one of the interactions is the range restricti on of the task performance measure. Three interactions were as expected. These results suggest that as job content increases, mentors providing more psychosocia l mentoring will report higher levels of job satisfaction and organizati onal commitment. Consistent with the theoretical model, mentors are reporting more benefits the more mentoring they provide to others. The results also suggested that as hierarchical plateauing incr eases, mentors providing more psychosocial functions will report higher leve ls of organizational commitment. These

PAGE 78

71 significant relationships provi de some support that the am ount of ment oring provided will weaken the negative e ffects of plateauing. Zero-order correlations also provide some evidence th at psychosocial mentoring is related to lower levels of job content pl ateau. This relationsh ip does suggest that psychosocial mentoring provided may be beneficial to reducing experiences of job content plateau. Limitations and Future Research Although efforts were made to ensure methodological rigor, there were a few limitations that should be mentioned. First, the study relied on self-re port data. Although self-report data are appropriate for most of the study variable s, the main concern is with the measure of job performance. As previous ly indicated, this is of more concern with the task performance measure. The mean a nd standard deviation suggest serious range restriction for the measure. Although explanations for the range rest riction were cited, it is possible that this is due to inflated repor ts of participants own performance level. A preferred source of performance ratings would be supervisors. However, due to the constraints of the present study, superv isor ratings were not possible. A second limitation is that the data was co llected at a single point in time. When design is cross-sectional in natu re, it is impossible to infer causality. On the other hand, a longitudinal design would allow us to examin e changes in the study variables across time and rule out some alternative explanations. For example, an alternate explanation to these results is that employees who are more sa tisfied with their jobs are more likely to

PAGE 79

72 seek a mentor role. More longitudinal resear ch is therefore warranted to further examine the relationship between plateauing, me ntoring, and work-related attitudes. A third limitation is the sample size. Although the overall samp le size was large, the group comparisons were somewhat small. For example, only 110 employees reported experience as a mentor. This sample is ra ther small to assess the interaction between mentoring provided and plateauing. Future research should attempt to replicate these findings with a sample of at least 200 particip ants to achieve adequate power. However, non-significant p-values were large and likely would not have become significant, even with a larger sample size (greater power). Future researchers should also attempt to generalize the findings to different samples. The current study specifically s ought out government employees because of the prevalence of plateau. Perhaps different re lationships may emerge with employees in private sectors or various industries. Additi onal research is needed before generalizing the results across organizations. Future research should also explore these relationships within formal mentoring programs. Formal mentoring can be defined as a relationship in which the organization is responsible for assigning and facilitating th e relationship (Allen, Day, & Lentz, 2001). None of the three government offices have ha d a formal mentoring program in place. Therefore, all of the mentoring relationshi ps characterized in the present study were informal in nature, such that the relationship developed spontaneously through interactions between employees Little support was found fo r a theoretical link between plateauing and informal mentoring. The link may be embedded within formal mentoring

PAGE 80

73 programs. Perhaps a plateaued employee may respond more favorably to an organization that offers this type of program as a benefit. For example, he/she may report more organizational commitment when the mentor role was sponsored by the organization. Additional research with formal mentoring programs is needed to get a clearer picture of the relationship between plateauing and ment oring before results become generalized within the careers literature. Finally, the results provide evidence that mentoring may be a form of organizational citizenship behavior. As the mentor research begins to proliferate, additional research is needed to better understand why individuals would engage in a mentor role. Conclusions This study was the first to examine empi rically the relationship between career plateauing and mentoring. A relationship has been suggested throughout both popular streams of research for several decades, but th is was the first direct examination of the constructs. The current study pr ovides evidence for mentor bene fits, but little support for the interaction between platea uing and mentoring. However, evidence does suggest that a relationship exists between mentor experi ence and job content plateauing. Overall, these findings provide important contributions to both th e plateauing and mentoring streams of research by attempting to addr ess an empirical gap in the literature.

PAGE 81

74 References Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The m easurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commit ment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18. Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1996). Af fective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 252-276. Allen, T.D. (2003). Mentoring others: A dispositional and motivational approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior,62, 134-154. Allen, T.D., Day, R., & Lentz, E. (2001, May ). Formal mentoring programs: A review and survey of design features and recommendations. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA. Allen, T.D., Eby, LT., Poteet, M.L., Lent z, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring for protgs: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 127-136 Allen, T.D., Eby, L.T., Poteet, M.L ., & Lentz, E. (2002, April). Career benefits associated with mentoring protgs: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the 17th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, ON. Allen, T.D., Lentz, E., & Day, R. (2003, April). Career success outcomes and attitudes associated with mentoring others. Paper presented at the 18th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Or ganizational Psychology, Orlando, FL. Allen, T.D., Poteet, M.L., & Burroughs, S.M. (1997). The mentors perspective: A qualitative inquiry and future research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 70-89. Allen, T.D., Poteet, M.L., & Russell, J.E. A. (1998). Attitudes of managers who are more or less career plateaued. Career Development Quarterly, 47(2), 159-172. Allen, T.D., Poteet, M.L., & Russell, J.E.A. (2000). Protg selection by mentors: what makes the difference? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 271-282.

PAGE 82

75 Allen, T.D., Russell, J.E.A., Poteet, M.L ., & Dobbins, G.H. (1999). Learning and development factors related to perceptions of job content and hier archical plateauing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1113-1137. Appelbaum, S.H., & Santiago, V. (1997). Career development in the plateaued organization. Career Development International 11-20. Bardwick, J.M. (1986). The plateauing trap: How to avoid it in your career. New York, NY: Amacom. Borman, W.C., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1993) Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W.C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Borman, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2001). Personality predictors of citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 52-69. Bozionelos, N. (2004). Mentoring provided: Relation to mentors career success, personality, and mentoring received. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 24-46. Burke, R.J. (1989). Examining the career plateau: Some preliminary findings. Psychological Reports, 65, 295-306. Burke, R.J. & McKeen, C.A. (1997). Be nefits of mentoring relationships among managerial and professional women: A cautionary tale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 43-57. Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G.D ., Jr., & Klesh, J.R. (1979). Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. In S.E. Seashore, E.E. Lawler III, P.H. Mirivis, & C. Cammann (Eds.). Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures, and practices (pp.71-138). New York: Wiley. Chao, G.T. (1990). Exploration of the conceptualization and measurement of career plateau: a comparative analysis. Journal of Management, 16(1), 181-193. Chao, G.T. (1997). Mentoring phases and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 15-28. Chao, G.T., Walz, P.M., & Gardner, P.D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentored counterparts. Personnel Psychology, 45, 619-636.

PAGE 83

76 Coleman,V.I., & Borman, W.C. (2000). I nvestigating the underlying structure of the citizenship performance domain. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 25-44. Dreher, G.F. & Ash, R.A. (1990). A comparative study of me ntoring among men and women in managerial, profe ssional, and technical positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 539-546. Eby, L.T., McManus, S.E., Simon, S.A., & Russell, J.E.A. (2000) The protgs perspective regarding negative mentoring expe riences: The developm ent of a taxonomy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57, 1-21. Elsass, P.M. & Ralston, D.A. (1989). Indi vidual responses to the stress of career plateauing. Journal of Management, 15(1), 35-47. Ettington, D.R. (1998). Successful career plateauing. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 72-88. Feldman, D.C., & Weitz, B.A. (1988). Career plateaus reconsidered. Journal of Management, 14, 69-80. Ference, T.P., Stoner, J.A.F., Warren, E.K. (1977). Managing the career plateau. Academy of Management Review, October, 602-611. Greenhaus, J.H., & Callanan, G.A. (1994). Career management. Fort Worth, TX: The Dryden Press. Hanson, R.O., DeKoekkoek, P.D., Neece, W.M., & Patterson, D.W. (1997). Successful aging at work: Annual review, 1992-1996: The older work er and transitions to retirement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 202-233. Koberg, C.S., Boss, R.W., & Goodma n, E. (1998). Factors and outcomes associated with mentoring among health-care professionals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 58-72. Kram, K.E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 608-625. Kram, K.E. (1985). Mentoring at work. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company. Kram, K.E. & Hall, D.T. (1996). In Kossek, E.E. & Lobel, S. (Eds.). Managing diversity! Human resource strategi es for transforming the workplace. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

PAGE 84

77 Lease, S.H. (1998). Annual review, 1993-1997: Work attitudes and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 154-183. Levinson, D.J. (1978). The seasons of a mans life. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. McClelland, G.H., & Judd, C.M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376-390. Milliman, J.F. (1992). Causes, consequences, and moderating factors of career plateauing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Un iversity of Southern California. Motowidlo, S.J., & Van Scotter, J.R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475-480. Near, J.P. (1985). A discriminant anal ysis of plateaued versus non-plateaued managers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 26, 177-188. Noe, R.A. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. Personnel Psychology, 41, 457-479. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Ahearne, M., & Bommer, W.H. (1995). Searching for a needle in a haystack: Trying to identify illusive moderators of leadership behaviors. Journal of Management, 21, 422-470. Ragins, B.R. (1997). Antecedents of diversified mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 90-109. 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. & McFarlin, D.B. (1990). Perceptions of ment or roles in crossgender mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 321-339. Ragins, B.R. & Scandura, T.A. (1999). Burden or blessing? Expected costs and benefits of being a mentor. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 493-509. Rothausen, T.J. (1999). Family in or ganizational research: a review and comparison of definitions and measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 817836.

PAGE 85

78 Rotondo, D.M. & Perrewe, P.L. (2000). Coping with a career plateau: An empirical examination of what works and what doesnt. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 2622-2646. Scandura, T.A. (1992). Mentorship and career mobility: An empirical examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 13, 169-174. Slocum, J.W., Jr., Cron, W.L., Hansen, R.W., Rawlings, S. (1985). Business strategy and the management of plateaued employees. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 133-154. Sterns, H.L. & Miklos, S.M. (1995). The aging worker in a changing environment: Organizational and individual issues. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47, 248-268. Stevens, J.P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Stout, S.K., Slocum, J.W., Cron, W.L. (1988). Dynamics of the career plateauing process. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 74-91. Tremblay, M., Roger, A., Toulouse, J.M. (1995). Career plateau and work attitudes: An empirical study of managers. Human Relations, 48(3), 221-235. Whitely, W., Dougherty, T.W., & Dreher, G.F. (1991). Relationship of career mentoring and socioeconomic origin to managers and professionals early career progress. Academy of Manage ment Journal, 34(2), 331-351.

PAGE 86

79 Appendices

PAGE 87

80 Appendix A: Job Content and Hierarchical Plateau Scales Read each of the following items and indicate the extent you agree with each of the following statements. Please use the scale below to mark your responses to the le ft of each item: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree ____ 1. I expect to be consta ntly challenged in my job. ____ 2. I have an opportunity to lear n and grow a lot in my current job. ____ 3. My job tasks and activitie s have become routine for me. ____ 4. My job responsibilities have increased significantly. ____ 5. My job requires me to continually extent my abilities and knowledge. ____ 6. I am challenged by my job. ____ 7. I am not likely to obtain a much higher job title in my organization. ____ 8. I expect to advance to a higher level in my company in the near future. ____ 9. My opportunities for upward movement are limited in my present organization. ____ 10. I expect to be promoted freque ntly in my company in the future. ____ 11. I have reached a point where I do not expect to move much higher in my company. ____ 12. The likelihood that I will get ah ead in my organization is limited.

PAGE 88

81 Appendix B: Mentorin g Experience Items Please read the following desc ription of a mentor and res pond to the following question regarding your experience in a mentoring relationship. In your present job, is there an individual in the organization who you have taken personal interest in; who you have guided, sponsored, or otherwise had a positive and significant No Yes influence on their professi onal career development? In other words, have you ever been a mentor? Please respond to the followi ng questions regarding your experience in a mentoring relationship. How many mentoring relationships have you had at your presen t organization? (e.g., 2) ________________________________________________________________________ What were the dates of each relati onship? (e.g., 10/2002-12/2002; 1/2003-6/2003) ________________________________________________________________________

PAGE 89

82 Appendix C: Mentor Function Scale Indicate the extent you agree with each of the following statements regarding your mentoring behaviors. If you have engaged in multiple mentoring relationships, please respond based upon your current or most recent relationship. Please use the scale below to mark your responses to the le ft of each item: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree As a Mentor, I ____ 1. reduce unnecessary risks that could th reaten the possibility of my protgs promotion. ____ 2. help my protg finish assignment s/tasks/projects or meet deadlines that otherwise would be difficult to complete. ____ 3. help my protg meet new colleagues. ____ 4. give my protg assignments that increase written and personal contact with management. ____ 5. assign responsibilities that will increase my protgs contact with people in the organization who may judge his/her potential for future advancement. ____ 6. give assignments or tasks to my protg that prepare him/her for managerial positions. ____ 7. give assignments that give my protg the opportunity to learn new skills. ____ 8. share my past experiences/history of my career. ____ 9. encourage my protg to prepare for advancement. ____ 10. encourage my protg to tr y new ways of behaving at work. ____ 11. encourage my protg to imitate my behavior at work. ____ 12. try to find similarities between our work attitudes and values. ____ 13. respect and admire my protg. ____ 14. remember what it was like to be in my protgs position. ____ 15. demonstrate good listening skills in our conversations. ____ 16. try to encourage discussion of my protgs feelings of competence, commitment to advancem ent, relationships with peers and supervisors or work/family conflicts. ____ 17. share personal experiences as an alte rnative perspective to problems that may arise.

PAGE 90

83 Appendix C (Continued) ____ 18. encourage my protg to speak openly about anxiety and fears that may detract him/her from work. ____ 19. convey empathy for the concerns and feelings my protg discusses with me. ____ 20. keep my protgs feelings and doubts in strict confidence. ____ 21. convey a feeling of respect fo r my protg as an individual.

PAGE 91

84 Appendix D: Job Satisfaction Scale Read each of the following items and indicate the extent you agree with each of the following statements. Please use the scale below to mark your responses to the le ft of each item: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree ____ 1. All in all, I am satisfied with my job. ____ 1. In general, I dont like my job. ____ 1. In general, I like working here.

PAGE 92

85 Appendix E: Task and Contextual Performance Scales Think about your job performance on average Read each of the following items and indicate how often you e ffectively perform the follo wing specific behavior. Please use the scale below to mark your responses to the le ft of each item: 1 2 3 4 5 Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very Often ____ 1. Complete assigned duties. ____ 2. Fulfill responsibilities spec ified in my job description. ____ 3. Perform tasks that are expected of me. ____ 4. Meet formal performance requirements of my job. ____ 5. Engage in activities that will di rectly affect my performance evaluation. ____ 6. Neglect aspects of my job that I am obligated to perform. ____ 7. Fail to perfor m essential duties. ____ 8. Help co-workers. ____ 9. Assist co-workers with their personal matters. ____ 10. Cooperate with co-workers. ____ 11. Keep others in the organization info rmed about upcoming events or activities. ____ 12. Promote and defend the organization to others. ____ 13. Complain about organizational conditions to others. ____ 14. Follow organization rules and procedures. ____ 15. Suggest procedural, administrative, or organizational improvements to members of management. ____ 16. Persist with enthusiasm in completing my work. ____ 17. Engage in self-development to improve my own effectiveness. ____ 18. Volunteer to carry out tasks that ar e not part of my own job requirements. ____ 19. Display dedication on the job.

PAGE 93

86 Appendix F: Organizational Commitment Scale Read each of the following items and indicate the extent you agree with each of the following statements. Please use the scale below to mark your responses to the le ft of each item: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree ____ 1. I would be very happy to spend the re st of my career with this organization. ____ 2. I enjoy discussing my orga nization with people outside it. ____ 3. I really feel as if this organizations problems are my own. ____ 4. I think that I could easily become attached to another organization as I am to this one. ____ 5. I do not feel like part of the family at my organization. ____ 6. I do not feel emotionally attached to this organization. ____ 7. This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me. ____ 8. I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization.

PAGE 94

87 Appendix G: Intent to Turnover Scale Read each of the following items and indicate the extent you agree with each of the following statements. Please use the scale below to mark your responses to the le ft of each item: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree ____ 1. I am currently looking for another organization to work for. ____ 2. I often think of l eaving this organization. ____ 3. I will probably leave this organization in the next few months.

PAGE 95

88 Appendix H: Demographic Items Please provide the following information as requested below. This information will remain confidential and will ONLY be used in aggregate form for statistical purposes. Your Gender : Male Female Your Age : _____ Your Race : Caucasion/White African-American Hispanic Asian American Indian or Other Alaskan Native Highest Level of Education Completed: High school degree Bachelor degree Some college Masters degree Associate degree Doctorate degree Current Employment Status: Part-time Full-time Current Job Description: Staff Middle Management Upper Management What is your curren t job title? ______________________________________________ How long have you held this titl e? _____ years _____ months How long have you been employed in your pr esent organization? ___ years ___ months What is your current an nual salary? $_______________ Marital status : Not Married Not Married but Living with Partner Married If married or living with partner, is your spouse/partne r employed outside the home fulltime? No Yes How many children do you currently ha ve living with you at home? ________________ If applicable, what are the ages of each of the children currently living with you at home? ________________________________________________________________________

PAGE 96

89 Appendix I: Information Email Dear Goverment Employee, As part of an organizational study, government is working with the University of South Flor ida to learn more about your organizational culture, employee opportunities, and feedback regarding several job-related measures. Specifically, you will be asked to respond to a survey inquiring about your mentoring experiences and organizational culture. In order to accurately assess government offices, we need your cooperation. Over the next week, you will be receiving an email that contains a link to access the online Employee Opinion Survey. The survey has been reviewed and approved by the Development Services Business Center and a re search team at the University of South Florida. The survey will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. At this time, I have attached a Frequently Asked Questions docum ent that will address additional information and important questions regarding the Employ ee Opinion Survey that you may have. The survey is completely voluntary and all re sponses will remain confidential. In order to protect your confidentiality, all respons es will be collected and analyzed by the University of South Florida, not employees. Be sure to look for additional announcements w ithin the next week. Any questions that you may have regarding the methodology or the purpose of the study can be addressed to Elizabeth Lentz at the University of Sout h Florida (see contact information below). Thank you in advance for your participation! Elizabeth Lentz University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Ave., PCD 4118G Tampa, FL. 33620 emlentz@helios.acomp.usf.edu

PAGE 97

Appendix J: Question and Answer Document Employee Opinion Survey Frequently Asked Questions and Answers Q. Who will see my responses? A. Only the research team at the University of South Florida will have access to individual responses. No employees or members of management will have access to any of your responses. In addition, you will not be asked your name or any other identifying information on the survey itself. Q. Why should I participate? A. The key to our success is up to you! By participating in this study, you will be contributing to research that helps enhance our understanding of organizational culture and employee opportunities. It is very important that we receive 100% participation to ensure that we have the most accurate results. Q. How long will the survey take to complete? A. The survey itself will take approximately 20 minutes to complete and can be completed online at your leisure. The deadline to submit completed surveys is . Q. What will you do with the results? A. The results will be analyzed to look at important relationships between culture, employee opportunities, and work-related measures by the University of South Florida. A complete report of the findings will be provided to the . These results will be reported at the group level, not the individual level. Appropriate contact information will be provided upon conclusion of the study if you would like to view the results as well. 90

PAGE 98

91 Appendix J (Continued) Q. Do I have to participate? A. Your decision to participate in this research study is completely voluntary. You are free to participate or withdr aw at any time. There will be no penalty if you choose not to participate. Q. Is the online survey secure? A. Although the server the survey is hos ted on is secure, there are always dangers associated with us ing the internet and intranet. Although unlikely, it is possible that unauthorized individuals could gain access to your responses. If you are worried about this occurring, but would still like to participate, you can contact Elizabeth Lentz from the University of South Florida at emlentz@helios.acomp.usf.edu to obtain a paper and pencil version of the survey. Q. If I have any additional questions, who should I contact? A. If you have any questions about this research study, contact Elizabeth Lentz from the University of South Florida at emlentz@helios.acomp.usf.edu If you have questions about your rights as a person who is taking part in a research study, you may contact the Division of Research Compliance of th e University of South Florida at (813) 974-5638.

PAGE 99

92 Appendix K: Email Template That Contains Survey Link Dear Employee: Over the past week, you have received in formation regarding an Employee Opinion Survey. I would like to thank each of you in advance for your participation in this research. The steps to complete the survey are simple: a. Click on the link or copy and past e the web addre ss into your web browser: b. Go through the entire survey and try to be as accurate and complete as possible. c. After completing a set of questions on a page, click on the Continue button to submit responses. d. After completing the final questi on, click on the Finished button. The survey will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. It is recommended that you complete the survey in one sitting. Howeve r, if you need to exit the survey for any reason before completing in its entirety, the survey is programmed to take you back to where you left off. For example, if you had to exit the survey but would like to continue again, you can simply click on the above link in this email and be redirected to where you left off with your previous answers store d. However, you must be working from the same computer or you will be directed to th e beginning of a new survey. If you share a computer with a co-worker, either you or your co-worker will need to complete the survey entirely and exit the browser before the other can begin the survey. The second person can then click on the link and be taken to the beginning of a new survey. This will allow both sets of responses to be stored securely. The deadline to complete the survey is .

PAGE 100

93 Appendix K (Continued) Remember, all individual responses will remain confidential. The data is being collected and analyzed by a research team at the Univ ersity of South Florida. Only group-level data will be reported and pr ovided to . For your convenience, I have again attached a Freque ntly Asked Questions document that will address additional information and important questions regardi ng the Mentoring and Culture Survey that you still may have. If you have any additional questions regard ing the purpose of the study, content of the survey, or have difficulty accessing the su rvey, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your participation! Elizabeth Lentz University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Ave., PCD 4118G Tampa, FL. 33620 emlentz@helios.acomp.usf.edu

PAGE 101

94 Appendix L: Reminder Email Template Greetings: I would like to thank those of you who have completed the Employee Opinion Survey. For those of you who have not, the deadline is . As a reminder, the steps to complete the survey are simple: e. Click on the link or copy and past e the web addre ss into your web browser: f. Go through the entire survey and try to be as accurate and complete as possible. g. After completing a set of questions on a page, click on the Continue button to submit responses. h. After completing the final question, c lick on the Finished button to submit all responses. I know you are very busy, but your input is an in valuable contribution to this research. Remember, all individual responses will remain confidential. The data is being collected and analyzed by a research team at the Univ ersity of South Florida. Only group-level data will be reported and provided to . If you have any questions or have trouble acce ssing the online survey, feel free to contact me. Thank you again for your time and input! Elizabeth Lentz University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Ave., PCD 4118G Tampa, FL. 33620 emlentz@helios.acomp.usf.edu

PAGE 102

95 Appendix M: Complete Employee Opinion Survey E E m m p p l l o o y y e e e e O O p p i i n n i i o o n n S S u u r r v v e e y y General Instructions The items in this questionnaire are designed to examine the organizational culture, employee development opportunities, a nd employee career-related attitudes. Please be honest when you complete this survey. There are no right or wrong answers. Your participation is completely voluntary. All responses will remain confidential and no individual responses will be identified. Your responses and the res ponses of other participants will be reported in the aggregate. Before you begin. The survey will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. With this survey, you should have received an envelope. When you are finished with the survey, please place the completed survey in the envelope and seal. The envelope is addressed and stamped for your conveni ence. Please do not put any identifying information on the envelope or survey materials. If you would prefer to complete the survey online, the survey is available online at: Should you experience any difficulties with th e survey or have any questions about this project or survey, please contact Elizabeth Lentz at emlentz@helios.acomp.usf.edu Thank you in advance for your participation!

PAGE 103

Appendix M (Continued) SECTION 1: MENTORING EXPERIENCE Part A: Please read the following description of a mentor and respond to the following question regarding your experience in a mentoring relationship. In your present job, is there an individual in the organization who you have taken personal interest in; who you have guided, sponsored, or otherwise had a positive and significant Yes No influence on their professional career development? In other words, have you ever been a mentor? If you answered NO, please skip the remainder of Section 1 and move on to Section 2 (page 5). If you answered YES, please complete the remainder of the survey in its entirety. Part B: Please respond to the following questions regarding your experience in a mentoring relationship. How many mentoring relationships have you had at your present organization? (e.g., 2) ___________________ What were the dates of each relationship? (e.g., 10/2002-12/2002; 1/2003-6/2003) ________________________ 96

PAGE 104

97 Appendix M (Continued) Part C: Indicate the extent you agree with each of the following statements regarding your mentoring behaviors. If you have engaged in multiple mentoring relationships, please respond based upon your current or most recent relationship. Please use the scale below to mark your responses to the le ft of each item: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree As a Mentor, I ____ 1. reduce unnecessary risks that could th reaten the possibility of my protgs promotion. ____ 2. help my protg finish assignment s/tasks/projects or meet deadlines that otherwise would be difficult to complete. ____ 3. help my protg meet new colleagues. ____ 4. give my protg assignments that increase written and pe rsonal contact with management. ____ 5. assign responsibilities that will increase my protgs contact with people in the organization who may judge his/her potential for future advancement. ____ 6. give assignments or tasks to my protg that prepare him/her for managerial positions. ____ 7. give assignments that give my protg the opportunity to learn new skills. ____ 8. share my past experiences/history of my career. ____ 9. encourage my protg to prepare for advancement. ____ 10. encourage my protg to tr y new ways of behaving at work. ____ 11. encourage my protg to imitate my behavior at work. ____ 12. try to find similarities between our work attitudes and values. ____ 13. respect and admire my protg. ____ 14. remember what it was like to be in my protgs position. ____ 15. demonstrate good listening skills in our conversations. ____ 16. try to encourage discussion of my protgs feelings of competence, commitment to advancement, relationships with peers and supervisors or work/family conflicts. ____ 17. share personal experiences as an alternative perspective to problems that may arise. ____ 18. encourage my protg to speak openly about anxiety and fears that may detract him/her from work. ____ 19. convey empathy for the concerns and feelings my protg discusses with me. ____ 20. keep my protgs feelings and doubts in strict confidence. ____ 21. convey a feeling of respect fo r my protg as an individual.

PAGE 105

98 Appendix M (Continued) Part D: Below is a list of reasons why individual s may mentor others. Read each item and indicate the extent you agree each statement motivated or influenced your decision to become a mentor. If you have engaged in multiple mentoring relationships, please respond based upon your current or most recent relationship. Please use the scale below to mark your responses to the le ft of each item: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree ____ 1. To enhance your visibility within the organization. ____ 2. To enhance your reputation in the department. ____ 3. To earn respect from others in the organization. ____ 4. To increase your support base within the organization. ____ 5. To benefit your organization. ____ 6. A desire to build/develop a comp etent workforce within your organization. ____ 7. A desire to help others succeed in the organization. ____ 8. The desire to help others grow and develop. ____ 9. To ensure that knowledge and information is passed on to others. ____ 10. The personal pride that mentoring someone brings. ____ 11. The personal gratification that come s from seeing the protg grow and develop. ____ 12. To gain a sense of self-s atisfaction by passing on insights.

PAGE 106

Appendix M (Continued) SECTION 2: CAREER AND JOB ATTITUDES Part A: Read each of the following items and indicate the extent you agree with each of the following statements. Please use the scale below to mark your responses to the left of each item: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree ____ 1. I expect to be constantly challenged in my job. ____ 2. I have an opportunity to learn and grow a lot in my current job. ____ 3. My job tasks and activities have become routine for me. ____ 4. My job responsibilities have increased significantly. ____ 5. My job requires me to continually extend my abilities and knowledge. ____ 6. I am challenged by my job. ____ 7. I am not likely to obtain a much higher job title in my organization. ____ 8. I expect to advance to a higher level in my company in the near future. ____ 9. My opportunities for upward movement are limited in my present organization. ____ 10. I expect to be promoted frequently in my company in the future. ____ 11. I have reached a point where I do not expect to move much higher in my company. ____ 12. The likelihood that I will get ahead in my organization is limited. ____ 13. All in all, I am satisfied with my job. ____ 14. In general, I dont like my job. ____ 15. In general, I like working here. ____ 16. I am currently looking for another organization to work for. ____ 17. I often think of leaving this organization. ____ 18. I will probably leave this organization in the next few months. ____ 19. If it is up to me, I will still be working here a year from now. ____ 20. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization. ____ 21. I enjoy discussing my organization with people outside it. ____ 22. I really feel as if this organizations problems are my own. ____ 23. I think that I could easily become attached to another organization as I am to this one. ____ 24. I do not feel like part of the family at my organization. ____ 25. I do not feel emotionally attached to this organization. ____ 26. This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me. ____ 27. I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization. 99

PAGE 107

100 Appendix M (Continued) 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree ____ 28. I feel trusted by my manager to do my job well. ____ 29. My job is interesting and challenging. ____ 30. I am provided with the necessary tools and training to perform my job adequately. ____ 31. I feel I make a significant contri bution to my organizations success. ____ 32. I feel that my department works as a team to provide the best customer service possible. ____ 33. My performance has a signifi cant impact on my pay increases. ____ 34. My performance has a direct im pact on my promotional opportunities. ____ 35. I have a good understanding of my organizations vision and values. ____ 36. I understand my role in th e organizations strategic plan. ____ 37. I have no desire to mentor others. ____ 38. I would like to be a mentor. ____ 39. I intend to be a mentor. ____ 40. I would be comfortable assuming a mentoring role. Part B: Think about your job performance on average Read each of the following items and indicate how often you e ffectively perform the follo wing specific behavior. Please use the scale below to mark your responses to the le ft of each item: 1 2 3 4 5 Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very Often ____ 1. Complete assigned duties. ____ 2. Fulfill responsibilities spec ified in my job description. ____ 3. Perform tasks that are expected of me. ____ 4. Meet formal performance requirements of my job. ____ 5. Engage in activities that will di rectly affect my performance evaluation. ____ 6. Neglect aspects of my job that I am obligated to perform. ____ 7. Fail to perfor m essential duties. ____ 8. Help co-workers. ____ 9. Assist co-workers with their personal matters. ____ 10. Cooperate with co-workers. ____ 11. Keep others in the organization info rmed about upcoming events or activities. ____ 12. Promote and defend the organization to others.

PAGE 108

101 Appendix M (Continued) 1 2 3 4 5 Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very Often ____ 13. Complain about organizational conditions to others. ____ 14. Follow organization rules and procedures. ____ 15. Suggest procedural, administrative, or organizational improvements to members of management. ____ 16. Persist with enthusiasm in completing my work. ____ 17. Engage in self-development to improve my own effectiveness. ____ 18. Volunteer to carry out tasks that ar e not part of my own job requirements. ____ 19. Display dedication on the job. Part C: Think about your organizations climate and work culture. Please rate the extent you agree that each of the following statements re present the philosophy or beliefs of your organization. Remember, these are NOT your own personal be liefs, but pertain to what you believe is the philosophy of your organization Please use the scale below to mark your responses to the le ft of each item: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree ____ 1. Work should be the primar y priority in a persons life. ____ 2. Long hours inside the office are the way to achieving advancement. ____ 3. It is best to keep family matters separate from work. ____ 4. It is considered taboo to talk about life outside of work. ____ 5. Expressing involvement and interest in nonwork matters is viewed as healthy. ____ 6. Employees who are highly committed to their personal lives cannot be highly committed to their work. ____ 7. Attending to personal needs, such as taking time off for sick children is frowned upon. ____ 8. Employees should keep th eir personal problems at home. ____ 9. The way to advance in this compa ny is to keep nonwork matters out of the workplace. ____ 10. Individuals who take time off to attend to personal matters are not committed to their work. ____ 11. It is assumed that the most productive employees are those who put their work before their family life.

PAGE 109

102 Appendix M (Continued) 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree ____ 12. Employees are given ample opportunity to perform both their job and their personal responsibilities well. ____ 13. Offering employees flexibility in completing their work is viewed as a strategic way of doing business. ____ 14. The ideal employee is the one who is available 24 hours a day. ____ 15. Management responds favorably to sugg ested procedural, ad ministrative, or organizational improvements. Part D: Think about your work and family life. Read each of the following items and rate how often the statement describes you. Please use the scale below to mark your responses to the le ft of each item: 1 2 3 4 5 Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very Often ____ 1. How often does your job or career inte rfere with your respons ibilities at home, such as yard work, c ooking, cleaning, repairs, shoppi ng, paying the bills, or childcare? ____ 2. How often does your job or career k eep you from spending the amount of time that you would like to spend with your family? ____ 3. How often does your job or car eer interfere with your home life? ____ 4. How often does your home-life interfere with your responsibilities at work, such as getting to work on time, accomplishing daily tasks, or working overtime? ____ 5. How often does your home-life keep you from spending the amount of time you would like to spend on job or career -related activities? ____ 6. How often does your home-life interfere with your job or career? ____ 7. When you are at home, how often do you think about work-related problems? ____ 8. When you are at home, how often do you think about things you need to accomplish at work? ____ 9. When you are at home, how often do you try to arrange, schedule, or perform job-related activities outside of your normal work hours? ____ 10. When you are at work, how often do you think about family-related problems? ____ 11. When you are at work, how often do you think about things you need to accomplish at home? ____ 12. When you are at work, how often do you try to arrange, schedule, or perform family-related activities?

PAGE 110

103 Appendix M (Continued) Part E: Please write in the number of hours per week yo u typically spend in each of the following activities during the listed time periods. Activity Customary business during the week (e.g. Monday Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.) Before or after customary business hours during the week On the weekend Employment-related tasks Housework (e.g. cooking, cleaning, yard work, paying bills) Dependent care (e.g. caring for children, elderly relatives) Other family related activities (e.g. time with spouse or partner, sibling)

PAGE 111

Appendix M (Continued) SECTION 3: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Please provide the following information as requested below. This information will remain confidential and will ONLY be used in aggregate form for statistical purposes. Your Gender : Male Female Your Age : _____ Your Race : Caucasion/White African-American Hispanic Asian American Indian or Other Alaskan Native Highest Level of Education Completed: High school degree Bachelor degree Some college Masters degree Associate degree Doctorate degree Current Employment Status: Part-time Full-time Current Job Description: Staff Middle Management Upper Management What is your current job title? ______________________________________________ How long have you held this title? _____ years _____ months How long have you been employed in your present organization? ___ years ___ months What is your current annual salary? $_______________ Marital status : Not Married Not Married but Living with Partner Married If married or living with partner, is your spouse/partner employed outside the home full-time? No Yes How many children do you currently have living with you at home? __________ If applicable, what are the ages of each of the children currently living with you at home? ________________________________________________________________________ Please provide any additional comments that you believe would be helpful. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ THANKS FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!!! 104