USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Protege and mentor characteristics

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Protege and mentor characteristics examining individual differences in effective mentoring relationships
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Lentz, Elizabeth
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Mentorships
Learning goal orientation
Locus of control
Self-efficacy
Mentorship learning
Personal learning
Mentorship quality
Career success
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- Doctoral -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to identify and examine the role of dispositional characteristics in effective mentoring relationships. A learning and development framework was incorporated to examine the relationships of protégé and mentor characteristics, mentoring provided, and developmental mentoring outcomes. First, relationships between individual characteristics and mentoring provided were examined. Second, relationships between individual characteristics and partner developmental outcomes were examined. Third, mentoring provided was examined as a mediator of individual characteristics and partner developmental outcomes. The final sample consisted of 93 protégé-mentor pairs. Protégés and mentors were asked to complete an online survey measuring learning goal orientation, locus of control, self-efficacy for development, mentoring received/mentoring provided, and multiple assessments of relationship effectiveness. In general, the hypotheses were not supported, but supplemental analyses provided support for the importance of examining individual characteristics. Key findings contribute to the mentoring literature by illustrating the role of learning goal orientation and self-efficacy for development in effective mentoring relationships. Future research should investigate additional underlying mechanisms that further explain the mentorship learning exchange processes.
Thesis:
Dissertation (Ph.D. )--University of South Florida, 2007.
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 161 pages.
General Note:
Includes vita.

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 - 001913833
oclc - 174514693
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0001956
usfldc handle - e14.1956
System ID:
SFS0026274:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Protg and Mentor Characteristics: Examining Individual Differences in Effective Mentoring Relationships by Elizabeth Lentz A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Psychology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Tammy D. Allen, Ph.D. Walter C. Borman, Ph.D. Michael Brannick, Ph.D. Ellis Gesten, Ph.D. Walter Nord, Ph.D. Date of Approval: April 4, 2007 Keywords: mentorships, learning goal orientation, locus of control, self-effic acy, mentorship learning, personal learning, mentorship quality, career success Copyright 2007, Elizabeth Lentz

PAGE 2

Dedication I would like to dedicate this dissertation to three very special people in my lif e who have provided me with endless support, encouragement, and love. First, to my parents, who have always been there for me when I needed them and truly are my he ros and source of inspiration. I know I would not have come this far without knowing they were supporting me, every step of the way. I would also like to dedicate this diss ertation to my wonderful husband, Damon, who has been my rock throughout this journey. He has always encouraged me to pursue my dreams and strive to be better than I thou ght I could be. I love you all more than words could ever express and would like to dedicate this dissertation and advanced degree to the three of you!

PAGE 3

Acknowledgements Completing my dissertation research has truly been a rewarding experienc e for me. There are many people whom I would like to thank for making this research possible. I would like to thank the employees who participated in this study and recognized the value their feedback would have. I would like to thank my committee members, Drs. Wally Borman, Mike Brannick, Ellis Gesten, and Walt Nord, for sharing their expertise with me throug hout this process. I would also like to thank my committee chair, Dr. Alan Balfour, for his time and guidance during this process. On a special note, I would like to thank Wally for his continued support and encouragement throughout my graduate career. And of course, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Tammy Allen. This research would not have been possible without her continuous support and guidance. Throughout my graduate career, Tammy has been my role model and mentor. Because of Tammy, I surpassed all of my original goals and expectations for myself. Each day, I am inspired by her he art, drive, and passion for research. Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends. I am truly a stronger person because of their love and encouragement. In one way or another, each of them have helped me believe in myself and the goals I could accomplishment. And, yes, I am finally going to graduate!

PAGE 4

i Table of Contents List of Tables................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures.................................................................................................................. vi Abstract ........................................................................................................................... vii Chapter One: Introduction............................................................................................... 1 Mentoring in the Workplace................................................................................ 4 The Concept of Workplace Mentoring.................................................... 4 Protg Benefits....................................................................................... 6 Mentor Benefits....................................................................................... 7 Protg and Mentor Chracteristics....................................................................... 9 A Learning and Development Orientation Perspective........................... 10 Learning Goal Orientation........................................................... 12 Locus of Control.......................................................................... 13 Self-Efficacy for Development.................................................... 15 Study Hypotheses................................................................................................. 16 The Role of Learning Goal Orientation................................................... 18 The Role of Locus of Control.................................................................. 20 The Role of Self-Efficacy........................................................................ 21 Chapter Two: Method...................................................................................................... 24 Participants........................................................................................................... 24 Response Rate.......................................................................................... 29 Procedure............................................................................................................. 30 Mentoring Measures............................................................................................ 33 Protg Experience Screen...................................................................... 33 Mentoring Provided................................................................................. 34 Individual Characteristic Measures...................................................................... 35 Learning Goal Orientation....................................................................... 35 Locus of Control...................................................................................... 35 Self-Efficacy for Development................................................................ 35 Mentoring Effectiveness Measures...................................................................... 36 Mutual Mentorship Learning................................................................... 36 Personal Learning.................................................................................... 36 Mentorship Quality.................................................................................. 39 Career Success......................................................................................... 39 Demographic Measures....................................................................................... 39

PAGE 5

ii Chapter Three: Preliminary Date Steps and Analyses..................................................... 41 Protg-Mentor Dyads......................................................................................... 41 Scale Descriptives................................................................................................ 41 Inter-Correlations Among Protg Variables...................................................... 43 Inter-Correlations Among Mentor Variables....................................................... 47 Inter-Correlations Among Protg and Mentor Study Variables........................ 51 Control Variables................................................................................................. 56 Data Analyses...................................................................................................... 57 Chapter Four: Results...................................................................................................... 60 Hypothesis 1a, 3a, and 5a.................................................................................... 60 Hypothesis 2a, 4a, and 6a.................................................................................... 61 Hypothesis 1b, 3b, and 5b.................................................................................... 63 Hypothesis 2b, 4b, and 6b.................................................................................... 64 Hypothesis 1c, 2c, 3c, 4c, 5c, and 6c................................................................... 65 Chapter Five: Supplemental Analyses............................................................................. 73 Protg Supplemental Analyses........................................................................... 74 Mentor Supplemental Analyses........................................................................... 76 Chapter Six: Discussion................................................................................................... 88 Key Findings for the Role of Protg Learning Goal Orientation....................... 89 Key Findings for the Role of Mentor Learning Goal Orientation....................... 91 Key Findings for the Role of Protg Locus of Control...................................... 92 Key Findings for the Role of Mentor Locus of Control...................................... 93 Key Findings for Protg Self-Efficacy for Development.................................. 94 Key Findings for Mentor Self-Efficacy for Development................................... 95 Key Findings for Career and Psychosocial Mentoring........................................ 96 Theoretical and Practical Implications................................................................. 99 Important Directions for Future Research...........................................................100 Study Strengths and Limitations..........................................................................104 Conclusions..........................................................................................................105 References........................................................................................................................107 Appendices.......................................................................................................................113 Appendix A: Protg Information Email...........................................................114 Appendix B: Protg Reminder Email..............................................................115 Appendix C: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Document...........................116 Appendix D: Protg Online Survey.................................................................118 Appendix E: Protg Non-Participation Link...................................................132 Appendix F: No Protg Experience Link........................................................133 Appendix G: Mentor Information Email...........................................................134 Appendix H: Mentor Reminder Email..............................................................135 Appendix I: Mentor Online Survey..................................................................136

PAGE 6

iii Appendix J: Mentor Non-Participation Link....................................................150 Appendix K: Mentoring Provided Items – Protg Perspective........................151 Appendix L: Mentoring Provided Items – Mentor Perspective........................153 Appendix M: Learning Goal Orientation Items.................................................155 Appendix N: Locus of Control Items................................................................156 Appendix O: Self-Efficacy for Development Items..........................................157 Appendix P: Mutual Mentorship Learning Items.............................................158 Appendix Q: Personal Learning Items..............................................................159 Appendix R: Mentorship Quality Items............................................................160 Appendix S: Career Success Items...................................................................161 About the Author................................................................................................. End Page

PAGE 7

iv List of Tables Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of Participants........................................... 25 Table 2 Mentoring Relationship Characteristics................................................... 28 Table 3 Factor Loadings for Personal Learning Items.......................................... 38 Table 4 Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables................................................. 42 Table 5 Inter-correlations Among Protg Study Variables and Reliability Estimates................................................................................ 44 Table 6 Inter-correlations Among Mentor Study Variables and Reliability Estimates................................................................................ 48 Table 7 Inter-correlations Among Protg and Mentor Study Variables............. 53 Table 8 Multiple Regression Results for Protg Characteristics Predicting Mentoring Provided................................................................ 67 Table 9 Multiple Regression Results for Mentor Characteristics Predicting Mentoring Provided................................................................ 68 Table 10 Multiple Regression Results for Protg Characteristics Predicting Mentor Outcomes................................................................... 69 Table 11 Multiple Regression Results for Mentor Characteristics Predicting Protg Outcomes................................................................... 70 Table 12 Multiple Regression Results for Mentor Career Mentoring Mediation................................................................................................. 71 Table 13 Multiple Regression Results for Protg Career Mentoring Mediation................................................................................................. 72 Table 14 Multiple Regression Results for Protg Characteristics Predicting Protg Outcomes................................................................... 80

PAGE 8

v Table 15 Multiple Regression Results for Protg Mentoring Predicting Protg Outcomes................................................................... 81 Table 16 Multiple Regression Results for Protg Psychosocial Mentoring Mediation................................................................................................. 82 Table 17 Multiple Regression Results for Mentor Characteristics Predicting Mentor Outcomes................................................................... 83 Table 18 Multiple Regression Results for Mentor Mentoring Predicting Mentor Outcomes................................................................... 84 Table 19 Multiple Regression Results for Mentor Career Mentoring Mediation................................................................................................. 85 Table 20 Multiple Regression Results for Mentor Psychosocial Mentoring Mediation................................................................................................. 86 Table 21 Multiple Regression Results for Mentor Career and Psychosocial Mentoring Mediation............................................................................... 87

PAGE 9

vi List of Figures Figure 1 Proposed Relationships for Protg Characteristics, Mentoring Provided, and Mentor Development Outcomes..................... 23 Figure 2 Proposed Relationships for Mentor Characteristics, Mentoring Provided, and Protg Development Outcomes.................... 23

PAGE 10

vii Protg and Mentor Characteristics: Examining Individual Differences in Effective Mentoring Relationships Elizabeth Lentz ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to identify and examine the role of dispositional characteristics in effective mentoring relationships. A learning and de velopment framework was incorporated to examine the relationships of protg and mentor characteristics, mentoring provided, and developmental mentoring outcomes. First relationships between individual characteristics and mentoring provided were e xamined. Second, relationships between individual characteristics and partner developmenta l outcomes were examined. Third, mentoring provided was examined as a mediator of individual characteristics and partner developmental outcomes. The final sample consisted of 93 protg-mentor pairs. Protgs and mentors were asked to complete an online survey measuring learning goal orientation, locus of control self-efficacy for development, mentoring received/mentoring provided, and mult iple assessments of relationship effectiveness. In general, the hypotheses w ere not supported, but supplemental analyses provided support for the importance of examining individual characteristics. Key findings contribute to the mentoring literature by il lustrating the role of learning goal orientation and self-efficacy for development in effecti ve mentoring relationships. Future research should investigate additional underlying mechanisms that further explain the mentorship learning exchange processes.

PAGE 11

1 Chapter One Introduction Organizations are continuously working to develop their internal talent. One successful strategy to promote career development and employee growth is workplace mentoring programs. In general, a review of the workplace mentoring literatur e suggests positive outcomes are related to individuals engaging in traditional or informal mentori ng relationships (Wanberg, Welsh, & Hezlett, 2003). Given these benefits, it is surpri sing that research investigating individual characteristics of participants engaging in workplace mentoring relationships is sparse. Of the limited research, the focus has primarily been on demographic variables such as gender, race, and age (e.g., Allen & Eby, 2004; Burke & McKeen, 1997; Dreher & Cox, 1996; Fagenson-Eland, Marks, & Amendola, 1997; Ragins & McFarlin, 1990). Moreover, research that has included characteristics beyond demographic variables has generally focused on the relationships between individual characteristics and the propensity to mentor others, motivation t o mentor others, or protg/mentor attraction (e.g., Allen, Poteet, & Burroughs, 1997; Allen, Poteet, & Russell, 2000; Allen, Poteet, Russell, & Dobbins, 1997; Olian, Carroll, & Giannantonio, 1993; Ragins & Scandura, 1999). Therefore, a studying examining dispositional characteristics of protgs and mentors as predictors of mentor ing functions and outcomes is warranted.

PAGE 12

2 Although several mentoring frameworks have emphasized the importance of individual characteristics in the mentoring relationship (e.g., Hunt & Michael, 1983; Young & Perrewe, 2000a), notably absent from the literature is research that e xamines the role of dispositional or personal characteristics in these developmental re lationships. Examining personal characteristics of protgs and mentors in mentoring rela tionships is a beneficial contribution to the mentoring literature for several reasons. Fr om the protg perspective, investigating protg characteristics in mentoring relati onships may help identify junior employees who would thrive in a mentoring relationship or assist those junior employees who would not (Wanberg et al., 2003). Identifying successful mentor characteristics would also be of significant value. For example, knowledge of m entor characteristics could help protgs seek out effective mentors or possibly avoi d potential ineffective mentors. Moreover, employees could assess their own capacity to se rve as mentors and organizations could use these characteristics to select and train m entors (Wanberg et al., 2003). Taking this one step further, given the nature of the exchange relationship, protg and mentor characteristics are likely to relate to me ntoring provided and learning and development outcomes received. This perspective suggests individua l characteristics of the protg may relate to mentoring provided and the benefit s mentors receive. Similarly, mentor characteristics may relate to mentori ng provided and the benefits protgs reap as a result of engaging in the mentoring relations hip. Thus, examining the contribution of protg and mentor characteristics from a dyadic perspective enhances our understanding of the role of individual differences in mentori ng relationships.

PAGE 13

3 Mentoring relationships are often conceptualized as exchange relationships (e.g ., Allen, 2004; Hunt & Michael, 1983; McManus & Russell; 1997; Mullen, 1994; Young & Perrewe, 2000a). Social exchange theory suggests individuals will engage in relat ionships when the perceived rewards of the relationship will outweigh the costs of partici pation (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Another approach is to emphasize the information seeking that occurs between protgs and mentors. Mullen (1994) proposed an information exchange model in which the protg benefits from the information gained from the mentor and vice versa. Young and Perrewe (2000a) proposed another model of the exchange relationship, specifically highlighting the importance of individual charact eristics as determinants of the quality of exchange and outcomes of the relationship. Taken toget her, these frameworks suggest that characteristics of both the protg and the mentor contribute to and impact what each individual gains from the relationship. The purpose of the present research was to identify and examine the role of dispositional characteristics in effective mentoring relationships. To do this a learning and development framework was incorporated to examine the relationships of protg and mentor characteristics, mentoring provided, and developmental mentoring outcomes. The present study had three primary objectives. First, the relationship between indi vidual characteristics (protg/mentor) and mentoring provided was examined. Sec ond, the relationship between individual characteristics (protg/mentor) and developm ental outcomes (mentor/protg) was examined. Third, mentoring provided was examined as a mediator of individual characteristics (protg/mentor) and developmental outc omes (mentor/protg).

PAGE 14

4 This study offers several unique noteworthy contributions to the mentoring research. First, the research objectives address an important empirical gap by examining dispositional characteristics associated with effective mentoring rel ationships beyond demographic variables. Second, this study extends mentoring theory by incorporating research from the learning and development literature as a framework for in forming hypothesis development. Third, despite the dyadic nature of mentoring relationships few studies have included both protg and mentor perspectives within the same research study. By using both perspectives, the results of the present study reveal unique insig hts into the interpersonal dynamics of mentoring relationships. Mentoring in the Workplace Mentoring literature has flourished since Kram’s (1983, 1985) seminal research on mentoring relationships in the workplace. Researchers continue to examine the construct of mentoring by focusing on the specific phases, functions, types, and outcom es individuals receive from engaging in workplace mentoring relationships. For the pre sent study, the focus is limited to the concept of mentoring, benefits of mentoring for the protg and mentor, and relevant research that has examined individual characteris tics of the protg and mentor (for a more comprehensive review, see Noe, Greenberger, & Wang, 2002 and Wanberg et al., 2003). The Concept of Workplace Mentoring The workplace mentoring relationship can be traditionally defined as an interpersonal experience between a less experienced employee and a more experienced employee, in which the more experienced employee (mentor) supports, guides, and orients the less experienced employee (protg) to the various tasks, functions, a nd

PAGE 15

5 culture within the organization (Kram, 1985). Specifically, Kram’s research ide ntified two primary functions that mentors provide to the protg: career-related and psychosocial mentoring. Career-related mentoring focuses on the advancement of the protg in the organization. The dimensions of career-related mentoring are directly relat ed to the mentor’s senior status within the organization and include a range of behaviors such as sponsorship, exposure-and-visibility, coaching, protection, and providing challenging work assignments. Specifically, sponsorship involves the mentor’s public support of the protg’s career that can be demonstrated through behaviors such as nominating the protg for a promotion or a lateral move within the organization. Exposure-and-visibil ity involves creating opportunities for the protg to interact with other senior indivi duals in the organization. For example, a mentor may assign a task that will require the prot g to develop a relationship with a member of senior management. Coaching involves sharing ideas and suggesting strategies for the protg to accomplish work objective s or achieve career goals. Protection is important for situations that do not have a desirable out come. In these scenarios, a mentor may protect the protg and take the blame in orde r to preserve the protg’s reputation. Finally, a mentor can provide challenging as signments to the protg in order to facilitate growth and develop specific competencies tha t are important for success on the job (Kram, 1985). Each of these functions includes unique mentor behaviors, tasks, and responsibilities, but each share a similar focus of prom oting the growth and advancement of the protg within the organization. Psychosocial mentoring focuses on enhancing the protg’s sense of competenc e and identity. Psychosocial mentoring is related to the interpersonal relationshi p between

PAGE 16

6 the mentor and protg and includes the functions of role modeling, acceptance-and-confirmation, counseling, and friendship. Role modeling involves the mentor setting a good example of desirable attitudes, values, and behaviors for the protg. Acceptanc eand-confirmation involves both the mentor and protg developing a sense of self from each other’s support. This supportive relationship creates an environment in which the protg feels comfortable taking risks and experimenting with new behaviors. Counse ling involves the mentor providing a resource for the protg to talk openly about personal concerns, fears, and anxieties in which the mentor will actively listen and provide feedback and advice based upon past personal experiences. Lastly, friendship involves mutual liking and understanding that results from the social interaction between the mentor and protg (Kram, 1985). In general, psychosocial mentoring will assist in the development of the protg by focusing on the personal aspects of the relationship wit h the mentor. Protg Benefits For the most part, mentoring relationships are viewed as a rewarding experienc e for the protg, mentor, and organization. Despite this assumption, the majority of research has focused on the benefits accrued by the protg. In fact, two metaanalyses have recently synthesized the literature focusing on benefits and outcomes ass ociated with being a protg. Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, and Lima (2004) examined both objective and subjective career outcomes for protgs. Objective success variables include d compensation, salary growth, and promotions. The subjective career variables include d career satisfaction, expectations for advancement, career commitment, j ob satisfaction,

PAGE 17

7 intention to stay, and satisfaction with mentor. Results indicated that protgs reported higher compensation, more promotions, higher levels of career satisfaction, gr eater expectations for advancement, more commitment to their career, and higher leve ls of job satisfaction than did individuals who were not mentored. There was no difference between protgs and non-protgs with regard to intentions to stay with the compan y. Results also suggested the amount of mentoring provided to protgs was important. Career-related mentoring was positively related to compensation, salary growth, promotions, career satisfaction, and satisfaction with the mentor. Psychosocial mentoring also positively related to compensation, promotions, career satisfaction, job satis faction, intentions to stay with the company, and satisfaction with the mentor (Allen et al ., 2004). Underhill’s meta-analytic review also compared protgs and non-protgs on several objective and subjective career outcomes (2006). Objective career outcom es included income, tenure, and number of promotions. Subjective career outcomes included job satisfaction, self-esteem, intent to stay, promotion/career advancement opportunities, organizational commitment, alternative employment opportunities, work stress, a nd work-family conflict. Protgs reported higher levels of organizational com mitment, job satisfaction, self-esteem, and promotional opportunities, as well as lower leve ls of work stress and work-family conflict compared to non-protgs. No significant effect was found for income, perception of alternative employment opportunities, intent to stay, tenure, and number of promotions when compared to non-protgs (Underhill, 2006). Mentor Benefits More recent work has recognized the need to give empirical attention to the mentor perspective as well. Bozionelos (2004) investigated the relationship betwe en the

PAGE 18

8 amount of mentoring received, mentoring provided, and the mentor’s career success in a sample of 176 administrators. Career success included both objective (e.g., promotions ) and subjective (e.g., perceptions) indicators of success. Results indicated that provi ding more mentoring was related to higher levels of subjective and objective caree r success outcomes. Lentz and Allen (in press) examined the theoretical relationship between mentoring and career plateauing. Specifically, the authors tested both experie nce as a mentor and mentoring provided as moderators between career plateauing and work-related attitudes among 306 government employees. Although minimal support was found for a moderating relationship, the results did indicate a direct relationshi p between mentor experience and work outcomes. When comparing mentors and non-mentors, mentors reported higher levels of job satisfaction, greater organizational c ommitment, less turnover intentions, and lower perceptions of job content plateau. Similarly, Allen, Lentz, and Day (2006) surveyed 157 employees from a healthcare organization and compared responses of mentors and non-mentors. Results from a hierarchical regression analysis suggested that mentors reported a higher current salary, greater rate of promotion, and higher perceptions of career succes s than did their non-mentored counterparts after controlling for a large number of variables comm only associated with career success. Job satisfaction was also examined, but the r esults did not suggest a significant difference between mentors and non-mentors. In sum, although limited, the research findings do suggest mentors benefit from engaging in a mentoring relationship. With these protg and mentor benefits in mind, organizations will continue to promote these developmental relationships in the

PAGE 19

9 workplace. Thus, it is important to consider how individual characteristics relat e to both mentoring provided in the relationship and the outcomes the dyadic partner receives. Protg and Mentor Characteristics Reflective of the mentoring research in general, the majority of studies that have investigated individual characteristics have been concerned with the protg p erspective. Although, as Wanberg et al.’s (2003) review highlights, this handful of studies has focused almost exclusively on characteristics related to the initiation of t he mentoring relationship, characteristics that attract mentors, differences betwe en protgs and nonprotgs, and demographic characteristics related to mentoring received. Rese arch examining the relationship between protg dispositional characteristics, me ntoring provided, and the impact these characteristics have on mentor outcomes would offer a significant contribution to the mentoring literature. From the mentor perspecti ve, mentor characteristics have been mentioned as avenues for future research for som e time. For example, in 1983, Hunt and Michael summarized the research issues on mentoring and recognized the following mentor question as important for future research: What characteristics must individuals have to be effective as mentors? Since this question was originally posed, only a few studies have considered mentors’ disposition. Of those, the focus has been primarily on the mentor’s willingness or propensity to mentor others ( e.g., Allen, 2003). Thus, the answer to Hunt and Michael’s research question remains unknown. Taken together, as Dougherty, Turban, and Haggard (in press) point out, research examining the contribution of protg and mentor personality characteristics i n mentoring relationships should be a research priority. This list of mentor and protg dispositi onal

PAGE 20

10 attributes that might influence the dynamics of a mentoring relationship is e xtensive (see Allen & Poteet, 1999; Dougherty et al., in press). In the present study, a focused approach based on employee learning and development orientation theory was used. Specifically, characteristics associated with a learning and developm ent orientation were examined in relation to learning focused outcomes of the mentoring relationship. A Learning and Development Orientation Perspective Maurer’s learning and development orientation model provides a theoretical foundation for examining individual differences in mentoring relationships. Maurer (2002) emphasized differences in employees’ participation in voluntary development activities, suggesting some employees are more likely to pursue and partic ipate in learning activities than are others. These tendencies are contingent upon an i ndividual’s learning and development orientation. The model suggests three types of constructs influence an individual’s orientation: cognitive, affective, and behavioral. Focusi ng on the affective and behavioral constructs, the model suggests individuals with favora ble attitudes towards learning and development will participate and persist in de velopment activities in order to shape his/her own development (Maurer, 2002). Thus, individuals actively participating in voluntary development activities possess a lear ning and development orientation (Maurer, 2002; Maurer & Tarulli, 1994). Maurer’s model is highly relevant to mentoring research in that mentoring has been viewed as a mutual learning exchange relationship (e.g., Kram & Hal l, 1996). This conceptualization emphasizes the learning exchange in mentoring relationshi ps, with protgs and mentors acting as co-learners and recipients of development-rela ted outcomes. A few recent studies have provided evidence for a relationship between

PAGE 21

11 mentoring and learning. Lankau and Scandura (2002) investigated antecedents and consequences of personal learning in mentoring relationships. The authors describe t wo facets of personal learning: relational job learning and personal skill devel opment. Relational job learning refers to an increased understanding of the interdependenc e of one’s job to others’ jobs. Personal skill development refers to the acquisition of new skills and abilities that will promote better working relationships (Lankau & S candura, 2002). The findings provide evidence that protgs experience greater relational job learning compared to their non-mentored counterparts. Moreover, career mentoring w as positively related to relational job learning. These results highlight lea rning benefits for the protg and the unique contribution a mentor can make in a protg’s career (Lanka u & Scandura, 2002). Eby and Lockwood (2005) interviewed protgs and mentors in formal mentoring programs regarding individual benefits. A total of 148 comments for protg benefits and 45 comments for mentor benefits were recorded. Despite this large discrepanc y in the number of benefits reported, both protgs and mentors reported “learning” was the most common benefit of participating in formal mentoring programs. Interestingly, t he authors report the comments regarding learning benefits (i.e., understanding different parts of the business and recognizing different perspectives on work-related problems) wer e similar in content for both protgs and mentors, with no other similarities found regarding other relationship benefits (Eby & Lockwood, 2005). Although these findings were found within a formal mentoring context, these outcomes are likely applicable to inform al mentoring relationships as well.

PAGE 22

12 These findings underscore the need to focus on the learning relationship between a protg and mentor. As Maurer’s framework posits, individuals with a learning and development orientation are likely to have positive attitudes towards and activel y engage in voluntary learning activities. Moreover, Maurer emphasizes the importance of individual characteristics influencing these cognitive, affective, and behavi oral tendencies (2002). It is reasonable to generalize these assumptions to a traditional developm ental relationship. More specifically, individuals with a learning and development ori entation are likely to participate in a mentoring relationship, and not only reap personal benefi ts from engaging in the relationship, but also contribute to developmental outcomes for their relationship partner. Three individual characteristics have been identified that will likely rel ate to protgs’ and mentors’ learning and development orientation. The protg and mentor characteristics include learning goal orientation, locus of control, and self-e fficacy. Consistent with Maurer’s framework, I contend these individual differences are likely to predict the level of involvement and persistence in (i.e., mentoring provided) learnin g activities (i.e., mentoring relationships). As a result, this involvement will re late to learning outcomes for the mentor partner. Learning goal orientation. Learning goal orientation can best be described as a relatively stable dispositional trait that may be influenced by situational characteristics (Button, Mathieu, & Zajac, 1996). Individuals with a learning goal orientation wil l strive to understand something new and will work hard to increase their competence on the specified objective (Button et al., 1996; Dweck, 1986). Maurer (2002) suggests individuals with a learning goal orientation will view challenge as an opportunity t o learn

PAGE 23

13 rather than as a risk for failure, responding with increased effort or a diffe rent approach to the problem at hand. Therefore, engaging in a challenging development activity will be related to positive affect and behavioral involvement (Maurer, 2002). Godshalk and Sosik (2003) suggest that mentoring relationships would benefit from a learning goal orientation perspective; such that the relationship will be enhanced with a clearer understanding of each partner’s learning goal orientation. Us ing a sample of 217 mentor-protg dyads, the authors examined the similarity between mentor and protg learning goal orientation and mentoring functions and outcomes received by the protg. Specifically, protgs with high levels of learning goal orientat ion, similar to their mentors, reported higher levels of mentoring received, career developme nt, and career satisfaction compared to protgs with lower levels of learning g oal orientation similar to their mentors (Godshalk & Sosik, 2003). As these authors suggest, protg and mentor learning goal orientation is related to the mentoring relationship. Locus of control. Locus of control can be defined as the extent that individuals believe they have control over the reinforcements in their lives. Individuals with an “internal” locus of control believe they control the events and reinforcements in t heir life. On the other hand, individuals with an “external” locus of control believe that other circumstances beyond their control, such as fate or luck, control these events and reinforcements (Rotter, 1966; Spector 1982; Spector, 1996). From a learning perspective, it seems likely that individuals with an internal locus of control will perceive le arning activities as an opportunity to take control over their personal development. A handful of studies have investigated the role of locus of control in mentoring relationships with mixed results. Noe (1988) examined protg locus of control wit hin

PAGE 24

14 formally assigned mentoring relationships. In general, protgs tended to have an internal locus of control. However, results did not provide support for a relationship between locus of control, effective utilization of the mentor, and the amount of time spent with t he mentor. Aryee, Lo, and Kang (1999) investigated protg locus of control among 184 Chinese employees. Findings indicated protg locus of control was not signific antly related to mentoring received. On the other hand, Turban and Dougherty (1994) provided evidence that protg locus of control does relate to mentoring. More specifically, individuals with inter nal locus of control were more likely to initiate the formation of a mentoring rela tionship, which completely mediated the relationship between locus of control and career and psychosocial mentoring received. From the mentor perspective, Allen, Poteet, R ussell, and Dobbins (1997) examined the relationship between locus of control and willingness to mentor. The authors surveyed 607 state government supervisors on two variables of willingness to mentor: intention to mentor and perceived barriers to mentoring. Finding s indicated mentor internal locus of control was positively related to intention to mentor but not related to perceived barriers of mentoring. One explanation for the discrepancy across studies is the context in which locus of control was examined. For example, these studies assessed a variety of di fferent factors, including time spent with mentor, initiation of mentoring relationsh ip, and intent to mentor. Examining locus of control from a learning perspective suggests locus of control will relate to involvement in learning activities. The present study a ttempted to clarify the role of locus of control by examining the relationship between locus of control

PAGE 25

15 and both protg and mentor perspectives of mentoring provided and learning outcomes received. Self-efficacy for development. Self-efficacy is generally defined as an individual’s belief that he/she can perform a task well (Bandura, 1982). Maurer (2002) posits sel fefficacy is an important trait related to attitudes towards development ac tivities such that individuals with high self-efficacy towards a specific task will likely vi ew the task as favorable because he/she perceives him/herself to be competent in the task. Ma urer and Tarulli (1994) provided empirical support that self-efficacy relates to inte rest and participation in development activities. These findings suggest perceptions r egarding an individual’s ability are a promising avenue of research for protg and mentor characteristics. For the present study, rather than a limited focus on spec ific tasks (i.e., general self-efficacy), self-efficacy for development will be inves tigated. Maurer and Tarulli (1994) define relative self-efficacy for development as one’s beli ef that he/she is capable to learn at a level at or above the average when participating in a deve lopment activity. Since mentoring relationships are development activities focused on career development and learning, self-efficacy for development is likely to be relat ed to mentoring involvement. Day and Allen (2004) examined the role of career self-efficacy in protg c areer success. Specifically, the authors surveyed 125 municipal employees regarding the ir protg experience, career self-efficacy, and perceptions of career succ ess. Although not directly related to protg experience, results provided evidence that care er self-efficacy was positively related to career mentoring received and approached signific ance for psychosocial mentoring received ( p =.06). Additionally, career self-efficacy was related to

PAGE 26

16 indicators of protg career success. These findings are consistent with Maure r’s framework, suggesting individuals with high self-efficacy will be more invo lved in development activities, thus learning and benefiting from the mentoring relati onship. In sum, research suggests these dispositional characteristics are relat ed to an individual’s learning and development orientation, thus contributing to involvement in voluntary learning activities such as mentoring relationships. However, resea rch examining these characteristics in relation to mentoring provided and partner outc omes is necessary in order to gain a richer understanding of the development process and learni ng exchange. Study Hypotheses There are numerous outcomes that might reflect an effective mentoring relationship. For the present study, in line with a learning and development framew ork, multiple operationalizations of effective mentoring relationships that focus on l earning outcomes and benefits were selected. First, learning outcomes included mutual mentorship learning and personal learning (relational job learning and personal s kill development) (Allen & Eby, 2003; Lankau & Scandura, 2002). Second, mentorship quality was also examined (Allen & Eby, 2003). This outcome variable assessed t he quality of and satisfaction with the learning exchange between protgs an d mentors. Finally, career success was investigated as a subjective career-rel ated outcome variable (Turban & Dougherty, 1994). Perceptions of career success are likely a benef it from engaging in learning and development activities related to work. These criter ion variables were selected based upon relevance to the learning model, as well as the importa nce of

PAGE 27

17 considering both individual and relational indicators of effectiveness (Young & Pe rrewe, 2000a). Each set of hypothesized relationships is comprised of three primary researc h issues. First, direct relationships between protg and mentor characteristi cs and mentoring provided were proposed. The assumptions underlying the direct relationship between characteristics and mentoring provided is that individual differences w ill relate to the amount of involvement and participation in (i.e., mentoring provided) the relationship, such that characteristics related to a learning and development orientation will relate to more mentoring provided. Second, direct relationships between individual characteristics and development outcomes were examined. As Allen and Poteet (1999) suggest, “a study in which mentor characteristics are assessed and then correlated with protg reports re garding outcomes of the mentoring relationships would be especially useful” (p. 68). Similarly, a s tudy in which protg characteristics are assessed and correlated with mentor out comes is also a significant contribution. The proposed relationships between individual characteris tics and partner outcomes are generally based on the assumption that individuals in a mentoring relationship paired with someone with a learning and development orientat ion will receive more learning benefits in the relationship compared to individuals pai red with someone who does not have a learning and development orientation. Third, mediator relationships were tested to examine the mechanism by which individual characteristics related to mentoring effectiveness outcomes. A m ediator can be described as a variable that accounts for the relationship between a predicto r and the criterion. Whereas a moderator variable specifies when certain relationships will hold,

PAGE 28

18 mediator variables specify how and why the predictors affect the criterion (Baron & Kenny, 1986). In the present study, mentoring provided was examined as a potential mediator for the relationship between individual characteristics (predictors ) and development outcomes (criterion). Specifically, I predicted individual charact eristics relate to learning outcomes because individual differences relate to mentori ng provided in the relationship. Further, in order for learning and development benefits to transpire mentoring behaviors need to occur. For example, a mentor with characteristics r elated to a learning and development orientation will likely provide more mentoring to the prot g. In turn, the protg will receive more learning outcomes from a mentor who is m ore involved and engaged in the mentoring relationship. In other words, it was proposed that mentoring provided would explain the process by which individual characteristics relate to partner developmental outcomes. Figures 1 and 2 portray a framework of all hypothesized relationships. The Role of Learning Goal Orientation Individuals with a high learning goal orientation are motivated by selection of a nd success in challenging tasks (Button et al., 1996; Godshalk & Sosik, 2003). Maurer (2002) suggests learning goal orientation is related to the participation and invol vement in learning and development activities. Godshalk and Sosik’s (2003) findings indicate more mentoring received and protg outcomes attained when protg and mentor learning goal orientations were high. Additionally, Allen et al.’s (1997) conte nt analyses identified protg learning orientation as an important factor attracting mentors to protgs. It also seems likely that protgs would seek mentors with a learni ng goal orientation. Consistent with these findings, I proposed learning goal orientation w ill

PAGE 29

19 positively relate to mentoring provided and to partner outcomes. Additionally, mentorin g provided may serve as a mechanism for an indirect relationship between learning goal orientation and development outcomes. Thus, the following set of hypotheses was proposed: Hypothesis 1a: Protg learning goal orientation will positively relate to career and psychosocial support provided by the mentor. Hypothesis 1b: Protg learning goal orientation will positively relate to mentor outcomes (mentorship learning, personal learning, mentorship quality, and caree r success). Hypothesis 1c: Career and psychosocial support provided by the mentor will mediate the relationship between protg learning goal orientation and mentor outcomes (mentorship learning, personal learning, mentorship quality, and caree r success). Hypothesis 2a: Mentor learning goal orientation will positively relate to career and psychosocial support provided by the mentor. Hypothesis 2b: Mentor learning goal orientation will positively relate to protg outcomes (mentorship learning, personal learning, mentorship quality, and caree r success). Hypothesis 2c: Career and psychosocial support provided by the mentor will mediate the relationship between mentor learning goal orientation and protg outcomes (mentorship learning, personal learning, mentorship quality, and caree r success).

PAGE 30

20 The Role of Locus of Control Locus of control concerns the degree that individuals feel they have control over the events and reinforcements in their lives (Rotter, 1966; Spector 1982). Individuals with an internal locus of control (rather than an external) perceive more control over the reinforcements in their lives. Moreover, as Noe (1988) highlights, individuals with an internal locus of control may increase the probability of rewards because he /she may exert more effort to take advantage of development opportunities that may arise compared to individuals with an external locus of control. Thus, taking into account both the protg and mentor perspectives, individuals with internal locus of control are perceived to exert more effort in development activities, thus providing additional be nefit to their partners. Moreover, this level of effort (mentoring provided) may explai n the relationship between locus of control and partner outcomes. With this in mind, the following hypotheses were proposed: Hypothesis 3a: Protg internal locus of control will positively relate to career and psychosocial support provided by the mentor. Hypothesis 3b: Protg internal locus of control will positively relate to mentor outcomes (mentorship learning, personal learning, mentorship quality, and caree r success). Hypothesis 3c: Career and psychosocial support provided by the mentor will mediate the relationship between protg internal locus of control and mentor outcomes (mentorship learning, personal learning, mentorship quality, and caree r success).

PAGE 31

21 Hypothesis 4a: Mentor internal locus of control will positively relate to career and psychosocial support provided by the mentor. Hypothesis 4b: Mentor internal locus of control will positively relate to protg outcomes (mentorship learning, personal learning, mentorship quality, and caree r success). Hypothesis 4c: Career and psychosocial support provided by the mentor will mediate the relationship between mentor internal locus of control and protg outcomes (mentorship learning, personal learning, mentorship quality, and caree r success). The Role of Self-Efficacy Self-efficacy has been identified as an important trait related to an indi vidual’s learning and development orientation, thus related to involvement and participation in learning activities (Maurer, 2002; Maurer & Tarulli, 1994). Day and Allen (2004) provided initial evidence for the role of self-efficacy in mentoring relat ionships. Consistent with Maurer’s framework, individuals with high self-efficacy a re likely to have favorable attitudes towards engaging in mentoring relationships. Thus, protgs and mentors are likely to report receiving and providing more mentoring. For example a mentor high in self-efficacy will likely provide more mentoring based upon perc eived competence in his/her career. In turn, high levels of mentoring will relate to m ore development benefits and outcomes. According, the following relationships were proposed: Hypothesis 5a: Protg self-efficacy will positively relate to career and psychosocial support provided by the mentor.

PAGE 32

22 Hypothesis 5b: Protg self-efficacy will positively relate to mentor outcomes (mentorship learning, personal learning, mentorship quality, and career succes s). Hypothesis 5c: Career and psychosocial support provided by the mentor will mediate the relationship between protg self-efficacy and mentor outcomes (mentorship learning, personal learning, mentorship quality, and career succes s). Hypothesis 6a: Mentor self-efficacy will positively relate to career and psychosocial support provided by the mentor. Hypothesis 6b: Mentor self-efficacy will positively relate to protg outcomes (mentorship learning, personal learning, mentorship quality, and career succes s). Hypothesis 6c: Career and psychosocial support provided by the mentor will mediate the relationship between mentor self-efficacy and protg outcomes (mentorship learning, personal learning, mentorship quality, and career succes s).

PAGE 33

23 Mentor Outcomes Protg Characteristics Mentoring Provided Figure 1. Proposed relationships for protg characteristics, mentoring pro vided, and mentor development outcomes Protg Outcomes Mentor Characteristics Mentoring Provided Figure 2. Proposed relationships for mentor characteristics, mentoring provide d, and protg development outcomes Learning Goal Orientation Locus of Control Self Efficacy Mentorship Learning Personal Learning Mentorship Quality Career Success Career Mentoring Psychosocial Mentoring Learning Goal Orientation Locus of Control Self Efficacy Mentorship Learning Personal Learning Mentorship Quality Career Success Career Mentoring Psychosocial Mentoring

PAGE 34

24 Chapter Two Method Participants The final sample included responses from 93 matched protg-mentor dyads. The demographic characteristics of the final sample (N = 186), protg sample (N = 93) and mentor sample (N = 93) are presented in Table 1. The majority of respondents wer e female (53.8%) and Caucasian/White (91.4%). Approximately 90% of the sample was employed full-time, with 61.3% working in managerial positions. The average job tenur e was 7.86 years ( SD = 8.06) and average organization tenure was 11.92 years ( SD = 9.06). The sample included a vast range of job titles such as Appraiser, Accountant, Civil Engineer, Guidance Counselor, and Paramedic. The majority of participants worked i n the government sector (46.8%), but participants also held positions in a number of other industries such as Hospitality (9.7%), Military (8.1%), Insurance (6.5%) Servi ce (5.9%), Retail (4.3%), and Consulting (3.8%). Somewhat typical of mentoring relationships, the majority of mentors were ma le (55.9%) and Caucasian/White (91.4%). When comparing protgs and mentors, mentors tended to be older and slightly more educated than protgs. Reflective of a mentor’ s senior status, approximately 77.4% of mentors held managerial positions compared to 45.2% for protgs. Additionally, mentor average job and organization tenure were significantly longer than protg job and organization tenure.

PAGE 35

25 Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of Participants Total Sample N = 186 Protg Sample N = 93 Mentor Sample N = 93 Variable N % N % N % Gender Male 83 44.6 31 33.3 52 55.9 Female 100 53.8 60 64.5 40 43.0 Race/Ethnicity Caucasian/White 170 91.4 85 91.4 85 91.4 African-American 1 0.5 1 1.1 0 0.0 Hispanic 5 2.7 3 3.2 2 2.2 Asian 2 1.1 1 1.1 1 1.1 Native American 2 1.1 1 1.1 1 1.1 Other 2 1.1 0 0.0 2 2.2 Age < 20 2 1.1 2 2.2 0 0.0 21 – 25 9 4.8 8 8.6 1 1.1 26 – 30 16 8.6 15 16.1 1 1.1 31 – 35 13 7.0 11 11.8 2 2.2 36 – 40 21 11.3 12 12.9 9 9.7 41 – 45 26 14.0 14 15.1 12 12.9 46 – 50 26 14.0 10 10.8 16 17.2 51 – 55 26 14.0 8 8.6 18 19.4 56 – 60 27 14.5 7 7.5 20 21.5 61 – 65 10 5.4 2 2.2 8 8.6 65 + 4 2.2 0 0.0 4 4.3 Education Some High School 1 0.5 0 0.0 1 1.1 High School Degree 34 18.3 19 20.4 15 16.1 Some College 60 32.3 37 39.8 23 24.7 Associate Degree 16 8.6 4 4.3 12 12.9 Bachelor Degree 47 25.3 17 18.3 30 32.3 Master Degree 13 7.0 8 8.6 5 5.4 Doctorate Degree 13 7.0 6 6.5 7 7.5 Note. N = Number of Participants % = Percentage of Participants SD = Standard Deviation Numbers and percentages may not sum to total sample size due to missing data

PAGE 36

26 Table 1 (Continued) Total Sample N = 186 Protg Sample N = 93 Mentor Sample N = 93 Variable N % N % N % Job Description Non-Managerial 65 34.9 45 48.4 20 21.5 Managerial 114 61.3 42 45.2 72 77.4 Employment Status Not Currently Employed 3 1.6 1 1.1 2 2.2 Part-time 12 6.5 6 6.5 6 6.5 Full-time 168 90.3 83 89.2 85 91.4 Industry Manufacturing 1 0.5 1 1.1 0 0.0 Government 87 46.8 43 46.2 44 47.3 Hospitality 18 9.7 8 8.6 10 10.8 Medical/Social Service 5 2.7 3 3.2 2 2.2 Retail 8 4.3 4 4.3 4 4.3 Communications 2 1.1 1 1.1 1 1.1 Service 11 5.9 5 5.4 6 6.5 Education 2 1.1 0 0.0 2 2.2 Financial Services 2 1.1 1 1.1 1 1.1 Technology 1 0.5 0 0.0 1 1.1 Military 15 8.1 9 9.7 6 6.5 Consulting 7 3.8 3 3.2 4 4.3 Insurance 12 6.5 6 6.5 6 6.5 Real Estate 2 1.1 2 2.2 0 0.0 Other 11 5.9 5 5.4 6 6.5 Tenure (in Years) Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Job 7.86 8.06 4.86 4.90 10.97 9.42 Organization 11.92 9.06 8.36 7.13 15.52 9.40 Note. N = Number of Participants % = Percentage of Participants SD = Standard Deviation Numbers and percentages may not sum to total sample size due to missing data

PAGE 37

27 The mentoring relationship characteristics are displayed in Table 2. Thes e relationship characteristics are based upon the protg-mentor dyad. Only infor mal, or traditional, mentoring relationships were included in the current study. At the tim e of the mentoring relationship, most protgs and mentors worked for the same organizati on (92.5%) and approximately 60.2% of the mentors were a direct supervisor to the protg Again reflective of a mentor’s senior status, approximately 93% of the ment ors were at least one level above the protg in the organization. At the time of the study, 73.1% of the participants indicated the mentoring relationship was still ongoing. The initial sample included responses from 112 protgs and 95 mentors. The protg sample was screened using a number of criteria. First, protgs were a sked to report on traditional workplace mentoring relationships. As a check, participants w ere provided with descriptions of formal and informal mentoring relationships and were asked to indicate which type of relationship best described their mentorship. Only informal relationships (i.e., traditional mentoring relationships) were incl uded in the study. This criterion resulted in the exclusion of one set of protg responses. Second, protgs were asked to provide a current email address for their mentor. If ment or contact information was not provided, the protg was removed from the sample. A total of four protgs were removed because a mentor email address was either not provided or the email was returned as undeliverable. Finally, protg surveys with substanti al missing data (i.e., more than two items on a primary study measure were incomplete) w ere excluded from the study. Taken together, these criteria resulted in responses f rom 101 protgs. Thus, 101 mentors were invited to participate in the current study. A total of si x mentors were non-responsive and two mentors failed to complete the majority of prima ry

PAGE 38

28 mentor measures. The final sample included matched responses from 93 protg-m entor dyads. Table 2 Mentoring Relationship Characteristics Protg – Mentor Dyads N = 93 Variable N % Mentoring Relationship Type Formal 0 0.0 Informal 93 100.0 Same Organization No 5 5.4 Yes 86 92.5 Mentor Supervisor Status No 37 39.8 Yes 56 60.2 Mentor Organization Level At the Same Level as Protg 6 6.5 1 Level Above Protg 36 38.7 2 Levels Above Protg 26 28.0 3 or more Levels Above Protg 25 26.9 Mentoring Relationship Status Relationship Ended 25 26.9 Relationship Ongoing 68 73.1 Note. N = Number of Participants % = Percentage of Participants Numbers and percentages may not sum to total sample size due to missing data

PAGE 39

29 Generally speaking, the sample attrition rate is somewhat lower than expe cted. One reason for this may be because the study materials clearly indicated bot h protg and mentor responses were required for the study. Therefore, many protgs may have excluded themselves from the study if he/she was either unable or unwilling to hav e the mentor contacted. For example, one potential participant indicated her mentor was de ad. Another protg indicated he did not want to participate because he did not want his mentor to know he considered him to be a mentor. Additionally, protgs were encouraged to contact their mentors regarding study participation. Thus, instructing protgs at the onset of the study that mentor responses were required for parti cipation appears to have resulted in a lower mentor attrition rate. Response rate Mentoring relationships are often described as the most intense development relationship a person can have (e.g., Wanberg, et al., 2003). For this reason, we should not expect every individual has engaged in a workplace mentoring relationship. Thus, a snowball sampling strategy was employed to attain a suff icient sample size. Approximately 250 potential protgs from three government organiz ations located in the southeastern United States were invited to participate. Additionall y, each of these potential protgs was encouraged to forward the survey materials to c olleagues, co-workers, and friends as appropriate. With this sampling strategy, there are a number of factors that make calcul ating a response rate difficult. First, you must be able to differentiate between par ticipants who are eligible to participate in the study and those who are not. For example, alt hough the study materials were sent to 250 potential protgs, it is necessary to determi ne the exact number of individuals who actually have protg experience. Second, participants wer e

PAGE 40

30 asked to forward the study materials to other potential protgs. Thus, it is neces sary to determine how many additional people the survey materials were distributed t o. To address these points, non-participation survey links were created. Specifical ly, in addition to the protg survey link, participants were given the option of selecting two other survey links: protg experience/non-participation link or no protg experience/non-participation link. These links were created in order to count the number of individuals who received the study materials but either decided they did not want to participat e or they were ineligible to participate because he/she did not have a mentor. Unfortuna tely, participants did not utilize these links as expected, with only 5 employees selec ting the protg experience/non-participation link and 28 employees selecting the no prot g experience/non-participation link. However, many employees did indicate forwa rding the materials to others as appropriate. For example, although not typical, one partic ipant sent the study materials to an additional 38 potential protgs. A reasonable estimat e is that each employee forwarded the materials to 1 potential protg. With this in m ind, the approximate number of potential protg participants would be 500. This would give us a lower bound response rate estimate of 22% for protgs (112 out of 500 potential protgs) and 92.1% for mentors (93 out of 101 mentors contacted). Procedure A non-probability snowball sampling strategy was used to obtain a sample of protg-mentor pairs. The initial contact began with the recruitment of protg s from organizations that did not have a formal mentoring program in place. Specifically, an information email was sent to employees from three government organizations One of these organizations also posted the information email on the company’s intranet. The

PAGE 41

31 protg information email included (1) a brief description of the study, (2) a definit ion of a traditional mentoring relationship, (3) a screen for protg experience, ( 4) a statement encouraging employees to forward the information email to colleagues and fr iends as appropriate, and (5) contact information for the author (Appendix A). Approximately, one week after the protg information email was distributed, a reminder emai l was sent to participants (Appendix B). Additionally, a Frequently-Asked-Questions (FA Q) document was attached to both of these emails to address potential concerns and questions regarding the study (Appendix C). The protg information email included all materials necessary for prot g participation. Specifically, the protg information email contained three su rvey links. The first survey link directed protgs to the online protg survey (Appendix D) The second survey link was created to track protgs that did not want to participate in the study (Appendix E). The third survey link was created for participants who were not eligible to participate because he/she did not have a mentor during the course of hi s/her career (Appendix F). The online protg survey included measures of protg personality, mentoring received, and protg outcomes. Additionally, protgs were asked to provide three critical pieces of information. First, protgs were asked to develop a unique code, consisting of at least 6 letters, numbers, or a combination of both, to be used to match protg-mentor pairs. Second, protgs were asked to provide a current email address f or their mentor. Third, protgs were asked to provide their own first and last name to be included in the subject line of the mentor information email. The online protg survey

PAGE 42

32 was designed such that protgs were unable to progress through the survey without fir st providing these three pieces of information. Upon completion of the protg survey, a mentor information email was sent to each mentor identified. The mentor information email included (1) a brief descript ion of the study, (2) a definition of a traditional mentoring relationship, (3) the name of the protg in the subject line of the email, (4) the unique code created by the protg, and (5) contact information for the author (Appendix G). The FAQ document was also attached to the mentor information email to address potential concerns and questions the mentor may have regarding the study. Approximately, one week after the mentor information email was distributed, a reminder email was sent to mentors (Appendi x H). The mentor information email included all materials necessary for mentor participation. The mentor email contained two survey links. The first survey link dir ected mentors to the online mentor survey (Appendix I). Once accessing the survey, ment ors were required to enter the unique code created by the protg and respond to the questions based upon the mentoring relationship with the protg identified in the subject line of the mentor information email. The mentor survey included measures of mentor personality, mentoring provided, and mentor outcomes. The second mentor survey link was created to track mentors that did not want to participate in the study (Appendix J ). Participants were given full disclosure regarding the use of online instrume nts. As part of the FAQ document, participants were advised of the risks associated with onli ne surveys stating: “Although the server the survey is hosted on is secure, there are a lways dangers associated with using the internet and intranet. Although unlikely, it is possible that unauthorized individuals could gain access to your responses. If you are worrie d

PAGE 43

33 about this occurring, but would still like to participate, you can contact Elizabet h Lentz from the University of South Florida at emlentz@mail.usf.edu to obtain a paper and pencil version of the survey.” No participants requested a paper-and-pencil vers ion. The protg and mentor surveys were hosted on a secure server by a reputable survey software program. Potentially identifying information, such as mentor email address, protg name, and IP addresses were deleted from the database. Only information obtained voluntarily from protgs and mentors was stored in a secure database for data analyses. The unique numeric code created by the protgs w as used to identify mentor-protg pairs. Participation was voluntary and all individual re sponses were kept confidential. Mentoring Measures Protg experience screen. A definition of mentoring relationships was provided in the protg information email and used to screen for protg experience (Ragi ns, 1989; Ragins & Cotton, 1999): “A mentor is generally defined as a higher ranking, influential individual in your work environment who has advanced experience and knowledge and is committed to providing upward mobility and support to your career. A mentor may or may not be in your organization and he/she may or may not be your immediate supervisor. During the course of your career, have you had a mentor? If respondents indicated “yes” and were willing to participate in the curr ent study, he/she was asked to complete the protg survey. This definition was also provided in the mentor information email to provide context for the study and the relationship identifi ed by the protg.

PAGE 44

34 Mentoring provided. Protg and mentor reports of career and psychosocial mentoring were assessed by the Mentor Role Instrument (MRI; Ragins & McFarlin, 1990). The MRI was developed to assess the full range of mentor roles from the protg perspective. In the present study, these items were modified to also reflec t the mentor perspective. Both protgs and mentors were instructed to respond to these items base d upon the relationship identified in the protg screen (i.e. current mentor (protg perspective) or mentoring provided to the protg identified in the mentor information email (mentor perspective)). Career mentoring was measured by fifteen items. This measure included t hree items for each of the career roles (sponsor, coach, protect, challenging as signments, and exposure). From the protg perspective, a sample item includes, “My mentor ass igned me tasks that pushed me into developing new skills.” From the mentor perspective, a sample item includes, “As a mentor, I assigned my protg tasks that pushed him/her i nto developing new skills.” Psychosocial mentoring was measured by fifteen i tems. Each of the psychosocial roles was assessed by three items (friendship, social, role model, counsel, and acceptance). From the protg perspective, a sample item includes, “My mentor provided support and encouragement.” From the mentor perspective, a sample item includes, “As a mentor, I provided support and encouragement.” Responses were scored on a five-point scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.” Responses were scored such that higher scores indicated more mentoring provided. Prior research provided support for the reliability of these mentoring measure s. Ragins and McFarlin reported internal consistency estimates for each of the mentor roles ranging from .77 to .93. For the present study, coefficient alpha for the protg sa mple

PAGE 45

35 was .92 for career mentoring and .91 for psychosocial mentoring. For the mentor sam ple, coefficient alpha was .91 for career mentoring and .85 for psychosocial mentoring. The mentoring provided items from the protg and mentor perspective are provided in Appendix K and L, respectively. Individual Characteristic Measures Learning goal orientation. Protg and mentor learning goal orientation were measured by Button et al.’s (1996) 8-item learning goal orientation scale. A s ample item includes, “I prefer to work on tasks that force me to learn new things.” Button et al. (1996) reported acceptable internal consistency estimates for the measure (e.g., .82, .85). The internal consistency estimates for the present study were .89 for prot gs and .90 for mentors. A five-point response scale was used with responses ranging from “Strong ly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.” Higher scores indicated higher level s of learning goal orientation. The learning goal orientation items are provided in Appendix M. Locus of control. Protg and mentor locus of control were assessed using the 16item Work Locus of Control Scale (WLCS; Spector, 1988). A sample item includes, “A job is what you make of it.” A five-point response scale was used with responses ra nging from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.” Previous research does pr ovide evidence of acceptable internal consistency (Spector, 1988). For the present study, coeffi cient alpha was .66 for protgs and .84 for mentors. Scores were computed such that lower scores indicated an internal locus of control. Items from the WLCS measure a re available in Appendix N. Self-efficacy for development. A self-efficacy for development measure was selected as opposed to a general self-efficacy measure based upon the scope a nd focus of

PAGE 46

36 the present study. Four items were used to assess self-efficacy for deve lopment (Maurer & Tarulli, 1994). A sample item is “I could learn as well as most other partici pants in a developmental learning activity.” The authors report an acceptable internal c onsistency estimate of .77. For the present study, the internal consistency estimates w ere .85 for protgs and .90 for mentors. A five-point response scale was used with responses ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.” Higher s cores indicated higher levels of self-efficacy for development. The self-efficacy items are presented in Appendix O. Mentoring Effectiveness Measures Mutual mentorship learning. Five items from Allen and Eby’s (2003) mentorship learning scale were used to assess relationship-based learning. The sca le was modified to include both the protg and mentor perspectives. A sample item is “My mentor (prot g) gave me a new perspective on many things.” Previous research has provided high inte rnal consistency estimates (e.g., alpha = .88; Allen & Eby, 2003). For the present st udy, coefficient alpha was .76 for protgs and .91 for mentors. A five-point response scale was used with responses ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.” Higher scores indicated a greater deal of learning occurred within the relations hip. The mutual mentorship learning items are provided in Appendix P. Personal learning. Lankau and Scandura (2002) developed twelve items to measure two dimensions of personal learning (relational job learning and personal skill development). Six items assessed relational job learning. A sample item is “I have increased my knowledge about the organization as a whole.” Six items assesse d personal skill development. A sample item includes, “I have learned how to communicate

PAGE 47

37 effectively with others.” The authors reported reliability estimates of .82 f or relational job learning and .84 for personal skill development. Because the personal learning measure is a relatively new measure, commo n factor analysis was performed to determine if the two-factor structure w ould hold for the study sample. Both protg and mentor responses were subjected to principle axi s factoring with promax rotation. When a two-factor solution was specified, the f actor pattern for protg and mentor responses did not match the two factors identified by Lankau and Scandura (2002). Instead, results indicated a one-factor solution provided the more interpretable solution (Table 3). Specifically, for both protg and mentor responses, one factor was extracted with an eigenvalue greater than one. Th is single factor accounted for approximately 53% of the total variance for both protg and m entor responses. Although the factor analytic results suggested the first two it ems loaded on a second factor, the data did not provide support for an interpretable second factor. Further, reliability analyses did not suggest the coefficient alpha would increase a s a result of dropping these two items from the protg and mentor scales. Taken together, thes e findings suggest the twelve items should be combined into a single personal learning scale. The combined twelve-item personal learning scale was used for hypothesis testing. The internal consistency estimates were .92 for both protg and ment or scores. A five-point response scale was used with responses ranging from “Strongly D isagree” to “Strongly Agree.” Higher scores indicated higher levels of personal lear ning. The personal learning items are available in Appendix Q.

PAGE 48

38 Table 3 Factor Loadings for Personal Learning Items Protg Mentor # Item Factor I Factor II Factor I Factor II RJL1 I have gained insight into how another department functions. .05 .70 -.18 1.05 RJL2 I have increased my knowledge about the organization as a whole. -.14 1.06 .02 .81 RJL3 I have learned about others’ perceptions about me or my job. .46 .27 .62 -.02 RJL4 I have increased my understanding of issues and problems outside my job. .50 .23 .65 .21 RJL5 I better understand how my job or department affects others. .58 .23 .48 .41 RJL6 I have a better sense of organizational politics. .42 .44 .53 .29 PSD1 I have learned how to communicate effectively with others. .68 .02 .56 .23 PSD2 I have improved my listening skills. .81 -.06 .86 -.10 PSD3 I have developed new ideas about how to perform my job. .81 -.06 .73 .01 PSD4 I have become more sensitive to others’ feelings and attitudes. .80 -.07 .83 -.11 PSD5 I have gained new skills. .64 .10 .70 .08 PSD6 I have expanded the way I think about things. .88 .01 .80 -.11 Eigenvalue 6.32 0.80 6.31 0.92 Percent of Total Variance 52.66 6.64 52.56 7.67 Note. RJL = Relational Job Learning Item PSD = Personal Skill Development Item

PAGE 49

39 Mentorship quality. Four items were used to measure the quality of the mentoring relationship (Allen & Eby, 2003). The scale was modified to reflect both the prot g and mentor perspectives. A sample item is “Both my mentor (protg) and I benefit ed from the mentoring relationship.” Allen and Eby (2003) provided evidence of high reliability (alpha = .85) for a five-item version of the measure. For the current study, coeffi cient alpha was .86 for the protg sample and .90 for the mentor sample. A five-point response scale was used with responses ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.” Higher scores indicated higher relationship quality. Mentorship quali ty items are provided in Appendix R. Career Success. Four items were used to assess perceptions of career success (Turban & Dougherty, 1994). The items were modified to reflect a statement r ather than a direct question. A sample item is “My career has been successful.” Previous re search has provided evidence of high internal consistency (alpha = .87; Turban & Dougherty, 1994). Coefficient alpha for the protg sample was .73. Coefficient alpha for the me ntor sample was .75. A five-point scale was used with responses ranging from “Strongly Dis agree” to “Strongly Agree.” Higher scores indicated higher levels of career succe ss. The career success items are available in Appendix S. Demographic Measures Protgs and mentors were asked to respond to several demographic variables. Individual demographic items included gender, race, age, and the highest level of education completed. Participants were also asked to provide information regarding their current employment and organization. Organization items included current job titl e, employment status, job description, job tenure, organization tenure, and industry.

PAGE 50

40 Participants also responded to several mentoring relationship demographic ite ms. These items assessed mentorship type (formal vs. informal), if the mentor and pr otg worked for the same organization, whether the mentor was the protg’s direct super visor at the time of the mentorship, differences in organization levels between the prot g and mentor, and the timeframe and duration of the mentoring relationship. In a few case s, there were discrepancies between protg and mentor responses. These discrepa ncies highlight the nature of informal relationships, such that a mentor may not realize the precise moment a protg perceived them to be their mentor. In these few instance s, the protg response was used.

PAGE 51

41 Chapter Three Preliminary Data Steps and Analyses Protg-Mentor Dyads In order to identify protg-mentor dyads, protg and mentor scores were matched based upon the unique code created by the protg. Specifically, the protg a nd mentor databases were merged to create a final database with each protgmentor relationship representing one case in the dataset. This merged database was used for all subsequent data analyses. Scale Descriptives Scale scores were created for each of the study variables. After reverse scoring appropriate items, protg and mentor scale scores were computed by taking the average response across items for each measure. If an individual item response was miss ing, the SPSS statistical program computed the average scale score minus the miss ing item. Table 4 displays the number of items, mean, standard deviation, observed minimum score, and observed maximum score for protg and mentor variables. With the exception of self-efficacy for development and perceptions of career success, protgs gener ally responded higher than mentors on the study variables. In general, however, both protg and mentor responses tended to use the higher end of the response scale with modest variance.

PAGE 52

42 Table 4 Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables Protg Scores Mentor Scores Variable # of items Mean SD Min Max Mean SD Min Max Learning Goal Orientation 8 4.49 0.47 3.00 5.00 4.31 0.45 3.00 5.00 Locus of Control 16 2.05 0.33 1.00 2.94 2.03 0.40 1.00 3.19 Self-Efficacy for Development 4 4.08 0.62 1.00 5.00 4.09 0.56 2.00 5.00 Career Mentoring 15 4.09 0.63 2.33 5.00 3.98 0.61 1.60 5.00 Psychosocial Mentoring 15 4.01 0.62 1.40 5.00 3.88 0.47 3.13 5.00 Mentorship Learning 5 4.15 0.53 3.00 5.00 3.89 0.72 2.20 5.00 Personal Learning 12 4.28 0.51 2.58 5.00 3.79 0.64 2.08 5.00 Mentorship Quality 4 4.38 0.56 2.50 5.00 4.33 0.49 3.00 5.00 Career Success 4 3.92 0.56 2.50 5.00 4.07 0.54 3.00 5.00 Note. N = 93 Protgs; 93 Mentors SD = Standard Deviation Min = Observed Minimum Score Max = Observed Maximum Score

PAGE 53

43 Inter-correlations among Protg Variables Zero-order correlation coefficients for protg study variables are dis played in Table 5. Consistent with the study hypotheses, protg learning goal orientat ion was significantly related to protg reports of career (r = .26, p <.05) and psychosocial (r = .31, p <.01) mentoring received. However, significant relationships were not found for protg locus of control or for self-efficacy for development. Protg characteristics were related to several protg outcomes. For example, protg learning goal orientation was positively related to protg reports of mentorship learning (r = .40, p <.01), personal learning (r = .64, p <.01), mentorship quality (r = .36, p <.01), and perceptions of career success (r = .38, p <.01). Protg internal locus of control was also significantly related to perceptions of career success ( r = -.27, p <.01). Protg self-efficacy for development was positively related to both mento rship learning (r = .21, p <.05) and to perceptions of career success (r = .37, p <.01). These results provide evidence that protgs with a learning and development orientation benefit fr om engaging in mentoring relationships. Finally, protg reports of career and psychosocial mentoring received wer e also significantly related to protg mutual mentorship learning (r = .57, p <.01; r = .69, p <.01), personal learning (r = .39, p <.01; r = .52, p <.01), mentorship quality (r = .61, p <.01; r = .71, p <.01), and perceptions of career success (r = .34, p <.01; r = .27, p <.05). These results provide strong support that perceptions of mentoring received relates to positive outcomes for protgs.

PAGE 54

44 Table 5 Inter-correlations Among Protg Study Variables and Reliability Esti mates Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Gender 2. Race .10 3. Age -.04 -.29** 4. Job Description -.22* -.08 .08 5. Job Tenure .12 -.13 .49** .06 6. Org Tenure .13 -.15 .05 .04 .11 7. Supervisor Status -.03 .04 -.11 -.01 -.04 .00 8. Same Organization .13 .07 .13 -.06 -.01 .08 .10 9. Mentor Level .10 .12 -.13 -.21* -.11 -.10 .02 10. Learning Goal .03 .17 -.11 .11 -.14 .01 .20 11. Locus of Control -.04 .08 -.21* -.03 -.18 -.26* -.16 12. Self-Efficacy .10 .02 -.02 .09 -.05 -.10 .26* 13. Career Mentoring -.10 .05 -.11 .22* -.07 .04 .26* 14. Psychosocial Mentoring -.05 .11 -.17 .07 -.09 -.07 -.02 15. Mentorship Learning .00 .19 -.25* .13 -.16 -.12 .00 16. Personal Learning .16 .21* -.09 .01 -.02 -.00 .13 17. Mentorship Quality .03 .28** -.15 .06 -.07 -.06 .11 18. Career Success -.04 .04 -.09 .46** .05 .09 .19 Note. *p<.05; **p<.01; N’s ranged 89 to 93 Protgs Gender: 1=male; 2=female Race: 1=non-minority; 2=minority Job Description: 1=non-managerial; 2=managerial Mentor Supervisor Status: 1=no; 2=yes Same Organization: 1=no; 2=yes

PAGE 55

45 Table 5 (Continued) Variable 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1. Gender 2. Race 3. Age 4. Job Description 5. Job Tenure 6. Org Tenure 7. Supervisor Status 8. Same Organization 9. Mentor Level .15 10. Learning Goal -.09 .09 (.89) 11. Locus of Control .07 -.04 -.32** (.66) 12. Self-Efficacy .07 -.06 .25* -.23* (.85) 13. Career Ment oring .08 .24* .26* -.14 .15 (.92) 14. Psychosocial Mentoring -.29** .15 .31** -.07 .14 .55** (.91) 15. Mentorship Learning -.15 -.01 .40** -.12 .21* .57** .69** 16. Personal Learning -.08 .15 .64** -.16 .11 .39** .52** 17. Mentorship Quality -.05 .15 .36** -.07 .19 .61** .71** 18. Career Success -.12 -.05 .38** -.27** .37** .34** .27* Note. *p<.05; **p<.01; N’s ranged 89 to 93 Protgs Gender: 1=male; 2=female Race: 1=non-minority; 2=minority Job Description: 1=non-managerial; 2=managerial Mentor Supervisor Status: 1=no; 2=yes Same Organization: 1=no; 2=yes

PAGE 56

46 Table 5 (Continued) Variable 15 16 17 18 1. Gender 2. Race 3. Age 4. Job Description 5. Job Tenure 6. Org Tenure 7. Supervisor Status 8. Same Organization 9. Mentor Level 10. Learning Goal 11. Locus of Control 12. Self-Efficacy 13. Career Mentoring 14. Psychosocial Me ntoring 15. Mentorship Learning (.76) 16. Personal Learning .53** (.92) 17. Mentorship Quality .70** .49** (.86) 18. Career Success .28** .29** .29** (.73) Note. *p<.05; **p<.01; N’s ranged 89 to 93 Protgs Gender: 1=male; 2=female Race: 1=non-minority; 2=minority Job Description: 1=non-managerial; 2=managerial Mentor Supervisor Status: 1=no; 2=yes Same Organization: 1=no; 2=yes

PAGE 57

47 Inter-correlations among Mentor Variables Inter-correlations among mentor variables were also examined (Table 6). M entor characteristics were significantly related to mentor reports of ment oring provided. Mentor learning goal orientation was related to career (r = .42, p <.01) and psychosocial (r = .44, p <.01) mentoring. Mentors with an internal locus of control also reported providing more career (r = -.33, p <.01) and psychosocial (r = -.30, p <.01) mentoring to their protgs. Finally, mentors with a high self-efficacy for development provided more care er (r = .34, p <.01) and psychosocial (r = .21, p <.05) mentoring to their protgs. Mentor characteristics were also significantly related to several me ntor outcomes. Mentor learning goal orientation was related to mentorship learning (r = .4 2, p <.01), personal learning (r = .46, p <.01), mentorship quality (r = .58, p <.01), and perceptions of career success (r = .42, p <.01). Mentors with an internal locus of control also reported higher levels of mentorship quality (r = -.28, p <.01) and career success (r = -.45, p <.01). Finally, mentors with a high self-efficacy for development reported more me ntorship learning (r = .26, p <.05), mentorship quality (r = .21, p <.05), and career success (r = .46, p <.01). Mentoring was also positively related to mentor outcomes. Mentors who provided more career and psychosocial mentoring reported higher levels of mutual mentors hip learning (r = .40, p <.01; r = .53, p <.01), personal learning (r = .44, p <.01; r = .56, p <.01), mentorship quality (r = .50, p <.01; r = .72, p <.01), and perceptions of career success (r = .49, p <.01; r = .45, p <.01). These findings add to the limited mentor perspective research, suggesting mentors also benefit from engaging in mentoring relationships.

PAGE 58

48 Table 6 Inter-correlations Among Mentor Study Variables and Reliability Estima tes Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Gender 2. Race -.14 3. Age -.25* .17 4. Job Description .06 -.07 -.04 5. Job Tenure -.18 .28** .38** .12 6. Org Tenure -.01 .26* .39** .14 .58** 7. Supervisor Status -.31** .04 .12 .12 .06 .02 8. Same Organization -.08 .06 .18 .22* -.06 .13 .10 9. Mentor Level .13 .02 .07 .23* .23* .20 .02 10. Learning Goal .19 .11 -.05 .07 .08 -.07 -.07 11. Locus of Control -.17 .03 .03 -.14 .03 -.01 -.18 12. Self-Efficacy -.01 -.08 -.14 -.06 .03 -.15 -.07 13. Career Mentoring .02 -.17 -.09 .06 .15 -.02 .31** 14. Psychosocial Mentoring .18 .04 -.03 -.03 .03 -.12 -.05 15. Mentorship Learning .11 .00 -.25* -.01 .03 -.18 -.01 16. Personal Learning .16 -.04 -.08 -.08 .14 -.11 -.09 17. Mentorship Quality .14 .07 .04 .08 .18 .07 .03 18. Career Success -.14 .03 -.10 -.02 .11 -.11 .14 Note. *p<.05; **p<.01; N’s ranged 87 to 93 Mentors Gender: 1=male; 2=female Race: 1=non-minority; 2=minority Job Description: 1=non-managerial; 2=managerial Mentor Supervisor Status: 1=no; 2=yes Same Organization: 1=no; 2=yes

PAGE 59

49 Table 6 (Continued) Variable 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1. Gender 2. Race 3. Age 4. Job Description 5. Job Tenure 6. Org Tenure 7. Supervisor Status 8. Same Organization 9. Mentor Level .15 10. Learning Goal .08 .12 (.90) 11. Locus of Control .08 -.16 -.43** (.84) 12. Self-Efficacy .04 .04 .47** -.40** (.90) 13. Career Mentoring .02 .23* .42** -.33** .34** (.91) 14. Psychosocial Mentoring -.19 .26* .44** -.30** .21* .44** (.85) 15. Mentorship Learning -.08 .15 .42** -.19 .26* .40** .53** 16. Personal Learning -.10 .10 .46** -.14 .17 .44** .56** 17. Mentorship Quality -.06 .26* .58** -.28** .21* .50** .72** 18. Career Suc cess -.08 .24* .42** -.45** .46** .49** .45** Note. *p<.05; **p<.01; N’s ranged 87 to 93 Mentors Gender: 1=male; 2=female Race: 1=non-minority; 2=minority Job Description: 1=non-managerial; 2=managerial Mentor Supervisor Status: 1=no; 2=yes Same Organization: 1=no; 2=yes

PAGE 60

50 Table 6 (Continued) Variable 15 16 17 18 1. Gender 2. Race 3. Age 4. Job Description 5. Job Tenure 6. Org Tenure 7. Supervisor Status 8. Same Organization 9. Mentor Level 10. Learning Goal 11. Locus of Control 12. Self-Efficacy 13. Career Mentoring 14. Psychosocial Mentoring 15. Mentorship Learning (.91) 16. Personal Learning .60** (.92) 17. Mentorship Quality .60** .63** (.90) 18. Career Success .37** .30** .42** (.75) Note. *p<.05; **p<.01; N’s ranged 87 to 93 Mentors Gender: 1=male; 2=female Race: 1=non-minority; 2=minority Job Description: 1=non-managerial; 2=managerial Mentor Supervisor Status: 1=no; 2=yes Same Organization: 1=no; 2=yes

PAGE 61

51 Inter-correlations Among Protg and Mentor Study Variables The inter-correlations among protg and mentor study variables revealed interesting patterns of relationships (Table 7). As previously mentioned, protg learning goal orientation was significantly related to protg reports of mentoring r eceived and to protg outcomes. Mentor learning goal orientation was significantly rela ted to mentor reports of mentoring provided and mentor outcomes. However, cross-over effects wer e not significant for any of the partner variables. Protg learning goal orientation was not significantly related to mentor reports of mentoring provided or to mentor outcomes A similar non-significant pattern was also observed with mentor learning g oal orientation and protg responses. These preliminary findings have important implications for construct validit y. If all protg variables are only significantly related to each other and all m entor variables are only significantly related to each other, this could be cause for concern re garding selfreport bias. However, this pattern did not hold across all relationships. For example, similar relationships with locus of control and self-efficacy for developmen t were only observed with a few study variables. Moreover, cross-over effects were obser ved for relationships between mentoring provided and partner outcomes. Specifically, protg reports of career mentoring were significantly related to mentor percepti ons of relationship quality (r = .24, p <.05). Protg reports of psychosocial mentoring were also significantly related to mentor mentorship learning (r = .30, p <.01), personal learning (r = .20, p <.05), and mentorship quality (r = .38, p <.01). Similarly, mentor reports of psychosocial mentoring were significantly related to protg mentorshi p learning (r = .42, p <.01), personal learning (r = .28, p <.01), and mentorship quality (r = .36, p <.01).

PAGE 62

52 The protg-mentor correlation matrix also revealed another interesting relationship among study variables. The results highlight the importance of exa mining both protg and mentor perceptions of the mentoring relationship. For example, protg and mentor reports of career mentoring were significantly related but the correlation was not as strong as one would expect (r = .32, p<.01). Although the relationship was stronger for protg and mentor reports of psychosocial mentoring (r = .53, p<.01), these findings emphasize the importance of examining the perception and experiences of both members of the mentoring relationship.

PAGE 63

53 Table 7 Inter-correlations Among Protg and Mentor Study Variables Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Learning Goal P 2. Locus of Control P -.32** 3. Self-Efficacy P .25* -.23* 4. Career Mentoring P .26* -.14 .15 5. Psychosocial Mentoring P .31** -.07 .14 .55** 6. Mentorship Learning P .40** -.12 .21* .57** .69** 7. Personal Learning P .64** -.16 .11 .39** .52** .53** 8. Mentorship Quality P .36** -.07 .19 .61** .71** .70** 9. Career Success P .38** -.27** .37** .34** .27* .28** 10. Learning Goal M -.01 .12 .04 .05 -.00 .02 11. Locus of Control M .00 .17 -.03 -.10 -.03 -.02 12. Self-Efficacy M -.04 .04 .06 -.09 -.11 .02 13. Career Mentoring M -.01 .02 .06 .32** .06 .12 14. Psychosocial Mentoring M .07 .13 -.05 .28** .53** .42** 15. Mentorship Learning M .18 .03 .01 .15 .30** .29** 16. Personal Learning M .11 .06 -.02 .10 .20* .15 17. Mentorship Quality M .05 .11 -.03 .24* .38** .27** 18. Career Success M .04 .01 .11 .19 .09 .08 Note. *p<.05; **p<.01; N = 93 Dyads P = Protg; M = Mentor

PAGE 64

54 Table 7 (Continued) Variable 7 8 9 10 11 12 1. Learning Goal P 2. Locus of Control P 3. Self-Efficacy P 4. Career Mentoring P 5. Psychosocial Mentoring P 6. Mentorship Learning P 7. Personal Learning P 8. Mentorship Quality P .49** 9. Career Success P .29** .29** 10. Learning Goal M .07 .03 -.11 11. Locus of Control M -.09 -.03 .04 -.43** 12. Self-Efficacy M -.03 -.13 -.05 .47** -.40** 13. Career Mentoring M .06 .11 -.01 .42** -.33** .34** 14. Psychosocial Mentoring M .28** .36** -.03 .44** -.30** .21* 15. Mentorship Learning M .24* .19 .07 .42** -.19 .26* 16. Personal Learning M .17 .09 -.12 .46** -.14 .17 17. Mentorship Quality M .23* .32** .01 .58** -.28** .21* 18. Career Success M .08 .10 .11 .42** -.45** .46** Note. *p<.05; **p<.01; N = 93 Dyads P = Protg; M = Mentor

PAGE 65

55 Table 7 (Continued) Variable 13 14 15 16 17 18 1. Learning Goal P 2. Locus of Control P 3. Self-Efficacy P 4. Career Mentoring P 5. Psychosocial Mentoring P 6. Mentorship Learning P 7. Personal Learning P 8. Mentorship Quality P 9. Career Success P 10. Learning Goal M 11. Locus of Control M 12. Self-Efficacy M 13. Career Mentoring M 14. Psychosocial Mentoring M .44** 15. Mentorship Learning M .40** .53** 16. Personal Learning M .44** .56** .60** 17. Mentorship Quality M .50** .72** .60** .63** 18. Career Success M .49** .45** .37** .30** .42** Note. *p<.05; **p<.01; N = 93 Dyads P = Protg; M = Mentor

PAGE 66

56 Control Variables Previous research exploring the impact demographic variables may have on the mentoring relationship has been mixed (see Wanberg et al., 2003 for a review). The purpose of the present study was to examine characteristics beyond demographic characteristics. Using the correlation matrices, each demographic item was examined as a potential control variable. In an effort to preserve statistical power, only de mographic items significantly related to study variables were controlled for during h ypothesis testing. Protg race and age were related to several of the study variables. Speci fically, protg race was significantly related to protg perceptions of personal le arning (r = .21, p <.05) and to mentorship quality (r = .28, p <.01). These results suggest minority protgs report higher levels of mentoring effectiveness compared to non-minority prot gs. Additionally, protg age was related to protg locus of control (r = -.21, p <.05) and to mentorship learning (r = -.25, p <.05). These findings suggest older protgs tend to have an internal locus of control orientation and report lower levels of mutual mentorship learning. Several relationship variables were also related to protg stud y variables. For example, protgs with mentors that were also their direct supervisors report ed higher levels of self-efficacy (r = .26, p <.05) and career mentoring received (r = .26, p <.05). Protgs working in the same organization as their mentors also reported rec eiving less psychosocial mentoring (r = -.29, p <.01). Finally, protgs with mentors holding a higher level position than their own position reported receiving more career mentoring (r = .24, p <.05).

PAGE 67

57 Several demographic items were also related to the mentor study variables For example, mentor age was significantly related to mutual mentorship learning ( r = -.25, p <.05), indicating older mentors report lower levels of mentorship learning. Mentor s who were also the protg’s direct supervisor reported providing more career m entoring to their protgs (r = .31, p <.01). Findings also suggested mentors in higher level positions than protgs reported providing more career (r = .23, p <.05) and psychosocial (r = .26, p <.05) mentoring to their protgs. These mentors also reported higher mentorship quality (r = .26, p <.05) and perceptions of career success (r = .24, p <.05). In sum, protg race, protg/mentor age, mentor supervisor status, mentor level, and whether the protg and mentor worked in the same organization were entered as control variables in the regression analyses. Data Analyses Study hypotheses were tested using multiple regression. Hypotheses 1-6a examined the relationship between individual characteristics and mentoring provi ded. To test the relationship for protg characteristics, control variables wer e entered into the regression equation at Step 1. At Step 2, protg learning goal orientation, locus of control, and self-efficacy for development were entered simultaneously. For h ypotheses examining mentor characteristics, control variables were entered at St ep 1. Mentor learning goal orientation, locus of control, and self-efficacy for development were entered simultaneously at Step 2. These procedures were repeated for both protg and mentor reports of mentoring provided. Hypotheses 1-6b examined the relationship between individual characteristics and partner learning and development outcomes. First, the relationships between protg

PAGE 68

58 characteristics and mentor outcomes were investigated. For these regressi on analyses, control variables were entered at Step 1. At Step 2, protg learning goal orient ation, locus of control, and self-efficacy for development were entered. This procedure was repeated for each of the mentor outcomes. Next, mentor characteristics and pr otg outcomes were examined. For these regression analyses, control variables wer e entered at Step 1. Mentor learning goal orientation, locus of control, and self-efficacy for development were entered at Step 2. This process was repeated for each protg outc ome. Hypotheses 1-6c proposed that the relationship between individual characteristics and partner outcomes would be mediated by mentoring provided. Baron and Kenny’s (1986) procedures for testing mediation were used to examine these relationships. Specifically, three regression equations are used to test for mediation. First the mediator (mentoring provided) is regressed onto the independent variable (individual characteristics). In the second equation, the dependent variable (partner outcome s) is regressed onto the independent variable (individual characteristics). Third, the depe ndent variable (partner outcomes) is regressed onto both the independent variable (individual characteristics) and the mediator variable (mentoring provided), with the independent variable (individual characteristics) entered first into the regress ion equation. Support for mediation is contingent upon four conditions: (1) the independent variable is significantly related to the mediator variable, (2) the independent variable is significantly related to the dependent variable, (3) the mediator variable i s significantly related to the dependent variable, and (4) after controlling for the mediator, the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable is non-significant (Baron & Kenny, 1986). The first condition was tested by Hypotheses 1-6a. The second condition was

PAGE 69

59 tested by Hypotheses 1-6b. If there was support for these two sets of hypothese s, then the third and fourth conditions for mediation were examined. If all four conditions were met the data provided support for full or complete mediation. If the first three conditions were met but the fourth condition was not, then partial mediation was indicated (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Additionally, if support was found for full or partial mediation, the Aroian version of the Sobel test was performed to formally test the significance of the indirec t effect (amount of mediation) (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002; Preacher & Hayes, 2004). To conduct a significance test for the indirect effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, the product of the (1) path coefficient associated with the independent variable and mediator variable and the (2) path coefficient associated with the mediator and dependent variable was computed. T he product of these path coefficients was divided by its standard error and compared wit h a standardized normal distribution (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Kenny, 2006; Preacher & Hayes, 2004; Preacher & Leonardelli, 2006). Simulation studies have suggested the Sobel test generally has more accurate Type I error rates and greater sta tistical power than Baron and Kenny’s procedures (MacKinnon et al., 2002). Despite this, a very large sample size (N>500) would be needed in order to adequately detect small effect sizes (e.g., Cohen, 1992). Therefore, both significant ( p <.05) and marginally significant relationships were reported ( p <.10). Regardless of significance and hypothesis support, the standardized Beta weig hts, change in R 2 R 2 Total, R 2 Adjusted, and overall F statistic for each regression analyses are presented in appropriate tables.

PAGE 70

60 Chapter Four Results Hypothesis 1a, 3a, and 5a Hypothesis 1a, 3a, and 5a were concerned with the relationships between protg characteristics and mentoring provided. These hypotheses proposed protgs that ra ted themselves higher on learning goal orientation, internal locus of control, and sel f-efficacy for development would report and receive more career and psychosocial mentoring from their mentors. The multiple regression results are presented in Table 8. First, the relationship between protg learning goal orientation and mentoring provided was examined (Hypothesis 1a). Results indicated protg learning goal orientation was not significantly related to protg reports of career mentori ng received (b = .13, n.s.). Protg learning goal orientation was significantly related to pr otg reports of psychosocial mentoring received (b = .26, p <.05). These findings provide evidence that protgs with a higher learning goal orientation will active ly engage in a mentoring relationship and receive more psychosocial support from their mentor than will protgs with a lower learning goal orientation. However, the results w ere not significant for mentor reports of career (b = -.16, n.s.) or psychosocial (b = .03, n.s.) mentoring provided. In sum, Hypothesis 1a received minimal support. Next, the relationship between protg internal locus of control and mentoring provided was investigated (Hypothesis 3a). Results suggested locus of control did not

PAGE 71

61 contribute unique variance to protg and mentor reports of mentoring provided. Specifically, protg locus of control was not significantly related to protg reports of career mentoring (b = -.05, n.s.), protg reports of psychosocial mentoring (b = .04, n.s.), mentor reports of career mentoring (b = .02, n.s.), or mentor reports of psychosocial mentoring (b = .11, n.s.). Thus, Hypothesis 3a received no support. Finally, the relationship between protg self-efficacy for developme nt and mentoring provided was examined (Hypothesis 5a). Findings suggested protg self-efficacy did not incrementally predict protg or mentor reports of mentoring provided. After controlling for demographic and relationship variables, protg self-ef ficacy was not significantly related to protg reports of career mentoring (b = .06, n.s.), protg reports of psychosocial mentoring (b = .14, n.s.), mentor reports of career mentoring (b = .01, n.s.), or mentor reports of psychosocial mentoring (b = .00, n.s.). Therefore, Hypothesis 5a received no support. Hypothesis 2a, 4a, and 6a The next three hypotheses focused on the relationships between mentor characteristics and mentoring provided. Specifically, it was proposed that ment ors who rate themselves higher on learning goal orientation, internal locus of control, and s elfefficacy for development would report and provide more career and psychosocial mentoring to their protg. These results are displayed in Table 9. First, the relationship between mentor learning goal orientation and mentoring provided was examined (Hypothesis 2a). Results indicated mentor learning goal orientation was not related to protg reports of career (b = .00, n.s.) or psychosocial (b = .00, n.s.) mentoring received. However, the relationship was significant for mentor

PAGE 72

62 reports of mentoring provided. As predicted, mentors who rated themselves higher on learning goal orientation reported providing more career (b = .25, p <.05) and psychosocial (b = .29, p <.05) mentoring to their protgs. These findings provide partial support for Hypothesis 2a. Hypothesis 4a proposed mentor locus of control would significantly predict protg and mentor reports of career and psychosocial mentoring. Results were not supportive of this relationship. Mentor locus of control was not related to protg reports of career (b = -.12, n.s.) or psychosocial (b = -.06, n.s.) mentoring received or mentor reports of career (b = -.08, n.s.) or psychosocial (b = -.11, n.s.) mentoring provided. Thus, Hypothesis 4a received no support. Finally, mentor self-efficacy for development was examined (Hypothesis 6 a). Results provided marginal support that mentor self-efficacy was significa ntly related to protg reports of career mentoring received (b = -.23, p=.07) and mentor reports of career mentoring provided (b = .21, p=.07). For protg reports of career mentoring received, the relationship was not as predicted. Contrary to hypothesis, results i ndicated mentors who rated themselves higher on self-efficacy for development provided le ss protg reported career mentoring. However, since the bivariate relationship bet ween mentor self-efficacy and protg career mentoring was not significant (r = -.09, n.s.), findings are likely indicative of a suppressor effect and should be interpreted cauti ously. The results for mentor reports of career mentoring were as predicted, however, w ith mentors who rated themselves high on self-efficacy also reporting more car eer mentoring provided to their protg. Mentor self-efficacy was not related to protg (b = -.18, n.s.)

PAGE 73

63 or mentor (b = -.01, n.s.) reports of psychosocial mentoring. In sum, Hypothesis 6a received minimal support. Hypothesis 1b, 3b, and 5b Hypothesis 1b, 3b, and 5b proposed cross-over effects for protg characteristics and mentor outcomes. These hypotheses suggested protg learning goal orientat ion, internal locus of control, and self-efficacy for development would be related to me ntor reports of mentorship learning, personal learning, mentorship quality, and perceptions of career success. The multiple regression results are presented in Table 10. Hypothesis 1b proposed protg learning goal orientation would predict mentor outcomes. Protg learning goal orientation did not predict mentor mutual learning (b = .13, n.s.), personal learning (b = .12, n.s.), mentorship quality (b = .00, n.s.), or perceptions of career success (b = -.08, n.s.). Thus, Hypothesis 1b was not supported. Next, the relationship between protg locus of control and mentor outcomes was examined (Hypothesis 3b). Findings suggest protg internal locus of control is not significantly related to mentor learning (b = .15, n.s.), personal learning (b = .10, n.s.), mentorship quality (b = 10, n.s.), or perceptions of career success (b = .06, n.s.). Thus, Hypothesis 3b received no support. Hypothesis 5b proposed protg self-efficacy for development would predict mentor outcomes. Results were not supportive of this relationship. Protg self-e fficacy was not related to mentor reports of mentorship learning (b = .02, n.s.), personal learning (b = .01, n.s.), personal skill development (b = -.00, n.s.), mentorship quality (b = -.00,

PAGE 74

64 n.s.), or perceptions of career success (b = .12, n.s.). Therefore, Hypothesis 5b received no support. Hypothesis 2b, 4b, and 6b Hypothesis 2b, 4b, and 6b proposed cross-over effects for mentor characteristics and protg outcomes. Specifically, these hypotheses proposed mentor learning goa l orientation, internal locus of control, and self-efficacy for development would be significantly related to protg reports of mentorship learning, personal lear ning, mentorship quality, and perceptions of career success. Results of the multiple regression analyses are presented in Table 11. Hypothesis 2b proposed mentor learning goal orientation would predict protg outcomes. Results were not supportive of these relationships. Mentor learning goal orientation was not significantly related to protg mentorship learning (b = -.03, n.s.), personal learning (b = .12, n.s.), mentorship quality (b = .06, n.s.), or perceptions of career success (b = -.03, n.s.). In sum, Hypothesis 2b received no support. Hypothesis 4b proposed mentor locus of control would predict protg outcomes. Again, results did not support these relationships. Mentor locus of control was not significantly related to protg mentorship learning (b = -.03, n.s.), personal learning (b = -.04, n.s.), mentorship quality (b = -.08, n.s.), or perceptions of career success (b = .09, n.s.). Thus, Hypothesis 4b received no support. Finally, Hypothesis 6b predicated mentor self-efficacy for development wo uld be related to protg outcomes. Contrary to hypothesis, mentor self-efficacy w as negatively related to protg reports of mentorship quality (b = -.30, p <.05.). Again, these results should be interpreted with caution since the zero-order correlation between mentor se lf-

PAGE 75

65 efficacy and protg mentorship quality was not significant (r = -.13, n.s.), sugges ting the presence of a suppressor effect. Mentor self-efficacy was not signific antly related to protg mentorship learning (b = -.07, n.s.), personal learning (b = -.15, n.s.), or perceptions of career success (b = -.05, n.s.). Although not significant, the negative relationships suggested high mentor self-efficacy might not be a positive char acteristic for protgs. Taken together, Hypothesis 6b received no support. Hypothesis 1c, 2c, 3c, 4c, 5c, and 6c Hypothesis 1c, 2c, 3c, 4c, 5c, and 6c proposed mentoring provided would mediate the relationships between individual characteristics and partner outcomes. Ea ch of these hypotheses was contingent upon support of the relationships between characteristic s and mentoring provided (condition 1) and the relationships between characteristics a nd partner outcomes (condition 2). Mediation analyses were considered for only two relationships. Hypothesis 6c predicted mentoring provided would mediate the relationship between mentor self-efficacy and protg outcomes. Mentor self-efficacy was marginally related to both protg and mentor reports of career mentoring (b = -.23, p =.07; b = 21, p =.07). Mentor self-efficacy was only related to protg reports of mentorship quali ty (b = -.30, p <.05). Accordingly, protg and mentor career mentoring were examined as potential mediators for the relationship between mentor self-efficacy and pr otg mentorship quality. Following Baron and Kenny procedures, a third regression equati on was used to test for mediation. Control variables were entered at Step 1 of the equa tion. Mentor self-efficacy was entered at Step 2. Career mentoring was entere d at Step 3.

PAGE 76

66 First, mentor reports of career mentoring provided to protgs was examined as a mediator for the relationship between mentor self-efficacy and protg men torship quality. As Table 12 displays, conditions were not met for mediation. Specifically, when both mentor self-efficacy and mentor reports of career mentoring were enter ed into the regression equation, the relationship between career mentoring (mediator) and protg mentorship quality (dependent variable) was not significant (b = .09, n.s.), and the relationship between mentor self-efficacy (independent variable) and mentorshi p quality remained significant (b = -.27, p <.05). For protg reports of career mentoring, the relationship was significant (T able 13). When both mentor self-efficacy and protg reports of career mentoring were entered, the relationship between protg reports of career mentoring and me ntorship quality was significant (b = .58, p <.01) (condition 3). After controlling for protg career mentoring (mediator), the relationship between mentor self-efficacy and prot g mentorship quality was no longer significant (b = -.14, n.s ). These results satisfy Baron and Kenny’s conditions for full mediation. However, results of the Sobel test of indire ct effects indicated that the indirect effects were not significantly dif ferent from zero (z = 1.56, n.s.). These findings highlight the incorrect conclusions regarding mediation that are often made using Baron and Kenny’s procedures (Type I error) and emphas ize the importance of formally testing indirect effects (MacKinnon et al., 2002; Preac her & Hayes, 2004). In sum, Hypothesis 6c was not supported.

PAGE 77

67 Table 8 Multiple Regression Results for Protg Characteristics Predicting Me ntoring Provided Protg Mentor Predictor Variable Career b Psychosocial b Career b Psychosocial b Step 1 Protg Race .01 .07 .01 -.13 Protg Age .02 .03 -.04 -.33* Mentor Age -.20 -.13 -.17 .14 Mentor Level .24* .19 a .26* .23* Supervisor .19 a -.04 .33** -.07 Organization .06 -.29** -.04 -.21 a R 2 (.14)* (.15)* (.17)* (.21)** Step 2 Learning Goal .13 .26* -.16 .03 Locus of Control -.05 .04 .02 .11 Self-Efficacy .06 .14 .01 .00 R 2 (.03) (.09)* (.02) (.01) R 2 total .17 .24 .20 .22 Adjusted R 2 .07 .15 .10 .13 Overall F 1.75 a 2.70** 2.04* 2.35* Note. *p<.05; **p<.01; a marginal p<.10; N = 93 Dyads b’s are standardized regression weights from the final equation R 2 subtotals may not sum to total R 2 due to rounding

PAGE 78

68 Table 9 Multiple Regression Results for Mentor Characteristics Predicting Ment oring Provided Protg Mentor Predictor Variable Career b Psychosocial b Career b Psychosocial b Step 1 Protg Race .06 .13 .01 -.08 Protg Age .02 -.00 .05 -.29* Mentor Age -.24 a -.16 -.14 .15 Mentor Level .22* .18 .22* .19 a Supervisor .19 a -.00 .34** -.08 Organization .07 -.29* -.06 -.22* R 2 (.14)* (.15)* (.17)* (.21)** Step 2 Learning Goal .00 .00 .25* .29* Locus of Control -.12 -.06 -.08 -.11 Self-Efficacy -.23 a -.18 .21 a -.01 R 2 (.04) (.02) (.18)** (.12)** R 2 total .18 .18 .35 .32 Adjusted R 2 .09 .08 .27 .24 Overall F 1.89 a 1.81 a 4.52** 4.06** Note. *p<.05; **p<.01; a marginal p<.10; N = 93 Dyads b’s are standardized regression weights from the final equation R 2 subtotals may not sum to total R 2 due to rounding

PAGE 79

69 Table 10 Multiple Regression Results for Protg Characteristics Predicting Me ntor Outcomes Predictor Variable Mentorship Learning b Personal Learning b Mentorship Quality b Career Success b Step 1 Protg Race -.10 -.10 -.05 -.21 a Protg Age -.02 -.01 -.19 -.24 a Mentor Age -.25* -.07 .12 -.02 Mentor Level .16 .11 .23* .24* Supervisor .00 -.10 .02 .11 Organization -.06 -.10 -.10 -.11 R 2 (.10) (.05) (.11) (.16)* Step 2 Learning Goal .13 .12 .00 -.08 Locus of Control .15 .10 .10 .06 Self-Efficacy .02 .01 -.00 .12 R 2 (.03) (.02) (.01) (.02) R 2 total .13 .07 .12 .17 Adjusted R 2 .02 -.05 .01 .08 Overall F 1.23 0.55 1.09 1.77 a Note. *p<.05; **p<.01; a marginal p<.10; N = 93 Dyads b’s are standardized regression weights from the final equation R 2 subtotals may not sum to total R 2 due to rounding

PAGE 80

70 Table 11 Multiple Regression Results for Mentor Characteristics Predicting Prot g Outcomes Predictor Variable Mentorship Learning b Personal Learning b Mentorship Quality b Career Success b Step 1 Protg Race .17 .22 a .30* .02 Protg Age -.17 .01 -.05 -.08 Mentor Age -.09 .01 -.08 -.03 Mentor Level -.05 .08 .10 -.07 Supervisor -.02 .13 .04 .19 Organization -.11 -.12 -.07 -.12 R 2 (.11) (.08) (.12) (.06) Step 2 Learning Goal -.03 .12 .06 -.03 Locus of Control -.03 -.03 -.08 .09 Self-Efficacy -.07 -.15 -.30* -.05 R 2 (.01) (.02) (.06) (.02) R 2 total .11 .10 .18 .08 Adjusted R 2 .01 -.01 .08 -.03 Overall F 1.05 0.96 1.84 a 0.77 Note. *p<.05; **p<.01; a marginal p<.10; N = 93 Dyads b’s are standardized regression weights from the final equation R 2 subtotals may not sum to total R 2 due to rounding

PAGE 81

71 Table 12 Multiple Regression Results for Mentor Career Mentoring Mediation Protg Predictor Variable Mentorship Quality b Step 2 Protg Race .28* Protg Age -.07 Mentor Age -.07 Mentor Level .12 Supervisor .06 Organization -.07 Mentor Self-Efficacy -.24* R 2 (.05)* Step 3 Protg Race .28* Protg Age -.07 Mentor Age -.06 Mentor Level .10 Supervisor .03 Organization -.06 Mentor Self-Efficacy -.27* Mentor Career Mentoring .09 R 2 (.00) R 2 total .18 Adjusted R 2 .09 Overall F 2.04* Note. *p<.05; N = 93 Dyads b’s are standardized regression weights from the final equation for Steps 2 and 3 only R 2 subtotals may not sum to total R 2 due to rounding

PAGE 82

72 Table 13 Multiple Regression Results for Protg Career Mentoring Mediation Protg Predictor Variable Mentorship Quality b Step 2 Protg Race .28* Protg Age -.07 Mentor Age -.07 Mentor Level .12 Supervisor .06 Organization -.07 Mentor Self-Efficacy -.24* R 2 (.05)* Step 3 Protg Race .25** Protg Age -.07 Mentor Age .06 Mentor Level -.02 Supervisor -.07 Organization -.10 Mentor Self-Efficacy -.14 Protg Career Mentoring .58** R 2 (.28)** R 2 total .45 Adjusted R 2 .39 Overall F 7.91** Note. **p<.01; N = 93 Dyads b’s are standardized regression weights from the final equation for Steps 2 and 3 only R 2 subtotals may not sum to total R 2 due to rounding

PAGE 83

73 Chapter Five Supplemental Analyses Research examining the role of dispositional characteristics in mentoring relationships is sparse. As Wanberg et al.’s review (2003) highlights, knowledge of how protg and mentor characteristics influence mentoring relationships would make a significant contribution to the mentoring literature. Although the study hypothese s were generally not supportive of cross-over effects, the present study can contri bute to mentoring research by examining the role of individual characteristics on indi vidual perceptions of mentoring provided and learning and development outcomes attained. Specifically, these findings add to the limited research identifying protg s and mentors who would actively engage in and personally benefit from participating in a ment oring relationship. The zero-order correlation matrices highlight several significant r elationships between protg characteristics, protg reports of mentoring received, and pr otg learning and development outcomes. Similarly, there is evidence for signif icant relationships among mentor characteristics, mentor reports of mentoring provi ded, and mentor learning and development outcomes. In order to more fully understand these relationships, a series of regression analyses (with appropriate control variables) were performed.

PAGE 84

74 Protg Supplemental Analyses The relationships between protg characteristics, mentoring received, and protg outcomes warrant further consideration. Although protg locus of control, and self-efficacy for development were not related to protg reports of mentori ng provided, protg learning goal orientation was significantly related to reports of ps ychosocial mentoring received (b = .26, p <.05) (refer back to Table 8 for a summary of the relationships). These results suggest protgs with a higher learning goa l orientation receive more psychosocial mentoring from their mentors than protgs with a lower learning goal orientation. Protg learning goal orientation was also significantly related to pr otg learning and development outcomes (Table 14). Results indicated protgs with a high learning goal orientation reported more mentorship learning (b = .31, p <.01), personal learning (b = .65, p <.01), mentorship quality (b = .22, p =.06), and perceptions of career success (b = .25, p <.05) than did protgs with a lower learning goal orientation. It should be noted that protg self-efficacy for development was also related to protg percepti ons of career success (b = .29, p <.05). Thus, protg characteristics, particularly learning goal orientation, are important to examine in the mentoring context. Protg reports of mentoring received were also related to protg outcomes (Table 15). Protg reports of career and psychosocial mentoring received we re significantly related to protg perceptions of mentorship learning (b = .31, p <.01; b = .53, p <.01) and mentorship quality (b = .24, p <.05; b = .62, p <.01). Results also indicated protgs receiving more psychosocial mentoring reported more personal lear ning (b =

PAGE 85

75 .47, p <.01). Finally, protg reports of career mentoring were related to protg perceptions of career success (b = .30, p <.05). To summarize, exploratory regression analyses suggested protg char acteristics, particularly learning goal orientation, were significantly related t o protg reports of mentoring received and outcomes attained. Protg reports of mentoring received we re also related to several protg outcomes. Accordingly, three sets of relationshi ps met the first three conditions for mediation analyses. Specifically, protg report s of psychosocial mentoring received was examined as a mediating mechanism for the relati onships between protg learning goal orientation and protg (1) mentorship learning, (2) personal learning, and (3) mentorship quality. To test for mediation, another regression equation was run. Control variables were entered at Step 1. In order to examine the independent mediating effects of psyc hosocial mentoring, protg career mentoring was treated as a control variable and also e ntered at Step 1. At Step 2, protg learning goal orientation was entered. Protg reports of psychosocial mentoring were entered at Step 3. The final regression steps of the mediation analyses are presented in Table 16. After controlling for protg repor ts of psychosocial mentoring received, the relationships between protg learning goal orientation and protg mentorship learning (b = .17, p <.05) and personal learning (b = .52, p <.01) were reduced, but still significant. Based on Baron and Kenny’s criteria, thes e findings provide support for partial mediation. Results of the Sobel test also indicate d a significant indirect effect for mentorship learning (z = 1.99, p <.05) and a marginally significant indirect effect for personal learning (z = 1.70, p =.08). After controlling for protg reports of psychosocial mentoring, the relationship between protg learni ng goal

PAGE 86

76 orientation and mentorship quality was not significant (b = .03, p < n.s.), providing support for full mediation. These results were also confirmed by the Sobel test (z = 2.07, p <.05). To summarize, findings indicated protgs with a higher learning goal orienta tion reported more psychosocial mentoring provided to them by their mentors, which positively related to protg reports of learning outcomes and perceptions of ment orship quality. Mentor Supplemental Analyses Similar relationships were also observed for mentors. As previously mentioned, mentor learning goal orientation was related to mentor reports of career (b = .25, p <.05) and psychosocial (b = .29, p <.05) mentoring. Mentor self-efficacy was also marginally related to mentor reports of career mentoring (b = .21, p =.07) (refer back to Table 9 for a review of the relationships). These findings provide support for the important role of mentor learning goal orientation and self-efficacy in the mentoring relat ionship. Mentor learning goal orientation and self-efficacy for development were also significantly related to several mentor outcomes. As displayed in Table 17, mentor s with a higher learning goal orientation reported greater levels of mentorship le arning (b = .35, p <.01), personal learning (b = .44, p <.01), and mentorship quality (b = .56, p <.01). Mentors with a high self-efficacy for development also reported greater perc eptions of career success (b = .28, p <.05). Thus, mentor personality does appear to make a difference with regard to individual learning and development outcomes. Finally, the relationships between mentor reports of mentoring provided to protgs and mentor outcomes was examined (Table 18). Regression results provide strong support that career and psychosocial mentoring predicted mentor personal lear ning

PAGE 87

77 (b = .29, p <.05; b = .45, p <.01), mentorship quality (b = .23, p <.05; b = .61, p <.01), and perceptions of career success (b = .34, p <.01; b = .24, p <.05). Additionally, mentor reports of psychosocial mentoring were also related to mentor reports of mentor ship learning (b = .44, p <.01). In summary, exploratory regression analyses suggested mentor learning g oal orientation and self-efficacy were significantly related to reports of me ntoring provided and outcomes attained. Mentor reports of mentoring provided were related to all but one mentor outcome (i.e., career mentoring predicting mentorship learning). Thus four sets of relationships met the first three conditions for mediation analyses. First, career mentoring as a mediator for the relationship between mentor self-efficacy and mentor career success was examined. Next, psychosocial mentoring was examined as a mediator for the relationship between mentor learning goal orientation and mentorship lea rning. Finally, career and psychosocial mentoring were examined as potential medi ators for the relationships between mentor learning goal orientation and mentor (1) personal lea rning and (2) mentorship quality. Mentor mediation analyses are presented in Tables 19, 20, and 21. First, career mentoring as a mediator for the relationship between mentor selfefficacy and mentor career success was examined (Table 19). In order to deter mine the independent effects of career mentoring, psychosocial mentoring was treated a s a control variable in the regression equation. Results indicated mentor reports of career mentoring partially mediated the relationship between mentor self-efficacy and ment or career success. After controlling for the relationship between career mentoring and career success, the relationship between mentor self-efficacy and mentor career s uccess was

PAGE 88

78 reduced, but still significant (b = .31, p <.01). Based upon Baron and Kenny’s criteria, these results provide support for partial mediation. Results of the Sobel test were marginally significant (z = 1.62, p =.10). Next, psychosocial mentoring as a mediator for the relationship between mentor learning goal orientation and mentor mentorship learning was assessed. Again, c areer mentoring was treated as a control variable and controlled for in Step 1. As display ed in Table 20, based on Baron and Kenny’s conditions, mentor reports of psychosocial mentoring fully mediated the relationship between mentor learning goal orie ntation and mentorship learning. After controlling for psychosocial mentoring, the relat ionship between mentor learning goal orientation and mentorship learning was no longer significant (b = .16, n.s ). The results of the Sobel test were marginally significant (z = 1.77, p =.07). And finally, mentor reports of career and psychosocial mentoring were both examined as mediators for the relationships between mentor learning goal ori entation and (1) mentor personal learning and (2) mentorship quality. As Table 21 indicates, caree r and psychosocial mentoring partially mediated the relationship for personal le arning. After controlling for career and psychosocial mentoring, the relationship bet ween mentor learning goal orientation and personal learning was reduced but still margina lly significant (b = .19, p =.08). Although these results provide evidence for partial mediation based on Baron and Kenny’s (1986) conditions, results of the Sobel test were not as supportive. Specifically, the indirect effect was marginally significa nt for mentor reports of psychosocial mentoring provided (z = 1.81, p =.07) but was not significant for mentor reports of career mentoring provided (z = 1.55, n.s.). For mentorship quality, support was

PAGE 89

79 found for the mediating role of mentor psychosocial mentoring. After controlling for mentoring provided, the relationship between mentor learning goal orientation and mentorship quality was reduced but still significant (b = .29, p <.01). Results of the Sobel test were also supportive of this indirect relationship (z = 2.02, p <.05). However, career mentoring was no longer significant in the final equation. These results were conf irmed by the Sobel test (z = 1.24, n.s.). Thus, support was found for partial mediation for mentor reports of psychosocial mentoring but not career mentoring. To summarize, mediation results provided support that mentor reports of mentoring provided explains, or at least partially explains, the relationships be tween select mentor characteristics and several mentor outcomes. Additionally, t he results provide evidence that psychosocial mentoring is more of a mediating factor than is c areer mentoring.

PAGE 90

80 Table 14 Multiple Regression Results for Protg Characteristics Predicting Pr otg Outcomes Predictor Variable Mentorship Learning b Personal Learning b Mentorship Quality b Career Success b Step 1 Protg Race .11 .10 .23* -.02 Protg Age -.16 .04 -.01 -.07 Mentor Age -.06 .05 -.05 -.00 Mentor Level -.06 .04 .12 -.09 Supervisor -.10 .04 .02 .05 Organization -.08 -.05 -.07 -.09 R 2 (.11) (.08) (.12) (.06) Step 2 Learning Goal .31** .65** .22 a .25* Locus of Control -.04 .06 .05 -.09 Self-Efficacy .13 -.03 .14 .29** R 2 (.13)** (.36)** (.07) a (.19)** R 2 total .24 .45 .19 .26 Adjusted R 2 .15 .38 .09 .17 Overall F 2.64** 6.77** 1.94 a 2.93** Note. *p<.05; **p<.01; a marginal p<.10; N = 93 Protgs b’s are standardized regression weights from the final equation R 2 subtotals may not sum to total R 2 due to rounding

PAGE 91

81 Table 15 Multiple Regression Results for Protg Mentoring Predicting Protg Outc omes Predictor Variable Mentorship Learning b Personal Learning b Mentorship Quality b Career Success b Step 1 Protg Race .09 .14 .19* .01 Protg Age -.17 a -.01 -.05 -.06 Mentor Age .05 .12 .09 .05 Mentor Level -.23** -.02 -.05 -.18 Supervisor -.09 .10 .01 .11 Organization .03 .02 .09 -.10 R 2 (.11) (.08) (.12) (.06) Step 2 Career .31** .11 .24* .30* Psychosocial .53** .47** .62** .11 R 2 (.49)** (.25)** (.52)** (.12)** R 2 total .60 .33 .64 .18 Adjusted R 2 .56 .26 .60 .10 Overall F 14.39** 4.77** 17.03** 2.14* Note. *p<.05; **p<.01; a marginal p<.10; N = 93 Protgs b’s are standardized regression weights from the final equation R 2 subtotals may not sum to total R 2 due to rounding

PAGE 92

82 Table 16 Multiple Regression Results for Protg Psychosocial Mentoring Mediation Predictor Variable Mentorship Learning b Personal Learning b Mentorship Quality b Step 2 Protg Race .10 .10 .22* Protg Age -.17 a .00 -.05 Mentor Age .05 .12 .08 Mentor Level -.21* -.02 -.03 Supervisor -.19* -.04 -.08 Organization -.11 -.07 -.10 Protg Career b .59** .29** .58** Protg Learning Goal .26** .58** .15 a R 2 (.06)** (.30)** (.02) a Step 3 Protg Race .07 .08 .18* Protg Age -.17 a .01 -.05 Mentor Age .06 .13 .09 Mentor Level -.23** -.03 -.05 Supervisor -.12 .00 .00 Organization .04 .03 .10 Protg Career b .32** .12 .24* Protg Learning Goal .17* .52** .03 Protg Psychosocial .48** .31** .61** R 2 (.12)* (.05)** (.19)** R 2 total .62 .56 .64 Adjusted R 2 .58 .51 .60 Overall F 14.02** 10.70** 15.00** Note. *p<.05; **p<.01; a marginal p<.10; b Control Variable entered at Step 1; N = 93 Protgs b’s are standardized regression weights from the final equation for Steps 2 and 3 only R 2 subtotals may not sum to total R 2 due to rounding

PAGE 93

83 Table 17 Multiple Regression Results for Mentor Characteristics Predicting Ment or Outcomes Predictor Variable Mentorship Learning b Personal Learning b Mentorship Quality b Career Success b Step 1 Protg Race -.05 -.04 .00 -.19 a Protg Age -.00 .04 -.11 -.15 Mentor Age -.24 a -.08 .11 .01 Mentor Level .14 .08 .18 a .19 a Supervisor .06 -.05 .05 .13 Organization -.10 -.15 -.15 -.011 R 2 (.10) (.05) (.11) (.16)* Step 2 Learning Goal .35** .44** .56** .17 Locus of Control .05 .03 -.01 -.17 Self-Efficacy .05 -.04 -.07 .28* R 2 (.11)* (.16)** (.26)** (.23)** R 2 total .22 .21 .37 .39 Adjusted R 2 .12 .11 .30 .31 Overall F 2.31* 2.17* 4.95** 5.28** Note. *p<.05; **p<.01; a marginal p<.10; N = 93 Mentors b’s are standardized regression weights from the final equation R 2 subtotals may not sum to total R 2 due to rounding

PAGE 94

84 Table 18 Multiple Regression Results for Mentor Mentoring Predicting Mentor Outcom es Predictor Variable Mentorship Learning b Personal Learning b Mentorship Quality b Career Success b Step 1 Protg Race -.02 -.02 .02 -.18 a Protg Age .09 .14 .01 -.15 Mentor Age -.28* -.09 .07 .01 Mentor Level .01 -.06 .03 .08 Supervisor -.02 -.15 -.02 .03 Organization .04 -.00 .03 -.03 R 2 (.10) (.05) (.11) (.16)* Step 2 Career .18 .29* .23* .34** Psychosocial .44** .45** .61** .24* R 2 (.23)** (.32)** (.44)** (.20)** R 2 total .33 .37 .54 .36 Adjusted R 2 .26 .30 .49 .29 Overall F 4.77** 5.54** 11.39** 5.27** Note. *p<.05; **p<.01; a marginal p<.10; N = 93 Mentors b’s are standardized regression weights from the final equation R 2 subtotals may not sum to total R 2 due to rounding

PAGE 95

85 Table 19 Multiple Regression Results for Mentor Career Mentoring Mediation Predictor Variable Career Success b Step 2 Protg Race -.20* Protg Age -.09 Mentor Age -.02 Mentor Level .15 Supervisor .18 a Organization -.05 Mentor Psychosocial b .32** Mentor Self-Efficacy .38** R 2 (.13)** Step 3 Protg Race -.20* Protg Age -.12 Mentor Age .02 Mentor Level .12 Supervisor .10 Organization -.06 Mentor Psychosocial b .23* Mentor Self-Efficacy .31** Mentor Career .22* R 2 (.03)* R 2 total .43 Adjusted R 2 .37 Overall F 6.45** Note. *p<.05; **p<.01; a marginal p<.10; b Control Variable entered at Step 1; N = 93 Mentors b’s are standardized regression weights from the final equation for Steps 2 and 3 only R 2 subtotals may not sum to total R 2 due to rounding

PAGE 96

86 Table 20 Multiple Regression Results for Mentor Psychosocial Mentoring Mediation Predictor Variable Mentorship Learning b Step 2 Protg Race -.05 Protg Age -.01 Mentor Age -.20 a Mentor Level .08 Supervisor -.05 Organization -.08 Mentor Career b .25* Mentor Learning Goal .25* R 2 (.05)* Step 3 Protg Race -.01 Protg Age .11 Mentor Age -.28* Mentor Level .02 Supervisor .01 Organization .01 Mentor Career b .13 Mentor Learning Goal .16 Mentor Psychosocial .39** R 2 (.09)** R 2 total .35 Adjusted R 2 .27 Overall F 4.56** Note. *p<.05; **p<.01; a marginal p<.10; b Control Variable entered at Step 1; N = 93 Mentors b’s are standardized regression weights from the final equation for Steps 2 and 3 only R 2 subtotals may not sum to total R 2 due to rounding

PAGE 97

87 Table 21 Multiple Regression Results for Mentor Career and Psychosocial Mentoring Me diation Predictor Variable Personal Learning b Mentorship Quality b Step 2 Protg Race -.04 -.01 Protg Age .05 -.11 Mentor Age -.07 .12 Mentor Level .08 .19 a Supervisor -.05 .06 Organization -.14 -.15 Mentor Learning Goal .41** .53** R 2 (.16)** (.26)** Step 3 Protg Race -.01 .04 Protg Age .15 .05 Mentor Age -.10 .06 Mentor Level -.05 .05 Supervisor -.11 .04 Organization -.03 -.02 Mentor Learning Goal .19 a .29** Mentor Career .23* .14 Mentor Psychosocial .40** .54** R 2 (.19)** (.24)** R 2 total .39 .61 Adjusted R 2 .32 .56 Overall F 5.41** 12.97** Note. *p<.05; **p<.01; a marginal p<.10; N = 93 Mentors b’s are standardized regression weights from the final equation for Steps 2 and 3 only R 2 subtotals may not sum to total R 2 due to rounding

PAGE 98

88 Chapter Six Discussion The purpose of the present study was to identify and examine the role of dispositional characteristics in effective mentoring relationships. Util izing a learning and development framework, three individual characteristics were identified: le arning goal orientation, locus of control, and self-efficacy for development. First, the relat ionship between these individual characteristics and mentoring provided was examined. Re sults provided limited evidence for the role of protg and mentor learning goal orientation and mentor self-efficacy in mentoring relationships. Second, the relationship betw een individual characteristics and partner developmental outcomes was investigated. Fi ndings were generally not supportive of these cross-over effects. Third, mentoring provide d as a mediator for the relationship between individual characteristics and partner outc omes was examined. Hypothesis testing provided no support for the idea that mentoring provided would explain the process by which individual characteristics related to partner outcomes. In addition to these study objectives, supplemental analyses explored the relationships between individual characteristics, mentoring provided, and self-r eports of developmental outcomes attained. The supplemental findings provided additional support for the role of learning goal orientation and self-efficacy in mentoring rel ationships, as well as the mediating influence of mentoring provided on individual characteristic s and

PAGE 99

89 self-reported outcomes. Specific key findings and study implications are di scussed further. Key Findings for the Role of Protg Learning Goal Orientation It was predicted that protgs with a learning and development orientation would actively participate in learning and developmental activities. Thus, protgs with a higher learning goal orientation were expected to report and receive more mentori ng provided to them compared to protgs with a lower learning goal orientation. As expected, prot gs with a higher learning goal orientation did report receiving more psychosocial s upport from their mentors. However, a significant relationship was not observed for protg reports of career mentoring received or mentor reports of mentoring provided. These findings indicated protg learning goal orientation differentially rela ted to mentor support. Perhaps protgs with a higher learning goal orientation perceived organizat ion exposure, attaining desirable positions, or working on challenging assignments as a function of his/her own merit. Rather than perceiving mentors as sources of caree r support, these protgs may have perceived their mentors more as role models, nurt urers, or friends. Alternatively, given that the majority of participants worked in governm ent organizations, mentors may have had fewer opportunities to provide career-relate d support since the advancement and promotion of protgs are often based upon other considerations such as tenure or seniority in the organization. The findings also sugge sted the importance of examining both perspectives of mentoring received (protg) and mentoring provided (mentor). Given the somewhat dynamic nature of mentoring relationships, these findings supported the notion that protgs and mentors perceived their roles and influence differently (Raabe & Beehr, 2003).

PAGE 100

90 Contrary to hypothesis, protg learning goal orientation was not significant ly related to mentor reports of mentorship learning, personal learning, mentorship qual ity, or perceptions of career success. Perhaps a protg with a learning and developm ent orientation may be a burden, rather than a blessing, for some mentors. For exampl e, Ragins and Scandura (1999) identified several “costs” associated with mentor e xperience. Specifically, their findings suggested some individuals perceived mentor exper ience as being too time consuming and an energy drain. It may be that protg learning goal orientation detracted, rather than enhanced some mentor perceptions of relationship effectiveness. On the other hand, supplemental findings indicated protgs with a higher learning goal orientation reported greater mentorship learning, personal le arning, mentorship quality, and perceptions of career success. These findings are support ive of the notion that individuals with a higher learning goal orientation thrive in mentoring relationships compared to individuals who report lower levels of learning goal orientation. Thus, protg learning goal orientation appeared to be a beneficial characteristic for one member of the mentorship. Support was also found for several mediating relationships. Supplemental analyses indicated protg reports of psychosocial mentoring partially media ted the relationship between protg learning goal orientation and protg (1) mentorshi p learning and (2) personal learning. Protg psychosocial mentoring also ful ly mediated the relationship between protg learning goal orientation and protg mentorshi p quality. These findings suggested psychosocial support explains, or at least parti ally

PAGE 101

91 explains, the process by which protg learning goal orientation related to prot g benefits. To summarize, several significant relationships with protg learning goa l orientation were revealed in the present study. These findings are general ly supportive of the notion that protgs with a learning and development orientation actively engage d in and directly benefited from participating in a mentoring relationship. Key Findings for the Role of Mentor Learning Goal Orientation Similar relationships were predicted for mentor learning goal orientat ion. As expected, mentors with a higher learning goal orientation reported providing more career and psychosocial support to their protgs compared to mentors with a lower learning goal orientation. Learning researchers suggest individuals with a learning goal orientation view challenge as an opportunity and are motivated to perform tasks well (Button et al ., 1996; Dweck, 1986). Thus, consistent with these findings, mentors with a higher learning goal orientation reported exerting more effort and involvement in the mentoring relationship. However, similar to relationships with protg learning goal ori entation, significant relationships were not found for partner reports of mentoring receive d. Results were not supportive of a relationship between mentor learning goal orientation and protg outcomes. Perhaps having a mentor with a higher learning goa l orientation is not always beneficial. For example, a mentor with a higher lea rning goal orientation may encourage protgs to consider multiple approaches to a challenge at work. If the protg is not receptive to this technique, this could result in protg frustration and lower reports of mentorship effectiveness.

PAGE 102

92 Similar to the pattern observed for protg learning goal orientation and protg outcomes, mentors with a higher learning goal orientation reported more mentorshi p learning, personal learning, and mentorship quality than mentors with a lower lear ning goal orientation. These findings are generally consistent with the notion that m entors who work hard and strive to increase their competence on a specified task, actively b enefited from engaging in a mentoring relationship. The supplemental analyses also provided support for several mediating relationships. More specifically, mentor reports of psychosocial mentoring fully mediated the relationship between mentor learning goal orientation and mentorship learning Additionally, mentor psychosocial mentoring partially mediated the relations hips between mentor learning goal orientation and mentor (1) personal learning and ( 2) mentorship quality. Taken together, these findings suggest psychosocial mentoring can explain, or partially explain, the relationship between mentor learning goal or ientation and mentor perceptions of relationship effectiveness. In sum, research examining the mentor perspective is limited. These findings contribute to the mentoring literature by identifying mentor learning goal orientation as an important dispositional characteristic related to involvement in the mentorshi p and benefits attained for the mentor. Key Findings for the Role of Protg Locus of Control It was predicted that individuals who believed they controlled the events and reinforcements in their lives would perceive participation in a mentoring relat ionship as an opportunity to take control over his/her own personal development. Contrary to prediction, protg locus of control was not significantly related to mentoring provi ded or

PAGE 103

93 developmental outcomes for mentors or protgs. These null findings add to the mixed research examining the role of protg locus of control (e.g., Aryee et al., 1999; Noe, 1988; Turban & Dougherty, 1994). One explanation for these findings is the context in which locus of control was examined. For example, Turban and Dougherty provided support for the relationship between protg locus of control and initiation of the mentoring relationship. Perhaps protg locus of control plays a more important role in proactive mentoring behaviors, such as mentorship initiation, frequency of interact ion, or input into the mentoring relationship rather than ongoing behaviors or receipt of developmental outcomes. Somewhat related, another explanation for the non-significant relationships ma y be related to range restriction. The mean for protg locus of control is som ewhat low (indicating internal locus of control), with minimal variability ( SD = .33). The low standard deviation indicated protgs tended to respond similarly across items, wi th little variation from the mean. Although this may be a function of self-report data, an alte rnate explanation may be that the protgs in the current study tended to have an internal loc us of control. Thus, by including only individuals who were protgs, I could have potentially restricted the variance associated with locus of control such that I only included individuals who recognized the importance of taking part in mentoring relationships and having some degree of control over their own personal career development. Key Findings for the Role of Mentor Locus of Control There was also no support for the relationships between mentor locus of control, mentoring provided, and protg/mentor outcomes. From a mentor perspective, perhaps

PAGE 104

94 mentors with an internal locus of control do not actively engage in mentoring relationships compared to mentors with a more external locus of control. For example, a mentor who believes he/she is responsible for his/her own good fortune might believe i t is up to the protg, not the mentor, to provide their own opportunities for career exposure and advancement. In turn, these protgs may experience mixed feelings o f mentoring effectiveness. An alternative explanation for these findings is again related to measure va riance. Although more variance was observed for mentor locus of control ( SD = .40) than protg locus of control, it is plausible that mentors generally had an internal locus of control compared to an external locus of control for non-mentors. Thus, a significant relationship was not observed due to range restriction within the study variable. Key Findings for the Role of Protg Self-Efficacy for Development It was predicted that protgs with a higher self-efficacy for development would actively participate in mentoring relationships. More specifically, it was posited that protgs who believed they were capable of learning at or above the average pers on would be more involved in the mentoring relationship, and subsequently, contribute to greater mentor outcomes. Contrary to prediction, protg self-efficacy wa s not related to protg or mentor reports of career and psychosocial mentoring. Most surprising wa s the non-significant relationship between self-efficacy and career mentoring. P erhaps protgs who rated themselves higher on self-efficacy did not need to utilize mentor support as much as other protgs. These protgs might perceive themselves as capable of excelling at developmental activities regardless of mentoring involvement.

PAGE 105

95 Contrary to expectations, protg self-efficacy for development was not significantly related to mentor reports of mentorship learning, personal lea rning, mentorship quality, or perceptions of career success. These findings might sugges t a mentor paired with a high self-efficacy protg does not reap rewards or benefit f rom a competent and capable protg. Instead, the mentor might perceive the protg’s suc cess as his/her own doing, rather than a result of receiving mentorship support. Supplemental findings did provide support for a relationship between protg self-efficacy and protg perceptions of career success. Consistent wi th Day and Allen (2004), protgs who rated themselves as more competent and capable reported greater perceptions of career success compared to protgs who rated themselves as le ss competent. Key Findings for the Role of Mentor Self-Efficacy for Development Interesting patterns of relationships were observed for mentor self-effi cacy for development. It was expected that mentor self-efficacy would be positively related to protg and mentor reports of mentoring provided. As predicted, the results indicate d a positive relationship between mentor self-efficacy and mentor reports of car eer mentoring. These findings support the notion that competent and capable mentors provide more career guidance to protgs than less competent mentors. Surprisingly, a n egative relationship was observed for protg reports of career mentoring. As previous ly mentioned, these results should be interpreted cautiously. However, these findi ngs do provide some evidence that mentors with a high self-efficacy for development provide less career mentoring to their protgs compared to mentors with a lower sel f-efficacy.

PAGE 106

96 Mentor self-efficacy was negatively related to protg reports of mentors hip quality. Although the relationships were not significant for the other protg outcom es, the negative pattern was consistent. These findings suggest protgs who have a ment or with a higher self-efficacy for development will receive fewer benefit s than protgs do with a mentor who has a lower self-efficacy. Perhaps there is some degree of intimidation for protgs such that protgs do not perceive relationships with successful and competent mentors as rewarding as relationships with mentors who are perceive d as “more human” and capable of making mistakes. Moreover, perhaps high self-effica cy mentors have a harder time relating to the struggle and insecurity more junior employees sometimes face. Finally, results provided marginal support for mentor reports of career ment oring partially mediating the relationship between mentor self-efficacy and me ntor perceptions of career success. Consistent with hypotheses, mentors with a high self-effi cacy reported providing more career-related support to their protgs, which contributed to greater mentor perceptions of career success. Key Findings for Career and Psychosocial Mentoring Several key findings emerged for protg and mentor reports of mentoring provided. In general, the results highlighted the importance of including both protg a nd mentor reports of the mentoring experience. As previously mentioned, protg reports of mentoring received and mentor reports of mentoring provided were only moderately correlated. In addition, there were notable differences in results depending on t he source of mentoring provided. However, consistent with previous research, there was great er agreement for protg and mentor reports of psychosocial mentoring compared to repor ts

PAGE 107

97 of career mentoring (Raabe & Beehr, 2003). Taken together, these findings emphasiz e the importance of including both protg and mentor perspectives in mentoring research in order to gain a broader understanding of mentoring relationships. Although direct effects for mentoring provided and relationship effectiveness were not proposed, the present study revealed several noteworthy relationships. Pr otg reports of mentoring received were significantly related to several prot g outcomes. Supplemental findings indicated protgs receiving more career and psychosoci al mentoring reported greater mentorship learning and quality. Reports of psychosocia l mentoring were also positively related to protg personal learning. In additi on, protgs receiving more career mentoring reported higher perceptions of career suc cess compared to protgs receiving less career-related support. These findings add to resea rch examining protg benefits, suggesting protgs receive learning and deve lopment outcomes from active engagement in mentoring relationships. Mentor reports of mentoring provided were also related to several mentor outcomes. In particular, c areer and psychosocial mentoring were positively related to mentor reports of personal learning, mentorship quality, and perceptions of career success. Providing more psychosocial mentoring was also positively related to mentor mentorship lear ning. These findings add to the limited empirical research examining benefits of mentoring for mentors. Finally, zero-order correlations provided evidence for a direct relati onship between mentoring provided and partner outcomes. Specifically, protg reports of career and psychosocial mentoring were positively related to mentor perceptions of mentorshi p quality. Protg psychosocial mentoring was also positively related to ment or mentorship learning and personal learning. Similar relationships were observed for mentor r eports of

PAGE 108

98 psychosocial mentoring provided and protg outcomes. Protgs indicated greater mentorship learning, personal learning, and mentorship quality from relationships with mentors who reported providing more psychosocial mentoring. These findings are consistent with the learning and development framework, indicating both protgs and mentors benefited from mentoring partners who actively engaged and participa ted in developmental relationships. Finally, results emphasized the importance of examining the dimensionality of mentoring provided. In particular, results suggested psychosocial and career ment oring were differentially related to study variables. In the present study, psy chosocial mentoring tended to be more strongly related to study variables than career m entoring. With regard to indirect effects, psychosocial mentoring, rather than career mentoring, generally explained the underlying process of how individual characteristi cs related to mentoring outcomes. Again, these findings may be related to the study sample. Per haps organizational constraints inherent in government organizations restrict the a mount of career-related support a mentor can provide to a protg. Although protgs and mentors may agree that mentors provide high levels of career-related support, this suppor t may be limited with regard to the direct advancement and promotion of the protg. Given the se constraints, the present study suggests mentors may focus more on the interpers onal aspects of the mentoring relationship. More specifically, mentoring rela tionships in these types of organizations may thrive from psychosocial support that focuses more on t he personal aspects of protg identity and competence rather than protg advanc ement. In sum, these findings highlight the importance of examining the dimensions of mentor

PAGE 109

99 support in order to better understand the dynamics and processes of mentoring relationships. Theoretical and Practical Implications The results revealed several important theoretical and practical implic ations for mentoring research. Protg and mentor learning goal orientation, and to some extent self-efficacy for development, were significantly related to mentori ng provided and selfreported outcomes. These findings suggest individuals who possess these characteris tics are likely to actively engage in and benefit from developmental mentoring re lationships. Accordingly, organizations may benefit from recruiting or selecting junior e mployees with these characteristics to participate in formal mentoring programs ( Wanberg et al., 2003). For example, individuals with a higher learning goal orientation are likely t o receive more mentor support and learning benefits. Conversely, it would be helpful f or organizations to identify junior employees with lower levels of learning goa l orientation who may need additional assistance or support in order to reap the same benefits as t heir higher learning goal counterparts. These findings have important implicati ons for the mentor perspective as well. Specifically, organizations may benefit from selecting or training mentors to embrace developmental learning opportunities and to perceive challenges as an opportunity to improve one’s own competence and learning (Wanberg et al., 2003). Another important implication concerns mentor benefits. To date, the majority of mentoring research has focused on mentoring benefits for the protg (Allen et al ., 2004; Wanberg et al., 2003). However, results from the present study are consistent wit h emerging research that suggests mentors benefit from the mentoring rela tionship as well

PAGE 110

100 (e.g., Allen et al., 2006; Lentz & Allen, in press). Given these benefits, organizat ions will likely continue to promote and benefit from strategies that endorse mentoring relationships in the workplace. The present study also emphasized the different mentoring capacities of me ntor support. For example, results of the present study highlighted the influential role of psychosocial mentoring among mentoring participants. Whether these findings ar e attributed to differential relationships within the learning and development fra mework or organizational constraints, it is important for researchers and organizations a like to recognize the unique benefits associated with each type of support under specifi ed conditions. Important Directions for Future Research With regard to cross-over effects, the results of the present study were som ewhat disappointing. Although results indicated both protgs and mentors were co-learner s and recipients of developmental outcomes, hypothesis testing was not supportive of cr ossover effects. One explanation for these findings may involve the over-simplific ation of the exchange process in the current study. Additional research that examines the deeperlevel processes and mechanisms which influence the mutual learning exchange relationship is needed in order to better understand the relationships between individua l characteristics, mentoring provided, and perceptions of relationship effectivene ss. To begin with, examining direct effects between individual characterist ics and mentoring provided may not fully capture the learning exchange process. One prom ising direction involves the inclusion of personal motives in the learning exchange process. Lankau and Scandura (2002) suggested both dispositional characteristics and personal

PAGE 111

101 motivation may enhance or impede an individual’s learning process. Further, Noe and Wilk (1993) provided evidence that motivation to learn was directly related to an individual’s participation in developmental activities. More specifically, All en (2003) demonstrated the important role of personal motives in mentoring relationships. Her findings indicated motives for engaging in a mentoring relationship were direc tly related to the types of mentoring provided. Future research should explore the role of both protg and mentor motives in the learning exchange process by examining how dif ferent motives, such as an individual’s motivation to learn, might influence the relationship between dispositional characteristics and mentoring provided. It might be interesting to examine additional learning attitudes, such as prot g and mentor willingness to engage or learn in the exchange process. Young and Perrew e (2000a) emphasized the importance of considering the degree that an individual wants to participate in or continue a relationship with a mentoring partner. The authors posite d that willingness to engage is likely related to a number of factors including disposi tional characteristics and an individual’s needs. Although some level of willingness to e ngage would be expected of traditional relationships, perhaps protg and mentor willingnes s to engage influences the relationship between an individual’s learning and development orientation and mentoring provided. Further, Allen (2004) suggested a protg’s willingness to learn was a critical component of protg selection by mentor s. Specifically, results suggested mentors were more receptive to protgs w ho possessed a willingness to learn. Future research is clearly needed to determine if prot g and mentor learning orientations relate to willingness to engage and learn, and the impact t his may have on provisions of mentoring functions.

PAGE 112

102 Further research should also examine how organizational factors might relat e to the learning exchange. In particular, Kram (1985) emphasized the need for orga nizations to maintain a structure and climate conducive to mentoring relationships. With rega rd to the mentoring learning exchange, the extent that organizations encourage developme ntal relationships and mentorships seems especially important. Young and Perrewe (2000a ) proposed three environmental factors likely related to the mentoring exchange: opportunities for mentoring, reward structure, and organizational climate. These fa ctors appear promising for future research examining the mutual learning exchange between protgs and mentors. Specifically, organizations may differ drastically b y the types of learning and development activities offered. For example, organic, rather than mechanistic, organizations are typically characterized by management s tyles that are more flexible, adaptable, and have a free flow of information and communication (Khandwalla, 1976). Given the less formal structure and management style, organi c organizations might offer more opportunities for employees to interact, develop and learn, and engage in mentoring opportunities. The reward structure is also like ly related to the learning process, suggesting the extent to which organizations support and encourage mentoring relationships is likely related to active involvement and enga gement in workplace mentorships and subsequent benefits accrued (Maurer& Tarulli, 1994; Young & Perrewe, 2000a). Finally, organization climate and trends, such as downsizing, may be an important determinate of an individual’s willingness to participate in a mentoring relationship (Young & Perrewe, 2000a). Thus, it is important to recognize t hat mentoring relationships do not occur in isolation. Thus, future research is needed to

PAGE 113

103 determine the impact differing organization styles and climates might ha ve on the mentoring exchange process. Future studies should also examine processes linked to perceptions of relationship effectiveness. One promising direction involves identifying additional underlyin g mechanisms influencing the relationship between mentoring provided and partner outcomes. Although results generally supported the notion that mentoring provided related to both self and partner reports of developmental and learning outcomes, futur e research that more clearly identifies integral variables involved in the le arning exchange would offer a significant contribution to the mentoring research. One potential var iable that has gained recent attention is met expectations of mentoring behaviors. Young and Perrewe (2000a, 2000b) emphasized the importance of examining met expectations, suggesting met expectations are the core of the mentoring exchange process Accordingly, it is not only important to examine the provisions of mentoring functions provided and received, but also the extent to which mentoring partners perceive the amount of mentoring support was sufficient. Young and Perrewe (2000b) provided evidence for the influence of met expectations. Specifically, their result s suggested a mentor’s perception of relationship effectiveness was positively influenced by mentor met expectations of sufficient protg effort and involvement. Conversely, a prot g’s met expectation mediated the relationship between mentor support and protg reports of exchange quality. Accordingly, examining the influence of met expectations wi th regard to mentoring provided and learning outcomes would offer a richer explanation of relationship benefits.

PAGE 114

104 Study Strengths and Limitations The present study has several strengths that are not commonly found within the mentoring research. Specifically, dispositional characteristics were s elected based upon their theoretical link to a learning and development framework. This select ion and identification allowed for more interpretable conclusions regarding the nature of the study relationships. Moreover, as the mentoring research begins to proliferat e, it is important that we do not lose sight of a theoretical foundation to inform the mentoring construct. Additionally, several strategies were used to improve the research de sign. More specifically, an established definition of a mentoring relationship was provi ded to participants at the onset of the study. Participants from formal mentoring prog rams were also excluded from the study. These strategies are important given that tradi tional mentoring relationships are distinguishable from relationships with supervisors or organization leaders, as well as from relationships established in formal ment oring programs. Finally, the present study included responses from protgs and mentors. Not only does this contribute to the limited research focused on the mentor perspective the present study used both protg and mentor perspectives to inform the relationship between individual characteristics and mentoring effectiveness. There are also several limitations that should be noted. Typical of most mentori ng studies, data were collected using a cross-sectional survey design. As a res ult, causal inferences cannot be made regarding the relationships between the study varia bles. Although strategies were included to improve internal validity (e.g., the item st em, “Because of my mentoring relationship”, was included when participants responded to outcome measures), the design does not allow for cause and effect inferences Future

PAGE 115

105 research incorporating longitudinal or experimental designs is needed in order t o rule out alternative explanations for the observed relationships. Although responses were obtai ned from protgs and mentors, data were based on self-reports. A concern with self -report data is common method variance. Although different patterns of relationships within and across protg and mentor responses were observed, this concern should not be discounted. Additional limitations involve the study sample. The present study include d participants who had or were actively engaged in mentoring relationships, which m ay have restricted the range of several study variables. Future research is needed to examine if the learning and development characteristics differentiate betwee n individuals with and without mentoring experience. Given that the majority of participants worked in t he government sector, future research should also attempt to generalize the fin dings to other occupations and perhaps less mechanistic organizations. Finally, the sample size limits statistical power. Although the study sample was large enough to detect medium e ffect sizes, a much larger sample size is needed in order to achieve adequate power to det ect smaller effect sizes (Cohen, 1992). Conclusion The present study identified and examined the role of dispositional characterist ics in traditional mentoring relationships. To date, minimal research has explored t he role of individual characteristics beyond demographic variables. Using a learning and development framework, the study examined the relationships between protg/mentor learning goal orientation, locus of control, and self-efficacy for development and indicators of mentoring relationship effectiveness. Findings were generall y supportive of the role of learning goal orientation and self-efficacy for development in m entoring

PAGE 116

106 relationships and provided unique insight into how these antecedents influence the exchange between protgs and mentors. In order to expand our understanding of the learning exchange process, future research needs to delve deeper to better unde rstand the processes and mechanisms in which individual characteristics relate to ment oring provided and partner developmental outcomes. Overall, the present study makes an important contribution to the mentoring research by shedding some light on the role of protg and mentor learning and development orientation in the involvement and participation in mentoring relationships.

PAGE 117

107 References Allen, T.D. (2003). Mentoring others: A dispositional and motivational approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 134-154. Allen, T.D. (2004). Protg selection by mentors: Contributing individual and organizational factors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65 469-483. Allen, T.D., & Eby, L.T. (2003). Relationship effectiveness for mentors: Factors associated with learning and quality. Journal of Management, 29, 469-486. Allen, T.D., & Eby, L.T. (2004). Factors related to mentor reports of mentoring func tions provided: Gender and relational characteristics. Sex Roles, 50 129-139. Allen, T.D., Eby, L.T., Poteet, M.L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring for protgs: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 127-136. Allen, T.D., Lentz, E., Day, R. (2006). Career success outcomes associated with mentoring others: A comparison of mentors and nonmentors. Journal of Career Development, 32 272-285. Allen, T.D., & Poteet, M.L. (1999). Developing effective mentoring relationships : Strategies from the mentor’s viewpoint. The Career Development Quarterly, 48 59-73. Allen, T.D., Poteet, M.L., & Burroughs, S.M. (1997). The mentor’s perspective: A qualitative inquiry and future research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 70-89. Allen, T.D., Poteet, M.L., & Russell, J.E.A. (2000). Protg selection by mentors: what makes the difference? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 271-282. Allen, T.D., Poteet, M.L., Russell, J.E.A., & Dobbins, G.H. (1997). A field study of factors related to supervisors’ willingness to mentor others. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50 1-22. Aryee, S., Lo, S., & Kang, I-L. (1999). Antecedents of early career stage mentor ing among Chinese employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20 563-576.

PAGE 118

108 Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147. Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical cons iderations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Bozionelos, N. (2004). Mentoring provided: Relation to mentor’s career success, personality, and mentoring received. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64 24-46. Burke, R.J., & McKeen, C.A. (1997). Benefits of mentoring relationships among managerial and professional women: A cautionary tale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51 43-57. Button, S.B., Mathieu, J.E., & Zajac, D.M. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational research: A conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 26-48. 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. Cohen, J. (1992). Quantitative methods in psychology: A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112 155-159. Day, R., & Allen, T.D. (2004). The relationship between career motivation and selfefficacy with protg career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 72-91. Dougherty, T.W., Turban, D.B., & Haggard, D.L. (in press). Naturally occurring mentoring relationships involving workplace employees. In T. D. Allen & L. T. Eby (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach. London: Blackwell. Dreher, G.F., & Cox, Jr., T.H. (1996). Race, gender and opportunity: A study of compensation attainment and the establishment of mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 297-308. Dweck, C.S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.

PAGE 119

109 Eby, L.T., & Lockwood, A. (2005). Protgs’ and mentors’ reactions to participating in formal mentoring programs: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 441-458. Eby, L.T., McManus, S.E., Simon, S.A., & Russell, J.E.A. (2000). The protg’s perspective regarding negative mentoring experiences: The development of a taxonomy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57, 1-21. Fagenson-Eland, E.A., Marks, M.A., & Amendola, K.L. (1997). Perceptions of mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51 29-42. Godshalk, V.M., & Sosik, J.J. (2003). Aiming for career success: The role of learnin g goal orientation in mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 417-437. Hunt, D.M., & Michael, C. (1983). Mentorship: A career training and development tool. Academy of Management Review, 8, 475-485. Kenny, D.A. (2006). Mediation. Retrieved June 1, 2006, from http://davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm Khandwalla, P.N. (1976). Some top management styles, their context and performance. Organization and administrative sciences, 7, 21-51. Koberg, C.S., Boss, R.W., & Goodman, E. (1998). Factors and outcomes associated with mentoring among health-care professionals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 58-72. Kossek, E.E., Roberts, K., Fisher, S., & Demarr, B. (1998). Career self-managment: A quasi-experimental assessment of the effects of a training intervention. Personnel Psychology, 51 935-962. Kram, K.E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 608-625. Kram, K.E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company. Kram, K.E., & Hall, D.T. (1996). Mentoring in a context of diversity and turbulence. In E. Kossek & S. Lobel (Eds.), Managing diversity: Human resource strategies for transforming the workplace. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Lankau, M.J., & Scandura, T.A. (2002). An investigation of personal learning in mentoring relationships: Content, antecedents, and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 45 779-790.

PAGE 120

110 Lentz, E., & Allen, T.D. (in press). The role of mentoring others in the career plate auing phenomenon. Group and Organization Management MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., Hoffman, J.M., West, S.G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104. Maurer, T.J. (2002). Employee learning and development orientation: Toward an integrative model of involvement in continuous learning. Human Resource Development Review, 1, 9-44. Maurer, T.J., & Tarulli, B.A. (1994). Investigation of perceived environment, perceived outcome, and person variables in relationship to voluntary development activity by employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 3-14. Maurer, T.J., Weiss, E.M., & Barbeite, F.G. (2003). A model of involvement in workrelated learning and development activity: The effects of individual, situationa l, motivational, and age variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 707-724. McManus, S.E., & Russell, J.E.A. (1997). New directions for mentoring research: An examination of related constructs. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 145-161. Mullen, E.J. (1994). Framing the mentoring relationship as an information exchange. Human Resource Management Review, 4, 257-281. Mullen, E.J., & Noe, R.A. (1999). The mentoring information exchange: When do mentors seek information from their protgs? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20 233-242. Noe, R.A. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. Personnel Psychology, 41, 457-479. Noe, R.A., Greenberger, D.B., & Wang, S. (2002). Mentoring: What we know and where we might go. In G.R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management Oxford, England: Elsevier Science LTD. Noe, R.A., & Wilk, S.L. (1993). Investigation of the factors that influence employee s’ participation in development activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 291302. Olian, J.D., Carroll, S.J., Giannantonio, C.M. (1993). Mentor reactions to protgs: An experiment with managers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43 266-278.

PAGE 121

111 Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirec t effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717-731. Preacher, K.J., & Leonardelli, G.J. (2006). Calculation for the Sobel Test: An intera ctive calculation tool for mediation tests. Retrieved March 1, 2007, from University of Kansas Web site: http://www.psych.ku.edu/preacher/sobel/sobel.htm Raabe, B., & Beehr, T.A. (2003). Formal mentoring versus supervisor and coworker relationships: differences in perception and impact. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 271-293. Ragins, B.R. (1989). Barriers to mentoring: The female manager’s dilemma. Human Relations, 42, 1-22. Ragins, B.R. (1997). Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations: A power perspective. Academy of Management Review, 22 482-521. Ragin, B.R., & Cotton, J.L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 529-550. Ragins, B.R., & McFarlin, D.B. (1990). Perceptions of mentor roles in cross-gender mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 321-339. 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. Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external contr ol of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80 (1, Whole No. 609). Spector, P.E. (1982). Behavior in organizations as a function of employee’s locus of control. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 482-497. Spector, P.E. (1996). Industrial and organizational psychology: Research and practice. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Thibaut, J.W., & Kelley, H.H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley. Turban, D.B., & Dougherty, T.W. (1994). Role of protg personality in receipt of mentoring and career success. Academy of Management Journal, 37 688-702.

PAGE 122

112 Underhill, C.M. (2006). The effectiveness of mentoring programs in corporate sett ings: A meta-analytical review of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68 292307 Wanberg, C.R., Welsh, E.T., & Hezlett, S.A. (2003). Mentoring research: A review and dynamic process model. In G.R. Ferris & J.J. Martocchio (Eds.). Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 22 (pp. 39-124). Greenwich, CT: Elsevier Science/Jai Press. Young, A.M., & Perrewe, P.L. (2000a). The exchange relationship between mentors and protgs: The development of a framework. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 177-209. Young, A.M., & Perrewe, P.L. (2000b). What did you expect? An examination of careerrelated support and social support among mentors and protgs. Journal of Management, 26, 611-632.

PAGE 123

113 Appendices

PAGE 124

114 Appendix A: Protg Information Email Dear Employees – You are receiving this email because I would like to ask for your participa tion in my dissertation research study. I am a student at the University of South Florida trying to complet e my final research requirements to obtain my Ph.D. My dissertation study focuses on tradi tional mentoring relationships in the workplace. Specifically, I am examining important r elationships between individual characteristics, mentoring behaviors, and work-related attit udes across a variety of organizational environments. Over the next few weeks, I hope to collect data on a pproximately one hundred and fifty protg-mentor pairs. In order to do this, I need your help! The online survey will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. Your response s will NOT be shared with anyone (i.e., coworkers, mentors, management) except the resear ch team at USF. To participate, you must have had (or currently have) a mentor during the course of your career as defined below: A mentor is generally defined as a higher ranking, influential indiv idual in your work environment who has advanced experience and knowledge and is co mmitted to providing upward mobility and support to your career. A mentor may or m ay not be in your organization and he/she may or may not be your immediate supervis or. During the course of your career, have you had a mentor? If you answered “ Yes ” to the above question and ARE willing to participate in my dissertation study, the following link will direct you to the protg survey : http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=551692445998 If you answered “ Yes ” to the above question but are NOT willing to participate in my dissertation study, please select the following link: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=496222445931 If you answered “ No ” to the above question, please select the following link: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=961512445875 I have attached a Frequently Asked Questions document to address additional information and questions you may have regarding the study. If you have any further questions regarding th e methodology or purpose of the study, feel free to contact me. Thank you in advance for your time and participation! Even if you do not have a w orkplace mentor, you can help me by forwarding this email to your colleagues and fr iends as appropriate. Elizabeth Lentz, M.A. University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Ave., PCD 4118G Tampa, FL 33620 emlentz@mail.usf.edu

PAGE 125

115 Appendix B: Protg Reminder Email Dear Employees Last week, I contacted you regarding my dissertation study. Thank you to those of you who have already completed the online survey. For those of you who have not, I would like to finis h collecting data within the next two weeks. You may recall, the study focuses on examining traditional mentoring relationships in the workplace and will take approxi mately 20 minutes of your time. To participate, you must have had (or currently have) a mentor during the course of your career as defined below: A mentor is generally defined as a higher ranking, influential indiv idual in your work environment who has advanced experience and knowledge and is co mmitted to providing upward mobility and support to your career. A mentor may or may n ot be in your organization and he/she may or may not be your immediate supervis or. During the course of your career, have you had a mentor? If you answered “ Yes ” to the above question and ARE willing to participate in my dissertation study, the following link will direct you to the protg survey : http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=551692445998 If you answered “ Yes ” to the above question but are NOT willing to participate in my dissertation study, please select the following link: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=496222445931 If you answered “ No ” to the above question, please select the following link: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=961512445875 Again, I have attached a Frequently Asked Questions document to address addit ional information and questions you may have regarding the study. If you have any further questions regar ding the methodology or purpose of the study, feel free to contact me. Thank you again for your time and participation! Remember, you can help me by forwarding this email to your colleagues and friends as appropriate. Elizabeth Lentz, M.A. University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Ave., PCD 4118G Tampa, FL 33620 emlentz@mail.usf.edu

PAGE 126

116 Appendix C: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Document Frequently Asked Questions and Answers Q. Who will see my responses? A. No employees or members of management from your organization will have access to a ny of your responses Only the research team at the University of South Florida will have acces s to individual responses. All survey results will be reported at the group le vel. Q. Why do you need information from my mentoring partner? A. Mentoring relationships can best be conceptualized as exchange relationsh ips. In order for us to have a better understanding of the dynamics and processes underlying mentori ng relationships, it is important for us obtain feedback from BOTH the prot g and mentor. Q. How long will the survey take to complete? A. The survey itself will take approximately 20 minutes to complete and ca n be completed online at your leisure. Q. Why should I participate? A. Although you will not be directly benefiting from participating in this study ( i.e., you will not be paid for participating in this study), your participation will be contributing t o research that helps enhance our understanding of individual and relationship characteristic s of workplace mentoring relationships. It is very important that we receive partici pation from both protgs and mentors to ensure that we have the most accurate results. There are no known risks as a result of participating in this study. Q. What will you do with the results? A. The results will be analyzed to look at important relationships between individual characteristics, mentoring behaviors, and work-related attitudes as par t of my dissertation research. The results will be reported at the group level, not the indiv idual level. Appropriate contact information will be provided upon conclusion of the study if you would like t o view the results as well. nr

PAGE 127

117 Appendix C (Continued) Q. Do I have to participate? A. Your decision to participate in this research study is completely volunta ry. You are free to participate or withdraw at any time. There will be no penalty if y ou choose not to participate. Q. Is the online survey secure? A. Although the server the survey is hosted on is secure, there are always d angers associated with using the internet and intranet. Although unlikely, it is possible tha t 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 Univ ersity of South Florida at emlentz@mail.usf.edu to obtain a paper and pencil version of the survey. Q. Does anyone else have permission to access my data? A. Authorized research personnel, employees of the Department of Health and Hum an Services, and the USF Institutional Review Board and its staff, and any other individuals acting on behalf of USF, may inspect the records from this research. Q. If I have any additional questions, who should I contact? A. If you have any questions about this research study, or in the event of a Rese arch relatedharm, contact Elizabeth Lentz from the University of South Florida at emle ntz@mail.usf.edu If you have questions about your rights as a person who is taking part in a rese arch study, you may contact the Division of Research Integrity and Compliance of the Unive rsity of South Florida at (813) 974-5638.

PAGE 128

118 Appendix D: Protg Online Survey Mentoring Relationship Survey – Protg Survey General Instructions The items in this questionnaire are designed to examine important relationshi ps between individual characteristics, mentoring behaviors, and work-related attitudes among protgs in traditional mentoring relationships. 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 wi ll be identified. Before you begin… The survey will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. In order to gain a better understanding of the mentoring relationship, we are asking both members of the relationship to participant. You have indicated experience as a protg. As part of the survey, you will be asked to provide an email address for your mentor so I may send them a copy of the mentor survey. Additionally, you will be asked to create a unique code so that I can identify protg-mentor pairs in data analysis. Should you experience any difficulties with the survey, have questions about this project or survey, or would prefer a paper copy of the survey, please contact Elizabeth Lentz at emlentz@mail.usf.edu Thank you in advance for your participation!

PAGE 129

119 Appendix D (Continued) Section 1: Identifying Protg-Mentor Pairs Please begin by creating a unique code, consisting of at least 6 letters, numbers or a combination of both. This code will be provided to your mentor and will be used to identify protg-mentor pairs. No other identifying information will be used to identify pairs *1. Please type your unique code in the space provided (the code should be at le ast 6 letters, numbers, or a combination of both): _______________________________ You indicated you have or have had a mentor throughout the course of your career. If you have more than one mentor, please focus this set of responses on your relationship with ONE mentor in particular. In order to gain a better understanding of different mentori ng relationships across a variety of organizational environments, I would like t o ask your mentor to participate in my dissertation study as well. In the space provide d, please provide a current email address for your mentor so that I may send him/her a mentor survey to complete. *2. Mentor email address (type in space provided): ___________________________ An email will be automatically sent to the address provided above that will reque st participation and will direct the mentor to an online mentor survey. Because of the prevalence of email spam, please enter your name so that your mentor will be able to recognize the email and who has identified him/her as their mentor. This will be provided to your mentor in the subject line of the email. Your name will not be used for any other identifying purposes. *3. YOUR name that the mentor will recognize (type in your first and last nam e in the space provided): __________________________________________________ If possible, please let your mentor know that he/she will be sent an email request ing participation in my dissertation study. The subject line will contain the follow ing information “[Your first name/last name] has identified you as his/her mentor. Please participate in a Mentoring Relationship Survey being conducted at the University of South Florida.” Additionally, in the text of the email, I will provide the mentor with t he unique code you created above. Please ask your mentor to participate because I ne ed responses from BOTH the protg and mentor perspectives. However, please do not discuss the survey questions before both of you have completed the survey.

PAGE 130

120 Appendix D (Continued) Section 2: Mentoring Experience Part A: Please respond to the following questions regarding your experience in the mentoring relationship. If you have had more than one mentor, please respond based upon the relationship with the mentor you identified in the previous section. 1. In order to assist individuals in their career development and advancement, some organizations have established a “formal mentoring program”, where protgs a nd mentors are linked in some way. This may be accomplished by assigning mentors or by just providing formal opportunities aimed at developing a relationship. So, formal relationships are developed with outside assistance, while informal mentoring relationships are developed spontaneously, without outside assistance. Was your mentorship (select one): Informal (spontaneously developed, WITHOUT outside assistance) Formal (based on formal assignment, WITH outside assistance) 2. Approximate date mentoring relationship began (type month/year in space provided): Month (e.g., October) __________ Year (e.g., 2005) __________ 3. Approximate date mentoring relationship ended (type month/year in space provided): Month (e.g., July) __________ Year (e.g., 2006) __________ Still Ongoing __________ 4. At the time of the mentoring relationship, at what organizational level was your mentor in comparison to yourself (select one): Three or more levels above you Two levels above you One level above you At the same level as you 5. At the time of the mentoring relationship, was your mentor your direct supervisor (select one): No Yes 6. At the time of the mentoring relationship, was your mentor in the same organizat ion as you (select one): No Yes

PAGE 131

121 Appendix D (Continued) 7. On average, how many hours per month do/did you interact with your mentor (type average number of hours in space provided): __________ 8. Your Mentor’s Gender (select one): Male Female 9. Your Mentor’s Race (select one): Caucasian/White African-American Hispanic Asian Native American Other Part B: Indicate the extent you agree with each of the following statements regarding your mentoring relationship. If you have engaged in multiple mentoring relationships, please respond based upon the mentor you identified in the previous sections. There are no right or wrong answers. Please use the scale below to mark your responses to each statement: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree My mentor… Item # Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree 1. helped me attain desirable positions. 1 2 3 4 5 2. used his/her influence to support my advancement in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 3. used his/her influence in the organization for my benefit. 1 2 3 4 5 4. helped me learn about other parts of the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 5. gave me advice on how to attain recognition in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 132

122 Appendix D (Continued) Please use the scale below to mark your responses to each statement: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree My mentor… 6. suggested specific strategies for achieving career aspirations. 1 2 3 4 5 7. protected me from those who may be out to get me. 1 2 3 4 5 8. “ran interference” for me in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 9. shielded me from damaging contact with important people in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 10. gave me tasks that required me to learn new skills. 1 2 3 4 5 11. provided me with challenging assignments. 1 2 3 4 5 12. assigned me tasks that pushed me into developing new skills. 1 2 3 4 5 13. helped me be more visible in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 14. created opportunities for me to impress important people in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 15. brought my accomplishments to the attention of important people in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 16. is someone I can confide in. 1 2 3 4 5 17. provided support and encouragement. 1 2 3 4 5 18. is someone I can trust. 1 2 3 4 5 19 and I frequently got together informally after work by ourselves. 1 2 3 4 5 20. and I frequently socialized one-on-one outside the work setting. 1 2 3 4 5 21. and I frequently had one-on-one, informal social interactions. 1 2 3 4 5 22. served as a role-model for me. 1 2 3 4 5 23. is someone I identified with. 1 2 3 4 5 24. represented who I wanted to be. 1 2 3 4 5 25. served as a sounding board for me to develop and understand myself. 1 2 3 4 5 26. guided my professional development. 1 2 3 4 5 27. guided my personal development. 1 2 3 4 5 28. accepted me as a competent professional. 1 2 3 4 5 29. saw me as competent. 1 2 3 4 5 30. thought highly of me. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 133

123 Appendix D (Continued) Part C: Indicate the extent you agree with each of the following statements regarding your mentoring relationship. If you have engaged in multiple mentoring relationships, please respond based upon the mentor you identified in the previous sections. There are no right or wrong answers. Please use the scale below to mark your responses to each statement: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree Item # Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree 1. I have learned a lot from my mentor. 1 2 3 4 5 2. My mentor gave me a new perspective on many things. 1 2 3 4 5 3. My mentor and I were “co-learners” in the mentoring relationship. 1 2 3 4 5 4. There was reciprocal learning that took place between my mentor and I. 1 2 3 4 5 5. My mentor shared a lot of information with me that helped my own professional development. 1 2 3 4 5 6. The mentoring relationship between my mentor and I was very effective. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I am very satisfied with the mentoring relationship my mentor and I developed. 1 2 3 4 5 8. My mentor and I enjoyed a high-quality relationship. 1 2 3 4 5 9. Both my mentor and I benefited from the mentoring relationship. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 134

124 Appendix D (Continued) Part D: Indicate the extent you agree with each of the following statements regarding outcomes of your mentoring relationship. If you have engaged in multiple mentoring relationships, please respond based upon the mentor you identified in the previous sections. There are no right or wrong answers. Please use the scale below to mark your responses to each statement: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree Because of my mentoring relationship… Item # Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree 1. I have gained insight into how another department functions. 1 2 3 4 5 2. I have increased my knowledge about the organization as a whole. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I have learned about others’ perceptions about me or my job. 1 2 3 4 5 4. I have increased my understanding of issues and problems outside my job. 1 2 3 4 5 5. I better understand how my job or department affects others. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I have a better sense of organizational politics. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I have learned how to communicate effectively with others. 1 2 3 4 5 8. I have improved my listening skills. 1 2 3 4 5 9. I have developed new ideas about how to perform my job. 1 2 3 4 5 10. I have become more sensitive to others’ feelings and attitudes. 1 2 3 4 5 11. I have gained new skills. 1 2 3 4 5 12. I have expanded the way I think about things. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 135

125 Appendix D (Continued) Section 3: Personal Characteristics and Attitudes Part A: Indicate the extent you agree with each of the following statements regarding YOUR personal characteristics, preferences, and beliefs. There are no right or wrong answers. Please use the scale below to mark your responses to each statement: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree Item # Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree 1. The opportunity to do challenging work is important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 2. When I fail to complete a difficult task, I plan to try harder the next time I work on it. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I prefer to work on tasks that force me to learn new things. 1 2 3 4 5 4. The opportunity to learn new things is important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 5. I do my best when I’m working on a fairly difficult task. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I try hard to improve on my past performance. 1 2 3 4 5 7. The opportunity to extend the range of my abilities is important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 8. When I have difficulty solving a problem, I enjoy trying different approaches to see which one will work. 1 2 3 4 5 9. A job is what you make of it. 1 2 3 4 5 10. On most jobs, people can pretty much accomplish whatever they set out to accomplish. 1 2 3 4 5 11. If you know what you want out of a job, you can find a job that gives it to you. 1 2 3 4 5 12. If employees are unhappy with a decision made by their boss, they should do something about it. 1 2 3 4 5 13. Getting the job you want is mostly a matter of luck. 1 2 3 4 5 14. Making money is primarily a matter of good fortune. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 136

126 Appendix D (Continued) Please use the scale below to mark your responses to each statement: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree 15. Most people are capable of doing their jobs well if they make the effort. 1 2 3 4 5 16. In order to get a really good job, you need to have family members or friends in high places. 1 2 3 4 5 17. Promotions are usually a matter of good fortune. 1 2 3 4 5 18. When it comes to landing a really good job, who you know is more important than what you know. 1 2 3 4 5 19 Promotions are given to employees who perform well on the job. 1 2 3 4 5 20. To make a lot of money you have to know the right people. 1 2 3 4 5 21. It takes a lot of luck to be an outstanding employee on most jobs. 1 2 3 4 5 22. People who perform their jobs well generally get rewarded. 1 2 3 4 5 23. Most employees have more influence on their supervisors than they think they do. 1 2 3 4 5 24. The main difference between people who make a lot of money and people who make a little money is luck. 1 2 3 4 5 25. If I were to participate in a development activity (workshop, course, etc.), my success in that activity would be at least comparable to most other participants. 1 2 3 4 5 26. If I took part in a career-related workshop, seminar, or course, I would probably learn at least as much as anyone else. 1 2 3 4 5 27. I could succeed and learn as well as the next person in a class designed to improve skills. 1 2 3 4 5 28. I could learn as well as most other participants in a developmental learning activity. 1 2 3 4 5 29. My career has been successful. 1 2 3 4 5 30. Compared to my coworkers, my career is successful. 1 2 3 4 5 31. My ‘significant others’ feel my career has been successful. 1 2 3 4 5 32. Given my age, I think my career is ahead of schedule. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 137

127 Appendix D (Continued) Section 4: Organization Management Style The following set of items focus on your organization’s management style. Please read the scale anchors and indicate on the scale which management style BEST describes your organization. There are no right or wrong answers. 1. Your organization can best be described as having… Highly structured channels of communication and a highly restricted access to important financial and operating information Open channels of communication with important financial and operating information flowing quite freely throughout the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Your organization can best be described as having… Strong insistence on a uniform managerial style throughout the organization Managers’ operating styles allowed to range freely from the very formal to the very informal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Your organization can best be described as having… Strong emphasis on giving the most say in decision making to formal line managers Strong tendency to let the expert in a given situation have the most say in decision making even if this means temporary by-passing of formal line authority 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. Your organization can best be described as having… A strong emphasis on holding fast to true and tried management principles despite any changes in business conditions A strong emphasis on adapting freely to changing circumstances without too much concern for past practice 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 138

128 Appendix D (Continued) 5. Your organization can best be described as having… Strong emphasis on always getting personnel to follow the formally laid down procedures Strong emphasis on getting things done even if this mans disregarding procedures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Your organization can best be described as having… Tight formal control of most operations by means of sophisticated control information systems Loose, informal control; heavy dependence on information relationships and norm of cooperation for getting work done 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Your organization can best be described as having… Strong emphasis on getting line and staff personnel adhere closely to formal job descriptions Strong tendency to let the requirements of the situation and the individual’s personality define proper on the job behavior 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 139

129 Appendix D (Continued) Section 5: Background 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. 1. Your Age (type in space provided): _____ 2. Your Gender (select one): Male Female 3. Your Race (select one): Caucasian/White African-American Hispanic Asian Native American Other 4. Highest Level of Education Completed (select one): Some high school High school degree/certificate Some college Associate degree Bachelor degree Master degree Doctorate degree 5. Current Employment Status (select one): Part-time Full-time Not employed 6. Current Job Title (type in space provided): __________________________________ 7. How would you describe your current job title (select one): Non-Managerial Managerial 8. How long have you held this job title (type years/months in space provided): Years (e.g., 3) __________ Months (e.g., 6) __________

PAGE 140

130 Appendix D (Continued) 9. How long have you been employed in your present organization (type years/months in space provided): Years (e.g., 7) __________ Months (e.g., 4) __________ 10. Please indicate which industry sector you work in (select one): Manufacturing Government Hospitality Medical/Social service Retail Entertainment Communications Service Education Financial Services Technology Military Other (please specify) __________________________

PAGE 141

131 Appendix D (Continued) Mentoring Relationship Survey – Protg You are finished! You have completed the protg survey. Thank you for your time! Please remember to let your mentor know that he/she will be sent an email reque sting participation in my dissertation study. The email will contain a link to the mentor survey. Thank you! If you have any additional comments you would like to share with the author of this study, please do so in the space provided below: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PAGE 142

132 Appendix E: Protg Non-Participation Link Mentoring Relationship Survey – Protg Non-partici pation By selecting this link, you have indicated you do NOT want to participate in this voluntary research study. To make sure you did not select this link by mistake, ple ase select the following box below: I have had a mentor throughout the course of my career but I do NOT want to participate in this study. If you have any additional comments you would like to share with the author of this study, please do so in the space provided below: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME!

PAGE 143

133 Appendix F: No Protg Experience Link Mentoring Relationship Survey – No Protg Experien ce By selecting this link, you have indicated that you have not had a mentor throughout the course of your career. To make sure you did not select this link by mistake, pleas e select the following box below: I cannot participate in the study because I have not had a mentor throughout the course of my career. If you have any additional comments you would like to share with the author of this study, please do so in the space provided below: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME!

PAGE 144

134 Appendix G: Mentor Information Email Hello – You are receiving this email because I would like to ask for your particip ation in my dissertation research study. This study focuses on traditional mentoring relationships in the workplace. Specifically, I am examining important relationships between indivi dual characteristics, mentoring behaviors, and work-related attitudes across a variety of organi zational environments. Over the next month, I hope to collect data on approximately one hundred and fifty protg-mentor pairs. In order to do this, I need your help! I am contacting you because the individual identified in the subject line of this email has indicated you are or have been a mentor to him/her during the course of their care er, as defined below: A mentor is generally defined as a higher ranking, influential indiv idual in your work environment who has advanced experience and knowledge and is co mmitted to providing upward mobility and support to your career. A mentor may or may n ot be in your organization and he/she may or may not be your immediate supervis or. Participation is simple. The online survey will take approximately 20 mi nutes to complete. On the first page of the survey, you will be prompted to enter the following unique code: This code was created by your protg and will be used to link responses from prot g and mentor pairs. No other identifying information will be used in the study. Beca use I am interested in protg-mentor pairs, if you choose not to participate, I will not be able to use your protg’s data. If you ARE willing to participate in my dissertation study, the following link will di rect you to the mentor survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=584082464985 If you are NOT willing to participate in my dissertation study, please select the fo llowing link: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=591442482647 I have attached a Frequently Asked Questions document to address additional information and questions you may have regarding the study. If you have any further questions regarding th e methodology or purpose of the study, feel free to contact me. Thank you in advance for your time and participation! Elizabeth Lentz, M.A. University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Ave., PCD 4118G Tampa, FL 33620 emlentz@mail.usf.edu

PAGE 145

135 Appendix H: Mentor Reminder Email Hello – Last week, I contacted you regarding my dissertation study at the Universi ty of South Florida. Thank you if you have already completed the online survey. If you have not, I would like t o finish collecting data within the next two weeks. You may recall, the study focuses on e xamining traditional mentoring relationships in the workplace and will take approxi mately 20 minutes of your time. Specifically, I am contacting you because the individual identified in t he subject line of this email has indicated you are or have been a mentor to him/her during the course of their ca reer, as defined below: A mentor is generally defined as a higher ranking, influential indiv idual in your work environment who has advanced experience and knowledge and is co mmitted to providing upward mobility and support to your career. A mentor may or may n ot be in your organization and he/she may or may not be your immediate supervis or. Participation is simple. The online survey will take approximately 20 mi nutes to complete. On the first page of the survey, you will be prompted to enter the following unique code: This code was created by your protg and will be used to link responses from prot g and mentor pairs. No other identifying information will be used in the study. Beca use I am interested in protg-mentor pairs, if you choose not to participate, I will not be able to use your protg’s data. If you ARE willing to participate in my dissertation study, the following link will di rect you to the mentor survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=584082464985 If you are NOT willing to participate in my dissertation study, please select the fo llowing link: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=591442482647 Again, I have attached a Frequently Asked Questions document to address addit ional information and questions you may have regarding the study. If you have any further questions regar ding the methodology or purpose of the study, feel free to contact me. Thank you! Elizabeth Lentz, M.A. University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Ave., PCD 4118G Tampa, FL 33620 emlentz@mail.usf.edu

PAGE 146

136 Appendix I: Mentor Online Survey Mentoring Relationship Survey – Mentor Survey General Instructions The items in this questionnaire are designed to examine important relationshi ps between individual characteristics, mentoring behaviors, and work-related attitudes among mentors in traditional mentoring relationships. 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 wi ll be identified. Before you begin… The survey will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. In order to gain a better understanding of the mentoring relationship, we are asking both members of the relationship to participant. You are being asked to participate because you have been identified as a mentor. Your protg has also participated by completing a protg survey. Should you experience any difficulties with the survey, have questions about this project or survey, or would prefer a paper copy of the survey, please contact Elizabeth Lentz at emlentz@mail.usf.edu Thank you in advance for your participation!

PAGE 147

137 Appendix I (Continued) Section 1: Identifying Protg-Mentor Pairs The subject line of the email I sent to you contains a first and last name of the person who identified you as their mentor. Please respond to these survey items based upon mentoring behaviors provided by you to this person. During data analysis, it is important that I identify protg-mentor pair s. To do this, your protg was asked to create a unique code so that I could identify protg-mentor pai rs. This code was provided to you in the email as well. No other identifying information w ill be used to identify pairs. *1. Please enter the unique code created by your protg (type in space provid ed): _____________________

PAGE 148

138 Appendix I (Continued) Section 2: Mentoring Experience Part A: Please respond to the following questions regarding your experience in the mentoring relationship. If you have engaged in multiple mentoring relationships, please respond based upon the relationship with the protg identified in the previous section. 1. In order to assist individuals in their career development and advancement, some organizations have established a “formal mentoring program”, where protgs a nd mentors are linked in some way. This may be accomplished by assigning mentors or by just providing formal opportunities aimed at developing a relationship. So, formal relationships are developed with outside assistance, while informal mentoring relationships are developed spontaneously, without outside assistance. Was your mentorship (select one): Informal (spontaneously developed, WITHOUT outside assistance) Formal (based on formal assignment, WITH outside assistance) 2. Approximate date mentoring relationship began (type month/year in space provided): Month (e.g., October) __________ Year (e.g., 2005) __________ 3. Approximate date mentoring relationship ended (type month/year in space provided): Month (e.g., July) __________ Year (e.g., 2006) __________ Still Ongoing __________ 4. At the time of the mentoring relationship, at what organizational level was your protg in comparison to yourself (select one): Three or more levels below you Two levels below you One level below you At the same level as you 5. At the time of the mentoring relationship, were you a direct supervisor to your prot g (select one): No Yes 6. At the time of the mentoring relationship, was your protg in the same organiza tion as you (select one): No Yes

PAGE 149

139 Appendix I (Continued) 7. On average, how many hours per month do/did you interact with your protg (type average number of hours in space provided): __________ Part B: Indicate the extent you agree with each of the following statements regarding your mentoring relationship. If you have engaged in multiple mentoring relationships, please respond based upon the relationship with the protg identified in the previous sections. There are no right or wrong answers. Please use the scale below to mark your responses to each statement: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree As a Mentor, I… Item # Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree 1. helped my protg attain desirable positions. 1 2 3 4 5 2. used my influence to support my protg’s advancement in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 3. used my influence in the organization for my protg’s benefit. 1 2 3 4 5 4. helped my protg learn about other parts of the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 5. gave my protg advice on how to attain recognition in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6. suggested specific strategies for achieving career aspirations. 1 2 3 4 5 7. protected my protg from those who may be out to get him/her. 1 2 3 4 5 8. “ran interference” for my protg in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 9. shielded my protg from damaging contact with important people in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 10. gave my protg tasks that required him/her to learn new skills. 1 2 3 4 5 11. provided my protg with challenging assignments. 1 2 3 4 5 12. assigned my protg tasks that pushed him/her into developing new skills. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 150

140 Appendix I (Continued) Please use the scale below to mark your responses to each statement: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree As a Mentor, I… 13. helped my protg be more visible in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 14. created opportunities for my protg to impress important people in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 15. brought my protg’s accomplishments to the attention of important people in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 16. was someone my protg confided in. 1 2 3 4 5 17. provided support and encouragement. 1 2 3 4 5 18. was someone my protg could trust. 1 2 3 4 5 19 frequently got together with my protg informally after work by ourselves. 1 2 3 4 5 20. frequently socialized with my protg one-on-one outside the work setting. 1 2 3 4 5 21. frequently had one-on-one, informal social interactions with my protg. 1 2 3 4 5 22. served as a role-model for my protg. 1 2 3 4 5 23. was someone my protg could identify with. 1 2 3 4 5 24. represented who my protg wanted to be. 1 2 3 4 5 25. served as a sounding board for my protg to develop and understand him/herself. 1 2 3 4 5 26. guided my protg’s professional development. 1 2 3 4 5 27. guided my protg’s personal development. 1 2 3 4 5 28. accepted my protg as a competent professional. 1 2 3 4 5 29. saw my protg as competent. 1 2 3 4 5 30. thought highly of my protg. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 151

141 Appendix I (Continued) Part C: Indicate the extent you agree with each of the following statements regarding your mentoring relationship. If you have engaged in multiple mentoring relationships, please respond based upon the relationship with the protg identified in the previous sections. There are no right or wrong answers. Please use the scale below to mark your responses to each statement: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree Item # Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree 1. I have learned a lot from my protg. 1 2 3 4 5 2. My protg gave me a new perspective on many things. 1 2 3 4 5 3. My protg and I were “co-learners” in the mentoring relationship. 1 2 3 4 5 4. There was reciprocal learning that took place between my protg and I. 1 2 3 4 5 5. My protg shared a lot of information with me that helped my own professional development. 1 2 3 4 5 6. The mentoring relationship between my protg and I was very effective. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I am very satisfied with the mentoring relationship my protg and I developed. 1 2 3 4 5 8. My protg and I enjoyed a high-quality relationship. 1 2 3 4 5 9. Both my protg and I benefited from the mentoring relationship. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 152

142 Appendix I (Continued) Part D: Indicate the extent you agree with each of the following statements regarding outcomes of your mentoring relationship. If you have engaged in multiple mentoring relationships, please respond based upon the relationship with the protg identified in the previous sections. There are no right or wrong answers. Please use the scale below to mark your responses to each statement: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree Because of my mentoring relationship… Item # Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree 1. I have gained insight into how another department functions. 1 2 3 4 5 2. I have increased my knowledge about the organization as a whole. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I have learned about others’ perceptions about me or my job. 1 2 3 4 5 4. I have increased my understanding of issues and problems outside my job. 1 2 3 4 5 5. I better understand how my job or department affects others. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I have a better sense of organizational politics. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I have learned how to communicate effectively with others. 1 2 3 4 5 8. I have improved my listening skills. 1 2 3 4 5 9. I have developed new ideas about how to perform my job. 1 2 3 4 5 10. I have become more sensitive to others’ feelings and attitudes. 1 2 3 4 5 11. I have gained new skills. 1 2 3 4 5 12. I have expanded the way I think about things. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 153

143 Appendix I (Continued) Section 3: Personal Characteristics and Attitudes Part A: Indicate the extent you agree with each of the following statements regarding YOUR personal characteristics, preferences, and beliefs. There are no right or wrong answers. Please use the scale below to mark your responses to each statement: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree Item # Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree 1. The opportunity to do challenging work is important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 2. When I fail to complete a difficult task, I plan to try harder the next time I work on it. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I prefer to work on tasks that force me to learn new things. 1 2 3 4 5 4. The opportunity to learn new things is important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 5. I do my best when I’m working on a fairly difficult task. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I try hard to improve on my past performance. 1 2 3 4 5 7. The opportunity to extend the range of my abilities is important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 8. When I have difficulty solving a problem, I enjoy trying different approaches to see which one will work. 1 2 3 4 5 9. A job is what you make of it. 1 2 3 4 5 10. On most jobs, people can pretty much accomplish whatever they set out to accomplish. 1 2 3 4 5 11. If you know what you want out of a job, you can find a job that gives it to you. 1 2 3 4 5 12. If employees are unhappy with a decision made by their boss, they should do something about it. 1 2 3 4 5 13. Getting the job you want is mostly a matter of luck. 1 2 3 4 5 14. Making money is primarily a matter of good fortune. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 154

144 Appendix I (Continued) Please use the scale below to mark your responses to each statement: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree 15. Most people are capable of doing their jobs well if they make the effort. 1 2 3 4 5 16. In order to get a really good job, you need to have family members or friends in high places. 1 2 3 4 5 17. Promotions are usually a matter of good fortune. 1 2 3 4 5 18. When it comes to landing a really good job, who you know is more important than what you know. 1 2 3 4 5 19 Promotions are given to employees who perform well on the job. 1 2 3 4 5 20. To make a lot of money you have to know the right people. 1 2 3 4 5 21. It takes a lot of luck to be an outstanding employee on most jobs. 1 2 3 4 5 22. People who perform their jobs well generally get rewarded. 1 2 3 4 5 23. Most employees have more influence on their supervisors than they think they do. 1 2 3 4 5 24. The main difference between people who make a lot of money and people who make a little money is luck. 1 2 3 4 5 25. If I were to participate in a development activity (workshop, course, etc.), my success in that activity would be at least comparable to most other participants. 1 2 3 4 5 26. If I took part in a career-related workshop, seminar, or course, I would probably learn at least as much as anyone else. 1 2 3 4 5 27. I could succeed and learn as well as the next person in a class designed to improve skills. 1 2 3 4 5 28. I could learn as well as most other participants in a developmental learning activity. 1 2 3 4 5 29. My career has been successful. 1 2 3 4 5 30. Compared to my coworkers, my career is successful. 1 2 3 4 5 31. My ‘significant others’ feel my career has been successful. 1 2 3 4 5 32. Given my age, I think my career is ahead of schedule. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 155

145 Appendix I (Continued) Section 4: Organization Management Style The following set of items focus on your organization’s management style. Please read the scale anchors and indicate on the scale which management style BEST describes your organization. There are no right or wrong answers. 1. Your organization can best be described as having… Highly structured channels of communication and a highly restricted access to important financial and operating information Open channels of communication with important financial and operating information flowing quite freely throughout the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Your organization can best be described as having… Strong insistence on a uniform managerial style throughout the organization Managers’ operating styles allowed to range freely from the very formal to the very informal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Your organization can best be described as having… Strong emphasis on giving the most say in decision making to formal line managers Strong tendency to let the expert in a given situation have the most say in decision making even if this means temporary by-passing of formal line authority 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. Your organization can best be described as having… A strong emphasis on holding fast to true and tried management principles despite any changes in business conditions A strong emphasis on adapting freely to changing circumstances without too much concern for past practice 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 156

146 Appendix I (Continued) 5. Your organization can best be described as having… Strong emphasis on always getting personnel to follow the formally laid down procedures Strong emphasis on getting things done even if this mans disregarding procedures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Your organization can best be described as having… Tight formal control of most operations by means of sophisticated control information systems Loose, informal control; heavy dependence on information relationships and norm of cooperation for getting work done 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Your organization can best be described as having… Strong emphasis on getting line and staff personnel adhere closely to formal job descriptions Strong tendency to let the requirements of the situation and the individual’s personality define proper on the job behavior 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 157

147 Appendix I (Continued) Section 5: Background 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. 1. Your Age (type in space provided): _____ 2. Your Gender (select one): Male Female 3. Your Race (select one): Caucasian/White African-American Hispanic Asian Native American Other 4. Highest Level of Education Completed (select one): Some high school High school degree/certificate Some college Associate degree Bachelor degree Master degree Doctorate degree 5. Current Employment Status (select one): Part-time Full-time Not employed 6. Current Job Title (type in space provided): __________________________________ 7. How would you describe your current job title (select one): Non-Managerial Managerial 8. How long have you held this job title (type years/months in space provided): Years (e.g., 3) __________ Months (e.g., 6) __________

PAGE 158

148 Appendix I (Continued) 9. How long have you been employed in your present organization (type years/months in space provided): Years (e.g., 7) __________ Months (e.g., 4) __________ 10. Please indicate which industry sector you work in (select one): Manufacturing Government Hospitality Medical/Social service Retail Entertainment Communications Service Education Financial Services Technology Military Other (please specify) __________________________

PAGE 159

149 Appendix I (Continued) Mentoring Relationship Survey – Mentor You are finished! You have completed the mentor survey. Thank you for your time! If you have any additional comments you would like to share with the author of this study, please do so in the space provided below: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PAGE 160

150 Appendix J: Mentor Non-Participation Link Mentoring Relationship Survey – Mentor Non-particip ation By selecting this link, you have indicated you do NOT want to participate in this voluntary research study. To make sure you did not select this link by mistake, ple ase select the following box below: I have mentored the individual indicated in the information email throughout the course of his/her career but I do NOT want to participate in this study. If you have any additional comments you would like to share with the author of this study, please do so in the space provided below: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME!

PAGE 161

151 Appendix K: Mentoring Provided Items – Protg Perspective Indicate the extent you agree with each of the following statements regarding your mentoring relationship. If you have engaged in multiple relationships, please respond based upon the mentor you identified in the previous sections. There are no right or wrong answers. Please use the scale below to mark your responses to each statement: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree My mentor… Item # Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree 1. helped me attain desirable positions. 1 2 3 4 5 2. used his/her influence to support my advancement in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 3. used his/her influence in the organization for my benefit. 1 2 3 4 5 4. helped me learn about other parts of the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 5. gave me advice on how to attain recognition in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6. suggested specific strategies for achieving career aspirations. 1 2 3 4 5 7. protected me from those who may be out to get me. 1 2 3 4 5 8. “ran interference” for me in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 9. shielded me from damaging contact with important people in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 10. gave me tasks that required me to learn new skills. 1 2 3 4 5 11. provided me with challenging assignments. 1 2 3 4 5 12. assigned me tasks that pushed me into developing new skills. 1 2 3 4 5 13. helped me be more visible in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 14. created opportunities for me to impress important people in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 15. brought my accomplishments to the attention of important people in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 16. is someone I can confide in. 1 2 3 4 5 17. provided support and encouragement. 1 2 3 4 5 18. is someone I can trust. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 162

152 Appendix K (Continued) Please use the scale below to mark your responses to each statement: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree My mentor… 19 and I frequently got together informally after work by ourselves. 1 2 3 4 5 20. and I frequently socialized one-on-one outside the work setting. 1 2 3 4 5 21. and I frequently had one-on-one, informal social interactions. 1 2 3 4 5 22. served as a role-model for me. 1 2 3 4 5 23. is someone I identified with. 1 2 3 4 5 24. represented who I wanted to be. 1 2 3 4 5 25. served as a sounding board for me to develop and understand myself. 1 2 3 4 5 26. guided my professional development. 1 2 3 4 5 27. guided my personal development. 1 2 3 4 5 28. accepted me as a competent professional. 1 2 3 4 5 29. saw me as competent. 1 2 3 4 5 30. thought highly of me. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 163

153 Appendix L: Mentoring Provided Items – Mentor Perspective Indicate the extent you agree with each of the following statements regarding your mentoring relationship. If you have engaged in multiple relationships, please respond based upon the protg identified in the previous sections. There are no right or wrong answers. Please use the scale below to mark your responses to each statement: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree As a Mentor, I… Item # Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree 1. helped my protg attain desirable positions. 1 2 3 4 5 2. used my influence to support my protg’s advancement in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 3. used my influence in the organization for my protg’s benefit. 1 2 3 4 5 4. helped my protg learn about other parts of the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 5. gave my protg advice on how to attain recognition in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6. suggested specific strategies for achieving career aspirations. 1 2 3 4 5 7. protected my protg from those who may be out to get him/her. 1 2 3 4 5 8. “ran interference” for my protg in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 9. shielded my protg from damaging contact with important people in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 10. gave my protg tasks that required him/her to learn new skills. 1 2 3 4 5 11. provided my protg with challenging assignments. 1 2 3 4 5 12. assigned my protg tasks that pushed him/her into developing new skills. 1 2 3 4 5 13. helped my protg be more visible in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 14. created opportunities for my protg to impress important people in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 164

154 Appendix L (Continued) Please use the scale below to mark your responses to each statement: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree As a Mentor, I… 15. brought my protg’s accomplishments to the attention of important people in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 16. was someone my protg confided in. 1 2 3 4 5 17. provided support and encouragement. 1 2 3 4 5 18. was someone my protg could trust. 1 2 3 4 5 19 frequently got together with my protg informally after work by ourselves. 1 2 3 4 5 20. frequently socialized with my protg one-on-one outside the work setting. 1 2 3 4 5 21. frequently had one-on-one, informal social interactions with my protg. 1 2 3 4 5 22. served as a role-model for my protg. 1 2 3 4 5 23. was someone my protg could identify with. 1 2 3 4 5 24. represented who my protg wanted to be. 1 2 3 4 5 25. served as a sounding board for my protg to develop and understand him/herself. 1 2 3 4 5 26. guided my protg’s professional development. 1 2 3 4 5 27. guided my protg’s personal development. 1 2 3 4 5 28. accepted my protg as a competent professional. 1 2 3 4 5 29. saw my protg as competent. 1 2 3 4 5 30. thought highly of my protg. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 165

155 Appendix M – Learning Goal Orientation Items Indicate the extent you agree with each of the following statements regarding YOUR personal characteristics, preferences, and beliefs. There are no right or wrong answers. Please use the scale below to mark your responses to each statement: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree Item # Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree 1. The opportunity to do challenging work is important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 2. When I fail to complete a difficult task, I plan to try harder the next time I work on it. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I prefer to work on tasks that force me to learn new things. 1 2 3 4 5 4. The opportunity to learn new things is important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 5. I do my best when I’m working on a fairly difficult task. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I try hard to improve on my past performance. 1 2 3 4 5 7. The opportunity to extend the range of my abilities is important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 8. When I have difficulty solving a problem, I enjoy trying different approaches to see which one will work. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 166

156 Appendix N – Locus of Control Items Indicate the extent you agree with each of the following statements regarding YOUR personal characteristics, preferences, and beliefs. There are no right or wrong answers. Please use the scale below to mark your responses to each statement: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree Item # Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree 1. A job is what you make of it. 1 2 3 4 5 2. On most jobs, people can pretty much accomplish whatever they set out to accomplish. 1 2 3 4 5 3. If you know what you want out of a job, you can find a job that gives it to you. 1 2 3 4 5 4. If employees are unhappy with a decision made by their boss, they should do something about it. 1 2 3 4 5 5. Getting the job you want is mostly a matter of luck. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Making money is primarily a matter of good fortune. 1 2 3 4 5 7. Most people are capable of doing their jobs well if they make the effort. 1 2 3 4 5 8. In order to get a really good job, you need to have family members or friends in high places. 1 2 3 4 5 9. Promotions are usually a matter of good fortune. 1 2 3 4 5 10. When it comes to landing a really good job, who you know is more important than what you know. 1 2 3 4 5 11. Promotions are given to employees who perform well on the job. 1 2 3 4 5 12. To make a lot of money you have to know the right people. 1 2 3 4 5 13. It takes a lot of luck to be an outstanding employee on most jobs. 1 2 3 4 5 14. People who perform their jobs well generally get rewarded. 1 2 3 4 5 15. Most employees have more influence on their supervisors than they think they do. 1 2 3 4 5 16. The main difference between people who make a lot of money and people who make a little money is luck. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 167

157 Appendix O – Self-Efficacy for Development Items Indicate the extent you agree with each of the following statements regarding YOUR personal characteristics, preferences, and beliefs. There are no right or wrong answers. Please use the scale below to mark your responses to each statement: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree Item # Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree 1. If I were to participate in a development activity (workshop, course, etc.), my success in that activity would be at least comparable to most other participants. 1 2 3 4 5 2. If I took part in a career-related workshop, seminar, or course, I would probably learn at least as much as anyone else. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I could succeed and learn as well as the next person in a class designed to improve skills. 1 2 3 4 5 4. I could learn as well as most other participants in a developmental learning activity. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 168

158 Appendix P: Mutual Mentorship Learning Items Indicate the extent you agree with each of the following statements regarding your mentoring relationship. If you have engaged in multiple relationships, please respond based upon the relationship identified in the previous sections. There are no right or wrong answers. Please use the scale below to mark your responses to each statement: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree Item # Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree 1. I have learned a lot from my mentor (protg). 1 2 3 4 5 2. My mentor (protg) gave me a new perspective on many things. 1 2 3 4 5 3. My mentor (protg) and I were “co-learners” in the mentoring relationship. 1 2 3 4 5 4. There was reciprocal learning that took place between my mentor (protg) and I. 1 2 3 4 5 5. My mentor (protg) shared a lot of information with me that helped my own professional development. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 169

159 Appendix Q: Personal Learning Items Indicate the extent you agree with each of the following statements regarding outcomes of your mentoring relationship. If you have engaged in multiple relationships, please respond based upon the relationship identified in the previous sections. There are no right or wrong answers. Please use the scale below to mark your responses to each statement: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree Because of my mentoring relationship… Item # Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree 1. I have gained insight into how another department functions. 1 2 3 4 5 2. I have increased my knowledge about the organization as a whole. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I have learned about others’ perceptions about me or my job. 1 2 3 4 5 4. I have increased my understanding of issues and problems outside my job. 1 2 3 4 5 5. I better understand how my job or department affects others. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I have a better sense of organizational politics. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I have learned how to communicate effectively with others. 1 2 3 4 5 8. I have improved my listening skills. 1 2 3 4 5 9. I have developed new ideas about how to perform my job. 1 2 3 4 5 10. I have become more sensitive to others’ feelings and attitudes. 1 2 3 4 5 11. I have gained new skills. 1 2 3 4 5 12. I have expanded the way I think about things. 1 2 3 4 5 Note. Items 1-6 assess Relational Job Learning Items 7-12 assess Personal Skill Development

PAGE 170

160 Appendix R: Mentorship Quality Items Indicate the extent you agree with each of the following statements regarding your mentoring relationship. If you have engaged in multiple relationships, please respond based upon the relationship identified in the previous sections. There are no right or wrong answers. Please use the scale below to mark your responses to each statement: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree Item # Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree 1. The mentoring relationship between my mentor (protg) and I was very effective. 1 2 3 4 5 2. I am very satisfied with the mentoring relationship my mentor (protg) and I developed. 1 2 3 4 5 3. My mentor (protg) and I enjoyed a high-quality relationship. 1 2 3 4 5 4. Both my mentor (protg) and I benefited from the mentoring relationship. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 171

161 Appendix S: Career Success Items Indicate the extent you agree with each of the following statements regarding your mentoring relationship. If you have engaged in multiple relationships, please respond based upon the relationship identified in the previous sections. There are no right or wrong answers. Please use the scale below to mark your responses to each statement: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree Item # Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree 1. My career has been successful. 1 2 3 4 5 2. Compared to my coworkers, my career is successful. 1 2 3 4 5 3. My ‘significant others’ feel my career has been successful. 1 2 3 4 5 4. Given my age, I think my career is ahead of schedule. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 172

About the Author Elizabeth Lentz Williams graduated summa cum laude in 2000 with a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology from the University of South Florida, receiving the King O ’ Neal Scholar Award and Outstanding Graduate Award. In 2004, Elizabeth received her Maste r of Arts in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from the University of Sout h Florida. Elizabeth’s research has appeared in journals such as the Journal of Applied Psychology Personnel Psychology and the Journal of Career Development in numerous technical reports, and presented at national conferences such as the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology American Psychological Association and the Academy of Management She was the recipient of the Best Applied Paper Award for 2004 from the Careers Division of the Academy of Management and the Best Research Artic le of the Year Award for 2006 from the American Society for Training and Development For the past four years, Elizabeth has worked for Personnel Decisions Research Insti tutes.


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 001913833
003 fts
005 20071017105853.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 071017s2007 flu sbm 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0001956
040
FHM
c FHM
035
(OCoLC)174514693
049
FHMM
090
BF121 (ONLINE)
1 100
Lentz, Elizabeth.
0 245
Protege and mentor characteristics :
b examining individual differences in effective mentoring relationships
h [electronic resource] /
by Elizabeth Lentz.
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
2007.
3 520
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to identify and examine the role of dispositional characteristics in effective mentoring relationships. A learning and development framework was incorporated to examine the relationships of protg and mentor characteristics, mentoring provided, and developmental mentoring outcomes. First, relationships between individual characteristics and mentoring provided were examined. Second, relationships between individual characteristics and partner developmental outcomes were examined. Third, mentoring provided was examined as a mediator of individual characteristics and partner developmental outcomes. The final sample consisted of 93 protg-mentor pairs. Protgs and mentors were asked to complete an online survey measuring learning goal orientation, locus of control, self-efficacy for development, mentoring received/mentoring provided, and multiple assessments of relationship effectiveness. In general, the hypotheses were not supported, but supplemental analyses provided support for the importance of examining individual characteristics. Key findings contribute to the mentoring literature by illustrating the role of learning goal orientation and self-efficacy for development in effective mentoring relationships. Future research should investigate additional underlying mechanisms that further explain the mentorship learning exchange processes.
502
Dissertation (Ph.D. )--University of South Florida, 2007.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic dissertation) 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 161 pages.
Includes vita.
590
Advisor: Tammy D. Allen, Ph.D.
653
Mentorships.
Learning goal orientation.
Locus of control.
Self-efficacy.
Mentorship learning.
Personal learning.
Mentorship quality.
Career success.
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Psychology
Doctoral.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.1956