DO MENTOR AND PROTÉGÉ PERSONALITY INTERACT TO PREDICT QUALITY OF MENTORING? M. ASHLEY MORRISON. (Under the Direction of Charles E.

Transcription

1 DO MENTOR AND PROTÉGÉ PERSONALITY INTERACT TO PREDICT QUALITY OF MENTORING? by M. ASHLEY MORRISON (Under the Direction of Charles E. Lance) ABSTRACT The current study investigates what makes formal mentoring relationships effective by examining the influence of protégé and mentor personality in the prediction of perceived relationship quality. Relationship quality was also examined as a possible mediator between mentor/protégé personality and certain protégé work attitudes. Cross-sectional data was collected from matched counselor-clinical supervisor dyads across the U.S. Mentor/protégé personality did not have an interactive influence on relationship quality for four of the five personality factors, indicating that personality similarity may not be important for this type of relationship. Protégés who are lower in neuroticism and higher on conscientiousness reported higher quality mentoring relationships as well as protégés whose mentors were moderate in extraversion. Relationship quality was strongly related to protégé job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions, and functioned as a mediator between mentor/protégé personality and some protégé outcomes. Implications, limitations, and directions for future research are discussed. INDEX WORDS: Personality, Formal Mentoring, Relationship Quality, Similarity, Work Attitudes

2 DO MENTOR AND PROTÉGÉ PERSONALITY INTERACT TO PREDICT QUALITY OF MENTORING? by M. ASHLEY MORRISON B. A., University of Tennessee, 2005 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF SCIENCE ATHENS, GEORGIA 2009

3 2009 M. Ashley Morrison All Rights Reserved

4 DO MENTOR AND PROTÉGÉ PERSONALITY INTERACT TO PREDICT QUALITY OF MENTORING? by M. ASHLEY MORRISON Major Professor: Committee: Charles E. Lance Lillian T. Eby Karl W. Kuhnert Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia December 2009

5 iv DEDICATION I dedicate this to my loving grandparents, Robert and Betty Little, and Archie and Alice Morrison. Thank you for all the wonderful memories.

6 v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge my family whose love and support has been invaluable throughout the graduate school process. Second, thanks to my dear friends Tamar, Lisa, and Shane, for keeping me sane, and reminding me that fun is a necessary component to success. Finally, I would like to acknowledge my committee members Lillian Eby, Charles Lance, and Karl Kuhnert. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and giving your continuous support. This research was supported in part by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (R01DA ) awarded to Lillian T. Eby. The opinions expressed are those of the author and not the granting agency.

7 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...v LIST OF TABLES... viii LIST OF FIGURES... ix CHAPTER 1 Introduction Literature Review and Hypotheses...3 Mentoring...3 Similarity and Quality of Mentoring...6 The Big Five Personality Factors...11 Personality Similarity and Quality of Mentoring...12 Quality of Mentoring and Protégé Outcomes Method...20 Sample and Procedure...20 Measures...21 Analysis Results Discussion...41 General Discussion...41 Implications...46

8 vii Limitations...47 Conclusion...47 REFERENCES...48

9 viii LIST OF TABLES Page Table 4.1: Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero Order Correlations...30 Table 4.2: Standardized Cross-Product and Squared-Product Residual Analysis and Disturbance Term Regression Results for Conscientiousness...32 Table 4.3: Standardized Cross-Product Residual Analysis and Disturbance Term Regression Results for Neuroticism...33 Table 4.4: Standardized Cross-Product Residual Analysis and Disturbance Term Regression Results for Openness...34 Table 4.5: Standardized Cross-Product Residual Analysis and Disturbance Term Regression Results for Agreeableness...35 Table 4.6: Standardized Cross-Product and Squared-Product Residual Analysis and Disturbance Term Regression Results for Extraversion...36

10 ix LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 2.1: Hypothesized Model...6 Figure 4.1: Conscientiousness Model...37 Figure 4.2: Neuroticism Model...38 Figure 4.3: Interaction of Protégé and Mentor Agreeableness on Relationship Quality...39 Figure 4.4: Curvilinear Relationship between Mentor Extraversion and Relationship Quality...40

11 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Mentoring is a concept that has been around since the time of Homer (Ragins & Kram, 2007). However, it is only in the past twenty years that its importance has been fully recognized as one of the most influential one-on-one relationships in the workplace (Wanberg, Welsh, & Hezlett, 2003). Even with the abundance of recent research, there remains a question of why some mentoring relationships work and others do not, as well as a push to investigate these relationships at the dyadic level. This question is especially important in regards to the recent explosion of formal mentoring programs implemented in various organizations (Wanberg, Kammeyer-Mueller, & Marchese, 2006). The purpose of this study is to investigate what makes formal mentoring relationships effective by looking at the role of personality in mentor-protégé dyads, in terms of the Big Five, and to determine whether personality interacts to affect perceived quality of mentoring and protégé outcomes. More specifically, this study seeks to determine if personality between formally matched mentors and protégés interacts to predict quality of mentoring, and if through its influence on quality of mentoring it also influences protégé work attitudes. If mentor and protégé personality do in fact interact to predict quality and subsequently protégé outcomes then it may serve as a new guideline by which to match mentors and protégés in formal mentoring programs. As such, this study contributes to the current body of research three ways. First, it serves as the first study to investigate the interaction of personality between mentors and protégés on quality of mentoring. Second, it is the first study to look at the interaction of mentor-

12 2 protégé personality and whether this interaction influences more distal protégé outcomes through quality of mentoring. Third, it answers repeated calls for investigation of personality in mentoring (Turban & Lee, 2007; Wanberg et al., 2003), investigation of mentoring at the dyadic level (Wanberg et al., 2003), and in-depth investigation of formal mentoring specifically (Baugh & Fagenson-Eland, 2007; Wanberg et al., 2003).

13 3 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES Mentoring A mentoring relationship is a developmental relationship in which a more experienced individual (i.e. mentor) works to advance the growth, personal and/or professional, of a less experienced individual (i.e. protégé) (Wanberg et al., 2003). In the past, mentoring has been investigated in three relatively independent streams of research: youth mentoring, academic mentoring, and workplace mentoring. More recently though these streams have been combined in the form of meta-analyses and some of the positive effects have been found to generalize (Eby, Allen, Evans, Ng, & DuBois, 2008). In terms of career related mentoring, Allen and colleagues conducted a rigorous meta-analytic study of both the objective (e.g., compensation) and subjective (e.g., career satisfaction) outcomes of mentored versus non-mentored individuals as well as the relationship between outcomes and mentoring provided (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004). Allen and colleagues (2004) found that mentored individuals enjoyed greater career outcomes, both subjective and objective, and that career related mentoring was related positively to these outcomes. In terms of subjective outcomes, mentored individuals enjoyed greater job satisfaction, career satisfaction, advancement expectation, intentions to stay, and career commitment than their non-mentored counterparts. Mentoring was also found to correlate with the objective outcomes of compensation and promotion, but not as strongly as it did with the subjective outcomes (Allen et al., 2004).

14 4 When discussing mentoring relationships, researchers often differentiate them in terms of function and formation. These distinctions are important in that different types of mentoring may have different relationships with certain outcomes. In the workplace literature, mentoring function is divided in terms of career functions and psychosocial functions. Career functions, sometimes referred to as instrumental mentoring, include a range of behaviors meant to help protégés navigate the organizational structure and prepare them for advancement and success. This includes behaviors such as coaching, sponsorship, and protection, delegating challenging assignments, and increasing positive exposure and visibility. Psychosocial functions are built on trust, intimacy and interpersonal bonds. Psychosocial functions include behaviors that advance protégés personal and professional growth, identity, self-worth, and self-efficacy. This includes offering acceptance and confirmation, as well as providing counseling, friendship, and rolemodeling (Eby, Rhodes, & Allen, 2007). Mentoring relationships are also characterized in terms of how the relationship is formed, into informal to formal mentoring. Traditionally, informal mentoring relationships develop spontaneously, often as a result of some form of interpersonal attraction between the mentor and protégé. Formal mentoring, on the other hand, often involves some sort of matching process determined by a third party (Ragins & Cotton, 1999). Formal and informal mentoring have a shown positive relationships with certain outcomes, but it has been noted formal mentoring does not provide the same level of positive outcomes as informal mentoring does (Ragins & Cotton, 1999; Ragins, Cotton, & Miller, 2000). Even beyond this, in formal mentoring the possibility of a mismatch is somewhat greater than in informal mentoring and these mismatches can have negative consequences (Eby, McManus, Simon, & Russel, 2000).

15 5 It has been noted in the literature that a better understanding of both formal and informal mentoring relationships is needed so that the full spectrum of benefits can be realized. It has been theorized that similarity, comfort, and attraction are what leads two people into an informal mentoring relationship. Formal mentoring, while gaining popularity in organizations, is often conducted haphazardly with different organizations using different methods to match mentors to protégés, as well as some that use no method at all (Wanberg et al., 2003). It has been suggested that personality similarity may be a factor that leads individuals to build informal mentoring relationships and if this is true it could be used to match protégés to mentors in formal relationships, but this has yet to be investigated in the literature, despite the repeated call for it (Turban & Lee, 2007). If it is found that similarity in personality among formally assigned mentor-protégé dyads has a positive relationship to quality of mentoring and protégé work attitudes, then it suggests that matching mentors and protégés based on the similarity of their personalities might increase the likelihood of a positive mentoring relationship. According to Kram (1985), quality of mentoring includes satisfaction with the relationship, mutual perceived benefits, and depth of the relationship. Higher quality suggests higher effectiveness and this in turn suggests more positive protégé outcomes (Kram, 1985). Quality of mentoring is conceptualized as feelings of positive affect toward the mentoring relationship, and is often assessed through protégé satisfaction with mentoring (Allen & Eby, 2003). Borrowing from Baugh and Fagenson-Eland s (2007) framework for investigating formal mentoring relationships and Wanberg et al. s (2003) conceptual process model of formal mentoring, I suggest a more specific model whereby the mentor and protégé personality interact to influence the proximal variable of mentoring quality and through this influence on quality personality interaction will also influence the more distal outcomes of protégé work attitudes,

16 6 specifically job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions. For a graphic representation of this model, see Figure 2.1. Protégé Personality Mentor personality x Protégé personality Perceived Quality of Mentoring Protégé Work Attitudes Mentor Personality Figure 2.1 Hypothesized Model. Similarity and Quality of Mentoring There are a number of general theories that attempt to explain why similarity draws people together. The most well know, the similarity-attraction paradigm, states that people are more attracted to individuals they perceive to be similar to themselves (Byrne, 1971). Taken from learning theory, Byrne posits that when two people are similar one person will enhance, reinforce, or validate the other person. Due to this supportive function people who are similar prefer to be around one another rather than someone who is different. In addition, individuals

17 7 who perceive themselves to be similar to one another may have a greater liking for one another because they have similar views that confirm one another and this likely makes both people feel good. This link appears to hold up in a variety of experimental contexts (Byrne, 1971). In a slightly more complex explanation, Engle and Lord (1997) suggest that since traits may affect behaviors, those with similar traits behave similarly. This suggests that people with similar traits can not only understand or interpret each other s actions better, but also have more accurate expectations of one another. This level of understanding can therefore facilitate a more comfortable relationship in that social interactions can be more automatic and intuitive. In turn, this may make people who are similar perceive the relationship as being of a higher quality (Engle & Lord, 1997). The role of perceived similarity has received a good amount of attention in the mentoring literature and consistently been found to be an important predictor of quality perceptions. For instance, Wanberg and colleagues (2006) studied a 12 month formal mentoring program and found that perception of similarity was significantly related to protégé satisfaction with the mentor. Ensher, Grant-Vallone, and Marelich (2002) studied protégés who reported informal mentors in an educational or media work setting, and found that perceived attitudinal similarity predicted protégés satisfaction with and perception of support received from their mentors. Focusing on a large formal teaching mentoring program, Owen and Soloman (2006) found that perceived similarity in values and personality predicted protégé reports of the mentoring program s effectiveness. Ensher and Murphy (1997) examined a summer intern program and found that liking and subsequently satisfaction with mentoring was higher when protégés perceived themselves to be more similar to their mentors. Looking at a broader span of perceived similarity, Turban, Dougherty, and Lee (2002) found that similarity in values, attitudes, career

18 8 aspirations, and working style influenced the protégé s perception of the value of the relationship. In an investigation of the relationship between employees and their immediate supervisors, Liden, Wayne, and Stilwell (1993) found that perceived similarity in values as well as problem solving significantly predicted quality of leader-member exchange (LMX), a finding later supported in another study by Engle and Lord (1997) that also looked at supervisor subordinate relationships. Demographic similarities between mentors and protégés, especially gender and race, have been studied in depth. Allen, Day, and Lentz (2005) found that gender similarity was related to interpersonal comfort and this mediated the relationship between gender similarity and protégé reports of mentoring. Ensher and Murphy (1997) found that race similarity, while it related to the amount of mentoring received, was not significantly related to protégé satisfaction. Contrary to this, Ortiz-Walters and Gilson (2005) found that graduate students of color were more satisfied with mentors of color and that this relationship was moderated by interpersonal comfort. The attraction-similarity paradigm applied to race and gender is also well supported in supervisorsubordinate dyadic research (Judge & Ferris, 1993; Tsui &O Reilly, 1989; Wayne & Liden, 1995). While actual deep-level similarity (e.g., similarity in personality, attitudes, and values) between relational partners has received little attention in the mentoring literature, it has been studied to some degree on other types of relationships, including friendship and romantic relationships. Actual similarity is different from perceived similarity in that it is a more objective comparison of similarity between two individuals that does not take into account individual evaluations of similarity. For example, instead of asking how similar are you to your partner one might take separate measures of the variable under study for each of the partners and then

19 9 compare the two measures. In communication research, a rewards of interaction model has been put forth that posits that actual deep-level similarities such as personality and values enhance the quality of interpersonal interactions therefore making them more rewarding to those involved (Burleson, 1995). Burleson and Samter (1996) used this model to explain why friends who were similar in social-cognitive and communication skills were more satisfied with the friendship. Moreover, in a study of roommates, task-related conflicts as well as the frequency of these conflicts were related to differences in extraversion (Bono, Boles, Judge, & Lauver, 2002). Research in the area of romantic relationships has consistently reported that couples who are more alike report greater satisfaction (Eysenck & Wakefield, 1981; Richard, Wakefield, & Lewak, 1990; Arindell & Lutejin, 2000). In a study of both married and dating couples, Gonzaga, Campos, and Bradbury (2007) found that personality similarity between couples significantly predicted relationship quality. Vinacke, Shannon, Palazzo, and Balsavage (1988) measured personality using the Myers Briggs Type Indicator and found that similarity of married couples was related to relationship quality. Furthermore, there is also longitudinal evidence that couples who are more similar enjoy more stable relationships (Bentler & Newcomb, 1978). More specifically, Eysenck and Wakefield (1981) found that similar levels of extraversion contributed to marital happiness. Barelds (2005) found that couples who were similar on the personality traits of extraversion and emotional stability enjoyed better quality relationships and this finding has been supported in subsequent research (Barelds & Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007). While not much research has looked at how real deep-level similarity influences relationships in the workplace, there are a few exceptions. Bauer and Green (1996) found that actual similarity in positive efficacy was significantly positively related to performance appraisals. Similarly, Ashkanasy and O Conner (1997) found that actual similarity in one of five

20 10 similarity dimensions (achievement values) was significantly related to higher quality of leader member exchange. Godshalk and Sosik (2003) looked at actual similarity between mentors and protégés of learning goal orientation and found that protégés who possessed high levels of goal orientation similar to their mentors reported receiving more mentoring. These authors did not investigate associations with quality of mentoring. Despite widespread support for the similarity-attraction paradigm, Rosenbaum (1986) argues that it is not similarity that causes attraction but rather dissimilarity that causes repulsion. This repulsion hypothesis states that individuals who are different have negative responses to each other while those that are similar have somewhat neutral responses to one another. Similarly, Ragins (1997) argues that a diverse mentoring pair may be hindered by a less cohesive relationship, inhibited communication, and a lack of personal comfort and it is likely this limits the developmental functions and quality of mentoring provided. This is also supported in the helping literature which suggests that the increased uncertainty of being with someone perceived to be different raises the cost and therefore makes the interaction more threatening (Schroeder, Penner, Dovidio, & Piliavin, 1995). Furthermore, problems with mentor/protégé match, operationalized as differences in value, working style, and personality, was one of the categories included in Eby et al. (2000) five-factor taxonomy of negative mentoring experiences. Furthermore, Eby, Butts, Lockwood, and Simon (2004) found that mismatch was significantly negatively related to a number of mentoring quality variables such as learning, complementarity, and social exchange. Although in many cases perceived similarity has been found to be more important than actual similarity (Strauss, Barrick, & Connerly, 2001; Ensher & Murphy, 1997), there is reason to believe that actual similarity in personality plays a role in perceived quality. A number of

21 11 studies have found that behaviors correlate with corresponding personality traits (Fleeson, 2001; Hogan & Holland, 2003; Moskowitz & Cote; 1995). Similar personality leads to similar behavior which has implications on how the relationship will develop. Furthermore, many formal mentoring programs match the mentor to the protégé before either gets an opportunity to evaluate the other s similarity. In these situations perceived similarity cannot be used to identify potential mentor-protégé matches. In contrast, actual similarity can be measured before the match is made and may prove to be much more useful in identifying successful mentor-protégé pairings. The Big Five Personality Factors Personality has enjoyed a very long period of study both in the social and applied psychology literature. Theoretically, personality psychology tries to make sense of individuals patterns of thoughts, behaviors, and emotions, and determine the psychological mechanisms driving those patterns (Funder, 2001). Personality has been investigated in many different areas of psychology, and consequently, has been beset by a slew of suggested personality traits and paradigms. Some consist of the same traits with different names, while others consist of the same names with different traits. Fortunately, researchers have eventually come to acknowledge the Big Five as the most useful paradigm currently existing. While the factor independence as well as the thoroughness of the Big Five has been repeatedly questioned in the literature, it has nonetheless been accepted as the best personality paradigm we have at present. The Big Five consists of extraversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness to experience (Funder, 2001). Extraversion, characterized by sociability, high levels of energy, and positive emotionality, is likely to have implications in interpersonal processes. Individuals high in

22 12 extraversion are more likely to take the lead in ambiguous situations and socialize with a variety of people (Turban & Lee, 2007). Emotional stability is characterized by calmness, freedom from troubling emotions, and self-assurance. Neuroticism is characterized by nervousness, experiencing troubling emotions, and lack of self-assurance. Individuals high in neuroticism may be more reactive, experiencing a range of negative emotion such as sadness, anger, anxiety, and insecurity. In the work setting, individuals low in neuroticism are better able to remain calm under pressure and handle stress (Turban & Lee, 2007). Conscientiousness is characterized by an achievement orientation, attention to detail, and organization. Conscientiousness signals competence; meta-analytic research has shown it to be a predictor of job performance across a broad range of jobs (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Individuals high in conscientiousness can be counted on to follow through on commitments as well as produce quality work (Turban & Lee, 2007). Agreeableness is characterized by trust, caring, friendliness, and a pleasant attitude. It is, in essence, an interpersonal trait. Those high in agreeableness are likely to be more compliant and conflict avoidant, while those low in agreeableness are prone to conflict, suspicion, and crassness (Turban & Lee, 2007). Openness to experience is characterized creativity, intellect, and open-mindedness. Research suggests that individuals high in openness to experience enjoy learning new things and therefore are motivated to make the most of training opportunities (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Personality Similarity and Quality of Mentoring While each member of a mentoring relationship brings his or her own unique ability levels, demographic background, personality, attitudes, and work history to the relationship, the

23 13 relationship literature suggests that it is the interaction of the characteristics of the two individuals that is particularly important in determining the characteristics of the relationship (Berscheid, Lopes, Ammazzalorso, & Langenfield, 2001; Hinde, 2001). Therefore, I will examine the personality of both the mentor and protégé to see if they interact to predict quality of the relationship. Out of the big five, conscientiousness has shown the strongest relationship with work outcomes such as performance and job satisfaction. It is conceptually related to many workoriented qualities including dutifulness and self-discipline. There are a number of reasons to think that similarity in conscientiousness will positively relate to quality of mentoring. If a protégé is high on conscientiousness and their mentor is not, the protégé may be frustrated by the mentor s lax approach, lack of organization, and low level of expectations. Similarly, if the protégé is low on conscientiousness and the mentor is high, the protégé feel the mentor is too demanding in their approach or that the mentor s expectations of them are unrealistically high. Kram and Bragar (1992) argued that high quality mentoring could only be achieved when mutual understanding is present, suggesting that similar levels of conscientiousness could be important to mentoring quality. Neuman, Wagner, and Christiansen (1999) argued that groups similar in conscientiousness would work better because each member would put forth equal effort in accomplishing work responsibilities. While this doesn t directly apply to mentoring relationship since the mentor is usually expected to put in more effort, if the protégé is judging the mentoring relationship based on how the protégé would act as mentor then they may find the relationship lacking. In looking at the how similarity in leader-subordinate personality influences LMX, Bernerth, Armenakis, Field, Giles, & Walker (2008) found a positive relationship between similarity in conscientiousness and subordinate perceptions of LMX. LMX, like mentoring, is a

24 14 dyadic relationship between a leader and subordinate but does not necessarily include the provision of developmental functions (Sosik & Godshalk, 2000). Therefore, the social exchange expectations between leaders and subordinates differ somewhat from the expectations between mentors and protégés (Wanberg et al., 2003). Nonetheless, it seems likely that when mentors and protégés are similar on the characteristic of conscientiousness, even if both are low, they will have a higher quality relationship than if just one of them is low. Therefore, I propose the following: Hypothesis 1. Mentor and protégé conscientiousness will interact to predict quality of the relationship such that the more similar mentors and protégés are in conscientiousness the higher the quality of the relationship will be rated. Neuroticism is related to behaviors and tendencies of individuals under stress, such that those low in neuroticism stay composed while those higher in neuroticism are more reactive. Individuals who are high in neuroticism are characterized by feelings of inadequacy, embarrassment, anxiety, and insecurity, and therefore they often have limited social skills (Bernerth et al., 2008). Protégés who are lower in neuroticism are less moody and emotional than those who are lower and it seems likely that they will be more comfortable and happier when their mentor exhibits the same characteristics. Bernerth et al. (2008) found support for the idea that leaders and subordinates who were similar in neuroticism had higher quality LMX, but did not look at whether personality interacted. Because individuals high in neuroticism are more reactive and unable to cope with stress it seems likely that if either the mentor, protégé, or both are high in neuroticism it will negatively relate to quality of mentoring. If both mentor and protégé are low on neuroticism, however, then it is likely that it will have a synergistic positive effect on quality of mentoring. Therefore, I propose the following:

25 15 Hypothesis 2. Mentor and protégé neuroticism will interact such that the quality of mentoring relationship will be highest when both mentor and protégé are low on neuroticism. Openness to experience is characterized by receptivity to new ideas and experiences. Therefore, it seems likely that individuals who score higher on openness will be more likely to take interest in the views of others and accept their idiosyncrasies (Bonzionelos, 2004). Chao, Waltz, and Gardner (1992) found that protégés who became informally mentored were selected because they seemed open to idea and advice of mentors, indicating this trait may influence mentoring in some way. Bonzionelos (2004) found that individuals high in openness were more likely to provide mentoring functions to others, and openness was related to mentoring received. Furthermore, in a study on LMX, Bernerth et al. (2008) found that when leaders and subordinates had similar levels of openness to experience, LMX was rated higher. It could be argued that differing levels of openness could leave the social exchange between protégé and mentor unbalanced because mentors low in openness may be unable to challenge protégés who want to be challenged. Conversely, it may be unbalanced because protégés low in openness may be unable to bring new ideas to the table or question assumptions, contributing little to the mentoring relationship. Based on this I propose the following: Hypothesis 3. Mentor and protégé openness to experience will interact such that the quality of mentoring relationship will be highest when both mentor and protégé are high on openness. Agreeableness is very much an interpersonal trait and in large part determines how well one is able to get along with others. Kram (1985) suggested that when protégés are enjoyable to be with and are able to tolerate conflict they are more attractive to mentors. In a study of team

26 16 processes, Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, and Mount (1998) found that teams with even one disagreeable person can suffer from reduced team cohesion. If that team is reduced to two it seems the influence of a disagreeable member would be that much more detrimental. Intuitively, if either the mentor or the protégé were hard to work with, as would be expected of an individual low in agreeableness, it seems it would have a negative impact on the relationship. In line with this, only main effects for agreeableness are expected. Therefore, I suggest the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 4. Agreeableness of the protégé and mentor will have only main effects such that the higher either the mentor or the protégé are on agreeableness the higher the quality of the mentoring relationship will be rated. Presented last is the personality trait of extraversion. Many of the facets of extraversion are related to interpersonal skill because extraversion reflects an individual s energy level and sociability. Aryee, Lo, and Kang (1999) found that protégé extraversion was positively related to mentoring received, a finding later supported by Bozionelos (2004). Some research suggests that similarity on extraversion should enhance a relationship (Barelds, 2005; Barelds & Barelds- Dijkstra, 2007; Eysenck & Wakefield, 1981; Neuman et al., 1999). Other research suggests just the opposite (Barry & Steward, 1997; Bernerth et al., 2008; Glomb & Welsh, 2005). Glomb and Welsh (2005) found that dissimilarity between supervisors and subordinates in the dimension of control did in fact predict subordinates satisfaction with the supervisor and explained it using interpersonal interaction theory. Interpersonal interaction theory is a behavioral approach to similarity and dissimilarity that posits interpersonal behavior can be factored into the two dimensions of affiliation and control. Interpersonal theory indicates that along the control dimension, behaviors opposite to the other person s control goals are invited, forming a

27 17 complimentary relationship. Extraversion is very similar to control in that dominance involved in both, and like control, relational norms dictate that the mentor should be the more extraverted of the two. This is supported by experimental work indicating that mentors who demonstrate high levels of interpersonal skill, such as individuals who are high in extraversion, are preferred by protégés (Olian, Carroll, Giannantonio, & Ferren, 1988). Extraversion was the only trait out of the big five that Bernerth et al. (2008) did not find a similarity or dissimilarity effect for on LMX. Based on this and the failure of the literature to find consistent relationship I will not make a formal hypothesis concerning mentor and protégé extraversion. However, I will conduct an exploratory analysis into whether a relationship of any kind is present. Quality of Mentoring and Protégé Outcomes Quality of mentoring, operationalized at protégé satisfaction with the mentoring relationship, has been related to certain work attitudes. Even in early theory, Kram (1985) suggested that effective mentoring should be related to positive work attitudes. The positive relationship between relationship quality and work attitudes has also been supported in research on LMX. For instance, in a meta-analytic review of the LMX literature, Gerstner and Day (1997) found that higher levels of LMX were related to increased job satisfaction, increased organizational commitment, and decreased turnover intentions. In the mentoring literature, Donaldson, Ensher, and Grant-Vallone (2000) found that high quality mentoring relationships were correlated with self-reported levels of organizational commitment reported six months later. Ragins et al. (2000) found that protégés satisfaction with their mentors was related to an array of perceptual outcomes, including higher protégé career commitment, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and perceived opportunities for promotion. In fact, when they compared formal and informal mentoring, Ragins et al. (2000) found that individuals who

28 18 reported high levels of satisfaction with their formal mentors were no different from individuals who reported high levels of satisfaction with their informal mentors on organizational commitment, promotion satisfaction, and intentions to quit. Essentially, quality of mentoring was a much stronger predictor of protégé work attitudes than whether the relationship was formally or informally developed. When looking at negative mentoring experiences, Eby et al. (2004) found that negative mentoring experiences and lower quality relationships were related to outcomes such as intentions to leave the relationship and psychological withdraw. The three work attitudes examined were job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions. These variables are of great interest to researchers in terms of important work attitudes and have great significance to organizations (Brief, 1998). Job satisfaction, or how happy an individual is in their job, has long been one of the most popular work attitudes to study. Organizational commitment, or more specifically, affective organizational commitment, refers to identification with and emotional attachment to the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1996). Turnover intention, operationalized as the likelihood of leaving a job within a certain amount of time, is considered the last in a sequence of withdrawal cognitions. Intention to leave a job is the strongest predictor of actual turnover (Tett & Meyer, 1993), and actual turnover is one of the most costly consequences for organizations. While quality of mentoring has never been empirically investigated as a mediator of the relationship between mentor-protégé personality and protégé work attitudes, this relationship has been suggested previously in the literature. Both Baugh and Fagenson-Eland s (2007) and Wanberg et al. s (2003) models of formal mentoring include mentor and protégé characteristics interacting as an antecedent, quality of mentoring as a mediator, and job satisfaction,

29 19 organizational commitment, and turnover intentions as outcomes. Therefore my final hypotheses are: Hypothesis 5a. Quality of mentoring will be positively related to the protégé outcomes of job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and will be negatively related to turnover intentions. Hypothesis 5b. Quality of the mentoring relationship will function as a mediator such that the previously hypothesized effects of mentor-protégé personality will be transmitted to the protégé outcomes of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions through quality of mentoring.

30 20 CHAPTER 3 METHOD Sample and Procedure The data for this study came from a larger research project, Project Managing Effective Relationships in Treatment Services (MERITS), investigating the experiences of full-time counselors and clinical supervisors employed in substance abuse treatment facilities. The sample for this study came from counselors and clinical supervisors working at 26 different Community Treatment Providers (CTPs) across the United States. CTPs were compensated for their participation in the study. A researcher traveled to each of the locations to administer hour to hour and a half long paper and pencil surveys. The researcher gave a brief overview of the study and explained the survey process, stressing that participation was voluntary, and the participants were asked to sign a consent form. To ensure confidentiality, names were not used. Instead surveys were coded, and completed surveys were turned in directly to the research. CTP administration was not allowed access to completed surveys. 481 matched counselor-clinical supervisor dyads were identified, with about 50% of those dyads being cross-gender and 40% being cross-race dyads. Participants were predominantly Caucasian (64% counselors, 77% clinical supervisors) and female (67% counselors, 65% clinical supervisors). The modal level of education for both groups was a Masters or professional degree. The average age was 47 years for clinical supervisors and 43 years for counselors.

31 21 Measures Personality. The Big Five personality traits of conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, emotional stability, and openness to experience were measure using items taken from the Mini International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) (Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, & Lucas, 2006). Consisting of 20 items, the Mini IPIP uses a five-point Likert-type scale was used with 1 indicating strong disagreement and 5 indicating strong agreement. The coefficient alpha was found to be above.6 for all five dimensions in protégés and above.5 for all five dimensions in mentors. Relationship quality. Relationship quality refers to general feelings of positive affect towards the relationship including satisfaction with the relationship, perceived benefits received by both mentor and protégé, and the depth of the relationship (Allen & Eby, 2003). Relational quality was measured from the counselor s point of view using 4 items from Allen and Eby s (2003) study. A sample item is Both my clinical supervisor and I benefit from our clinical supervisory relationship. A five point Likert-type scale was used ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The coefficient alpha for this scale was.91. Job satisfaction. To measure how happy or satisfied counselors were with their jobs Smith s (1976) 6-item measure of job satisfaction was used. A sample item is The kind of work I do has a favorable influence on my overall attitude toward my job. A five point Likert-type scale was used (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) and had a coefficient alpha of.80. Turnover intentions. Turnover intentions of the counselors, or the extent to which they are considering leaving their current job, was measured using 3 items based on Adams and Beehr s (1998) scale. A sample item is I often think of quitting this job and finding another. A

32 22 five point Likert-type scale was used (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) and has a coefficient alpha of.92. Organizational commitment. Meyer, Allen, and Smith s (1993) 6-item measure was used to assess counselors affective organizational commitment, or their identification with, and loyalty to their organization. A sample item is I would be happy to spend the rest of my career with this treatment center. As with the other scales, a five point Likert-type scale was used (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) and has a coefficient alpha of.81. Controls. There are a number of other variables that may influence quality of relationship and must be taken into consideration. As noted previously, gender and race similarity have been looked extensively and the findings have been mixed (Allen et al., 2005; Ensher & Murphy, 1997; Judge & Ferris, 1993; Ortiz-Walters and Gilson, 2005; Tsui &O Reilly, 1989; Wayne & Liden, 1995), therefore I considered these demographic similarities as potential control variables. Another variable that has been linked to quality of mentoring relationship is frequency of interaction (Ensher & Murphy, 1997). Therefore, frequency of interaction was used as a potential control variable as well. Analysis Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations for each of the variables were calculated in the first step of the data analysis. Then each set of personality interaction variables were tested using residual centered moderator regression, as put forth in Lance (1988). This method has a number of advantages over other methods such as hierarchical moderator regression (HMR) analysis in that it reduces multicollinearity problems, allows for the separation of interaction and main effects, and yields a residualized cross product regression coefficient that can directly interpreted as the effect of the interaction on the outcome (Lance, 1988). To

33 23 determine whether congruence on conscientiousness or extraversion influenced relationship quality, I used a modified version of Lance s (1988) residual centered moderator regression with the inclusion of polynomial terms, as suggested by Edwards and Parry (1993). Tests for moderation. The first step when using residual centered moderator regression to test for moderation was to regress the cross-product term on the main effects. Then the crossproduct residuals were constructed by subtracting the predicted cross-product term from the observed cross-product term. The cross-product residuals were then inserted back into the full equation regression and if they were found to be significantly different from zero then there was evidence for an interaction effect. Tests for mediation. While much research has used Baron and Kenny s (1986) 4-step method for testing mediation, this technique has recently come under considerable scrutiny and is no longer recommended (LeBreton, Wu, & Bing, 2009). To determine the presence of mediation the outcomes were regressed on the mediator and the mediator was regressed on the cross-product residuals. Outcome and mediator residuals were constructed and then disturbance term regression tests of zero effect hypotheses were conducted (Lance, 1986). If the relationship between the two observed personality variables and the mediator or outcome residuals was not significantly different from zero then the presence of mediated moderation was supported (Lance, 1988).

34 24 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Correlations, means, and standard deviations are shown in Table 4.1. While no main effects were hypothesized, protégé conscientiousness was positively related to relationship quality (r =.12, p <.01), and protégé neuroticism was negatively related to relationship quality (r = -.15, p <.01). Interestingly, mentor agreeableness and conscientiousness were negatively related to relationship quality (r = -.10 and r = -.10, p <.01, respectively), opposite of what would be expected. In line with my hypothesis, relationship quality was positively related to job satisfaction (r =.30, p <.01) and organizational commitment (r =.43, p <.01), and negatively related to turnover intentions (r = -.37, p <.01). Frequency of interaction was significantly correlated with relationship quality (r =.17, p <.01), job satisfaction (r =.20, p <.01), organizational commitment (r =.17, p <.01), and turnover intentions (r = -.14, p <.01). Therefore, frequency of interaction was included with the personality variables in subsequent regression analyses to control for its influence on the mediator and outcome variables. Hypothesis 1 stated that mentor and protégé conscientiousness would interact to predict quality of the relationship such that the more similar mentors and protégés were in conscientiousness the higher the quality of the relationship would be rated. In order to test this hypothesis I used residual centered moderator regression, as described by Lance (1988), and included polynomial terms. Using this method, similarity is not calculated directly, for that has been shown to be fraught with problems (Edwards & Parry, 1993). Instead, the effects of similarity are evaluated by looking at the pattern of results of a polynomial regression equation

35 25 of a higher order, in this case, quadratic. Results are shown in Table 4.2. Results showed that neither protégé conscientiousness (dpc², β =.03, p >.05) or mentor conscientiousness (dmc², β = -.01, p >.05) had significant squared effects on relationship quality. The cross-product (dcxc) was also not significant (β = -.01, p >.05). For Hypothesis 1 to be supported, both squared terms would need to be positive, significant, and equal to one another, and the squared coefficients and cross-product coefficient would need to sum to zero (Edwards & Parry, 1993). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was not supported. Because Hypothesis 5b was in part contingent upon Hypothesis 1 being supported, it is rendered moot for conscientiousness. Although the initial hypothesis was not supported, zero effects hypotheses were tested in a post hoc analysis to determine whether un-hypothesized main effects were present and if these effects were mediated onto protégé outcomes. These results are also included in Table 4.2. To test for main effects of mentor and protégé conscientiousness, the relationship quality residual (d rq), saved after testing Hypothesis 1, was regressed onto mentor and protégé conscientiousness. Results indicate protégé conscientiousness significantly positively predicted relationship quality (β =.11, p <.01), while mentor conscientiousness significantly negatively predicted relationship quality (β = -.11, p <.01). I used outcome residuals (d js, d oc, and d to ), saved after testing Hypothesis 5a, to determine if relationship quality mediated the relationship between protégé/mentor conscientiousness and protégé outcomes. The relationship between protégé conscientiousness and job satisfaction was significant (β =.17, p <.01), indicating that relationship quality did not fully mediate this relationship. The relationships between protégé conscientiousness and both the organizational commitment and turnover intention were not significantly different from zero (β = -.01 and β = -.04, p >.05, respectively), suggesting that relationship quality completely mediated this relationship. The relationship between mentor

36 26 conscientiousness, job satisfaction (β = -.01, p >.05), organizational commitment (β = -.01, p >.05), and turnover intentions (β =.05, p >.05) were also not significantly different from zero indicating that relationship quality also fully mediated these relationships. A revised model is shown in Figure 4.1. Hypothesis 2 stated that mentor and protégé neuroticism would interact such that the quality of mentoring relationship would be highest when both mentor and protégé were low on neuroticism. In order to test this hypothesis I used residual centered moderator regression as described by Lance (1988). Results are shown in Table 4.3. The cross-product (dnxn) did not significantly predict relationship quality (β =.05, p >.05), failing to support Hypothesis 2. Because Hypothesis 5b was in part contingent upon Hypothesis 2 being supported, it is rendered moot for neuroticism as well. A post hoc analysis, similar to conscientiousness was conducted to determine the presence of main effects for mentor and protégé neuroticism. These results are also included in Table 4.3. Results indicated that only protégé neuroticism significantly negatively predicted relationship quality (β = -.14, p <.01). The relationships between protégé neuroticism and both job satisfaction (β = -.25, p <.01) and turnover intentions (β =.22, p <.01) were significantly different from zero, indicating that this relationship was only partially mediated. The relationship between protégé neuroticism and organizational commitment was not significantly different from zero (β = -.02, p >.05) indicating that relationship quality did in fact fully mediate the relationship. A revised model is shown in Figure 4.2. Hypothesis 3 stated mentor and protégé openness to experience would interact such that the quality of mentoring relationship would be highest when both mentor and protégé were high on openness. Results are shown in Table 4.4. The cross-product (doxo) did not significantly