Mentor and protégé predictors and outcomes of mentoring in a formal mentoring program

Transcription

1 Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) Mentor and protégé predictors and outcomes of mentoring in a formal mentoring program Connie R. Wanberg a,, John Kammeyer-Mueller b, Marc Marchese c a Industrial Relations Center, University of Minnesota, Carlson School of Management, th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA b University of Florida, USA c King s College, USA Received 18 April 2006 Available online 28 August 2006 Abstract This study examines the predictors and outcomes of mentoring received by participants of a 12- month formal mentoring program. Based on relationship theory, we examined how the personality of the individuals in the mentoring dyad, their perceived similarity, and mentor perceived support for mentoring contributed to relationship outcomes. The study includes data from both mentors and protégés at the program launch, midway through the program, and at program close. Mentor proactivity was related to more career and psychosocial mentoring; protégé s perceptions of similarity to the mentor was related to more psychosocial mentoring. More mentoring was related to positive protégé and mentor outcomes, including improved protégé career clarity over the duration of the study Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Mentoring; Formal mentoring; Relationships; Career development; Proactivity; Protege 1. Introduction Most mentoring relationships develop naturally through unstructured social interactions, and are known as informal mentoring relationships. In recent years, however, This study was funded by a grant from the Society for Human Resource Management Foundation. The interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations, however, are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Foundation. * Corresponding author. address: cwanberg@csom.umn.edu (C.R. Wanberg) /$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi: /j.jvb

2 C.R. Wanberg et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) many organizations have established formal mentoring programs, involving assigned pairings of mentors with protégés. Despite this trend, there is a dearth of research available about the outcomes of formal mentoring, and the factors that make formalized relationships successful (Feldman, Folks, & Turnley, 1999). This study draws upon relationship theory to examine the extent to which individual characteristics of the formal mentor and protégé, as well as perceived similarity to one s formal mentoring partner and organizational support, contribute to the levels of mentoring received during a 12-month formal mentoring program. Contributing to a literature that has few studies on the outcomes of formal mentoring, this study also examines whether levels of formal mentoring relate to career development and satisfaction-related outcomes reported by both the protégé and mentor Mentoring in the context of formal mentoring programs Formal mentoring relationships diver from informal mentoring in several fundamental ways. First, the relationships are initiated diverently. Informal mentoring relationships develop because of mutual identiwcation and interpersonal comfort (Ragins, 2002). In contrast, formal mentoring programs match individuals as part of an employee development process, and the two individuals must then strive to get to know one another. Formal and informal mentoring relationships also diver according to the timing and structure of the relationship (Ragins & Cotton, 1999). Informal relationships are not governed by a timeline or a third party; there are no external rules dictating whether something should be accomplished, or how long the relationship will last. In contrast, the formal mentoring relationship is part of an organized, facilitated employee development program. Formal mentoring relationships are arranged for a speciwed duration (e.g., nine months to a year), and protégés are generally prompted to have developmental goals in mind. Formal mentoring participants must initiate interaction and establish rapport within this context. Likely because of the fundamental diverences between informal and formal mentoring, research has suggested that on average, informal mentoring may be more evective than formal mentoring (Chao, Walz, & Gardner, 1992; Ragins & Cotton, 1999). A study by Ragins, Cotton, and Miller (2000), however, showed that formal mentoring relationships have the potential to reap the same benewts as informal mentoring relationships. In addition, organizations continue to see formal mentoring as an important employee development tool (Hegstad & Wentling, 2004). Such information suggests the usefulness of learning about what factors are associated with more versus less successful formal mentoring relationships Theoretical framework and hypotheses Mentoring activities have been shown to provide both career (e.g., sponsorship, coaching, protection, challenging assignments, and exposure) and psychosocial (e.g., friendship, role modeling, counseling, and acceptance) functions for protégés (Kram, 1985). Careeroriented functions are aimed more toward the organization and the individual s career. Psychosocial functions are more personal, relying on an emotional bond between the mentor and protégé. Including both members of the formal mentoring dyad, this study used a relationships framework (Hinde, 1997) to examine protégé and mentor characteristics, dyad characteristics, and organizational support for mentoring as predictors of level of

3 412 C.R. Wanberg et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) mentoring that occurs in the relationship. Relatively few applications of relationship theory as well as few studies including both the mentor and mentee exist in the mentoring literature. Relationship theorists within the Weld of social psychology note the importance of individual diverences to relationships, indicating that the characteristics each individual brings to a relationship inxuence the extent and quality of interactions between the two people (Hinde, 1997; Neyer, 2004). In the formal mentoring context, it is intriguing to begin to discuss and examine how protégé and mentor personality may contribute to the success of the developmental relationship. Asendorpf (2002) notes that personality may avect relationships through three primary mechanisms: via selection (who one selects as a relationship partner), evocation (the responses that are evoked from others), and manipulation (how individuals shape the course of their relationship). Given that most formal mentoring programs have an external party complete the matching of the mentor and protégé, we focused on two speciwc personality characteristics (proactivity and openness to experience) whose theoretical origins suggest would be critical in driving the mechanisms of evocation and manipulation of interactions within a formal mentoring context. Proactivity refers to a tendency to shape and inxuence one s environment (Bateman & Crant, 1993). An individual with high proactivity is likely to take action and respond to opportunities, while low proactivity rexects little initiative, passivity, and the likelihood of maintaining the status quo. Protégé proactivity is purported to avect the amount of mentoring via initiation and maintenance of scheduled meetings between the mentor and protégé (evocation) and through goal-oriented behavior during mentor interactions (manipulation). Because formal programs aim toward the protégé, it is the protégé that is typically responsible for arranging meetings (Coley, 1996). Yet, barriers such as the perceived power of the mentor (inducing intimidation on the part of the protégé, and an unwillingness to bother the more senior individual) and time constraints in the work environment highlight the situation as one where initiative will play a role in ensuring such meetings are scheduled. Because proactive individuals seize opportunities for growth, they may also be more prepared for mentoring meetings, articulating questions and directing conversation in a manner that elicits higher amounts of career mentoring. While psychosocial mentoring might be elicited if the two individuals connect on a more personal level, we expect that proactivity of the protégé will especially elicit career mentoring, due to the ambition and initiative components. Mentor proactivity is theoretically relevant for similar reasons. Even if formal mentoring programs are supposed to be protégé-driven, a mentor higher in proactivity will be more likely to schedule meetings if the protégé does not initiate suycient contact and will be more apt to plan discussions. We propose: Hypothesis 1. Higher levels of protégé and mentor proactivity relate to higher levels of career-related mentoring reported by both parties in the formal mentoring relationship. Openness to experience encompasses imagination, intelligence, curiosity, originality, and open-mindedness (McCrae et al., 1996). We expect the openness to experience of the protégé and mentor to be important to the amount of both career and psychosocial mentoring that occurs in a formal mentoring context. Through both mechanisms of evocation and manipulation, we suggest that individuals with higher openness to experience will be more inquisitive and receptive to new ideas and perspectives from a mentor that they may not have gravitated to on their own accord. High openness to experience is expected to similarly predispose mentors to be more willing to mentor an individual that is not a mirror

4 C.R. Wanberg et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) rexection of themselves, and the openness to evoke a more comfortable atmosphere for self-disclosure. In a cross-sectional study of administrators, Bozionelos (2004) found that individuals with higher openness to experience reported providing, as well as receiving, more mentoring over their tenure in their current organization. We more rigorously examine this characteristic in a dyadic, longitudinal context: Hypothesis 2. Higher levels of protégé and mentor openness relate to higher levels of career and psychosocial mentoring reported by both parties in the formal mentoring relationship. While individual characteristics are important to a relationship, variables concerning the dyad itself are also critical (Hinde, 1997). For example, individual characteristics avect relationship success, but perceptions of one another are also important. We concentrate here on one dyad variable, perceived similarity of one s relationship partner, that has attracted attention in both the relationship and the informal mentoring literature. Relationship research suggests that, on average, people prefer others who they perceive as similar to them (Hinde, 1997). The mentoring literature has likewise shown that protégés who perceive themselves as similar to their mentors in regard to issues such as values, perspectives, and work styles report receiving higher levels of both career and psychosocial mentoring (Ensher, Grant-Vallone, & Marelich, 2002; Turban, Dougherty, & Lee, 2002). Studies examining the role of both demographic match variables and perceived similarity have shown perceived similarity to be more strongly associated with outcomes than demographic match variables (Allen & Eby, 2003; Ensher et al., 2002; Turban et al., 2002), likely because there are so many dimensions on which people may diver. In line with this research, we hypothesize that individuals in a formal mentoring context will feel they are receiving more from (or providing more to) someone they perceive is like themselves. We propose: Hypothesis 3. Protégé perceptions of similarity to the mentor relate to higher levels of career and psychosocial mentoring reported by the protégé. Hypothesis 4. Mentor perceptions of similarity to the protégé relate to higher levels of career and psychosocial mentoring reported by the mentor. The relationship literature acknowledges that relationships exist within the context of groups, other individuals, and the external environment in which they reside (Hinde, 1997). Particularly relevant in a formal mentoring context is perceived organizational support for mentoring. While an organization can have a formal mentoring program, organizational culture norms that promote and encourage mentoring may be powerful incentives. Allen, Poteet, and Burroughs (1997) found that perceptions of organizational support for employee learning and development relate positively to mentors motivation to mentor. We propose that mentors perceived organizational support for mentoring will contribute to the mentoring provided in a formal mentoring context beyond the individual and dyad characteristics examined in the proposed model. Hypothesis 5. Mentor perceptions of support for mentoring relate to higher levels of career mentoring reported by both parties in the formal mentoring program. The primary goals of the mentoring programs in our study, as reported by program coordinators, were to promote the career development, performance, and retention of the protégés. Our study collected information about the relationship between the mentoring

5 414 C.R. Wanberg et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) received and four self-report protégé outcomes complimentary to these program goals. Our Wrst protégé outcome was a reaction measure, representing an avective report from the protégés about their general satisfaction with their mentor. The second protégé outcome was a report by the protégés about the extent to which they felt the mentoring program had a positive inxuence on their job performance. The last two outcomes were measures of change, examining improvements in protégé career goal clarity and decreases in intentions to leave the organization from the beginning to the end of the study. We currently know very little about formal mentoring program outcomes. Our examination provides new insight into the relationship between mentoring and important protégé vocational and career-related outcomes including improvements in career goal clarity and desires to stay with the organization, important pre-post (change) outcomes that have not received attention in the mentoring literature, in either formal or informal contexts. Based upon the research available in the informal mentoring domain that suggests that the receipt of psychosocial and career mentoring is associated with both subjective and objective career outcomes (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004), and the likelihood that one s own perceptions of the mentoring that occurred will be related to reactions, learning, and behavioral outcomes, we propose: Hypothesis 6. Higher psychosocial and career mentoring reported by the protégé relate to higher protégé satisfaction with one s mentor, perceived positive inxuence of the program on one s job performance, improvements in career goal clarity, and increased intentions to stay with the organization. It is also of interest to evaluate the extent to which mentors benewt from the mentoring experience. Early theoretical work proposed that mentoring serves as a mechanism for career rejuvenation for individuals in the middle and late career phase (Kram, 1985). However, empirical research on mentoring outcomes has focused almost exclusively on the impact of mentoring on protégés (Wanberg, Welsh, & Hezlett, 2003). One exception to this is a qualitative study by Allen et al. (1997). Mentors reported several benewts to mentoring, primarily self-satisfaction, job-related advantages such as increasing the mentor s own knowledge, and building a support network within the organization. Protégés give mentors an audience for their ideas and feelings, gratifying the mentors desire for generativity. To examine the perspective that mentoring provides a forum for mentor rewards, rejuvenation, and possibly increased organizational commitment, we propose: Hypothesis 7. Higher levels of career and psychosocial mentoring reported by the mentor relate to higher mentor reports of the experience as rewarding, perceived positive inxuence of the program on one s job performance, and to improved organizational commitment. 2. Method 2.1. Participant and procedures Participants were part of a 12-month formal mentoring program designed and implemented by a company specializing in organizational mentoring systems since The standardized program included protégé and mentor orientation, communications, evaluations, and follow-up. Mentors were matched with less-experienced protégés in their own organization based on information the protégé gave on a brief Wll-in-the-blank survey (i.e.,

6 C.R. Wanberg et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) career goals and developmental concerns). Personality measures were not used in the match. Standard decision rules were not used in the matching process and a diverent person matched the individuals for each organization. Each mentor was assigned to only one protégé. The dyads were asked to meet for a minimum of 90 minutes per month. Data were collected at three time points from 13 launches of the program in nine diverent organizations. Two additional organizations began the study, but no pairs Wnished the study from these two organizations due to organizational downsizing resulting in layovs of most of the individuals in the mentoring program. At Time 1, the mentors and protégés were asked to complete a survey at their separate orientation meetings. Time 2 took place six months into the program, and Time 3 took place one year after program launch at the end of the program. At Time 1, 369 protégés and 300 mentors enrolled in the study, for a participation rate of 90% of the potential protégés and 73% of the potential mentors. At Time 2, 276 protégés (75% retention rate) and 216 mentors (72% retention rate) completed the survey. At Time 3, 235 protégés (85% retention rate) and 188 mentors (87% retention rate) completed the survey. Because of instances where a protégé responded and his or her mentor did not (or vice versa) or where individuals responded to only one or two time waves, the number of matched pairs across the three time waves was n D 96 (23% of the original pairs). In our analyses, we focus on these 96 dyads that completed surveys at all three time waves of our study. Of the 96 matched dyads, 70% were same-gender dyads (n D38 male mentors with male protégés and n D29 female mentors with female protégés) and 30% were diverent-gender dyads (n D28 male mentors with female protégés and n D1 female mentor with male protégé). Sixty-seven percent of the participants were matched with someone of their same race, while 33% were diverent race dyads. Protégés reported having met with their mentor an average of 5.5 times (SDD1.6) in the Wrst six months of the program and 5.3 times (SDD2.1) in the last six months of the program. With only one exception [mentors in the Wnal sample had slightly lower proactivity than mentors not in the Wnal sample [MD4.0 (SD D.48) versus MD4.2 (SDD.42), td2.4 (331), p <.05], there were no signiwcant diverences in the demographics or study variables between the protégés and mentors who began the study versus those who were retained in our Wnal sample. Eight interclass correlations (ICC) were estimated through one-way random evects ANOVA to examine dependencies in mentoring received according to the protégé and mentor at Times 2 and 3 for both career and psychosocial mentoring within each mentoring program launch. The ICCs were small, ranging from.00 to.12, suggesting organizational evects did not play a major role in this data Measures Predictors Mentor and protégé proactivity and openness to experience were assessed at Time 1 using the 10-item proactive personality scale (Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999) and the 12- item NEO openness subscale (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Perceived similarity of the protégé to the mentor and the mentor to the protégé (Ensher & Murphy, 1997) and mentors perceptions of support for participation in the mentoring program (e.g., Mentors in my organization obtain positive recognition for assuming a mentoring role ; Ragins & Cotton, 1999) were measured at Time 2. We measured these latter two variables at Time 2 because the dyads had not yet met each other when the Wrst survey was administered and because

7 416 C.R. Wanberg et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) the most meaningful assessments of perceived organizational support for mentoring would be after the launch of the program after mentors have had a chance to communicate with others about their involvement in the program Mentoring Levels of career and psychosocial mentoring were assessed at Times 2 and 3 of the study from both the protégés and the mentors with the Mentor Role Instrument (MRI; Ragins & McFarlin, 1990). Career mentoring was computed by combining the sponsorship, coaching, protection, challenge, and exposure items. Psychosocial mentoring was computed with the friendship, role modeling, counseling, and acceptance items. Items from the MRI were reworded for the mentor survey to rexect their perspective Protégé outcomes Satisfaction with mentor was assessed at Time 3 with four items (e.g., My mentor failed to meet my needs ; reverse scored) from Ragins and Cotton (1999). EVect on protégé s job was assessed at Time 3 with three items based on Ragins and Scandura (1999) improved job performance scale (e.g., Being a protégé has improved my job performance ). We attempted to garner performance appraisal data to compare from the start to the end of the program but were unable to do this across the eleven organizations in the study. Career goal clarity (5 items; e.g., I have a clear picture of my short and long term career goals ) and intentions to turnover (3 items; Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1983) were assessed at both Times 1 and 3 of the study. The assessment of these latter two outcomes at the start and end of the study allows an assessment of improvement. If we only assessed career goal clarity, for example, at Time 3, an observed relationship between mentoring and career goal clarity could mean mentoring promotes career goal clarity, or that individuals with more career goal clarity elicit more mentoring. By controlling for Time 1 levels of career goal clarity in our analyses, we can examine whether levels of mentoring are related to improvements in career goal clarity from the start to the end of the program (Cronbach & Furby, 1970) without incurring the typical problems found in change scores Mentor outcomes Two terminal mentor outcomes (rewarding experience and evect on mentor s job) were measured at the end of the mentoring program. Ragins and Scandura (1999) s seven item rewarding experience scale was used to assess the extent to which mentors reported their experience as a mentor in the program had been rewarding. The items were changed slightly to report about the current mentoring experience as opposed to mentoring experiences in general. For example, the question, Serving as a mentor can be one of the most positive experiences of one s career, was changed to, Serving as a mentor has been one of the most positive experiences of my career (italics added here for distinction). EVect on mentor s job was assessed with three items based on Ragins and Scandura (1999) improved job performance scale (e.g., Being a mentor has improved my job performance ). Our study included one additional mentor outcome that we were able to assess at both program launch and at program close. SpeciWcally, mentor organizational commitment was assessed at both Time 1 and Time 3 with the short form (9 items) of the organizational commitment questionnaire developed by Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979). This measure has consistently demonstrated high internal consistency reliability and prediction of a number of related constructs (cf. Cohen, 1993; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Similar to our

8 C.R. Wanberg et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) assessment of two of the protégé outcomes at both Times 1 and 3, this assessment at the start and end of the study represents a methodological advancement over the measurement of the outcome at the end of the program only and allows us to assess improvement in organizational commitment from program launch to program close Analyses Hypotheses 1 5 involve predicting the amount of mentoring that occurred in the relationship. For these analyses, we predict Time 3 levels of psychosocial and career mentoring. Time 3 mentoring received, rather than Time 2 mentoring received, was used to most comprehensively represent the mentoring received up to the end of the program, and to avoid common method bias (PodsakoV, MacKenzie, Lee, & PodsakoV, 2003) since our predictors were assessed at Times 1 and 2. Hypotheses 6 and 7 examined protégé and mentor outcomes of the mentoring relationship. Consistent with our aim of reducing criticisms arising from common method bias, we used Time 2 reports of mentoring to predict the protégé and mentor outcomes assessed at Time Results Table 1 portrays descriptive statistics. The correlations between career mentoring reported by mentors and protégés were moderate: r D.38 at Time 2 and r D.44 at Time 3. The correlations between psychosocial mentoring reported mentors and protégés were also moderate: r D.14 at Time 2 and r D.31 at Time 3. While the level of correlation between mentor and protégé reports increased from Time 2 to Time 3, the increase in correlations was not statistically signiwcant. Table 2 portrays predictors of protégé and mentor reports of mentoring received/provided (Hypotheses 1 4). The results show that mentor proactivity (measured at the launch of the program) relates positively to both protégé and mentor reports of career-related mentoring and to mentor reports of psychosocial mentoring (measured at the end of the program, one year later). Protégé perceptions of similarity to mentor positively relate to protégé and mentor reports of psychosocial mentoring received/provided. The other variables shown in Table 2, including perceived organizational support (Hypothesis 5), were not signiwcantly associated with the level of mentoring reported at the close of the program. Table 3 portrays predictors of program-relevant outcomes reported by the protégé (Hypothesis 6). The results show that protégé reports of psychosocial mentoring at Time 2 relate positively to protégé satisfaction at Time 3, and that both forms of mentoring relate to protégé reports that the mentoring had positively inxuenced important aspects of their job. Higher levels of career mentoring reported by the protégé at Time 2 relate to improved career goal clarity over the duration of the study. Protégé reports of career and psychosocial mentoring were not associated with reduced intention to turnover from Time 1 to Time 3 of the program. Table 4 portrays predictors of program-relevant outcomes reported by the mentor (Hypothesis 7). Mentor-reported psychosocial mentoring at Time 2 relates to mentor reports at Time 3 that the mentoring was a positive experience. In addition, mentorreported career mentoring at Time 2 relates to mentor reports at Time 3 that being a mentor had a positive impact on his or her job. Mentor reports of career and psychosocial

9 Table 1 Means, standard deviations, correlations, and coeycient alphas for study variables Variable M a SD Protégé characteristics 1. Proactivity (T1) Openness (T1) Mentor characteristics 3. Proactivity (T1) Openness (T1) Partner similarity 5. Protégé: similarity to mentor (T2) Mentor: similarity to Protégé (T2) Support for mentoring 7. Mentor: support for mentoring (T2) Protégé outcomes 8. Psychosocial mentoring received (T2) Psychosocial mentoring received (T3) Career mentoring received (T2) Career mentoring received (T3) Satisfaction with mentor (T3) EVect on the job (T3) Career goal clarity (T1) Career goal clarity (T3) Intention to turnover (T1) Intention to turnover (T3) Mentor outcomes 18. Psychosocial mentoring provided (T2) Psychosocial mentoring provided (T3) Career mentoring provided (T2) Career mentoring provided (T3) Rewarding experience (T3) EVect on the job (T3) Organizational commitment (T1) Organizational commitment (T3) Note. ND96. T1DTime 1 (program launch), T2DTime 2 (six months into the program), T3DTime 3 (program close) of the study. Values in bold on the diagonal are coeycient alphas. Correlations 7.20, p<.05. Correlations 7.26, p<.01. a Scales were scored as a total of their items and then divided by the number of items in the scale. All of the scale items were assessed with 5-point likert scales, so the scale averages have a potential range of 1 5 (with higher scores representing higher levels of the construct). 418 C.R. Wanberg et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006)

10 C.R. Wanberg et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) Table 2 Regression results for protégé and mentor reports of mentoring at Time 3 Variables T3 protégé report of mentoring received β T3 mentor report of mentoring provided β Psychosocial Career Psychosocial Career Protégé proactivity (Tl) Protégé openness (Tl) Mentor proactivity (Tl) Mentor openness (Tl) Protégé s perceived similarity to mentor (T2) Mentor s perceived similarity to protégé (T2) Support for mentoring (Mentor perception) (T2) R Note. N D 96. Tl D Time 1 (program launch), T2 D Time 2 (six months into the program), T3 D Time 3 (program close) of the study. *p 6.05; **p <.01. Table 3 OLS regression results for protégé outcomes at Time 3 Variables 1. Time 1 values for outcome variable 2. Time 2 protégé reported psychosocial mentoring 3. Time 2 protégé reported career mentoring *p <.05; **p <.01. N D 96. Time 3 satisfaction with mentor β Time 3 evect on protégés job β Time 3 career goal clarity β R Table 4 OLS regression results for mentor outcomes at Time 3 Variables 1. Time 1 values for outcome variable 2. Time 2 mentor reported psychosocial mentoring 3. Time 2 mentor reported career mentoring * p <.05; ** p <.01. N D 96. Time 3 rewarding experience β Time 3 evect on mentor s job β Time 3 intention to turnover β Time 3 organizational commitment β R mentoring were not associated with improved organizational commitment from Time 1 to Time 3 of the program. We examined the role of protégé gender, mentor gender, protégé/mentor match on gender, protégé race, mentor race, protégé/mentor match on race, and years of mentor work experience in the above results. These seven control variables were entered into the regressions shown in Tables 2 4. Table 2 results stayed the same with one exception; protégé per-

11 420 C.R. Wanberg et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) ceived similarity to mentor was no longer signiwcant in the prediction of Time 3 mentor report of psychosocial mentoring. There was only one equation in Table 2 where any of the controls were signiwcant. SpeciWcally, protégés in matched gender pairs reported less career mentoring. In Tables 3 and 4 results remained the same when the controls were included with one exception; Time 2 protégé reported career mentoring was no longer a signiwcant predictor of Time 3 evect on protégé s job. There was only one equation in Tables 3 and 4 where any of the controls were signiwcant. SpeciWcally, in Table 4, mentors with male protégés were least likely to report that their mentoring had benewted their job. We report these analyses with controls as supplemental analyses rather than core analyses due to our small n. For example, with the controls, the equations shown in Table 2 include 14 variables with n D Discussion One purpose of this study was to use a relationships framework to examine predictors of the amount of mentoring that occurs within a one-year, formal mentoring relationship. While protégé proactivity and mentor and protégé openness were not signiwcant predictors of mentoring reported, the results portrayed relationships between mentor proactivity and reported mentoring. SpeciWcally, mentor proactivity was related to more career-related mentoring reported by the protégé and also to more career and psychosocial mentoring reported by the mentor. Importantly, an open-ended question included in the Time 3 survey provided insight into the ways in which mentor proactivity is important to the mentoring that occurs in the formal relationship. For example, a number of protégés noted that they took the initiative to contact their mentors, but that sometimes their mentors did not show up for a scheduled meeting or did not answer s. Another protégé recognized that he was responsible for asking his mentor questions, but added, I could have benewted from my mentor bringing her perspective on things in her world (managerial level) that I have no idea about. Last, another protégé noted that it was intimidating as a junior person to schedule meetings with his mentor; that it would have been helpful if the mentor took some initiative in this regard. He noted, ƒi felt as an imposition on my mentor, not due to anything she did or said, but just because of the fact that she was a higher level person than I am. It was hard for me to see as normal calling meetings with her and take time from her. Mentors should be [encouraged to] drive the relationship tooƒ Our Wnding that proactive mentors are likely to provide more mentoring suggests that organizations should involve mentors that are more proactive as well as encourage mentors to be proactive. The results further portrayed relationships between protégé reported similarity to the mentor and psychosocial mentoring. It makes intuitive sense that friendship, role modeling, counseling, and acceptance would occur more often among pairs for whom there was a perception of similarity, although there have been other studies that have shown perceived similarity to be related to both career and psychosocial mentoring (e.g., Ensher et al., 2002). It could be that perceived similarity is not as important to the receipt of career mentoring in a formal context. In a formal context, the pairs have a business directive to meet to work on the protégé s career development. We propose that this developmental directive makes it is more likely that career mentoring will occur in the absence of perceived similarity. Although more examination is needed, this Wnding represents a preliminary extension of informal mentoring results regarding perceived similarity to the formal mentoring context. This Wnding suggests that when matching mentors with protégés, an attempt should be

12 C.R. Wanberg et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) made to develop matches where the paired individuals have at least something in common (e.g., whether it be a common interest in a sport, or both having children the same age). Complicating the issue, however, matches in terms of actual similarity do not guarantee that individuals will perceive each other as similar (Hinde, 1997), and similarity cannot be taken too far the mentor must have some skills or background that is unfamiliar to the protégé in order to be helpful to the protégé s development. Some time during an initial orientation event might be used for the mentoring dyad to uncover points of similarity. A second purpose of this study was to examine program outcomes reported from both the perspectives of the protégé and the mentor. Higher levels of career-related mentoring reported at Time 2 were associated with both the protégé and the mentor reporting that the relationship had a positive evect on his or her job at Time 3; for protégés, there was also a signiwcant relationship between psychosocial mentoring and perceived evect on the job. In addition, higher levels of career mentoring reported at Time 2 were related to improvements in protégé s career clarity scores over the one-year duration of the study, representing a new insight into an important outcome that may reaped from formal mentoring. Psychosocial mentoring seemed to be more important than career mentoring in the avective evaluation of the relationship. Higher levels of psychosocial mentoring occurring in the relationship (but not career-related mentoring) were related to protégé satisfaction with one s mentor and to the mentor reporting the relationship was a rewarding experience. Although Allen et al. (2004) found that career-related mentoring was related to avective evaluations of the relationship, psychosocial mentoring was the stronger correlate of the two. The Wndings that higher levels of career mentoring reported by the mentor were associated with the mentor feeling the experience had an impact on his/her job was borne out by several responses to an open-ended question at the end of the Time 3 survey. For example, one mentor noted that mentoring had pointed out some of the things that I seem to be doing right in comparison with the mentee s boss, and also some things to be alert for in my own behavior. Another mentor noted how it had improved his/her job performance, saying, It has changed the way that I interact with my stav. I ve passed on advice that I ve given my mentee to my own stav. Finally, another mentor noted, It s given me a better understanding of the types of problems and issues faced by younger people in the organization, including some of my direct reports who are not very good at verbalizing certain types of issues. Our results along with these comments portray insight into advantages of formal mentoring to participating mentors that provide higher levels of mentoring. Consistent with the few studies that have examined mentor/protégé dyads, our Wndings suggest there is not a strong correlation between reports of mentoring from mentors and protégés (Armstrong, Allinson, & Hayes, 2002; Raabe & Beehr, 2003; Waters, McCabe, Kiellerup, & Kiellerup, 2002). Lack of stronger agreement between the mentor and the protégé may be for several reasons. First, the protégé may benewt from information provided by the mentor unbeknownst to the mentor. For example, the mentor may describe an event from his or her day, and the discussion can be enlightening to the protégé in a way that the mentor does not realize. Second, the mentor may provide mentoring that the protégé forgets, does not understand, or does not Wnd useful. Finally, it is possible that the mentor provides some mentoring for the protégé, such as mentoring involving protection or sponsorship, when not in the presence of the protégé. This mentoring would be reported by the mentor, but not by the protégé. Because of this lack of agreement, organizations may want to note, in orientation, that the two members of the dyad may benewt from discussing what each member is getting out of the relationship.

13 422 C.R. Wanberg et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) A limitation of this study stems from its small n and our inability to study a broader array of potentially important predictors. The use of a dyadic longitudinal design is challenging for investigators. When collecting this data, we sought the participation of eleven organizations conducting 15 launches of a best-practices formal mentoring program. While response rates to individual surveys were quite good, our dyadic design required that individuals and their partners respond to every survey. There were cases where individuals responded, but his or her mentor or protégé did not, and cases where individuals or dyads responded to only one or two of the three time waves. Recognizing the diyculty of (a) securing higher response rates (our lowest response rate was 72%, with the highest being 90%; it is the dyadic matching process that reduces the n), (b) soliciting more organizations to participate, and (c) encouraging management-level employees to respond to surveys, it should nevertheless be the goal of future research to aim for a larger sample of matched dyads. Larger samples of matched dyads in future studies will allow a larger number of potentially important variables to be included in the analysis. In conclusion, the results of this study suggest that mentor proactivity and protégé perceptions of similarity to one s mentor are related to the amount of mentoring that occurs in a formal mentoring relationship. Higher levels of mentoring were associated with positive program-relevant outcomes for both the protégé and the mentor. Our study contributes to the mentoring literature through its basis in relationship theory, inclusion of both members of the relationship dyad (mentors and protégés), as well as through its focus on predictors and outcomes of mentoring received in formal mentoring relationships in an organizational setting, an understudied context. References Allen, T. D., & Eby, L. T. (2003). Relationship evectiveness with mentors: Factors associated with learning and quality. Journal of Management, 29, Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benewts associated with mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 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, Armstrong, S. J., Allinson, C. W., & Hayes, J. (2002). Formal mentoring systems: An examination of the evects of mentor/protégé cognitive styles on the mentoring process. Journal of Management Studies, 39, Asendorpf, J. B. (2002). Personality evects on personal relationships over the life span. In A. L. Vangelisti, H. T. Reis, & M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Stability and change in relationships (pp ). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.. Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, Bozionelos, N. (2004). Mentoring provided: Relation to mentor s career success, personality, and mentoring received. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1983). Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. In S. E. Seashore, E. E. Lawler III, P. H. Mirvis, & C. Cammann (Eds.), Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures, and practices (pp ). New York: Wiley. Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentored counterparts. Personnel Psychology, 45, Cohen, A. (1993). Organizational commitment and turnover: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36(5), Coley, D. B. (1996). Mentoring two-by-two. Training and Development, 50, Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory and NEO Wve-factor inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

14 C.R. Wanberg et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) Cronbach, L. J., & Furby, L. (1970). How we should measure change : Or should we? Psychological Bulletin, 74, Ensher, E. A., Grant-Vallone, E. J., & Marelich, W. D. (2002). EVects of perceived attitudinal and demographic similarity on protégé s support and satisfaction gained from their mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, Ensher, E. A., & Murphy, S. E. (1997). EVects of race, gender, perceived similarity, and contact on mentor relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, Feldman, D. C., Folks, W. R., & Turnley, W. H. (1999). Mentor-protege diversity and its impact on international internship experiences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, Hegstad, C. D., & Wentling, R. M. (2004). The development and maintenance of exemplary formal mentoring programs in Fortune 500 companies. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15, Hinde, R. A. (1997). Relationships: A dialectical perspective. East Sussex. UK: Psychology Press. Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical contexts for the Wve-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The Wve-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp ). New York: Guilford Press. Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of organizational. Neyer, F. J. (2004). Dyadic Wts and transactions in personality and relationships. In F. R. Lang & K. L. Fingerman (Eds.), Growing together: Personal relationships across the life span (pp ). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. PodsakoV, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & PodsakoV, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, Raabe, B., & Beehr, T. A. (2003). Formal mentoring versus supervisor and coworker relationships: DiVerences in perceptions and impact. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, Ragins, B. R. (2002). Understanding diversiwed mentoring relationships: DeWnitions, challenges, and strategies. In D. Clutterbuck & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Mentoring and diversity: An international perspective (pp ). Woburn, MA: Butterworth Heinemann. Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: The evects of type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 43, Ragins, B. R., & McFarlin, D. B. (1990). Perceptions of mentor roles in cross-gender mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, Ragins, B. R., & Scandura, T. A. (1999). Burden or blessing? Expected costs and benewts of being a mentor. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, Turban, D. B., Dougherty, T. W., & Lee, F. K. (2002). Gender, race, and perceived similarity evects in developmental relationships: The moderating role of relationship duration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, Wanberg, C. R., Welsh, E. T., & Hezlett, S. A. (2003). Mentoring: A review and directions for future research. In J. Martocchio & J. Ferris (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (vol. 22, pp ). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science LTD. Waters, L., McCabe, M., Kiellerup, D., & Kiellerup, S. (2002). The role of formal mentoring on business success and self-esteem in participants of a new business start-up program. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17,