برنامه های مربی گری رسمی : رابطه طراحی برنامه و حمایت برای درک مربیان از سود و زیان
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|6692||2008||16 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||10402 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Vocational Behavior, Volume 72, Issue 2, April 2008, Pages 225–240
This study investigates the relationship of formal mentoring program design elements (i.e., voluntary participation, input to matching, and effectiveness of training) and management support to the benefits and costs perceived by formal mentors. Data were collected from 97 formal mentors from a Midwestern financial institution. Multiple regressions were performed controlling for time as a mentor in the program, hours spent mentoring, and number of protégés. Voluntary mentor participation was positively related to perceiving rewarding experiences and negatively related to being more trouble than it was worth. Input to the matching process was negatively related to nepotism, and perceptions of training effectiveness were positively related to generativity. Finally, perceived management support for the program was positively related to rewarding experience and recognition, and negatively related to generativity and bad reflection. Three supplemental group interviews were conducted to further explore some of the survey findings. Directions for future research and implications for formal workplace mentoring programs as well as mentoring programs in cross-disciplinary contexts are discussed.
Despite the prevalence of formal mentoring programs in organizations (Allen et al., 2006b, Allen and Poteet, 1999 and Wanberg et al., 2003) and concern about their value (Ragins and Cotton, 1999 and Ragins et al., 2000), relatively little empirical research has been conducted on formal mentoring programs and factors that might improve their effectiveness (Allen et al., 2006a, Baugh and Fagenson-Eland, 2007 and Wanberg et al., 2003). Most of the studies that have examined formal programs have focused primarily on the career outcomes and psychosocial benefits to the protégés (e.g., Chao et al., 1992, Ragins and Cotton, 1999 and Ragins et al., 2000). Given that mentors are vital for the success of formal mentoring programs (Allen and Eby, 2003, Allen et al., 2006a, Allen et al., 2006b and Allen and Poteet, 1999), more research on mentors is critical due to the shortage of mentors in organizations (Allen, 2003, Finkelstein and Poteet, 2007 and Ragins and Cotton, 1999) and concerns regarding the usefulness of these programs. The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship of key factors in the development and support of a formal mentoring program to the perceived benefits and costs to mentors participating in that program. Four aspects of formal mentoring programs are examined: the extent to which mentor participation is voluntary, the amount of input mentors have into the matching process with their protégé, the perceived effectiveness of the training mentors receive, and the perceived level of management support for the program. Examination of these key factors is important in order to enhance the attractiveness of formal mentoring programs to prospective mentors. Not only is the attraction of mentors important to workplace mentoring programs, but also to formal mentoring programs in other contexts, such as youth mentoring (Big Brothers/Big Sisters) and graduate student–faculty mentoring. Designing and supporting mentoring programs to increase perceived benefits (e.g., recognition, improved job performance) and reduce perceived costs (e.g., mentoring is too time-consuming) to mentors should be helpful in both recruiting and retaining formal mentors (Ragins & Scandura, 1999).
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Formal mentoring programs are sometimes viewed by organizational members as another fad that will soon pass (Sontag et al., 2007), and perhaps that is why relatively little research exists on formal mentoring programs. However, these programs continue to persist in organizations although concerns remain as to their effectiveness in developing protégés (Baugh and Fagenson-Eland, 2007 and Wanberg et al., 2003). In light of this, more research is needed to examine how the design and support of these programs is related to both protégé and mentor outcomes. This study contributes to our existing knowledge by examining the relationship of important factors in the design and support of formal mentoring programs to mentors’ perceptions of benefits and costs. Previous research on formal programs has tended to focus solely on the protégé, without considering the unique role that the mentor plays in the relationship. This study builds on recent efforts (e.g., Allen et al., 2006a, Allen et al., 2006b and Eby and Lockwood, 2005) to investigate issues pertaining to mentors in formal mentoring relationships. Our results indicate that key elements are related to mentors’ perceptions of benefits and costs. Mentors whose participation in the program was more of a voluntary nature were more likely to perceive it to be a rewarding experience. Sharing their experiences with a protégé can provide intrinsic satisfaction to the mentors as they help their protégés navigate the organizational landscape (Kram, 1985). Furthermore, voluntary participation was related to mentors not perceiving the program as more trouble than it was worth. They may believe the program is a worthwhile effort to provide guidance to protégés who desire their assistance, and is a cost effective method of developing talent in the organization. Because the literature emphasizes the importance of the mentor–protégé matching process (Allen et al., 2006a, Allen et al., 2006b, de Janasz and Sullivan, 2004, Eby et al., 2000 and Scandura and Williams, 2001), we were surprised that having input into the matching process was only negatively related with perceptions of nepotism. Having more input to the matching process was associated with lower perceptions of nepotism. At first glance, this finding seems counterintuitive, in that mentors who have input to the matching process may be viewed as selecting a ‘favorite’ for a protégé, thus enhancing the perceptions of nepotism. It may be that having input to the matching process results in fewer questions as to why a mentor was paired with a particular protégé. That is, a lack of knowledge as to how the pairing occurred may be more likely to result in political behavior (Kacmar & Baron, 1999), and resultant jealousy and concerns about favoritism. Data from the group interviews suggest that the mentors in this program were ambivalent as to how they were paired. Since the mentoring program was developed to benefit the protégés, the mentors may be primarily concerned with satisfying the protégés’ needs and are thereby willing to work with whomever they are paired. Future research should examine the importance of the mentor’s preferences to the matching process.