چه چیزی اهمیت بیشتری دارد؟ نقش نسبی مشاوره و سرمایه شغلی در موفقیت شغلی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|8428||2009||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Vocational Behavior, Volume 75, Issue 1, August 2009, Pages 56–67
This study used a career capital framework to compare the relative role of mentoring and three other forms of career capital (human, agentic, and developmental network capital) in predicting career success. Using a three-wave longitudinal design we found that mentoring added value, above and beyond the other forms of career capital, in predicting promotions and advancement expectations. However, although mentoring mattered for career success, it represented just a part of a constellation of career resources that are embedded within individuals and their relationships. Implications for future research are discussed.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This study used a rigorous longitudinal design to uncover whether mentoring had effects beyond pre-existing differences in human, agentic, and developmental network capital. By testing core theoretical propositions in a manner that minimized the occurrence of alternative explanations (Bacharach, 1989), this study offered a more precise and accurate assessment of the relative impact of mentoring on career success. Three key findings emerged that enrich our understanding of the complex role that informal mentoring plays in protégés’ careers. First, our study found that mentoring added value, above and beyond the other forms of career capital, in predicting promotion, advancement expectations and turnover intentions and that mentoring mattered more than human, agentic, or developmental network capital in predicting promotion and advancement expectations. A key principle of mentoring theory is that mentors help their protégés advance (Kram, 1985), and the present study confirmed this important function. In addition, the role mentoring played in protégés’ advancement expectations and turnover intentions supports the idea that mentors influence retention and help protégés envision success within their organization. Second, we found that while mentoring matters, it does not matter for all outcomes. While mentoring mattered more than the other forms of career capital for predicting promotion and advancement expectations, it mattered less than other forms of career capital in predicting salary and career satisfaction. In fact, only human capital predicted salary. In short, we found that mentoring does not do it all—it complements and adds to other individual and relational career resources in influencing career success. These findings support our refinement of a career capital perspective, which holds that mentoring is one part of a constellation of career resources that are embedded within individuals and their relationships. Third, the results suggest that it is important to retain the distinction between mentoring and other developmental relationships (cf. Higgins and Kram, 2001 and Kram and Ragins, 2007). Mentoring relationships added to the utility of developmental network capital for predicting promotion, advancement expectations and turnover intentions, but not for career satisfaction. While developmental networks may offer short-term “mentoring episodes” (Fletcher & Ragins, 2007), these relationships may differ from the continuous, committed, and sustained support offered in mentoring relationships. Two features of this study strengthened our confidence in the findings. First, the use of a longitudinal design allowed us to disentangle the relationship between mentoring and other forms of career capital. In particular, we were able to assess the impact of human, agentic, and developmental network capital on career outcomes before individuals acquired a mentor, thus allowing us to distinguish the effects of mentoring from other forms of career capital. Second, by controlling for protégés’ mentoring history we offered a more level playing field for examining the relationship between mentoring, other forms of career capital, and career outcomes ( Dougherty and Dreher, 2007, Ragins, 1999 and Wanberg et al., 2003). Combined, these safeguards allowed us to offer a more rigorous appraisal of the relative importance of mentoring for career success. Taken together, the findings of this study both build and extend current theoretical perspectives on mentoring and career success (Allen and Eby, 2007, Ragins, 2007 and Ragins and Kram, 2007). In support of a career capital perspective (Inkson & Arthur, 2001), the results illustrate that employees need to develop a range of career resources that reside both within themselves and their relationships to achieve career success. By extending the career capital framework and anchoring it more firmly within the mentoring and developmental relationships arena, our study offered a more precise theoretical platform for examining the construct of career capital that can be used in future research on career paths and progress. The findings of this study also point to the importance of including a full range of career capital variables in mentoring and career research. While mentoring research often controls for human capital, other forms of career capital are often missing from these analyses. Similarly, studies of human capital often fail to recognize the role relationships play in career success (e.g., Judge et al., 1995). Our career capital approach offers the critical idea that career outcomes are influenced by a rich interplay of both relational and individual career resources. This idea can inform future research in both the careers and mentoring arenas. These findings also have practical implications. HR professionals need to help employees develop a portfolio of resources involving individual and relational forms of career capital, and employees need to recognize that while mentoring is important, it is best to develop multiple forms of career capital as they progress in their careers. Further, employees eager to advance should actively consider gaining access to a key form of career capital: a mentor who can help them achieve their career goals. The study has certain limitations. For example, even though we used objective measures, such as salary and promotion, our study relied on self-report data and faces the limitations associated with this method. While a longitudinal design helped us to overcome some of the problems associated with common method variance, it does not fully rule out the existence of unknown or changing third variables (Zapf, Dormann, & Frese, 1996). We asked respondents if they acquired a mentor in Time 2, but we did not ask if they acquired more than one mentor. Although it is unlikely, we cannot rule out the possibility that some of our respondents acquired more than one mentor between Time 1 and Time 2. Finally, we need to interpret the results with caution as the observed effect sizes for relationships were small (9%) to moderate (46%). This study offers several promising areas for future research. For instance, future research could employ the extended career capital framework to evaluate a new range of dependent variables that are emerging in the mentoring and careers literatures (Ragins, in press and Ragins and Verbos, 2007). For example, scholars could examine positive (e.g., work-life balance, positive psychological states) and negative career outcomes (e.g., career plateauing, burnout and derailment), using new measures that reflect work-life balance (e.g., Greenhaus & Powell, 2006), positive psychological states (Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003), and physical health (Heaphy & Dutton, 2008). In addition, using our career capital framework, researchers could examine whether different forms of career capital compensate for the effects of a dysfunctional mentoring relationship (Eby et al., 2000 and Scandura, 1998) and can conduct these analyses using a range of career outcomes. Finally, it would also be interesting to examine whether the development of career capital varies across cultural contexts (Cappellen & Janssens, 2005). As an illustration, it is possible that agentic capital may be relied upon more in individualistic than collectivist cultures. In addition, the relationship of mentoring to other forms of career capital and career outcomes may vary across cultural contexts. As a case in point, North Americans may emphasize mentoring as a means for obtaining objective career success involving advancement and compensation, whereas other cultures may focus more on relational outcomes that reflect personal growth, learning and development (Clutterbuck, 2007). In sum, mentoring clearly matters, but it matters within the context of other forms of career capital that reside in individuals and their relationships. The results of this study illustrate that individuals need to develop multiple career resources; some that are internally driven, through investments in human capital and proactive career management, as well as others that are externally anchored in developmental networks and mentoring relationships. In conclusion, mentoring is part of a constellation of resources that are weaved together to create the rich tapestry of career success.