رابطه بین انگیزش شغلی و خوداثربخشی با موفقیت شغلی تحت الحمایه

Research exploring the underlying processes involved in successful mentorships has been lacking. In the present study, the roles of career motivation and career self-efficacy as explanatory factors were examined. Career motivation mediated the relationship between career mentoring and performance effectiveness. Contrary to prediction, only marginal support was received for career self-efficacy as a mediator between mentoring and indicators of career success. This research is unique in that it was the first to reveal linkages between mentoring, career self-efficacy, career motivation and protégé career success. Theoretical and practical implications of results are discussed.

Mentoring relationships continue to be a topic of research interest—and for good reason. Research has found that those who are mentored experience considerable benefits such as higher salaries and promotions (Dreher & Ash, 1990; Roche, 1979; Scandura, 1992; Whitely & Coetsier, 1993) and perceive more satisfaction, career mobility, and recognition than those who are not mentored (Fagenson, 1989). Until now, there has been a gap in the literature examining why mentoring results in these positive career outcomes. The objective of the present study is to begin to bridge this gap by examining both career motivation (CM) and self-efficacy as mediators of the relationship between mentoring and measures of career success. 1.1. Mentoring A mentor is generally defined as an experienced employee who serves as a role model and provides support and direction to a protégé. Mentors provide feedback regarding career plans and interpersonal development and are committed to helping the protégé succeed in the adult working world (Kram, 1985). According to Kram (1985), mentors provide two broad categories of mentoring functions. Career functions include sponsorship, coaching, exposure/visibility, protection and the provision of challenging assignments. Psychosocial functions relate more to the interpersonal aspect of the relationship and include role modeling, counseling, friendship and acceptance ( Kram, 1985). Studies exploring the dimensionality of mentoring have supported the existence of these two main mentoring functions (e.g., Noe, 1988). 1.2. Career motivation It seems possible that CM is one factor that can help explain the benefits protégés realize from mentoring relationships. CM is theorized as being comprised of three components: career resilience, career insight, and career identity (London, 1983). Career resilience is the ability to adapt to changing circumstances, even when circumstances are discouraging or disruptive. It consists of characteristics such as belief in self, willingness to take risks, and need for achievement. Career insight is the ability to be realistic about one’s career and consists of establishing clear, feasible career goals and realizing one’s strengths and weaknesses. Career identity is the extent that one defines oneself by one’s work. It is associated with job, organizational, and professional involvement, need for advancement, and recognition. In the literature, the term career commitment is often used interchangeably with CM (Carson & Bedeian, 1994). Colarelli and Bishop (1990) examined personal and situational correlates of career commitment and found that of the variables investigated, having a mentor was the most robust correlate. It was suggested that mentoring increases career commitment by three means. First, mentoring facilitates self-directedness, career involvement, career success, and positive attitudes toward the protégé’s career. Second, the mentor may demonstrate the rewards that can be attained if an individual sticks with a career. Finally, mentoring helps the development of career commitment because both the mentoring relationship and career commitment revolve around the needs and ambitions of individuals (Colarelli & Bishop, 1990). London and colleagues (London, 1990; London & Bray, 1984; London & Mone, 1987) have made several suggestions as to how to develop, support and enhance CM. To promote CM employees should be provided with positive reinforcement for good performance, given opportunities for achievement and input, and receive support for skill development (London & Bray, 1984). CM can also be enhanced through career development support. This can be achieved by encouraging employees to think about the long-term effects of their current work behavior and to develop career plans. Information about career options should be provided and realistic expectations cultivated. Goal setting should be encouraged and fair and accurate feedback provided. Finally, to heighten CM, work involvement should be emphasized by providing job challenges, and by encouraging professional activities and opportunities for leadership and advancement (London & Mone, 1987). Supporting these suggestions, Noe, Noe, and Bachhuber (1990) found individuals were more likely to have high levels of CM when their manager was supportive, provided clear performance feedback, encouraged subordinates to set career goals, initiated discussions related to development and career-related issues and made the job challenging. That is, manager mentor-like behaviors were associated with higher levels of CM among subordinates. In sum, the existing literature suggests a relationship between mentoring and career motivation. Hypothesis 1. Mentored individuals will have a higher level of CM than those who have not been mentored. Hypothesis 2a. Among those who are mentored, there will be a positive relationship between psychosocial mentoring and career motivation. Hypothesis 2b. Among those who are mentored, there will be a positive relationship between career mentoring and CM. We suggest that CM plays a part in the relationship between mentoring and indicators of career success. It seems likely that mentoring relates to protégé CM, which in turn relates to protégé career success. For example, London (1983) stated that one aspect of CM is the desire for upward mobility. He suggested individuals would establish career paths to further their advancement possibilities, request to be considered for promotions, volunteer for important assignments, request and assume leadership roles, and request salary increases. London also suggested that those high in CM might have greater career advancement opportunities since they work harder on projects that affect their career. CM behaviors have been theorized to predict promotions and salaries, yet only one empirical study to date has shown CM to be associated with promotions (Jones & Whitmore, 1995). We extend this line of research in the present study by relating CM with both objective and subjective indicators of career success. Past studies have primarily used objective measures such as employee income, promotion rate and job title to define career success (Dreher & Ash, 1990; Orpen, 1995; Scandura, 1992; Whitely, Dougherty, & Dreher, 1991). However, solely using objective criteria to determine success may neglect important information. For example, Korman, Wittig-Berman, and Lang (1981) found that managers, who appeared successful by reason of position and income, did not feel successful or proud of their accomplishments. It is important to explore individuals’ appraisal of their own success because these perceptions are likely to impact their career development (Gattiker & Larwood, 1986; Hall & Mirvis, 1995). Thus, research has suggested that objective approaches be used in conjunction with subjective criteria for a more complete assessment of career success (Gattiker & Larwood, 1986; Judge, Cable, Boudreau, & Bretz, 1995; Turban & Dougherty, 1994). Hypothesis 3. Career motivation will positively relate to objective and subjective career success. Hypothesis 4a. Career motivation will mediate the relationship between career mentoring and career success. Hypothesis 4b. Career motivation will mediate the relationship between psychosocial mentoring and career success.

This research is the first to examine the roles that career motivation and self-efficacy play in the processes involving mentorships and career success. Very little research has attempted to explain why protégés are more successful than their nonmentored counterparts. Future research should continue to explore additional factors that help explain protégé success.