هدف گذاری برای موفقیت شغلی: نقش جهت گیری هدف یادگیری در روابط مشاوره

Learning goal orientation of mentors and protégés was investigated as it relates to protégés’ mentoring functions received and outcomes (i.e., managerial career aspirations and career satisfaction). Data from 217 mentor–protégé dyads comprised of working professionals from a variety of industries were analyzed using multivariate analysis of covariance. Results indicated that protégés who possessed high levels of learning goal orientation similar to their mentor were associated with the highest levels of psychosocial support. These protégés also reported higher levels of career development, idealized influence, enacted managerial aspirations, desired managerial aspirations, and career satisfaction when compared to mentor–protégé dyads who possessed low levels of learning goal orientation or dyads with dissimilar levels of learning goal orientation. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.

Cecil B. De Mille The setting and pursuit of goals for personal and professional development is an important element in the transfer of new learning in mentor–protégé relationships (Kram, 1985). In fact, mentoring may be defined as “a deliberate pairing of a more skilled or experienced person with a lesser skilled or experienced one, with the agreed-upon goal of having the lesser skilled person grow and develop specific competencies” (Murray, 1991, p. xiv). Mentors impart wisdom about the norms, values, and mores that are specific to the organization (Gibson & Cordova, 1999), provide advocacy, counseling, support, and protection to protégés (Kram, 1985), and offer feedback and information to help the protégé attain his or her goals (Douglas, 1997). Mentoring relationships provide protégés with benefits such as higher levels of overall compensation, promotions and career advancement, enhanced career mobility, and career satisfaction (cf., Kram, 1985; Ragins, 1997). Yet, mentor–protégé relationships may not be beneficial because protégés may not learn important career enhancing tactics for pursuing goals from their mentors (Mumford, 1995; Scandura, 1998) or may receive limited developmental opportunities (Ragins, Cotton, & Miller, 2000). One potential reason for an unsuccessful mentoring relationship may be different learning goal orientations that the mentor and protégé bring to the relationship. “When a task is approached from a learning goal orientation, individuals strive to understand something new or to increase their level of competence in a given activity” (Button, Mathieu, & Zajac, 1996, p. 26). Learning goal orientation is a relatively stable dispositional trait that individuals bring with them into relationships with others (Button et al., 1996; Dweck, 1986). Dweck and her colleagues (e.g., Bempechat, London, & Dweck, 1991; Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Leggett, 1988) pointed out that learning goals pursued by individuals motivate behavior and influence the interpretation and reaction to outcomes. Learning-goal-oriented individuals are motivated by competence development and choose challenging tasks that foster learning, even if their assessment of current skills is low (Dweck, 1986). Learning goal orientation has been linked to increased use of obstacles as learning cues that allow the individual to analyze and vary strategies. Such learning cues result in higher levels of expectations for success in the face of obstacles. Mentoring also focuses on competence development by offering challenging job assignments that help attain the protégé’s career goals (Kram, 1985) and providing strategies for achieving goals of recognition and success within the organization (Eby, 1997). Learning-goal-oriented mentors and protégés are likely to focus on effort and intrinsic motivation, as a means of utilizing ability, and raising expectations of accomplishments. In fact, such intellectually stimulating and intrinsically motivating behavior displayed by mentors has been linked to mentoring functions received by protégés (Sosik & Godshalk, 2000). Thus, while mentoring has been associated with protégé socialization into organizations (Kram, 1985), mentoring may also be described as a learning and competence development goal-driven process. The study of mentor–protégé relationships may be enhanced through an understanding of the learning goal orientation associated with each party in the relationship. Prior research based on the similarity-attraction paradigm (e.g., Byrne, 1971; Hunt & Michael, 1983; Thibodeaux & Lowe, 1996) suggests that similarity between mentors and protégés on personal attributes (e.g., learning goal orientation) promotes interpersonal attraction, and enhanced interactions and outcomes. Based on this paradigm, we expected interpersonal attraction based on similar learning goal orientations to foster mentor–protégé compatibility, and result in rapport to encourage accurate perceptions of expectations and, consequently, enhanced protégé outcomes. However, no research to date has examined how mentor–protégé similarity (i.e., congruence) on learning goal orientation relates to mentoring processes and outcomes. To begin to address this gap in the literature, the present study draws upon the social-learning (Bandura, 1977), goal setting (Locke & Latham, 1990), and similarity-attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971) literatures to integrate learning goal orientation into the mentoring literature. Mentors act as role models and facilitate the social learning and competence development of their protégés (Feldman, 1988). Similarly, mentors provide specific and difficult career goals for protégés and build the self-efficacy of protégés (Kram, 1985), both key elements of goal setting processes (Locke & Latham, 1990). This study also examines how the similarity between a mentor’s and protégé’s learning goal orientation is associated with mentoring functions received and protégé expectations regarding career outcomes. Because the goal of many mentor–protégé relationships is enhanced protégé career outcomes (Kram, 1985), this study examines protégés’ career aspirations and career satisfaction. Accordingly, this study can be positioned as an answer to calls by prior researchers to study individual differences in mentoring relationships (e.g., Koberg, Boss, & Goodman, 1998) and their outcomes by using a dyadic approach (e.g., Ragins, 1997; Sosik & Godshalk, 2000).

Several interesting results emerged from the present study. These results were generally consistent with similarity-attraction paradigm-based explanations of mentoring (Hunt & Michael, 1983; Kram, 1985; Ragins, 1997). First, mentor and protégé learning goal orientation was positively associated with mentoring functions received by protégés. Mentoring functions received also were positively associated with enacted managerial aspirations and career satisfaction (see Table 1). Second, the degree of mentoring dyad similarity on learning goal orientation was associated with mentoring functions received and career outcomes. Specifically, when mentors and protégés had high and similar levels of learning goal orientation, protégés reported the highest levels of psychosocial support received, and higher levels of career development and idealized influence (behavior and attitudes) than protégés who shared low levels of learning goal orientation with their mentors, and protégés who possessed higher levels of learning goal orientation than their mentors. These findings provide support for Ragins’ (1997) theory regarding homogeneity of the dyad members, which proposes that the greater the similarity between the mentor and protégé, the greater the likelihood for provision of psychosocial support, career development, and role modeling. However, in the present study, mentors and protégés with high and similar levels of learning goal orientation reported similar levels of career development and idealized influence (behavior and attitudes) as protégés who possessed lower levels of learning goal orientation than their mentors. Ragins argued that a mentor’s behavior varies as a function of the composition of the relationship and the needs of the protégé . For protégés who possessed a lower learning goal orientation than their mentors, their mentors may have perceived that the protégés still needed challenging assignments and growth goals similar to those agreed upon by the high-learning-goal-oriented dyads. Therefore, it is possible that mentors with higher learning goal orientations than their protégés were motivated to provide the necessary career development and role modeling behavior in order for the protégé to learn and achieve career goals. Regarding protégé outcomes, protégés who shared high levels of learning goal orientation with their mentors reported higher levels of enacted managerial aspirations and career satisfaction than protégés who shared low levels of learning goal orientation with their mentors. These high learning goal orientation protégés also reported higher levels of desired managerial aspirations than protégés who possessed lower levels of learning goal orientation than their mentors. Consistent with Tharenou’s (2001) findings, these results suggest that protégés who received support from their mentors through similar and high learning goal orientation, also reported high levels of managerial career aspirations (which in turn may predict managerial advancement, based on Tharenou’s results). Our results are consistent with Aryee and Chay’s (1994) findings that when receiving career development functions from their mentor, protégés reported higher levels of career satisfaction. Ragins’ (1997) theory also is supported because dyads that had similarly high levels of learning goal orientation had mentors which attempted to meet the needs of the protégé by offering career development functions, and had protégés that reported higher levels of managerial career aspirations and career satisfaction. Protégés were motivated by their own and their mentor’s high learning goal orientation to have high levels of enacted and desired managerial aspirations, as well as high levels of career satisfaction. It is possible that managerial aspirations are shaped by mastery-oriented behavior (e.g., providing/seeking challenging assignments or role modeling) displayed by mentors in the mentoring relationship. Mastery-oriented behavior is directed toward developing abilities needed to overcome future challenges and may stem from learning goals to increase competence. Managerial aspirations are important for advancement when difficulties exist for progression into successively higher managerial positions (Tharenou, 2001). Measures of aspirations are well aligned with social-cognitive explanations of goal-oriented mentoring activity, and goal orientations brought to the mentoring relationship by mentors and protégés. Our results are noteworthy because we measured specific aspects of career aspirations, including desired and enacted managerial aspirations. Study results suggest that learning goal orientation represents an important individual difference variable that can shape the nature of the behavioral roles demonstrated by mentors, mentoring functions, and the career outcomes achieved by protégés. Learning goals promote intrinsically motivated and mastery-oriented response patterns and behaviors (Dweck, 1986). When motivated by similar learning goal orientations, mentors provided necessary psychosocial, career development and role modeling functions, while protégés were receptive to such behaviors, and found these behaviors motivating towards career goals. According to Dweck, learning goal orientation motivates individuals to pursue challenging assignments, regardless of whether or not the individual believes he or she has the capabilities to be successful in such an assignment. Such motivation on the part of both mentors and protégés is required to maximize the amount of functions provided and received over the phases of mentoring relationships (Kram, 1985). Learning goal orientation may have at least two important implications for the design of mentoring programs in organizations. First, in today’s turbulent business environment, the development of mentoring relationships can be a key strategy for enhancing individual learning, career growth, and managerial advancement (Tharenou, 2001). Furthermore, as the ability to grow, adapt, and develop becomes more essential to organizational competitiveness, organizations are being called upon to facilitate life-long employee learning (Allen & Poteet, 1999). Our results suggest that mentoring is a process by which learning-goal-oriented mentors and protégés may cooperate to promote positive career outcomes and managerial career aspirations for protégés. Second, study results suggest that learning goal orientation of both the mentor and protégé may affect the relationship between the mentor and the protégé . Therefore, individuals responsible for designing mentoring programs should consider using measures of learning goal orientations to properly select and match mentors and protégés to maximize the amount of mentoring functions received by protégés. For example, if a high-learning-goal-oriented mentor focuses on offering career development and role modeling when mentoring the protégé, a similar learning-goal-oriented protégé’s development may be greatly enhanced. Conversely, if both mentor and protégé have low learning goal orientations, the protégé’s growth may be stifled because the mentor may have difficulties providing career development opportunities and psychosocial support, and the protégé may be reluctant to find value in linking these functions to the attainment of career goals, even if these mentoring functions are offered. Protégés with low learning goal orientations may need to be matched with high-learning-goal-oriented mentors so that mentoring becomes a competence development goal-driven process. Mentors with low learning goal orientations may need to be coached on desired organizational outcomes, or may be eliminated from the program. Therefore, matching processes are critical to successful deployment of mentor–protégé programs. Several limitations of the present study can be addressed in future research. First, we did not measure and control for mentors’ and protégés’ confidence and self-efficacy, two additional individual difference variables relevant to theoretical considerations of goal orientation (Button et al., 1996; Dweck, 1986). Associations between these variables and mentoring functions and outcomes could be examined in future work. Second, measures of protégés learning goal orientations, mentoring functions received, and career outcome variables were obtained from a single source. Therefore, the relationships between these variables may have been inflated due to common method variance. Future studies may consider gathering data from multiple sources such as company records or other organizational sources to provide independent and objective career outcome data to further strengthen confidence in study results. A third limitation of the present study was the use of a one-item measure of self-reported general knowledge. When viewed in conjunction with GMAT scores, we believe that mentor and protégé knowledge was adequately captured. However, being a self-reported measure, the item is limited in its usefulness. Fourth, study participants were pooled from a convenience sample consisting of graduate student participants. While our sample collectively represented employees from a wide variety of ages, backgrounds, and industries, it was not truly random in the sense that all possible samples of fixed size n did not have the same possibility of being selected (Kerlinger, 1986). Subsequent studies could employ random samples from specific organizations and industries. Finally, given that 84% of our sample was involved in informal mentoring relationships, results of the present study are generalizable to informal mentoring relationships. Chao, Walz, and Gardner (1992) noted distinctions in process and outcomes associated with formal and informal mentoring relationships. Also, many mentoring relationships are “networked” (Eby, 1997), that is, protégés may have a variety of mentors that provide a myriad of psychosocial and career development functions. Future research should replicate the present study using a sample comprised of primarily formal or networked mentoring relationships. These future studies may allow for theory development by replicating these results across a variety of mentoring relationship types. Despite these limitations, the present study makes at least three noteworthy contributions to the mentoring literature. First, the study examined the role of a relevant individual difference variable (i.e., learning goal orientation) in mentorship considered from both the mentor’s and protégé’s perspective and the similarity between these perspectives. Examining this variable is consistent with descriptions of mentorship as a dyadic exchange process between the mentor and protégé that is affected by the characteristics each brings to the relationship (Koberg et al., 1998; Kram, 1985; Mumford, 1995; Ragins, 1997). Second, it examined mentoring antecedent, function and outcome variables in terms of a social-cognitive framework that helps to refine the literature by highlighting the role of mentor and protégé goal-oriented motivational processes in mentorship. Such an approach is consistent with perspectives that describe mentorship as an inherently goal-oriented developmental activity (Douglas, 1997; Murray, 1991; Torrance, 1983). This study also raises many interesting research questions regarding the effects of interactions between mentors’ and protégés’ learning goal orientation on mentoring functions and outcomes in constructive and dysfunctional relationships (Scandura, 1998), homogenous versus diversified relationships (Ragins, 1997), and relationships that change over time (Kram, 1985; Ragins & Scandura, 1997). For example, can dissimilar learning goal orientations in mentoring dyads lead to dysfunctional mentoring processes and outcomes? Can similarity in learning goal orientation promote healthy and productive mentoring processes and outcomes? What types of power bases support learning goal orientations in diversified mentoring relationships where shared identity, perceived similarity, and interpersonal comfort may be lower than that experienced in homogeneous relationships? How do gender and race interact with learning goal orientation to influence the quality of mentoring relationships? Does learning goal orientation predict a mentor’s and protégé’s motivational level and abilities over the phases of mentoring relationships? What role does length and phase of the mentoring relationship play in influencing the perceived similarity of a mentor’s and his/her protégé’s learning goal orientation? Future studies addressing these questions may help us to understand why mentor–protégé relationships vary in success, vary in level of comfort between dyad members, and vary in motivation towards goal achievement. It is our hope that finding answers to these questions may help enhance organizational effectiveness in dynamic and complex work contexts where developing human potential and aligning employee and organizational goals are becoming increasingly important.