ارائه مشاوره: رابطه برای موفقیت شغلی مشاور، شخصیت و دریافت مشاوره

The relationship of a mentor’s perceptions of his/her career success, mentoring he/she received, personality, and the amount of mentoring he/she provided was investigated in a sample of 176 administrators. Results indicated that the amount of mentoring respondents reported they had provided was positively associated with their objective and their subjective career success and with the amount of mentoring they reported they had received. Mentoring provided mediated the relationship between mentoring received and subjective career success. Finally, the personality trait of openness was associated with mentoring provided over and above the contribution of human capital and demographics. The results were in line with suggestions in the literature that providing mentoring has positive consequences for the career of the mentor and that an individual who has been mentored is more likely to provide mentoring. However, the findings suggested a limited role for the personality of the mentor in providing mentoring. The implications for career development practices and tactics and for future research were considered, along with the limitations of the study.

Mentoring is defined as a developmental relationship that involves organizational members of unequal status or, less frequently, peers (Kram, 1985). The relationship may involve a variety of socio-emotional (e.g., friendship, counseling) and career development (e.g., role modeling, career guidance) functions that the mentor provides for the protégé (Kram, 1985; Noe, 1988; Scandura, 1992). Mentoring has been established as a human resource practice and as an individual strategy for career success (e.g., Atkinson, 2002; Knouse, 2001; O’Reilly, 2001). A respectable body of empirical systematic research has investigated its nature, antecedents, and consequences (e.g., for a short review see Russell & Adams, 1997). However, up-to-date empirical research has predominantly focused on antecedents and consequences of mentoring from the perspective of protégés (Higgins & Kram, 2001; Ragins, 1997). With few exceptions (Allen, Poteet, Russell, & Dobbins, 1997; Ragins & Cotton, 1993; Ragins & Scandura, 1999), there is a scarcity of systematic empirical investigations of mentoring from the perspective of mentors. The present work adopted the perspective of those who provide mentoring and investigated correlates of mentoring provided by mentors. The study focused exclusively on informal mentoring relationships (i.e., relationships that are initiated and evolve naturally and without organizational intervention) between organizational members of unequal status. This type of relationship is typically associated with the term “mentoring” (e.g., Eby, 1997; Higgins & Kram, 2001). However, mentoring exists in other forms, including formal mentoring, which refers to mentoring relationships arranged by the organization, lateral mentoring, which involves individuals of equal status, and external mentoring, which refers to developmental relationships between individuals who function within different organizational settings. These forms of mentoring, albeit important (e.g., see Allen, McManus, & Russell, 1999; Eby, 1997; Higgins & Kram, 2001), were excluded from the focus of the present work.

The study adopted the perspective of mentors and addressed hypotheses over the extent to which amount of mentoring they provided was related to their career success, to amount of mentoring they received, and to their personality. In general, the results were in line with hypotheses and indicated that those who reported that they had provided more mentoring were more likely to be successful in their careers and to report that they had received more mentoring. Furthermore, the results revealed a link between mentoring provided and personality, albeit not extensive. It should be kept in mind that the identified associations accounted for relatively low amounts of variance. Nevertheless, these relationships were held over and above the contributions of an array of human capital and demographic variables within a structurally uniform setting. All organizational grades that were practically associated with managerial responsibilities and the opportunity to provide mentoring for subordinates were included in the study. This satisfied calls for investigations of mentoring from the mentors’ perspective in every managerial level, and the conclusions are applicable to every organizational level that is related to opportunities to provide mentoring for subordinates. It will be positive for managers at all ranks to know that their careers can be enhanced by providing mentoring and developing their less senior colleagues. Knowledge of this fact can act as a motivating factor for managers to become mentors, counterbalancing the effects of increased work demands and low job certainty that are imposed by the modern economy, which may deter them from providing mentoring functions for subordinates. The findings confirmed the hypothesized association between the amount of mentoring mentors had provided and the amount of mentoring they had received in their organizational careers. This association had been implicit in the literature and had been empirically tested up to the level of intentions to provide mentoring. This supports the suggestion that providing mentoring for less senior organizational members contributes to the preparation of the next wave of mentors in the organization (Ragins & Scandura, 1999), which leads to the initiation of a “mentoring cycle” and the establishment of a mentoring culture. Therefore, it is to the interest of organizations to provide incentives to their managers to become mentors. Organizations have at their disposal a major such incentive, as the results suggest that mentoring is an activity that relates to tangible extrinsic, along with intrinsic, career benefits for mentors. Therefore, career counseling and career development programs, in addition to stressing the importance of obtaining mentors for career development, must also focus on the benefits that accrue from becoming a mentor. Mentoring provided partially mediated the relationship between mentoring received and subjective career success. This suggests that receiving mentoring and providing mentoring contribute to mentors’ subjective career evaluations in a complementary manner. Receiving mentoring is important for positive evaluations of own careers even when individuals have reached the stage at which they can be mentors. On the other hand, mentoring provided did not mediate the relationship between mentoring received and objective career success, because that relationship was proved non-significant. This finding makes the important implication that providing mentoring for subordinates may be more important than receiving mentoring for objective career achievement of managers. However, it would be premature to accept this conclusion until this finding is replicated in future research, which must systematically investigate the relative contributions of mentoring provided and mentoring received by mentors on their career success. The association of openness with mentoring provided confirmed the expectation that individuals with broad interests and receptivity to new experiences and ideas are more likely to provide mentoring functions for subordinates. The practical implication of this finding is that openness can be included amongst the criteria for mentor selection in formal mentoring schemes; taking into account the importance of the quality of mentors for the effectiveness of mentoring relationships (Ragins et al., 2000). 5.1. Limitations The study adopted a cross-sectional design. Therefore, causality assumptions must be made with great caution. In the present study there can be reasonable certainty regarding the causal direction of certain relationships. For example, a major criterion for assigning causality in relationships between variables is the stability of variables over time (Davis, 1985). The FFM traits demonstrate remarkable temporal stability (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999) and this permits the assumption that openness influences mentoring provided and not vice versa. However, this criterion cannot be utilized with the remaining relationships, whose causality direction cannot be asserted with confidence. It is sensible to suggest, for example, that individuals who are successful in their careers are more likely to be approached by subordinates for mentoring because mentoring relationships with successful organizational members must be perceived as more beneficial. Therefore, only longitudinal designs can resolve the issue of causality with absolute certainty. Data were collected with self-report measures, which raises the issue of percept–percept inflation and the issue of response validity to the mentoring provided scale. Regarding the former issue, the critical associations in the study were those of mentoring provided with career success, mentoring received, and personality. Considering the relationship between mentoring provided and the measures of career success, if percept–percept inflation were present then relationships between scale measures would be stronger than corresponding relationships between scale measures and measures based on personal information items; because meta-analytic evidence indicates that percept–percept inflation is not present in the latter types of associations (Crampton & Wagner, 1994). This, however, was not the case. The analysis showed that mentoring provided made similar contributions to variance in both objective career success, which was operationalized by means of personal information items, and subjective career success, which was assessed by means of a scale. Regarding the association between the two measures of mentoring, the analysis suggested that the scales for mentoring provided and mentoring received tapped different constructs. Finally, Crampton and Wagner (1994, p. 70 & p. 72) concluded that there is no percept–percept inflation in correlations between self-report scale measures of personality and self-report scale measures of career-related activities, including mentoring. Therefore, percept–percept inflation may not be a serious problem in the present study. Nevertheless, utilization of multi-source measurements should be encouraged in future research. Regarding the second issue, utilization of managers’ self-reports to assess amount of mentoring they had provided generates questions pertaining to the validity of those reports. The fact that responses to the scale were not affected by social desirability is important, but it does not fully resolve the issue. Responses represented managers’ own perceptions of the amount of mentoring they had provided and these perceptions, albeit not influenced by social desirability, may still not adequately reflect reality. Therefore, future studies should include data from subordinates or third parties that will enable cross-validation with managers’ own reports. The investigation was conducted in organizations from a particular domain of the public sector. The majority of the findings were congruent with hypotheses that were built on theory, logic, and past empirical research. Furthermore, those findings that did not support the hypotheses did not contradict them either. Therefore, the study appears to possess reasonable internal validity. However, career progression and mentoring experiences are also affected by structural characteristics and, therefore, caution should be exercised in the generalization of the results in different contexts. Studies must be conducted in other domains of the public sector (e.g., civil services and the federal government) and, especially, in the private sector. For example, the flat structures and results-oriented cultures of flexible commercial organizations may impose fewer structural obstacles on the development of mentoring relationships. In such cultures individual difference factors, such as the personality of the manager, may play a more potent role in the amount of mentoring that subordinates receive. The investigation was conducted in organizations with no formal mentoring schemes in place. Empirical evidence suggests that formal and informal mentoring differ in the extent of provision of mentoring functions for protégés and in their effects on protégés’ careers (Chao, Walz, & Gardner, 1992; Ragins & Cotton, 1999; Viator, 2001); with formal mentoring programs being generally inferior (though see also Ragins et al., 2000). Whether these differences also hold for mentors in formal and informal mentoring schemes is an issue that merits investigation. In addition, the present study concentrated on mentoring in its traditional form. As noted, alternative forms of mentoring relationships exist, including lateral and external mentoring. These forms of mentoring relationships acquire particular importance in the conditions (e.g., flattened organizational hierarchies, frequent career moves) that are associated with the modern economy (Eby, 1997). Research in these types of mentoring relationships is limited not only from the perspective of the mentor, but also from the perspective of the protégé (Eby, 1997). Future research ought to investigate antecedents of involvement in non-traditional mentoring relationships, and consequences for mentors and for protégés who are involved in such relationships. 5.2. Directions The study suggested a limited role for the personality of the mentor in the amount of mentoring provided by the mentor. It is possible, however, that personality influences more strongly intentions or motivation to provide mentoring than it influences actual mentoring provided by mentors; as the amount of mentoring provided by mentors may be influenced more strongly by structural factors (e.g., the organizational communication system, job design, and formal power structures) than by intentions or motivation, which intuitively are more directly under the influence of personality. Although relevant empirical reports are not available for mentoring provided by mentors, the above suggestion concurs with empirical research on mentoring received by protégés. Aryee et al. (1999) found that personality traits contributed more strongly than situational and structural variables to protégés’ attempts to initiate relationships with mentors, but structural and situational variables contributed more strongly than personality traits to self-reported amount of mentoring received by protégés. Future studies must, therefore, investigate the relative effects of personality and structural factors on mentoring provided by mentors and on its precursors. The cognitions that mediate the identified relationship between mentoring received and mentoring provided by mentors need to be modeled. Empirical literature suggests that these cognitions should include realization of the benefits of mentoring relationships and perceptions of barriers in providing mentoring (Allen et al., 1997; Ragins & Cotton, 1993; Ragins & Scandura, 1999). Additional mediating cognitions to consider include self-efficacy enhancement by receiving mentoring and social modeling (i.e., protégés’ modeling mentors’ behavior in providing mentoring). Expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964), which can accommodate estimations of benefits and barriers to mentor, and the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991), which can accommodate self-efficacy, role modeling and intentions to mentor, can serve as initial frameworks. Another important undertaking for future studies, which was outside the scope of the present study, is to establish the ways in which providing mentoring benefits the career of the mentor. As presented in the introductory part of the study, various mechanisms have been proposed, which include improvements in the performance of the mentor due to the assistance of protégés, ability to rely on a pool of loyal subordinates for information and support, and enhanced reputation among organizational decision makers. These suggestions must be empirically tested in future investigations. Empirical evidence suggests that, apart from greater career success, protégés also report higher loyalty to the organization and favorable perceptions of organizational justice (Scandura, 1997; Viator, 2001). These outcomes are highly valued by organizations and authors have suggested that mentoring is related to the demonstration of positive attitudes towards the organization by mentors as well (Kram, 1985; Ragins, 1997). Future studies must test these suggestions. Finally, the literature has recently directed attention into negative aspects of mentoring relationships (Eby, McManus, Simon, & Russell, 2000) and on mentoring relationships that are dysfunctional (Scandura, 1998) or only marginally adequate (Ragins et al., 2000). Such mentoring relationships are unsuccessful in the sense that they do not provide the benefits that are traditionally associated with inclusion in a mentoring dyad. This is an important area for future work because it is sensible to expect that experience of unsuccessful mentoring relationships influences future engagement in mentoring relationships (Scandura, 1998). The present study showed that amount of experience in receiving mentoring was associated with amount of experience in providing mentoring. A fruitful line of research will be to determine the way in which negative or marginal experiences of individuals as protégés relate to the amount of mentoring they have provided or their intentions to provide mentoring in the future. The present study responded to calls in the literature for investigations that adopt the perspective of mentors and include all organizational ranks that are associated with the opportunity to become a mentor. The results showed that the amount of mentoring individuals reported they had provided was associated with the amount of mentoring they reported they had received in their organizational past, their career success, and their scores on the personality trait of openness. Although the study contributed to and extended the literature it had methodological as well as inevitable scope limitations. Future studies should seek to overcome these limitations and proceed along the directions set by the study; so they can enable definite conclusions and further expand the literature on antecedents and correlates of mentoring provided by mentors.