مشاوره در زوج سرپرست و زیردست: سوابق، عواقب و آزمون یک مدل میانجیگری مشاوره

We develop a framework to look at mentoring as a consequence of employees' values and beliefs, as well as to explore its role in determining the employees' attitudes towards their organizations. Based on social exchange theory, we hypothesize that employees' levels of individualism, collectivism, and trust in supervisor influence the level of supervisory mentoring received. Moreover, mentoring influences employees' affective commitment and intention to quit, as well as mediates the relationships between the proposed antecedents and outcomes. Using structural equation modeling to examine these relationships, we find that within supervisor–subordinate dyads, subordinates report more mentoring when they have collectivist personal values and trust their supervisor. Additionally, more mentoring is positively related to subordinates' affective commitment towards the organizations and negatively related to their intention to quit. We also find that mentoring mediate the relationship between both collectivism values and trust in supervisors and both organizational commitment and intention to quit.

Mentoring relationships are recognized by both academicians and practitioners as a valuable critical resource for employees in organizations. Organizational theorists and management scholars have identified mentoring as an exchange relationship whereby both mentor and protégé gain several benefits from each other (Ragins, 1997, Young and Perrewe, 2000 and Young and Perrewe, 2004). For example, compared with non-mentored individuals, mentored employees demonstrate higher levels of objective and subjective positive outcomes such as career development, job satisfaction, socialization, organizational commitment, and career advancements (Allen et al., 2004 and Eby et al., 2008). Mentors, in return for the time and effort spent in providing support to the protégés, gain positive outcomes such as career rejuvenation, recognition, personal satisfaction, organizational reputation, and increase in knowledge and power (Noe et al., 2002). While scholars have used various theoretical perspectives to explain mentoring relationships (e.g. leadership, justice, power, exchange, motivation; see Noe et al., 2002, for a detailed review), the exchange process between a mentor and protégé lies at the heart of mentoring. Thus, management scholars have suggested that social exchange theory (Homans, 1961 and Blau, 1964) is an appropriate theoretical lens for describing and studying the processes involved in mentoring relationships (Olian et al., 1993, Ensher et al., 2001 and Tepper and Taylor, 2003). Based on the social exchange perspective, we define mentoring as a reciprocal exchange relationship between a mentor and a protégé (Young and Perrewe, 2000 and Young and Perrewe, 2004). While workplace mentoring has been traditionally defined as a hierarchical relationship between a senior and influential organizational member (mentor) and a junior and less experienced organizational member (Kram, 1983), scholars have identified various forms of mentoring relationships, such as lateral or peer mentoring, supervisory mentoring, team mentoring, and mentoring by an external sponsor (see Eby, 1997, Allen and Eby, 2007, Eby et al., 2007 and Scandura and Pellegrini, 2007). The focus of the current study is on supervisory mentoring. Our basis for drawing this boundary is the notion that employees tend to interact most frequently with their supervisors than with other agents of the organization, and therefore, supervisors are in the best position to serve as organizational representatives (Tepper and Taylor, 2003). Moreover, extant literature also suggests that supervisors are in the most natural position to, and have the responsibility to provide career and psychosocial support to the subordinates (Eby, 1997: pp. 135/6), and employees are likely to obtain mentoring from their immediate supervisors (Ragins and McFarlin, 1990, Tepper, 1995 and Tepper and Taylor, 2003). According to social exchange theory, individuals' beliefs about the support they receive from their employing organizations play an important role in effecting their behaviors and attitudes towards their organizations. While individuals' personal values, as well as the quality of the inter-attitudinal relationships that they experience with their supervisors play an important role in effecting these beliefs, research has not systematically explored the roles of these variables in mentoring relationships. Thus, the main purpose of this study is to take insights from social exchange theory in order to study: (a) employees' personal values (i.e. individualism–collectivism) and employees' relationships with the supervisors (i.e. trust in supervisor) as the antecedents of supervisory mentoring antecedents, (b) employees' commitment to the organization and intention to quit as the outcomes of supervisory mentoring, and (c) the mediating role of supervisory mentoring in the relationships between its antecedents and outcomes. The theoretical model that is being proposed in the current study is shown in Fig. 1. Therefore, this study makes the following contributions. First, based on the notions that mentoring is an exchange relationship between a mentor and a protégé, and that employees regard their supervisors as the representatives of their organizations, we provide a theoretical perspective to look at mentoring as a consequence of employees' personal attitudes, as well as to explore its role in determining the employees' attitudes towards their organizations. Second, we go beyond simple linear regression modeling to investigate more complex relationships as posited by extant theory. Specifically, we use structural equation modeling to examine the role of mentoring as a mediating variable in the relationship between individuals' values and relationships, and their performance outcomes.

This study examined the role of mentoring as a mediator of collectivism, individualism, and trust in supervisor to affective commitment and intention to quit. The results were generally consistent with our predictions. In particular, both collectivist values and trust in supervisor positively impacted mentoring while individualism had no significant effect. Mentoring mediated the relationship between both collectivism values and trust in supervisors and both organizational commitment and intention to quit. These findings support the theory that personal values and the subordinates' relationship with the supervisor have an important role in creating and influencing employee reception of mentoring from their supervisor. In fact, collectivist values and trust in supervisor plays a pivotal role in the determination of mentoring received from a supervisor. Additionally trust in the supervisor was negatively related to intention to quit. These findings support previous theory regarding the effects of mentoring on organizational commitment and intention to quit (e.g. see Allen et al., 2004 and Eby et al., 2008). More importantly, we have provided support for a comprehensive picture of the mentoring model. Nonetheless, there are several limitations to our study along with opportunities for future research. First, our study lacks randomization since the sample was limited to the industry contacts of a small number of working MBA students. Future research would benefit from investigating our proposed relationships in both a controlled laboratory context and in an elaborate field setting. Second, we collected all data from the subordinate. Although our study focuses on individual level constructs from the perspective of the subordinate, collecting some data from the supervisor would have allowed us to more forcefully validate our mentoring measure in particular. More specifically, there should be generally agreement between the supervisor who provides the mentoring and the subordinated that receives the mentoring because such consensus provides greater confidence in the mentoring construct. Nevertheless, we believe while not ideal our approach is acceptable and indeed consistent with previous research that recognizes the protégé is the best source of mentoring data. Third, this study is limited to supervisory mentoring dyads when research acknowledges that many individuals have a network of individuals they receive mentorship from at any one time (Higgins and Kram, 2001). Future research might account for the multiple mentorship relationships to investigate whether our predictions are consistent across different types of mentoring dyads. Finally, all data was collected in a static fashion. Although we controlled for the number of years the employee had been under the supervision of their boss, it would be ideal to use a longitudinal design to investigate how our model predictions hold across the several mentorship developmental stages. Future research is still necessary for a complete framework to be determined. For example, Singelis et al. (1995) have distinguished between vertical and horizontal dimensions of collectivism, suggesting that the former describes the tendency to accept hierarchy within the in-group, while the latter dimension captures individuals' emphasis on equality within the in-group. Perhaps, employees who are stronger on vertical collectivism are more responsive towards supervisory mentoring than employees who are stronger in horizontal collectivism. It could be worthwhile to observe how individuals' responses to mentoring differ across the two dimensions. Moreover, it is possible that other personality attributes (e.g., locus of control, extroversion) and demographic attributes (e.g., gender difference, racial difference, age difference) impact the amount of mentoring received from a supervisor. In addition, it would be interesting to investigate organizational outcomes such as organizational citizenship behavior, actual job performance, and promotions. Such research would require data collection from both members of the dyad. Finally, we did not find individualism related to any of the dependent measures. Continued examination is needed to develop a better understanding of the relationship between individualism and organizational outcomes. 5.1. Managerial implications Research has suggested that mentoring is essential for employee mobility and even compensation. As such, mentoring is a critical aspect of organizational behavior. Social exchange theory provides a fruitful framework for managers to understand supervisor–subordinate dyadic relationships particularly mentorship development. For example, while informal mentoring relationships are determined by both the organization and the employee, it is the organization that can influence the formal nature of mentoring. By providing managers with an understanding of antecedents and consequences of successful mentoring they will be better equipped to foster trust to ensure that the mentoring benefits are realized.