Help

Facilitating employee socialization through

mentoring relationships SuJin Son

The Institute for Asian Studies, University of Ulsan, Ulsan, Republic of Korea

Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to advance understanding of the mentor factors that promotes mentoring outcomes. This was done by investigating the role of mentors’ learning goal orientation (LGO), their learning activity such as reflection, the perceived relationship quality in relation to the mentoring functions received by protégés, and the furtherance of their socialization in a formal mentoring relationship. Design/methodology/approach – In total, 131 matched mentor-protégé dyads were recruited from three different organizations in Korea, for the final analysis. Structural equation modeling and Hayes's PROCESS macro were used to test the proposed model and the moderating effect of perceived relationship quality. Findings – Results show that mentors’ LGO was positively related to their reflection. Additionally, mentors’ reflection was positively associated with mentoring functions received by protégés. Further, mentoring functions received by protégés were positively related to protégés’ socialization. In particular, mentors’ reflection mediates the relationship between mentors’ LGO and mentoring functions received by protégés. Moreover, perceived relationship quality moderates the relationship between mentors’ LGO and their reflection. Originality/value – Even though mentoring research is well advanced, not many researches have yet investigated mentors’ LGO and their learning activity such as reflection, in relation to mentoring functions received by protégés and their socialization. Keywords Reflection, Mentor learning goal orientation, Mentoring functions received, Perceived relationship quality, Protégé socialization Paper type Research paper

Organizational socialization refers to a learning process through which newcomers move from being outsiders, to becoming effective insiders, by acquiring the organizational values, norms, knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors required in a new work role (Bauer et al., 1998). Since organizational socialization is positively associated with important organizational outcomes, including job performance and employee turnover, many organizations are interested in learning how to help newcomers become insiders of the organization more quickly and easily (Bauer et al., 2007; Saks et al., 2007). One widely known intervention for newcomers’ organizational socialization is formal mentoring relationships, which facilitate interactions between newcomers and others in workgroups (Chao, 2007; Slaughter and Zickar, 2006).

Since mentors serve as a guiding and learning resource to help protégés acquire the skills, knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors required of their protégés, it is important to investigate the factors that influence mentors to be more facilitative and effective in relation to their protégés. Previous research has revealed that not all mentors are supportive in mentoring relationships (Eby and Allen, 2002). Despite the important role of mentors for successful mentoring relationships, surprisingly little empirical research

Career Development International Vol. 21 No. 6, 2016 pp. 554-570 © Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1362-0436 DOI 10.1108/CDI-02-2016-0014

Received 3 February 2016 Revised 10 May 2016 6 July 2016 23 August 2016 Accepted 25 August 2016

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1362-0436.htm

554

CDI 21,6

on the factors affecting mentors’ behavior has been conducted (Eby et al., 2014). Particularly, far less research has examined the antecedents and outcomes of mentors’ learning in mentoring relationships (Eby et al., 2014).

The current study attempts to advance understanding of the factor that promotes effective mentoring outcomes, by investigating the role of mentors’ learning goal orientation (LGO), learning activity such as reflection, perceived relationship quality in relation to mentoring functions received by protégés, and how they further their socialization in a formal mentoring relationship. First, it is suggested that mentors’ LGO, which is one of the mentors’ characteristics, is an antecedent of the mentors’ reflection. As many researchers have emphasized, individual differences are an influential factor for engaging in learning activities (Colquitt et al., 2000). In mentoring literature, Lankau and Scandura (2007) have called for further research that explores the role of the LGO of mentors and protégés in relation to mentoring and personal learning. Building on previous research that indicates LGO is one of the critical dispositions for pursuing learning activities (Phan, 2009; Runhaar et al., 2010), it is insisted that LGO is a predictor for engaging in reflection. Even though mentoring researchers have speculated that LGO is an important personality characteristic in mentoring relationships (Ghosh, 2014), not many researches have yet investigated mentors’ LGO in relation to their learning activity such as reflection. Consequently, the present study explores the role of mentors’ LGO in relation to their learning activity, namely, reflection.

Reflection refers to an intentional cognitive process that enables the person to increase his or her awareness of personal experiences, and thereby develop his or her ability to learn from them (Hullfish and Smith, 1961). Numerous educational scholars have emphasized that reflection on one’s experience is a key component of the learning process (Clayton and Ash, 2005). Even though several scholars have mentioned the fundamental role of reflection in facilitating learning in mentoring relationships (Lankau and Scandura, 2007), there has been little effort to describe the role of mentors’ reflection in relation to mentoring outcomes. Thus, it is imperative to examine the role of mentors’ reflection as a learning activity that influences mentoring functions received by protégés. Moreover, the current study proposes that the perceived quality of relationships by mentors is a critical boundary in the relationship between mentors’ LGO and their reflection. Based on social cognitive learning theory (Bandura, 1986), which emphasizes that person variables, situation variables, and behaviors continuously impact on and interact with one another, perceived high-quality relationships with protégés can be considered to be an important situational factor for mentors’ self-reflection. Thus, the current study is intended to broaden knowledge regarding the boundary conditions that maximize mentors’ learning behavior in formal mentoring relationships.

Theoretical background and hypothesis development Mentors’ LGO and reflection Researchers have long argued that reflection is an important component in individual learning processes (Gray, 2007). Although there are different concepts regarding reflection, reflection is concerned with the purposeful cognitive process by which individuals make sense and reconstruct the meaning of what has been planned, observed, or achieved in practice, in order to achieve deeper meaning and understanding of the experience (Kember et al., 2000). In the present study, it is

555

Facilitating employee

socialization

theorized that mentors who have high LGO are more likely to engage in reflection in the workplace. LGO refers to the motivation to improve one’s competencies through learning and training in new skills, as well as through learning to complete new and more complex tasks (Dweck and Leggett, 1988). According to goal orientation theory, people with strong LGO focus more on building their competence and self-development, and therefore, they tend to view challenging situations as opportunities to learn (Dweck and Leggett, 1988).

Since reflection helps mentors to increase their understanding of personal experiences that may have been overlooked in practice, and therefore their ability to learn from them, learning-goal oriented mentors may engage in learning activities such as reflection to enhance their competencies, in comparison to mentors with low LGO. In other words, reflection would be perceived as a useful cognitive process for advancing their competencies for mentors with strong LGO, while those who have low LGO would not perceive it this way. Empirical evidence has shown that individuals’ LGO is positively related to their reflective practice (Phan, 2009; Runhaar et al., 2010). In line with these empirical findings, the following is hypothesized:

H1. Mentors’ LGO will be positively related to mentors’ reflection.

Mentors’ reflection and mentoring functions received It is also suggested that mentors’ reflection would influence the mentoring functions received by protégés. In a seminal research work, Kram (1985) classified two different supports mentors provide as career functions and psychosocial functions. Career functions are work-related supports that include sponsorship, exposure, and visibility, providing opportunities to develop job-related knowledge and skills, and the coaching and protection of protégés; psychosocial functions include mentors’ provision of role modeling, counseling, friendship, acceptance, and confirmation. Role modeling was later considered to be a separate function (Scandura and Ragins, 1993). This is explained by role modeling support being passive in nature, in contrast to other psychosocial functions such as counseling, friendship, acceptance, and confirmation that need mentors to take a more active role. Several empirical studies have supported the three-factor treatment of mentoring functions (Scandura, 1992; Scandura and Ragins, 1993).

Reflection helps individuals reconstruct existing knowledge, recognize areas in need of improvement, and change routine behaviors (Parsons and Stephenson, 2005). Since reflection enables mentors to examine and explore an issue of concern deeply and thoroughly, it is possible for them to critique their taken-for-granted assumptions, and become more receptive to alternative ways of reasoning and behaving (Cunliffe, 2009; Gray, 2007), thereby providing more appropriate mentoring functions to their protégés. In particular, mentors develop self-awareness as learners through reflective practice (Geber and Nyanjom, 2009), so that they can make better use of their experiences when they provide mentoring support for their protégés. More specifically, reflective practice helps mentors to enhance their mentoring capacity by improving their feedback, listening, and communication skills, which are the key skills of mentors (Geber and Nyanjom, 2009). Further, reflection enables mentors to reappraise values and behaviors that are needed for their protégés (Geber and Nyanjom, 2009). Consequently, it is proposed that protégés would receive a greater amount of mentoring support from mentors who are engaged in reflection, than from mentors who are less engaged in reflection. Some research in counseling has shown that self-reflection by the counselor

556

CDI 21,6

is a crucial component for increasing counselor self-awareness, and improving counseling practice (Rosin, 2015). Thus, the following is suggested:

H2. Mentors’ reflection is positively related to the mentoring functions received by protégés.

The mediating role of reflection between mentors’ LGO and mentoring functions The present study also sought to further investigate the mediating role of mentors’ reflection in the relationship between mentors’ LGO and mentoring functions received by protégés. In mentoring literature, LGO was emphasized as a prominent personal characteristic of protégés and mentors for receiving mentoring support from mentoring relationships (Ghosh, 2014). Since mentors with LGO usually view mentoring experiences as a learning opportunity for increasing their competence, they are more likely to engage in providing appropriate mentoring support for protégés. Recently, a meta-analysis conducted by Ghosh (2014) has shown that both protégés LGO and mentors’ LGO are positively associated with mentoring support. Given the previous link between mentors’ LGO, their reflection, and the mentoring functions received by protégés, it is proposed that the mentors’ reflection mediates the relationship between mentors’ LGO and the mentoring functions received by protégés. In other words, mentors with LGO would provide a great extent of mentoring support by engaging in reflection. Based on this logic and previous research, the following is hypothesized:

H3. Mentors’ reflection partially mediates the relationship between mentors’ LGO and the mentoring functions received by protégés.

Mentoring functions received and protégés’ socialization In addition, it is also suggested that receiving mentoring support from mentors may facilitate the socialization of protégés in their workplace. Researchers have emphasized that a key component of organizational socialization is the act of adopting an organizational role (Haueter et al., 2003; Van Vianen, 2000). Through receiving career support and psychosocial assistance, protégés would be enabled to adopt an organizational role more effectively (Chao, 2007). More specifically, protégés easily learn the new skills required to complete their task roles through direct coaching and challenging project assignments from mentors (Lankau and Scandura, 2007). In addition, protégés who receive a great amount of psychosocial support will feel confident and encouraged thereby, and are able to be more proactive in seeking information regarding task/role learning, and this may consequently result in facilitating their socialization (Lankau and Scandura, 2007). Some studies have supported the positive relationships between mentoring support received and employee socialization in diverse contexts (Cawyer and Friedrich, 1998; Thomas and Lankau, 2009). Thus, the following is proposed:

H4. Mentoring functions received by protégés are positively related to their socialization.

A moderating role of perceived relationship quality in the relationship between mentors’ LGO and their reflection Furthermore, it is proposed that the relationship quality perceived by mentors moderates the relationship between mentors’ LGO and their reflection. Perceived

557

Facilitating employee

socialization

relationship quality refers to a mentor’s overall assessment of mutual benefits, relational depth, and satisfaction with the protégé, and satisfaction with the mentoring relationship as a whole (Allen and Eby, 2003). Several researchers have emphasized the importance of the perceived relationship quality between mentors and protégés for the effectiveness of mentoring relationships (Allen and Eby, 2003; Ragins and Verbos, 2007). In particular, Eby et al. (2014) have argued that mentor learning would be maximized in relationships characterized by great mentoring support behavior and higher relationship quality.

According to social cognitive learning theory (Bandura, 1986), a variety of experiences influence an individual’s learning. In particular, since individual learning is socially constructed and situated within a social context (Elkjaer, 2003; Gherardi et al., 1998), interaction with other people, therefore, plays a pivotal role in motivating people to learn. Consequently, the nature of their relationships could either facilitate or hinder an individual’s learning behaviors. More specifically, high-quality relationships characterized by a sense of “deep contact” with others (Quinn and Quinn, 2002) could help individuals to engage in learning processes more actively in order to contribute to one another’s development.

In a similar vein, mentors’ perceptions of high-quality relationships with their protégés can generate situational cues that promote mutual growth and learning through mentor-protégé relationships, thereby stimulating learning-goal oriented mentors to engage in more learning activities such as reflection. That is, when mentors perceive high-quality relationships with their protégés, mentors perceive that they have reciprocal learning relationships that encourage mutual growth, and thus are strongly motivated to use their previous experiences and existing knowledge by engaging in reflection. However, the relationship between mentors’ LGO and reflection would be weaker under conditions of having low-quality relationships with their protégés. In mentoring literature, Ragins and Verbos (2007) suggested that high-quality relational mentoring is associated with LGO. In addition, past research in leader- member relationships has indicated that high-quality relationships between the leader and employees foster the psychological safety of employees on the basis of emotional closeness, which, in turn, enables employees to engage in the learning process (Carmeli et al., 2009; Carmeli and Gittell, 2009). Thus, the following is hypothesized:

H5. Perceived relationship quality moderates the relationship between mentors’ LGO and their reflection, such that the relationship is stronger for mentors with high-quality relationships with protégés, than for mentors with low-quality relationships with their protégés.

Methods Samples The sample for this study included 131 matched mentor-protégé dyads recruited from three different organizations – energy, construction and trading, and an insurance company – all of which have a formal mentoring process for newly hired employees. Most of the mentors from the three companies are selected by HR managers based on their work experiences. The average length of the program is nine months across the three companies. Participation in a mentoring program is mandatory for newly hired employees in all three companies. In general, the mentor’s role is to help their protégé to adjust to the organization as quickly as possible. A total of 251 mentor-protégé dyads from three different organization (comprising 165 in an energy company, 54 in

558

CDI 21,6

a construction and trading company, and 32 in an insurance company) were asked to participate in the study. After excluding returned surveys with either missing data or an incomplete dyad, the number of dyads for analyses totaled 131 (comprising 83 in an energy company, 28 in a construction and trading company, and 20 in an insurance company).

The protégé sample consisted of 92 males (70.2 percent) and 39 females (29.8 percent). The mentor sample consisted of 116 males (88.5 percent) and 15 females (11.5 percent). The majority of mentors had completed a bachelor’s degree (n ¼ 92, 70.2 percent), and the majority of protégés also had completed a bachelor’s degree (n ¼ 103, 78.6 percent). The average age of mentors was 37.85 years (SD ¼ 7.53) while the average age of protégés was 26.76 (SD ¼ 4.25). The average tenure of protégés in their current organization was 8.6 months (SD ¼ 4.74); the average length of the working relationship with their mentor was 2.87 months (SD ¼ 3.33).

Procedures Two different survey packages, one containing a mentor questionnaire set and the other a protégé questionnaire set, were distributed to each organization. For the mentors’ survey, LGO, reflection, relationship quality, and demographic information such as gender, age, years of education, length of employment, and mentoring duration were included. For the protégés’ survey, mentoring functions received by protégés, their socialization and demographic information, such as gender, age, years of education, length of employment, and the mentoring duration were included.

Measures Both of the questionnaires used in this study were originally developed in English; thus, a forward-backward translation process with support from bilingual assistants was used (Behling and Law, 2000).

Mentor’s LGO. Mentor’s LGO was assessed with a four-item instrument developed by VandeWalle (1997). A seven-point Likert-type scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), was used. A sample item is “I enjoy challenging and difficult tasks where I’ll learn new skills.” The Cronbach’s α for this scale was 0.81.

Reflection. A five-item instrument developed by Peltier et al. (2006) was used to measure a mentor’s reflection. Reflection is originally developed as the subscale of the reflective learning continuum (Peltier et al., 2006). A sample item is “I often reflect on my actions to see whether I could improve them.” Each item was evaluated using a five- point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s α for reflection was 0.79 for this study.

Relationship quality. Mentoring relationship quality as perceived by mentors was measured using five items developed by Allen and Eby (2003). A sample item on the questionnaire was “The mentoring relationship between my protégé and I was very effective.” Responses were scored on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s α was 0.89 for this study.

Mentoring functions received. Mentoring Functions Questionnaire (MFQ-9), the most recent version of the MFQ, was used for measuring mentoring functions (Castro and Scandura, 2004). The MFQ-9 has three items for each dimension of the mentoring function: career support, psychosocial support, and role modeling. One of the items for career support was “My mentor takes a personal interest in my career.” For psychosocial support, one of the items was “I share personal problems with my

559

Facilitating employee

socialization

mentor,” and for role modeling it was “I try to model my behavior after my mentor.” All the items were measured using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s α was 0.89 for mentoring functions received.

Organizational socialization. The 12 items for organization socialization from the newcomer socialization questionnaire developed by Haueter et al. (2003) were used to measure the degree of protégé socialization. The items were rated on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample item was “I know the specific names of the products/services produced/provided by this organization.” For the current study, the Cronbach’s α was 0.88.

Control variables. Since several studies have shown that some demographic variables – such as protégé gender, protégé age, mentoring duration, and protégé tenure – may be associated with mentoring support and socialization (Chao et al., 1994; Fagenson-Eland et al., 1997; Ragins and McFarlin, 1990), these variables were, therefore, employed as potential control variables. Additionally, organizational differences were controlled in analyses because data were collected across three different organizations.

Results Descriptive statistics and correlations are presented in Table I. As seen in Table I, mentors’ LGO was positively related to their reflection (r ¼ 0.47, po0.01). Mentors’ reflection was also positively associated with mentoring functions received by protégés (r ¼ 0.21, po0.05). Additionally, mentoring functions received by protégés were positively related to protégé socialization (r ¼ 0.34, po0.01). Furthermore, relationship quality perceptions by mentors were positively related to mentors’ LGO (r ¼ 0.32, po0.01).

Measurement model testing A two-step modeling approach (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988) was applied using structural equation modeling (SEM) with the Amos 19.0 software package. First, using SEM, a measurement model was conducted in order to examine the factor structure of the five-factor model, which has five latent variables including mentors’ LGO, reflection, relationship quality, mentoring functions received by protégés[1], and socialization. Multiple fit indices, including the incremental fit index (IFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), were used to determine the goodness-of-fit of the hypothesized structural model (Lance and Vandenberg, 2001). Four parcels for the measure of socialization were used in order to maintain a favorable indicator-to-sample-size ratio (Bagozzi and Edwards, 1998). The five-factor model fits the data reasonably well ( χ2 (180) ¼ 252.82, CFI ¼ 0.93, TLI ¼ 0.92, IFI ¼ 0.94, RMSEA ¼ 0.06). Then, the four-factor model, in which mentors’ LGO and reflection merge into a single factor, was tested against this baseline model. The results show that the model does not fit the data satisfactorily ( χ2 (184) ¼ 333.14, CFI ¼ 0.86, TLI ¼ 0.84, IFI ¼ 0.87, RMSEA ¼ 0.08), and is significantly poorer than the five-factor model (Δχ2(4) ¼ 80.32, po0.001). Further, the single-factor model, in which all variables merge into a single factor, was tested. However, it does not fit satisfactorily ( χ2 (189) ¼ 776.72, CFI ¼ 0.46, TLI ¼ 0.40, IFI ¼ 0.47, RMSEA ¼ 0.16), and is significantly poorer than the five-factor model (Δχ2(9) ¼ 523.9, po0.001). These findings confirm that the five factors are distinct constructs in this study.

560

CDI 21,6

V ar ia bl es

M SD

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

11 12

1. G en de r

0. 70

0. 46

1 2.

A ge

26 .7 6

4. 25

0. 13

1 3.

T en ur e

8. 6

4. 74

0. 06

0. 22 *

1 4.

G en de r (M

) 0. 89

0. 32

0. 29 **

0. 09

− 0. 04

1 5.

A ge

(M )

37 .8 5

7. 53

0. 10

− 0. 15

0. 08

0. 24 **

1 6.

T en ur e (M

) 11 3. 09

84 .0 3

0. 09

− 0. 20 *

− 0. 04

0. 13

0. 70 **

1 7.

D ur at io n

2. 87

3. 33

0. 10

0. 13

0. 68 **

− 0. 08

− 0. 05

− 0. 21 *

1 8.

M L G O

3. 78

0. 58

0. 07

− 0. 07

0. 11

0. 16

0. 37 **

0. 32 **

0. 01

1 9.

R ef le ct io n

4. 12

0. 45

0. 04

− 0. 16

0. 19 *

0. 08

0. 06

0. 08

0. 02

0. 47 **

1 10 . R Q

3. 80

0. 68

0. 11

− 0. 09

0. 06

0. 10

0. 18

0. 19 *

0. 17 *

0. 32 **

0. 35 **

1 11 . M F

3. 76

0. 65

0. 19 *

0. 01

0. 04

0. 07

− 0. 01

− 0. 01

− 0. 01

0. 15

0. 21 *

0. 25 **

1 12 . So ci al iz at io n

3. 77

0. 68

− 0. 03

− 0. 10

0. 10

− 0. 17 *

0. 07

0. 16

− 0. 05

0. 18 *

0. 20 *

0. 12

0. 34 **

1 N o te s:

n ¼ 13 1.

M L G O , m en to r’ s le ar ni ng

go al

or ie nt at io n;

R Q , re la ti on sh ip

qu al it y;

M F , m en to ri ng

fu nc ti on s re ce iv ed . G en de r (1 ¼ m al e,

0 ¼ fe m al e) ;

ag e ¼ pr ot ég é ag e (u ni t: ye ar ); te nu

re ,p ro té gé

te nu

re (u ni t: m on th ). G en de r (M

)¼ m en to r ge nd

er (1 ¼ m al e, 0 ¼ fe m al e) ;a ge

(M ), m en to r ag e (u ni t: ye ar ); te nu

re (M

)¼ m en to r te nu

re (u ni t: m on th ); du

ra ti on ,t he

m en to ri ng

du ra ti on

(u ni t: m on th ). *p

o 0. 05 ;* *p

o 0. 01

Table I. Means, standard deviations, and

correlations

561

Facilitating employee

socialization

Proposed model testing Next, the proposed model was tested. The proposed model shows the association between mentors’ LGO and mentoring functions received by protégés as mediated by mentors’ reflection. Further, this association, in turn, affects the protégés’ socialization. Control variables (e.g. gender, age, mentoring duration, protégés’ tenure, and organizational differences) were included in the model, with paths to the other variables. The proposed model fits the data well ( χ2(160) ¼ 216.67, CFI ¼ 0.93, TLI ¼ 0.91, IFI ¼ 0.94, RMSEA ¼ 0.05). Following Tomarken and Waller’s (2003) suggestion, the proposed model was compared with alternative models in order to confirm that the proposed model is the best one. First, the proposed model was compared an alternative model, which added a path from mentors’ LGO to protégés’ socialization. The alternative model was found to fit the data satisfactorily ( χ2(159) ¼ 215.52, CFI ¼ 0.93, TLI¼ 0.91, IFI¼ 0.94, RMSEA ¼ 0.05). However, the χ2 difference test between these two models (Δχ(1) ¼ 1.15, pW0.05) indicated that the addition of the path did not significantly improve the overall fit of the model. Additionally, the proposed model was compared with another alternative model that removed the direct path from LGO to mentoring functions received (the full mediation model). This alternative model was found to fit the data well ( χ2(161)¼ 216.71, CFI ¼ 0.93, TLI ¼ 0.91, IFI ¼ 0.94, RMSEA ¼ 0.05). The χ2 difference test between the proposed model and alternative model (Δχ(1) ¼ 0.04, pW0.05) showed that the alternative model (the full mediation model) is the best fitting model.

As seen in Figure 1, mentors’ LGO was positively related to their reflection ( β ¼ 0.51, po0.001), thus supporting H1. In addition, mentors’ reflection was positively associated with mentoring functions received by protégés ( β ¼ 0.32, po0.05), thus supporting H2. Furthermore, mentoring functions received by protégés were positively related to protégé socialization ( β ¼ 0.53, po0.001), supporting H4.

The mediating effect of mentors’ reflection on mentors’ LGO and mentoring functions received by protégés The bootstrapping approach suggested by Cheung and Lau (2008) was used in order to test the significance of the mediating effect of mentors’ reflection on the relationship

LG1

RF1

S1

CF PF

MFMLGO 0.51** 0.32* 0.53**

Socialization Mentor’s reflection

Role

S2

S3

S4

RF2 RF3 RF4 RF5

LG2

LG3

LG4

Notes: MLGO, mentor’s learning goal orientation; MF, mentoring functions received; CF, career function; PF, psychosocial function; and role, role modeling function. A rectangle represents an indicator (or measured variable), and an ellipse a latent variable. Control variables (e.g. protégé gender, protégé age, mentoring duration, protégés’ tenure, and organizational differences) are not shown here to preserve simplicity in the presentation of the model. Parameter estimates were from the completely standardized solution and were significant at *p< 0.05; **p< 0.001

Figure 1. The final model with standardized path coefficients

562

CDI 21,6

between mentors’ LGO and mentoring functions received by protégés. According to Cheung and Lau (2008), the mediations are statistically significant if the bias-corrected (BC) confidence intervals for these indirect effects do not overlap with zero. After creating 1,000 bootstraps, it was shown that the indirect effect of mentors’ LGO on mentoring functions received by protégés as mediated by mentors’ reflection was 0.19; and the 95 percent BC confidence intervals for the indirect effects were between 0.09 and 0.35, which did not overlap with zero ( p ¼ 0.03). This suggested that mentors’ reflection significantly mediated the relationship between mentors’ LGO and mentoring functions received by protégés. Thus, H3, which posited that the mentor’s reflection partially mediates the relationship between the mentors’ LGO and the mentoring functions received, was partially supported, since the fully mediated model was found to be the best fitting model.

The moderating effect of relationship quality on the relationship between mentors’ LGO and reflection To investigate the moderation effect of relationship quality on the relationship between the mentors’ LGO and reflection, Hayes’s (2013) PROCESS macro version 2.15 (model 1) for SPSS was used. With the mean-centered continuous predictor variables, heteroskedasticity consistent standard errors and BC confidence intervals using 1,000 bootstrap draws were used. As shown in Table II, the interaction between the mentors’ LGO and relationship quality was significant (B(SE) ¼ 0.19(0.09), po0.05). In addition, using values of 1 SD below the mean and 1 SD above the mean on relationship quality, the interactions were plotted graphically in Figure 2. As presented, the relationship between the mentors’ LGO and reflection was stronger for mentors who perceive a high-quality relationship with their protégés, therefore supporting H5.

Discussion The purpose of this study was to advance understanding of the mentor factors that promote mentoring outcomes, by investigating the role of mentors’ LGO, learning activity such as reflection, and perceived relationship quality in relation to mentoring functions received by protégés, and their further socialization in a formal mentoring relationship. The findings of the current study make several contributions to the mentoring literature.

First, the current study answered the call for further study of the role of LGO in relation to learning activity in a mentoring relationship (Lankau and Scandura, 2007), by exploring the relationship between mentors’ LGO and their reflection. Even though previous research has shown that LGO is an important predictor of learning activity

Reflection Predictor B SE

RQ 0.16** 0.06 Mentors’ LGO 0.28** 0.07 Mentors’ LGO × RQ 0.19* 0.09 R2 0.30*** Notes: n ¼ 131. LGO, learning goal orientation; RQ, relation quality. *po0.05; **po0.01; ***po0.001

Table II. Regression

results of the moderating effects

563

Facilitating employee

socialization

such as reflection (Phan, 2009; Runhaar et al., 2010), the role of mentors’ LGO in relation to their reflection in mentoring relationships has not been investigated so far. Consistent with previous studies (Phan, 2009; Runhaar et al., 2010), the results of the present study provide empirical evidence that LGO is a critical individual characteristic that is closely related to learning activity such as reflection.

In addition, the current study adds meaningful knowledge of effective mentoring behavior in relation to mentoring outcomes in the literature, by indicating the role of mentors’ reflection in relation to mentoring support received by protégés. Even though mentors’ learning activity such as reflection was emphasized as a fundamental behavior that facilitates personal learning (Lankau and Scandura, 2007), not many studies examine the relationship between mentors’ reflection and the outcomes of mentoring relationships. The findings of the current study highlighted that engaging in a learning activity such as reflection is closely related to mentoring functions provided to their protégés and further protégé socialization. In particular, the current study advanced the comprehensive understanding of mentor factors by examining the mechanism that associates the relationship between mentors’ LGO and mentoring functions received by protégés.

Finally, the findings of the current study contribute to the mentoring literature by investigating the moderating role of relationship quality to the relationship between mentors’ LGO and their reflection. Based on social cognitive learning theory

4.50

4.25

4.00

3.75

3.50

Low High

MLGO

R F

RQ

Low

High

Notes: n= 131. MLGO, mentors’ LGO; RF, reflection; RQ, relationship quality

Figure 2. The moderating effect of relationship quality on the mentors’ LGO-reflection relationship

564

CDI 21,6

(Bandura, 1986), the current study confirmed the critical role of perceived relationship quality in the process of learning (Carmeli et al., 2009; Carmeli and Gittell, 2009). That is, in the presence of a high-quality relationship with protégés, mentors with a high LGO are more likely engaged in learning activities such as reflection than those having a low-relationship quality with their protégés. These findings are in line with research that emphasizes the importance of relationship quality for effective mentoring (Allen and Eby, 2003; Kram, 1985; Ragins and Verbos, 2007). Consequently, the present study extends previous research by adding knowledge of relationship quality as a boundary condition that stimulates mentors to engage in reflection.

The findings also have implications for managers. Given the central role of mentors’ learning activity such as reflection in providing mentoring support for protégés and to further their socialization, mentors should be encouraged to have enough time to reflect on their performance by having regular meetings with other mentors or colleagues. In particular, providing training sessions using reflective practices for mentors would be useful, since not all mentors use reflection when they are engaged in mentoring relationships. In addition, as the findings suggest that mentors’ LGO is an important personality characteristic that has a strong impact on their learning activities, HR managers should carefully consider shaping the organizational culture in such a way that it activates the LGO of mentors. Furthermore, given the importance of relationship quality as a boundary condition that activates learning-goal oriented individuals to engage in learning activities, HR managers should help protégés and mentors build open and trusting relationships, particularly in formal mentoring relationships. For example, as interaction frequency is essential for building trusting relationships (Becerra and Gupta, 2003), providing guidelines for meeting frequency might be helpful for both mentors and protégés. Scholars have recommended that meeting once a week is appropriate for mentors and protégés (Noe, 1988). In addition, setting clear expectations, goals, and responsibilities is beneficial for developing successful mentoring relationships (Finkelstein and Poteet, 2007); thus, it is helpful to create a mentoring action plan, including activities, resources, and criteria for success based on the mentor-protégé agreements.

Limitations and future research direction Aside from this study’s findings, several limitations of the current research should be noted. First, since the current study implies a cross-sectional design, causal inferences should be made with caution. Applying a longitudinal research design for future research would help to clarify the direction of causality in these associations. Second, although data were collected from matched mentors and protégés, using such data from protégés as mentoring support received by protégés and protégés’ socialization, would cause common method bias. Third, since the current study only has a relatively small sample size (paired N ¼ 131), additional research with a larger sample size is warranted. Furthermore, a large portion of the study respondents were males (N ¼ 116), there is a potential limitation regarding the generalizability of these results. In addition, although there are some organizations, such as hospitals that have intensive (three- month) mentoring programs (Masny et al., 2008), the average length of the mentoring relationship in this study (2.87 months) is a limited timeframe for assessing protégés’ socialization. A potential bias is further limitation of the study. Participants’ recollection of the mentoring functions received may not reflect the actuality of the

565

Facilitating employee

socialization

mentoring functions received, because it is difficult to assess the exact length of time since each protégé participated in the mentoring program.

The findings of this study also indicate several future research directions. First, the present study highlighted the mentors’ reflection in relation to mentoring functions received by protégés; therefore, it would be interesting to examine the protégés’ learning activity, such as their reflection, on receiving mentoring support and further mentoring outcomes, in future studies. In particular, protégés’ reflection may play an important role when they apply their learning from mentors to their performance. In addition, in future research, the role of the learning organization’s culture in relation to mentors’ learning activity should be carefully considered, since previous research stressed the central role of organizational culture increasing employees’ learning behavior.

Conclusion Mentoring is considered as an important learning process for both mentors and protégés. The results of the current study indicated that mentors’ LGO is a predictor for mentors’ learning activity such as reflection. In addition, mentors’ reflection is closely associated with the mentoring functions received, and further protégé socialization. In particular, it is important to note that how mentors perceive the relationship quality with their protégés represents a critical boundary condition in that learning-goal oriented mentors engage in reflection. Therefore, in order to maximize the effectiveness of mentoring relationships in workplaces, mentor factors such as their individual characteristics, learning behavior, and perceived relationship quality should be taken into account in arranging mentoring relationships.

Note 1. A separate CFA for mentoring functions received was also conducted. The three-factor model

( χ2(24) ¼ 45.78, CFI ¼ 0.97, TLI ¼ 0.95, IFI ¼ 0.97, RMSEA ¼ 0.08) was compared with one-factor model where all items were set to load onto a single factor ( χ2(27) ¼ 143.61, CFI ¼ 0.83, TLI ¼ 0.77, IFI ¼ 0.83, RMSEA ¼ 0.18). Results of the fit indices and χ2 differences showed that the three-factor model fitted the data significantly better than the one-factor model (Δχ2(3) ¼ 97.89, po0.001).

References

Allen, T.D. and Eby, L.T. (2003), “Relationship effectiveness for mentors: factors associated with learning and quality”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 469-486, doi: 10.1016/ S0149-2063_03_00021-7.

Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423, doi: org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411.

Bagozzi, R.P. and Edwards, J.R. (1998), “A general approach for representing constructs in organizational research”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 45-87, doi: 10.1177/109442819800100104.

Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

566

CDI 21,6

Bauer, T.N., Morrison, E.W. and Callister, R.R. (1998), “Organizational socialization: a review and directions for future research”, in Ferris, G.M. (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, Vol. 16, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 149-214.

Bauer, T.N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D.M. and Tucker, J.S. (2007), “Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: a meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 3, pp. 707-721, doi: org/ 10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.707.

Becerra, M. and Gupta, A.K. (2003), “Perceived trustworthiness within the organization: the moderating impact of communication frequency on trustor and trustee effects”, Organization Science, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 32-44, doi: 10.1287/orsc.14.1.32.12815.

Behling, O. and Law, K.S. (2000), Translating Questionnaires and Other Research Instruments: Problems and Solutions, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Carmeli, A. and Gittell, J.H. (2009), “High‐quality relationships, psychological safety, and learning from failures in work organizations”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 709-729, doi: 10.1002/job.565.

Carmeli, A., Brueller, D. and Dutton, J.E. (2009), “Learning behaviours in the workplace: the role of high‐quality interpersonal relationships and psychological safety”, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 81-98, doi: 10.1002/sres.932.

Castro, S.L. and Scandura, T.A. (2004), “The tale of two measures: evaluation and comparison of Scandura’s (1992) and Ragins and McFarlin’s (1990) mentoring measures”, paper presented at the Southern Management Association Meeting, San Antonio, TX, November 3-6, pp. 3-6.

Cawyer, C.S. and Friedrich, G.W. (1998), “Organizational socialization: processes for new communication faculty”, Communication Education, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 234-245, doi: 10.1080/ 03634529809379128.

Chao, G.T. (2007), “Mentoring and organizational socialization”, in Ragins, B.R. and Kram, K.E. (Eds), The Handbook of Mentoring at Work: Theory, Research, and Practice, Sage, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 179-196.

Chao, G.T., O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., Wolf, S., Klein, H.J. and Gardner, P.D. (1994), “Organizational socialization: its content and consequences”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 5, pp. 730-743, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.79.5.730.

Cheung, G.W. and Lau, R.S. (2008), “Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent variables: bootstrapping with structural equation models”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 296-325, doi: 10.1177/1094428107300343.

Colquitt, J.A., LePine, J.A. and Noe, R.A. (2000), “Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: a meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 5, pp. 678-707, doi: org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.678.

Clayton, P. and Ash, S. (2005), “Reflection as a key component in faculty development”, On the Horizon, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 161-169, doi: org/10.1108/10748120510618187.

Cunliffe, A.L. (2009), “The philosopher leader: on relationalism, ethics and reflexivity – a critical perspective to teaching leadership”, Management Learning, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 87-101, doi: 10.1177/1350507608099315.

Dweck, C.S. and Leggett, E.L. (1988), “A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality”, Psychological Review, Vol. 95 No. 2, pp. 256-273, doi: org/10.1037/0033- 295X.95.2.256.

Eby, L.T. and Allen, T.D. (2002), “Further investigation of protégés’ negative mentoring experiences patterns and outcomes”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 456-479, doi: 10.1177/1059601102238357.

567

Facilitating employee

socialization

Eby, L.T., Brown, B.L. and George, K. (2014), “Mentoring as a strategy for facilitating learning: protégé and mentor perspectives”, in Billett, S., Harteis, C. and Gruber, H. (Eds), International Handbook of Research in Professional and Practice-based Learning, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 1071-1097.

Elkjaer, B. (2003), “Social learning theory: learning as participation in social processes”, in Mark, E.-S. and Marjorie, L. (Eds), The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, Blackwell, Malden, MA and Oxford, pp. 38-53.

Fagenson-Eland, E.A., Marks, M.A. and Amendola, K.L. (1997), “Perceptions of mentoring relationships”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 29-42, doi: 10.1006/ jvbe.1997.1592.

Finklestein, L.M. and Poteet, M. L. (2007), “Best practices in workplace formal mentoring programs”, in Allen, T.D. and Eby, L.T. (Eds), The Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring: A Multiple Perspectives Approach, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 345-367.

Geber, H. and Nyanjom, J.A. (2009), “Mentor development in higher education in Botswana: how important is reflective practice?”, South African Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 894-911, doi: org/10.4314/sajhe.v23i5.48807.

Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D. and Odella, F. (1998), “Toward a social understanding of how people learn in organizations: the notion of situated curriculum”, Management Learning, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 273-298, doi: 10.1177/1350507698293002.

Ghosh, R. (2014), “Antecedents of mentoring support: a meta-analysis of individual, relational, and structural or organizational factors”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 367-384, doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2014.02.009.

Gray, D.E. (2007), “Facilitating management learning: developing critical reflection through reflective tools”, Management Learning, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 495-517, doi: 10.1177/ 1350507607083204.

Haueter, J.A., Macan, T.H. and Winter, J. (2003), “Measurement of newcomer socialization: construct validation of a multidimensional scale”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 20-39, doi: 10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00017-9.

Hayes, A. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. A Regression-Based Approach, Guilford, New York, NY.

Hullfish, H.G. and Smith, P.G. (1961), Reflective Thinking: The Method of Education, Dodd, Mead and Company, New York, NY.

Kember, D., Leung, D.Y., Jones, A., Loke, A.Y., McKay, J., Sinclair, K. and Yeung, E. (2000), “Development of a questionnaire to measure the level of reflective thinking”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 381-395, doi: 10.1080/ 713611442.

Kram, K.E. (1985), Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in Organizational Life, Scott Foresman & Company, Glenview, IL.

Lance, C. and Vandenberg, R. (2001), “Confirmatory factor analysis”, in Drascow, F. and Schmitt, N. (Eds), Measuring and Analyzing Behavior in Organizations: Advances in Measurement and Data Analysis, Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer, New York, NY, pp. 221-224.

Lankau, M.J. and Scandura, T.A. (2007), “Mentoring as a forum for personal learning in organizations”, in Ragins, B.R. and Kram, K.E. (Eds), The Handbook of Mentoring at Work: Theory, Research, and Practice, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 95-122.

Masny, A., Ropka, M.E., Peterson, C., Fetzer, D. and Daly, M.B. (2008), “Mentoring nurses in familial cancer risk assessment and counseling: lessons learned from a formative evaluation”, Journal of Genetic Counseling, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 196-207, doi: 10.1007/s10897- 007-9140-1.

568

CDI 21,6

Noe, R.A. (1988), “An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 457-479, doi: 10.1111/j.1744- 6570.1988.tb00638.x.

Parsons, M. and Stephenson, M. (2005), “Developing reflective practice in student teachers: collaboration and critical partnerships”, Teachers and Teaching, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 95-116, doi: 10.1080/1354060042000337110.

Peltier, M., Hay, A. and Drago, W. (2006), “Reflecting on reflection: scale extension and a comparison of undergraduate business students in the United States and the United Kingdom”, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 250-263, doi: 10.1177/ 0273475305279658.

Phan, H.P. (2009), “Exploring students’ reflective thinking practice, deep processing strategies, effort, and achievement goal orientations”, Educational Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 297-313, doi: 10.1080/01443410902877988.

Quinn, R.E. and Quinn, G.T. (2002), Letters to Garrett: Stories of Change, Power and Possibility, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Ragins, B.R. and McFarlin, D.B. (1990), “Perceptions of mentor roles in cross-gender mentoring relationships”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 321-339, doi: 10.1016/0001- 8791(90)90048-7.

Ragins, B.R. and Verbos, A.K. (2007), “Positive relationships in action: relational mentoring and mentoring schemas in the workplace”, in Dutton, J.E. and Ragins, B.R.E. (Eds), Exploring Positive Relationships at Work: Building a Theoretical and Research Foundation, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 91-116.

Rosin, J. (2015), “The necessity of counselor individuation for fostering reflective practice”, Journal of Counseling and Development, Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 88-95, doi: 10.1002/j.1556- 6676.2015.00184.x.

Runhaar, P., Sanders, K. and Yang, H. (2010), “Stimulating teachers’ reflection and feedback asking: an interplay of self-efficacy, learning goal orientation, and transformational leadership”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 1154-1161, doi: 10.1016/j. tate.2010.02.011.

Saks, A.M., Uggerslev, K.L. and Fassina, N.E. (2007), “Socialization tactics and newcomer adjustment: a meta-analytic review and test of a model”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 413-446, doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2006.12.004.

Scandura, T.A. (1992), “Mentorship and career mobility: an empirical investigation”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 169-174, doi: 10.1002/job.4030130206.

Scandura, T.A. and Ragins, B.R. (1993), “The effects of sex and gender role orientation on mentorship in male-dominated occupations”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 251-265, doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1993.1046.

Slaughter, J.E. and Zickar, M.J. (2006), “A new look at the role of insiders in the newcomer socialization process”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 264-290, doi: 10.1177/1059601104273065.

Thomas, C.H. and Lankau, M.J. (2009), “Preventing burnout: the effects of LMX and mentoring on socialization, role stress, and burnout”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 417-432, doi: 10.1002/hrm.20288.

Tomarken, A.J. and Waller, N.G. (2003), “Potential problems with ‘well fitting’ models”, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 112 No. 4, pp. 578-598, doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.578.

Van Vianen, A.E.M. (2000), “Person-organization fit: the match between newcomers’ and recruiters’ preferences for organizational cultures”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 113-149, doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00196.x.

569

Facilitating employee

socialization

VandeWalle, D. (1997), “Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 57 No. 6, pp. 995-1015, doi: 10.1177/0013164497057006009.

Further reading Dutton, J.E. and Heaphy, E.D. (2003), “The power of high quality relationships at work”,

in Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.E. and Quinn, R.E. (Eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA, pp. 263-278.

Wanberg, C.R., Welsh, E.T. and Hezlett, S.A. (2003), “Mentoring research: a review and dynamic process model”, in Ferris, G.R. and Martocchio, J.J. (Eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 22, Elsevier Science, Greenwich, CT, pp. 39-124.

Corresponding author SuJin Son can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

570

CDI 21,6

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.