Daniel T. Holt. Associate Professor ... Andrew J. Dhaenens. Graduate Teaching Assistant ... Holt, Markova, Dhaenens, Marler, and Heilmann. FORMAL ...
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSU ES Vol. XXVIII Number 1 - 2 Spring/Sum m er 2016: 67-82
Formal or Informal Mentoring: What Drives Employees to Seek Informal Mentors?
Daniel T. Holt Associate Professor
Mississippi State University daniel.holt@ m sstate.edu
Gergana Markova Associate Professor
Wichita State University gergana.m arkova@ wichita.edu
Andrew J. Dhaenens Graduate Teaching Assistant
Mississippi State University ajd 3 4 1@ msstate.edu
Laura E. Marler Associate Professor
Mississippi State University lm arler@ business.m sstate.edu
Sharon G. Heilmann Professor
W right State University sharon.heilm ann@ w right.edu
Broadly speaking, a mentoring relationship occurs when a more experienced, senior employee (mentor) takes an active interest in and encourages a less experienced, junior employee (protege) by providing support, direction, and feedback regarding career plans and personal development (e.g., Eby et at., 2008; Ragins and Kram, 2007). Mentoring is thought to be beneficial for all involved. For proteges, mentoring has been positively related to increased job satisfaction, greater promotion possibilities, JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXVIII Number 1-2 Spring/Summer 2016 (67 )
68
F ormal
or I nform al
M en to r in g
opportunities for increased pay, higher self-esteem, and a heightened sense of professional competence (cf„ Allen et al., 2004). For mentors, the positive feelings generated by playing a key role in a protege’s development can lead to more productive work and greater commitment (Chun et al., 2012). In addition, mentors may feel that their identification of and support for up-and-coming stars will increase their own chances for finther advancement (Kram, 1988). Several have suggested that the organization benefits as well, as mentoring increases the speed with which proteges learn and reduces the likelihood that proteges will leave the organization voluntarily (e.g., Dulebohn et al., 2012; Scandura and Viator, 1994). Because of the positive effects of mentoring, many organizations, including 71% of the Fortune 500 (Bridgeford, 2007), have adopted formal mentoring programs in the hopes of cultivating meaningful developmental relationships. These formal programs develop mentoring relationships through the assistance of the organization, establishing guidelines that outline how the relationships are formed and the roles and responsibilities for those involved (Burke and McKeen, 1989). While well intended, as mentoi ing becomes more formal, research suggests that the level of interaction as well as the quality of information shared decreases (Johnson and Anderson, 2009), resulting in fewer long-term advantages for proteges, mentors, and organizations when compared to mentoring relationships that develop naturally and voluntarily, based on perceived competence and interpersonal comfort (e.g., Chao et al., 1992; Eby et al., 2007; Ragins and Cotton, 1999; Underhill, 2006). In cases where formal mentoring is less than fully effective, proteges often seek an additional informal mentor to realize those benefits that are not being gained as part of the formal program. Despite this understanding, little is known about the specific conditions that lead a protege with a formal mentor to supplement that relationship by finding his or her own informal mentor (cf„ Allen et al., 2006). This study sheds light on this by empirically examining factors that lead a protege to look for an informal mentor. Specifically, using multi-source data, the dynamics of the mentor-protege relationship are captured by examining the quality of leader-member exchange, the amount of work-related contact time, and the similarity between the formal mentor and the protege. Additionally, protege performance is investigated as a predictor of the identification of an informal mentor. In doing so, this study responds to recent calls for work that extends researchers understanding of what actually occurs in mentoring relationships that affects the cultivation of a positive relationship whether it be formal or informal (Eby et al., 2013, Weinberg and Lankau, 2011). A better understanding of the reasons proteges seek informal mentors, especially when they already have an assigned mentor available, extends knowledge with regard to what makes a mentoring relationship positive so that more effective, high-quality mentoring programs can be facilitated. This phenomenon is examined in a unique context, the U.S. Air Force. As part of the organization s formal mentoring program, a mentor is described as “a trusted counselor or guide” with directives placing the primary responsibility for this activity on supervisors (U. S. Air Force Policy Directive 36-34, 2000: 1). The organization believes that appointing supervisors as formal mentors has several benefits including frequent mentor-protege interaction and the mentors’ ability to share job-specific expertise. At the same time, junior members (proteges) are encouraged to identify informal mentors outside of their supervisor, providing a unique opportunity to examine a protege’s decision to supplement a formal mentoring relationship. JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXVIII Number 1-2 Spring/Summer 2016
H o lt , M arkova , D h a en e n s , M a r ler , and H eilm ann
69
FORMAL MENTOR-PROTEGE RELATIONSHIP Relationship Quality and Mentoring
When junior employees have access to a formal mentoring program but can choose an informal mentor, the quality of the relationship with their formal mentor likely determines whether or not junior employees choose an informal mentor. Given that the formal mentor in the system being examined is a direct supervisor (a practice common in formal programs; Allen et al., 2008; Ragins et al., 2000), leader member exchange (LMX) represents the quality of the working relationship that the formal mentor has with each subordinate (or, protege). High-quality LMX, which indicates the subordinate is working with the supervisor to take on greater roles and responsibilities, comes about as a result of repeated high levels of performance that facilitate trust, motivation, and mutual respect (Liden and Graen, 1980). This high-quality relationship results in reduced turnover, increased performance, higher organizational commitment, and better career progression (Dulebohn et al., 2012). As suggested by Scandura and Schriesheim (1994), high LMX would motivate a protege to maintain the formal mentoring relationship and entrust his or her career choices to the senior person. On the other hand, low LMX occurs when subordinates only fulfill the exact obligations of their contract with little interest in expanding their roles. Low LMX can result from poor job performance but can also be a result of a relationship that has not yet matured, such as the one between a supervisor and a newly-hired subordinate. Provided a relationship has developed, when LMX is low, subordinates may disconnect from their supervisor and therefore never fully realize their potential in the organization (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995). Thus, low LMX suggests that trust and respect are lacking; as a result, the protege is likely to seek advice and social support outside of the formal mentor (Scandura and Schriesheim, 1994). Consistent with the theoretical underpinnings of LMX theory, it is hypothesized that: Hypothesis 1: Junior members who report having low LMX with their formal mentor are more likely to identify an informal mentor. Work-related Contact Time and Mentoring
As mentoring refers to a relationship between two organizational members, it stands to reason that the time spent cultivating the relationship would influence the satisfaction with the relationship as well as the outcomes that are derived. Kram (1988) suggested that mentoring relationships evolve through stages as trust and confidence in one another are built; the more time a mentor and a protege spend together, the more quickly trust and confidence develop. Mentors in formal mentoring programs, however, report less motivation to fully invest their time and effort. Johnson and Anderson (2009) indicate that the more formalized a mentoring program becomes the less likely mentors are to fully participate. Ensher and Murphy (1997) found that the time summer interns spent with their mentors had a significant impact on their perceived satisfaction with their mentor and the amount of contact time was significantly correlated to proteges’ and mentors’ intentions to continue their relationships. In a similar vein, employees who spend more time with their formal mentors would be less likely to perceive a need to seek informal mentoring. In fact, studies indicate that the amount and frequency of JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXVIII Number 1-2 Spring/Summer 2016
70
F ormal or I nformal Mentoring
contact time between members of mentoring relationships have positive impacts on the relationships, members’ perceived similarity, and the protege’s performance (e.g., Dansereau etal., 1975; Liden and Graen, 1980; Turban and Jones, 1988). Therefore, if the formal mentor spends too little time with a protege, the employee would likely seek mentoring elsewhere. Thus, it is hypothesized that: Hypothesis 2: Less work-related contact time with a formal mentor will be associated with junior member’s identification of an informal mentor. Similarity and Mentoring
Traditionally, informal mentoring relationships come about as part of a shared attraction between a protege and mentor because of recognized similarities (Ensher and Murphy, 1997; Ensher et al., 2002; Riordan, 2000). One concern with formal mentoring programs, therefore, is that a quality relationship might not be created without a certain amount of similarity between assigned members. In formal relationships, mentors may not be assigned proteges with whom they have things in common, in which case perceived differences between the mentor and protege could negatively affect the potential outcomes of the relationship (Ensher and Murphy, 1997). Multiple studies have suggested that personal characteristics like race and gender play a key role in the development and subsequent success of mentoring relationships (e.g., Burke, 1984; Ensher and Murphy, 1997; Feldman et al., 1999; Noe, 1988; Thomas, 1990). These results are consistent with the similarity-attraction paradigm which states that people who have a great deal in common report stronger feelings of attraction toward one another (Byrne, 1971). In fact, Chao et al. (1992) suggest that it takes much longer to develop a meaningful relationship when it does not emerge out of mutual admiration. In examining dyads of same and differing races, Ensher and Murphy (1997) found that perceived similarity was significantly correlated to liking, satisfaction, and intention to continue the relationship as reported by both mentors and proteges. Hence, the similarity (perceived or actual) between a formal mentor and junior member would likely influence the junior member’s selection of an informal mentor. Because dissimilarity can negatively impact interpersonal relationships (Ragins, 1997), a lack of similarity may inhibit the willingness of formal mentors to fully engage in mentoring functions and may diminish the desire of the protege to seek the formal mentor’s help. Thus, it is hypothesized that: Hypothesis 3: Less similarity between a formal mentor and a junior member will be associated with the junior member identifying an informal mentor. PROTEGE PERFORMANCE
The relationship between job performance and mentoring type has been one of the most studied aspects of mentoring. In many studies, performance is viewed as an outcome variable (e.g., Allen et al., 2004) rather than a possible predictor of mentoring (e.g., Eby et al., 2013). Nonetheless, an employee’s performance likely determines whether or not he or she will seek out an informal mentor. Because mentoring can be an intensive process, it reasons that both formal and informal mentors would be highly selective in choosing a protege (Green and Bauer, 1995). Intuitively, a high-performing JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXVIII Number 1-2 Spring/Summer 2016
H o lt , M arkova , D h a e n e n s , M a r ler , and H eilm ann
71
individual would certainly command the attention of others who have a desire to mentor. On the other hand, formal and informal mentors may distance themselves from potential proteges who are performing poorly as they may present a risk to the mentors’ reputation. Previously, perceptions of risk have been used to gauge how a potential mentor feels about the potential negative impact of a particular protege on his or her own career (Ragins and Scandura, 1994). Research shows a significant negative correlation between costs and intentions to mentor. Findings from Green and Bauer’s (1995) longitudinal study suggest that high-performing employees receive greater mentoring from their advisors than their low-performing counterparts. As a result, the mentoring relationship with a formal mentor who is also a supervisor may suffer for the junior employees who have low performance. Moreover, when performance is low, the junior member may consider that mentoring is ineffective regardless of the involvement of the formal mentor and seek additional help. It would be reasonable to expect that employees with poor performance ratings may perceive lower quality interactions with formal mentor and seek another mentor. It should be noted, however, that seeking an informal mentor by a poor performing member does not necessarily mean that the informal mentor would accept the responsibility. If aware of the performance, a sought after informal mentor would likely share the same reservations the formal mentor has. Thus, it is hypothesized that: Hypothesis 4: Junior members with low supervisor-rated performance will be more likely to state they have an informal mentor.
M ETH O D P articip an ts and P ro ced u res
Data were collected from three groups of participants: supervisors who were appointed as formal mentors through policy directives, junior Air Force members (i.e., Lieutenants or Captains) considered their proteges, and individuals identified by the junior members as informal mentors. All participants were assigned to the same Air Force center. To collect the data from these groups, three different questionnaires were used. Consistent with previous studies in measuring informal and formal mentoring relationships (e.g., Ensher and Murphy, 1997; Krarn, 1988), questionnaire packages were addressed to “The formal mentor of [Name of the junior member].” These packages included: (a) cover letter, (b) a copy of the formal mentor’s questionnaire, and (c) a sealed package that was to be forwarded to junior member (i.e., protege). The cover letter explained the research purpose, assured confidentiality, and requested that the formal mentor complete the survey based on his or her relationship with the junior member listed and forward the remaining package to that member. Each junior member’s package included a separate cover letter that assured confidentiality, his or her survey, and a package that could be forwarded to whomever he or she considered a mentor (i.e., informal mentor). The letter also assured the junior members that their formal mentors were not aware of the informal mentor survey so they felt no pressure to identify these individuals as mentors. In all, data were collected from 338 supervisors, 224 of their proteges, and 75 informal mentors. Supervisors were active duty military members or civil service employees. The typical military supervisor in the sample was a 41-year-old, white male, JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXVIII Number 1-2 Spring/Summer 2016
72
F ormal
or I nform al
M en to r in g
with over 10 years in the current position, supervising nearly 50 individuals. The typical civilian supervisor in the sample was a 49-year-old, white male with 14 years in the current position, supervising over 25 individuals. Of the proteges responding, the typical participant was a married white male, with a little over one year in the current position, and 3.5 years working within the Air Force. Informal mentors were either senior military officers or senior civil servants. On average, the senior military officers had more than 10 years working in their current occupation and were 40 years old. The civilian employees who were identified as informal mentors averaged 12.5 years of experience. Measures Included in Formal Mentor, Informal Mentor, and Protege Q uestionnaires
Work-related contact time. Consistent with previous research (e.g., Ensher and Murphy, 1997), nine open-ended items were used to reflect work-related contact time (in hours per week) referring to the average amount of time formal or informal mentors and their proteges spend in direct contact with each other. An example formal mentor item is “In an average week, how much time do you spend coming in contact with this subordinate at work?" An example junior member item is “In an average week, how much time does your mentor spend coming in contact with you at work?” The score was created by summing the response for each item. Coefficient alpha was 0.88 for the junior members (n = 224) and 0.84 (n = 338) for the formal mentor. Similarity. Respondents indicated which of 13 items they shared with the other member of the relationship to reflect the extent to which participants perceived their formal mentor, informal mentor, or protege as similar (Gibson, 1998). Similarity characteristics included age, marital status, and anticipated career path. Junior members completed the similarity measure in regard to whom they considered their mentor whether that be formal or informal. Formal and informal mentors completed the similarity index in regard to their protege and the similarity index was computed by adding the number items each member selected (Gibson, 1998). Measures Included in Formal Mentor Questionnaire Only
Performance. Supervisors rated the performance of their subordinates on three dimensions (Gibson, 1998): interpersonal effectiveness, dedication to their job, and overall job performance. First, interpersonal effectiveness was assessed relative to the subordinate’s peers within the unit and measured using a seven-point Likert-type scale with four items (coefficient alpha = 0.93 for n = 331). The scale ranged from “Much below average” to “Much above average.” An example item was “Compared with others, how effective is this officer in helping others who need it?” Second, supervisors rated their subordinate’s dedication to their job as compared to peers (coefficient alpha = 0.92 for n = 331). Job dedication was measured with four items rated on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from “Not at all likely” to “Exceptionally likely.” An example item is “Compared with others, how likely is it that this officer would persist to overcome obstacles to complete a task?” Third, overall job performance was measured with three items on a seven-point scale anchored with a “High” (7-6), “Medium” (5-3), and “Low” (2-1). An example item is “Contributes to unit effectiveness.” The overall performance score was calculated by averaging the three items and the reliability coefficient alpha was JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXVIII Number 1-2 Spring/Summer 2016
H o l t , M a r k o v a , D h a e n e n s , M a r l e r , a n d H e il m a n n
73
0.95 (n = 332). Finally, an overall performance rating was created by averaging the responses of all three sub-scales with a coefficient alpha for the scale of 0.94. Measures Included in Protege Questionnaire Only
Leader-member exchange. Scandura and Graen’s (1984) six-item scale was used to measure leader-member exchange. LMX was measured on a seven-point scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” (1) to “Strongly Agree” (7). An example item was “My supervisor recognizes my potential” with reliability coefficient of 0.87 (n — 191). Identification of an informal mentor. This variable was determined dichotomously with the question “Is your mentor also your supervisor?” RESULTS
In Table 1, descriptive statistics as well as correlations among study variables are presented. The hypotheses were tested by comparing two groups of junior members those who identified their supervisor as their mentor (i.e., a formal mentor) and those who identified an informal mentor. Results are presented in Table 2. In Hypothesis 1, a junior member who identified an informal mentor was expected to report low LMX (as reported by the protege) between the formal mentor and him or herself. The findings indicated that the two groups of junior members reported significantly different LMX. While all of the officers reported a high-quality exchange relationship on average, those officers who recognized their supervisor as their mentor appeared to have a more positive exchange relationship with their supervisors than those officers who had identified an informal mentor. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported. In Hypothesis 2, a junior member who identified an informal mentor was expected to report less work-related contact time between a mentor and him or herself. Examining junior members’ reports, those who identified their supervisors as their mentors reported significantly higher contact time than those service members that identified informal mentors. Examining the supervisors’ responses, those supervisors who were identified by their subordinates as mentors reported higher contact time with their subordinates than did their fellow supervisors whose subordinates had identified an informal mentor, although the differences were not as statistically significant. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was partially supported. In Hypothesis 3, the similarity between the supervisor and the junior member would be associated with the junior mentor choosing the supervisor as a mentor rather than choosing an informal mentor. Examining reports from supervisors and junior members, there were significant differences in perceived similarity among those who relied on their formal mentor in comparison to those who chose an informal mentor. To assess actual similarity, an index was created. The index was based upon demographic information and measured what characteristics each junior member had in common with his or her supervisor (e.g., gender, ethnic background, source of commissioning, age, education, and marital status). The results for the Similarity (Actual) index were in the hypothesized direction but the differences were not significant (F = 1.76, p = 0.19). Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was supported for perceived similarity only.
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXVIII Number 1-2 Spring/Summer 2016
74
F ormal or I nformal Mentoring
03 o
00
w
1
* * CM CO d
* * CM d
* -XCM CM d
* * CM CM O
CD o o
xo o d
, —i q d
* * CO CM d
CD q o
* * o CM di
* * CD CM o
* * i—h q d
CM q d
q d
o d
xO i-H o
CO
* 00
00s 00 d
CO
GO
* *
o W
2 O
* LO zj °
I * xO CM ©
00 i>
CO q
_
CM
00 d o q
Q C/D
03
CO CO
XO
CO CM
d ^
cd
^ CM CM
00 CO CO
— i
T5 £ « £ p q be
V
s S-. a ^
in
£
'5
O
2
2
^
CD
P
T ab le 2 C o m p ariso n betw een th e F orm al a n d In fo rm a l M en to rsh ip G ro u p
C
j
O s xO
of
s P
xo
£
C P i— i 00
XO
F
1
q »d
CO q d CM
of
o Cw H
*h 15 £
P
d
xO CM q d
CO
o P
O h Oh
Of q (M
CM q
CO CM
q o CM
of
CD iG 53
CO o q d
q d
Q C/3
C3
05 CO q o
p
xO
i> xO
xO of
~v
