SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS
Mentoring is an interpersonal relationship between a more experienced or senior individual (i.e., the mentor) and a less experienced or junior individual (i.e., the protégé). Organizations often encourage mentoring among employees because it can benefit not only those in the mentoring relationship but also the organization. For example, mentoring can lead to enhanced productivity and job performance, greater career and job satisfaction, lower intentions to leave the organization, better managerial development and succession, and more effective socialization into the organization. The present study is based on the sample drawn from non-academic employees at The University of Georgia (UGA). One hundred and ninety-three mentors and 73 protégés responded to the survey. Those completing surveys were employed in a wide range of jobs and departments of campus, and most were in informal mentoring relationships that were currently on-going. Job satisfaction was high, while organizational commitment was moderate among both mentors and protégés. Mentor burnout was relatively low and protégé stress was moderate. Mentors and protégés also reported moderate to low turnover intentions; however, over 10% of mentors and around 20% of protégés indicated strong intentions to leave UGA in the next year. Mentors reported receiving some benefits from mentoring others but do not perceive a strong university climate for mentoring at UGA. In terms of the benefits for protégés, they reported modest levels of career-related and psychosocial benefits. Although the amount of mentoring occurring on UGA’s campus is not extensive, study findings suggest that mentoring could add value to the university. Specifically: Both mentors and protégés report benefiting from mentoring relationships. Mentors report some on-the-job performance benefits from mentoring others and protégés report receiving career-related support in the form of challenging assignments, coaching, and sponsorship, among other things. Mentors who report greater benefits from mentoring also report higher job satisfaction and organizational commitment, as well as lower burnout and turnover intentions. Protégés who report receiving more mentoring also report greater job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and lower overall stress. Mentoring is a reciprocally beneficial relationship; as mentors report reaping more job performance benefits from mentoring, protégés report greater career-related benefits. As mentors report a more supportive university climate for mentoring their job satisfaction and organizational commitment increase, and both burnout and turnover intentions decrease. A more supportive university climate for mentoring is also associated with mentors’ reports that they benefit more from the mentoring relationship.
Taken together these findings suggest that UGA may be able to improve employee work attitudes, as well as decrease stress, burnout, and turnover intentions among employees by encouraging, supporting, and facilitating mentoring relationships on campus. This might be accomplished by communicating the potential benefits of mentoring to UGA employees in training sessions and through various university communications, formally recognizing and rewarding mentors for their efforts, or establishing formal mentoring programs on campus.
STUDY OVERVIEW
Procedure
Separate surveys for mentors and protégés included questions designed to assess general job attitudes as well as mentoring benefits and outcomes specific to each participant’s role in the relationship. Non-academic occupations in which mentors were likely employed were targeted. E-mails describing the study were sent to these employees, notifying them to expect a survey shortly. Each potential mentor was mailed a survey packet containing the mentor survey accompanied by a sealed envelope containing a protégé survey. Mentors were instructed to distribute the enclosed protégé survey to a current protégé. If a mentor had more than one protégé, he or she was instructed to randomly select one protégé and provide the survey to that individual. Both mentor and protégé surveys were returned directly to the researchers via campus mail in self-addressed envelopes. Completed mentor and protégé surveys were returned separately and matched upon receipt using a unique code.
Sample Characteristics
A total of 1552 packets were sent to potential mentors. According to existing research, approximately 53% (n = 823) of the employees initially contacted were likely to be mentors. One hundred and ninety-three completed mentor surveys were returned, yielding an overall response rate of 23% for mentors. Seventy-three completed protégé surveys were returned. Assuming each mentor provided a survey to a protégé, the protégé response rate is 38%. Sixty-three (86%) of the protégé surveys could be matched to mentor surveys. Table 1a describes the basic demographics of the sample of mentors and protégés used in this study. Of those mentors and protégés responding to surveys, most were white females. The majority worked in administrative departments, and a wide range of job types was represented in both the mentor and protégé samples (see Table 1a). On average, mentors reported more education, were approximately 8 years older, and reported earning about $19,000 more than protégés.
2
Table 1a. Demographic Characteristics of Mentors and Protégés ______________________________________________________________________________ Mentors Protégés N % N % GENDER Male Female RACE/ETHNICITY Caucasian/White African-American/Black Asian Hispanic Other EDUCATION Bachelor’s Degree Master’s Degree Doctoral Degree or Equivalent JOB TYPE Institutional or CFO Department Head Professional with Academic Rank Administrative Unit Head Manager Administrative Associate Other Professional Clerical/Secretarial Technical/Paraprofessional Other DEPARTMENT TYPE Academic Administrative Athletic
71 121 169 12 7 4 2 64 63 38 3 26 15 20 30 19 41 2 21 12 69 111 9 MEAN
37.0 63.0 87.1 6.2 3.6 2.1 1.0 38.8 38.2 23.0 1.6 13.8 7.9 10.6 15.9 10.1 21.7 1.1 11.1 6.3 36.5 58.7 4.8 SD $31,586 10.9
18 54 69 2 0 2 0 30 18 9 0 4 3 4 4 9 16 15 9 7 25 42 2 MEAN $36,030 35.5
25.0 75.0 94.5 2.7 0.0 2.7 0.0 52.6 31.6 15.8 0.0 5.6 4.2 5.6 5.6 12.7 22.5 21.1 12.7 9.9 36.2 60.9 2.9 SD $27,184 11.9
Salary Age
$54,847 43.8
Notes: N = Number of respondents % = Percentage of respondents Numbers for each category may not sum to total sample size due to missing data; percentages are based upon reported data and do not reflect missing data.
3
Characteristics of the mentoring relationships reflected in this sample are presented in Table 1b. Approximately two-thirds of the mentoring relationships reported in this study are currently ongoing, lasting between 2 years (for mentors) and 3 years (for protégés). Also noteworthy is that the majority of mentoring relationships at UGA start informally, with the mentor and protégé initiating the relationship by mutual agreement. Few mentors or protégés reported being in formal mentoring relationships.
Table 1b. Characteristics of Mentoring Relationships ______________________________________________________________________________ Mentors Protégés N % N % STATUSa Current Former INITIATION Formal Informal
85 55
60.7 39.3
---
---
26 104 MEAN
20.0 80.0 SD 27.7
11 51 MEAN 33.7
17.7 82.3 SD 46.1
Relationship Length (in months)
a
24.4
Status information about mentoring relationships was only requested from mentors; it can be assumed from the design of the study that all 73 protégés are currently in mentoring relationships.
4
MENTOR RESULTS
Overview: Format for Reporting Results The results presented in this report include the mean (average) for each item and for the total scale (referred to as the “scale score”), the standard deviation (an index of variability with larger numbers indicating greater variability; abbreviated as “SD”), and the percentage of responses that fall into each designated response option (based on the individuals who responded to each item). All multi-item scales included in this report meet or exceed traditional standards of reliability. The item-by-item results for each scale are presented in table format. The results for the scale scores are presented in the text preceding each table. It is important to note that items indicated with a plus sign () in the tables are reverse-scored when reporting the scale score in the preceding summary paragraph. For example, when describing the results for the scale of mentor job satisfaction, the second item in Table 2a is reverse scored when computing the scale score so that higher average scores on the scale indicate higher levels of job satisfaction. Percentages corresponding to each item may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
Mentor Results: General Job Attitudes, Climate for Mentoring, and Mentoring Benefits Mentors responded to a series of questions concerning their general job attitudes (i.e., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, burnout, turnover intentions), the climate for mentoring at UGA, and the perceived benefits of mentoring (i.e., improved job performance through mentoring, recognition by others for mentoring). Mentors recorded their responses using the following five-point rating format:
1 Strongly Disagree
2 Disagree
3 Uncertain
4 Agree
5 Strongly Agree
5
General Job Attitudes
Mentors responded to four scales concerning their general job attitudes: job satisfaction, organizational commitment, burnout, and turnover intentions. Job Satisfaction This scale consisted of three items that measured how satisfied the mentor is with his or her job, with higher scale scores indicating greater satisfaction. The average response to these items was 4.18 (SD = .63), indicating high job satisfaction among mentors. Responses to the individual items are as follows: Table 2a. Mentor Job Satisfaction % Agree or Strongly Agree % Uncertain % Strongly Disagree or Disagree SD MEAN 4.13 .71 3.2 5.2 91.7 1.77 .76 89.6 7.3 3.1 4.14 .62 2.6 4.2 93.3
1. All in all, I am satisfied with my job. 2. In general, I do not like my job. 3. In general, I like working here.
Item reverse scored when computing scale mean.
Organizational Commitment This scale consisted of six items that assessed the amount of loyalty felt toward the university. Higher scale scores indicate greater organizational commitment. The average response to these items was 3.57 (SD = .74), indicating neither high nor low levels of loyalty to UGA. Mentor responses to the individual items are as follows: Table 2b. Mentor Organizational Commitment % Agree or Strongly Agree % Uncertain % Strongly Disagree or Disagree SD MEAN I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career 3.90 .99 9.4 18.8 71.7 with this university. I really feel as if this university’s problems are my own. 3.12 1.1 28.5 29.0 42.5 I do not feel a strong sense of “belonging” to this 2.34 .98 64.7 19.7 15.6 university. 2.51 1.0 59.6 18.7 21.8 I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this university. 2.49 .98 59.0 23.3 17.6 I do not feel like “part of the family” at this university. This university has a great deal of personal meaning to 3.67 .96 11.9 25.9 62.2 me.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Item reverse scored when computing scale mean.
6
Burnout Mentors responded to a series of questions concerning their level of job burnout. They were asked to indicate the frequency with which they felt the emotion described in each item below. Unlike the other scales that used the five-point rating format described previously, mentors recorded their responses to this scale only using the following six-point rating format: 0 Never 1 Few Times a Year or Less 2 Once a Month or Less 3 Few Times a Month 4 Once a Week 5 Few Times a Week 6 Every Day
The burnout scale consisted of ten items that measured the extent to which the mentor feels emotionally exhausted by, or cynical about, his or her job. Higher scale scores indicate greater burnout. The average scale score was 1.75 (SD = 1.07), suggesting that mentors have relatively low levels of burnout. However, it should be noted that the item means associated with emotional exhaustion (items 1-5) are substantially higher than the item means associated with cynicism (items 6-10) (see Table 2c). Mentor responses to the individual items are as follows: Table 2c. Mentor Burnout % Few Times a Week or Every Day % Once a Month or Less, Few Times a Month, or Once a Week % Never or Few Times a Year or Less SD MEAN I feel emotionally drained from my work. 2.78 1.55 24.0 59.9 16.1 I feel used up at the end of a work day. 3.09 1.61 21.2 52.3 26.5 I feel tired when I get up in the morning and have to 2.23 1.59 38.8 48.8 12.4 face another day on the job. Working all day is really a strain for me. 1.50 1.54 61.2 31.5 7.3 I feel burned out from my work. 1.68 1.49 56.7 36.5 6.8 I have become less interested in my work since I 1.06 1.45 77.7 17.1 5.2 started this job. I have become less enthusiastic about my work. 1.29 1.48 72.5 21.7 5.7 I just want to do my job and not be bothered. 1.81 1.74 56.5 33.0 10.5 I have become more cynical about whether my work 1.25 1.49 70.1 24.6 5.2 contributes anything. I doubt the significance of my work. .90 1.23 81.8 15.6 2.6
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
7
Turnover Intentions The turnover intentions scale consisted of three items that assessed the mentor’s intentions to leave his or her job at the university. Higher scale scores indicate greater intent to turnover. The average response to these items was 2.11 (SD = .95) indicating generally low levels of turnover intent (although over 10% of the sample agrees or strongly agrees that they will be seeking employment elsewhere in the future). Mentor responses to the individual items are as follows: Table 2d. Mentor Turnover Intentions % Agree or Strongly Agree % Uncertain % Strongly Disagree or Disagree SD MEAN 1. It is likely that I will actively look for a new job in the 2.18 1.12 66.7 19.8 13.6 next year. 2. I often think about quitting my job. 2.01 .93 79.6 11.5 8.9 3. I will probably look for a new job in the next year. 2.15 1.12 68.6 17.3 14.2
Climate for Mentoring
Mentors responded to three questions concerning how supportive the organizational climate is for mentoring at UGA, with higher scale scores indicating a more supportive climate for mentoring. The average response to these items was 2.42 (SD = .67). This indicates that mentors do not perceive a strong climate for mentoring at UGA. Mentor responses to the individual items are as follows: Table 3. Mentor Perceptions of Climate for Mentoring % Agree or Strongly Agree % Uncertain % Strongly Disagree or Disagree SD MEAN 1. There are few rewards available in this university for 3.56 .89 10.0 38.2 51.9 mentoring others. 2. Mentors in this university receive little recognition for 3.67 .77 5.3 35.1 59.6 their efforts. 3. Mentoring relationships are not reinforced by the 3.60 .85 7.7 38.9 53.4 leaders in this university.
Item reverse scored when computing scale mean.
8
Mentoring Benefits for Mentors
Mentors responded to nine questions concerning the perceived benefits of mentoring others at UGA. Two specific benefits for mentors were examined: improved job performance through mentoring and receipt of recognition by others for mentoring.
Improved Job Performance through Mentoring This subscale consisted of six items that addressed the extent to which mentoring others positively influenced the mentor’s own job performance, with higher scale scores indicating increased job performance as a result of mentoring others. The average response to these items was 3.51 (SD = .63), indicating some (but modest) benefits in terms of enhanced job performance though mentoring. Mentor responses to the individual items are as follows: Table 4a. Mentor Job Performance Benefits % Agree or Strongly Agree % Uncertain % Strongly Disagree or Disagree SD MEAN My job performance has improved since becoming a 3.21 .87 19.1 45.8 35.1 mentor to my protégé. Mentoring my protégé has a positive impact on my 3.79 .74 6.1 19.8 74.1 job. My job has been rejuvenated by the mentoring 3.20 .84 16.1 51.5 32.4 relationship. Mentoring is a catalyst for innovation. 3.48 .82 10.7 38.2 51.1 Mentoring has a positive impact on my job 3.66 .84 7.6 29.8 62.6 performance. My protégé is a positive reflection on my competence. 3.73 .74 4.6 29.0 66.5
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
9
Recognition by Others This subscale consisted of three items that assessed the level of recognition from the department or unit, supervisors, and/or peers that the mentor has received as a result of mentoring. Higher scale scores indicate greater recognition as a result of mentoring. The average response to these items was 2.78 (SD = .86), indicating that there are fewer benefits to mentors in terms of receiving recognition for mentoring others. Mentor responses to the individual items are as follows: Table 4b. Mentor Recognition by Others for Mentoring % Agree or Strongly Agree % Uncertain % Strongly Disagree or Disagree SD MEAN 1. I obtain positive recognition in my organization for 2.73 .98 40.5 35.9 23.6 assuming a mentoring role. 2. I achieve recognition from my superiors for 2.94 1.06 37.4 27.5 35.1 developing the talent of protégés. 3. I gain status among my peers for mentoring my 2.67 .86 38.9 45.0 16.0 protégé.
Relationships among Mentor Scales
The following section presents data regarding the correlations among various mentor scales. A correlation is a statistic that represents the strength of the relationship between two variables. A correlation does not imply that one variable causes another variable. Rather, it indicates the extent to which two variables are related to one another. A correlation can range from -1.00 to +1.00. A correlation of 0 indicates that two variables have no relationship with each other. The sign preceding the correlation does not indicate the strength of the relationship between the two variables but rather indicates the direction of relationship between the variables. A negative correlation indicates that as one variable increases, the other variable decreases, while a positive correlation indicates that as one variable increases (or decreases), the other variable also increases (or decreases). As the absolute value of the correlation increases, the relationship among the two variables becomes stronger (e.g., a correlation of -.52 reflects a stronger association than does a correlation of .15 or -.27).
10
Correlations among the general job attitude scales (i.e., burnout, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions) as reported by mentors are presented in Table 5a. Below is a summary of the findings: Mentors who indicated greater burnout in their jobs also reported lower job satisfaction, weaker organizational commitment, and greater intentions to leave UGA.
Table 5a. Correlations between Burnout and Mentor Job Attitudes Job Satisfaction -.44* Organizational Commitment -.30* Turnover Intentions .41*
Burnout
* Indicates the correlation is statistically significant.
Correlations between the general job attitude scales (i.e., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, burnout, and turnover intentions) and climate for mentoring at UGA as reported by mentors are presented in Table 5b. Below is a summary of the findings: As mentors’ perceptions of the climate for mentoring at UGA became more favorable, their job satisfaction and organizational commitment increased, and both burnout and intentions to leave UGA decreased.
Table 5b. Correlations between Climate for Mentoring and Mentor Job Attitudes Job Satisfaction .25* Organizational Commitment .26* Burnout -.33* Turnover Intentions -.31*
Climate for Mentoring
* Indicates the correlation is statistically significant.
11
Correlations between the general job attitude scales (i.e., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, burnout, and turnover intentions) and the benefits of mentoring as reported by mentors (i.e., enhanced job performance through mentoring, recognition by others for mentoring) are presented in Table 5c. Below is a summary of the findings: Mentors who felt that the mentoring experience increased their job performance also reported higher satisfaction with their job and greater commitment to the university. Mentors who reported that their mentoring efforts were recognized by others at the university also reported greater job satisfaction, less burnout from their jobs, and fewer intentions to leave the university.
Table 5c. Correlations between Mentoring Benefits and Mentor Job Attitudes Job Satisfaction .22* Organizational Commitment .20* Burnout -.04 Turnover Intentions -.09
Enhanced Job Performance Through Mentoring Recognition by Others for Mentoring
.21*
.12
-.27*
-.19*
*Indicates the correlation is statistically significant.
Correlations between the climate for mentoring scale and the benefits of mentoring (i.e., enhanced job performance, recognition by others) are presented in Table 5d. Below is a summary of the findings: Mentors who reported receiving more recognition by others for mentoring also reported a more favorable climate for mentoring at UGA.
Table 5d. Correlations between Mentoring Benefits and Mentor Climate for Mentoring Climate for Mentoring .07
Improved Job Performance Through Mentoring Recognition by Others for Mentoring
.39*
*Indicates the correlation is statistically significant.
12
PROTÉGÉ RESULTS
Protégés also responded to survey items regarding their general job attitudes (i.e., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, overall stress, and turnover intentions) as well as benefits they receive from the mentoring relationship (i.e., career-related benefits, psychosocial benefits). All protégé scales used the same 5-point rating format as was used for mentor scales.
General Job Attitudes
Protégés’ general job attitudes were assessed using four separate scales: job satisfaction, organizational commitment, overall stress, and turnover intentions.
Job Satisfaction The protégé job satisfaction scale consisted of three items that measured how satisfied the protégé is with his or her job. Higher scale scores indicate greater job satisfaction. The average response to these items was 4.10 (SD = .76), suggesting relatively high job satisfaction among protégés. Protégé responses to the individual items are as follows: Table 6a. Protégé Job Satisfaction % Agree or Strongly Agree % Uncertain % Strongly Disagree or Disagree SD MEAN 4.07 .86 6.8 4.1 89.0 1.79 .89 88.9 5.6 5.6 4.04 .82 4.1 6.8 89.1
1. All in all, I am satisfied with my job. 2. In general, I don’t like my job. 3. In general, I like working here.
Item reverse scored when computing scale mean.
13
Organizational Commitment The protégé organizational commitment scale consisted of six items that assessed the amount of commitment or loyalty the protégé feels toward the university. Higher scale scores indicate greater organizational commitment. The average response to these items was 3.36 (SD = .87), indicating that protégés are neither high nor low in their loyalty to UGA. Protégé responses to the individual items are as follows: Table 6b. Protégé Organizational Commitment % Agree or Strongly Agree % Uncertain % Strongly Disagree or Disagree SD MEAN I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career 3.52 1.26 23.3 15.1 61.7 with this university. I really feel as if this university’s problems are my 2.73 1.10 42.5 31.5 26.0 own. I do not feel a strong sense of “belonging” to this 2.47 1.19 61.6 17.8 20.5 university. I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this 2.58 1.19 56.2 20.5 23.3 university. I do not feel like “part of the family” at this 2.60 1.14 52.1 30.1 17.8 university. This university has a great deal of personal meaning to 3.53 1.07 17.8 20.5 61.7 me.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Item reverse scored when computing scale mean.
Overall Stress The scale of overall stress consisted of two items that assessed the amount of stress protégés feel at work, with higher scale scores indicating greater overall stress. The average response to these items was 2.86 (SD = 1.08), suggesting moderate overall levels of stress at work. However, examination of item-level data below indicates that some protégés experience very little jobrelated stress whereas others experience substantial job-related stress. Protégé responses to the individual items are as follows: Table 6c. Protégé Overall Stress % Agree or Strongly Agree % Uncertain % Strongly Disagree or Disagree SD MEAN 2.90 1.14 42.5 23.3 34.2 2.81 1.10 45.2 26.0 28.7
1. Overall, I find my job to be stressful. 2. I experience a lot of stress at work.
14
Turnover Intentions The turnover intentions scale for protégés consisted of three items that assessed intentions to leave one’s job at the university. Higher scale scores indicate greater intent to turnover. The average response to these items was 2.36 (SD = 1.08). This suggests that turnover intentions are low to moderate, although over 20% of those responding express strong intentions to leave UGA in the future. Protégés’ responses to the individual items are as follows: Table 6d. Protégé Turnover Intentions % Agree or Strongly Agree % Uncertain % Strongly Disagree or Disagree SD MEAN It is likely that I will actively look for a new job in the 2.47 1.30 58.9 19.2 22.0 next year. I often think about quitting my job. 2.08 1.13 76.7 9.6 13.7 I will probably look for a new job in the next year. 2.53 1.29 57.5 20.5 21.9
1. 2. 3.
15
Mentoring Benefits for Protégés
Positive protégé outcomes from the mentoring relationship may be categorized as either careerrelated benefits or psychosocial benefits. Two scales were used to assess the extent to which protégés benefit in these two areas. Career-Related Benefits The career-related benefits scale consisted of 15 items that assessed the extent to which protégés benefited from the mentoring relationship in ways that enhanced their careers (e.g., challenging assignments, coaching, sponsorship). Higher scale scores indicate greater career-related benefits. The average response to these items was 3.73 (SD = .55), indicating a moderate amount of career-related benefits. Protégé responses to the individual items are as follows: Table 7a. Protégé Career-Related Benefits % Agree or Strongly Agree % Uncertain % Strongly Disagree or Disagree SD MEAN My mentor helps me attain desirable positions. 3.90 .73 4.8 17.5 77.8 My mentor uses his/her influence to support my 3.81 .90 11.3 17.7 71.0 advancement in the university. My mentor uses his/her influence in the university for 3.81 .83 4.8 25.8 69.3 my benefit. My mentor helps me learn about other parts of the 3.97 .72 3.2 17.7 79.1 university. My mentor gives me advice on how to attain 3.71 .89 9.7 29.0 61.3 recognition in the university. My mentor suggests specific strategies for achieving 3.97 .94 9.7 16.1 74.2 career aspirations. My mentor protects me from those who may be out to 3.52 .94 11.3 35.5 53.2 get me. My mentor “runs interference” for me in the 3.39 .78 9.8 49.2 41.0 university. My mentor shields me from damaging contact with 3.25 .85 18.0 47.5 34.4 important people in the university. My mentor gives me tasks that require me to learn 4.26 .79 4.8 6.5 88.7 new skills. My mentor provides me with challenging assignments. 4.13 .91 8.1 6.5 85.5 My mentor assigns me tasks that push me into 4.16 .93 8.1 6.5 85.5 developing new skills. My mentor helps me be more visible in the university. 3.39 .91 16.1 37.1 46.8 My mentor creates opportunities for me to impress 3.23 .89 22.6 40.3 37.1 important people in the university. My mentor brings my accomplishments to the 3.60 .82 8.1 37.1 54.8 attention of important people in the university.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
16
Psychosocial Benefits The psychosocial benefits scale consisted of 18 items that assessed the extent to which protégés received psychosocial support (e.g., friendship, counseling, role modeling) from their mentors. Higher scale scores indicate greater psychosocial benefits for protégés. The average response to these items was 3.51 (SD = .58), again indicating moderate levels of psychosocial benefits for protégés. Protégé responses to the individual items are as follows: Table 7b. Protégé Psychosocial Benefits % Agree or Strongly Agree % Uncertain % Strongly Disagree or Disagree SD MEAN My mentor is someone I can confide in. 4.24 .72 1.6 6.5 92.0 My mentor provides support and encouragement. 4.40 .59 1.6 0.0 98.3 My mentor is someone I can trust. 4.29 .73 3.2 6.5 90.3 My mentor and I frequently get together informally 2.68 1.11 51.6 25.8 22.6 after work by ourselves. My mentor and I frequently socialize one-on-one 2.61 1.15 54.8 17.7 27.4 outside the work setting. My mentor and I frequently have one-on-one, 2.92 1.23 45.2 12.9 42.0 informal social interactions. My mentor is like a father/mother to me. 2.18 .90 71.0 21.0 8.1 My mentor reminds me of one of my parents. 2.19 1.02 69.3 19.4 11.3 My mentor treats me like a son/daughter. 2.26 1.04 66.1 21.0 12.9 My mentor serves as a role model for me. 3.89 .87 6.4 19.4 74.2 My mentor is someone I can identify with. 4.06 .83 4.8 11.3 83.8 My mentor represents who I want to be. 3.45 1.04 17.7 32.3 50.0 My mentor serves as a sounding board for me to 3.94 .94 6.4 17.7 75.8 develop and understand myself. My mentor guides my professional development. 3.94 .87 6.4 16.1 77.4 My mentor guides my personal development. 3.37 1.10 25.8 19.4 54.8 My mentor accepts me as a competent professional. 4.26 .79 3.2 6.5 90.3 My mentor sees me as being competent. 4.31 .78 3.2 4.8 91.9 My mentor thinks highly of me. 4.26 .70 1.6 4.8 93.6
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.
17
Relationships among Protégé Scales
Correlations between the general job attitude scales (i.e., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, burnout, and turnover intentions) and mentoring benefits as reported by protégés (i.e., career-related and psychosocial benefits) are presented in Table 8. Below is a summary of the findings: Protégés who reported receiving more career-related benefits also reported greater job satisfaction, higher commitment to UGA, and lower overall stress in their job. Similarly, protégés who reported receiving greater psychosocial benefits from the mentoring relationship also reported greater job satisfaction, higher commitment to UGA, and lower overall stress in their job.
Table 8. Correlations between Mentoring Benefits for Protégés and Protégé General Job Attitudes Job Satisfaction .52* .41* Organizational Commitment .42* .38* Overall Stress -.31* -.26* Turnover Intentions -.12 .08
Career-Related Benefits Psychosocial Benefits
*Indicates the correlation is significant.
18
DYADIC RESULTS
In successful mentoring relationships, both mentors and protégés should benefit from the relationship. Therefore, correlations between the mentor benefits scales (i.e., enhanced job performance through mentoring, recognition by others for mentoring) and the protégé benefits scales (i.e., career-related and psychosocial benefits) are presented in Table 9. Below is a summary of the findings: Protégés who reported receiving more career-related benefits from the mentoring relationship were more likely to have mentors who experienced job performance benefits from the mentoring relationship.
Table 9. Correlations between Mentors’ Mentoring Benefits and Protégés’ Mentoring Benefits Mentor Job Performance Benefits .49* .25 Mentor Recognition by Others Benefits .25 .19
Protégé CareerRelated Benefits Protégé Psychosocial Benefits
*Indicates the correlation is significant.
19