Leadership styles, mentoring functions received, and job-related stress
Leadership styles, mentoring functions received, and job-related stress
Leadership styles, mentoring functions received, and job-related stress
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Journal of Organizational Behavior<br />
J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)<br />
<strong>Leadership</strong> <strong>styles</strong>, <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong><br />
<strong>received</strong>, <strong>and</strong> <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>:<br />
a conceptual model <strong>and</strong> preliminary study<br />
JOHN J. SOSIK*{ AND VERONICA M. GODSHALK<br />
Department of Management <strong>and</strong> Organization, Great Valley School of Graduate Professional Studies,<br />
The Pennsylvania State University, Malvern, PA 19355, U.S.A.<br />
Summary<br />
This research examined linkages between mentor leadership behaviors (laissez-faire,<br />
transactional contingent reward, <strong>and</strong> transformational), prote ge perception of<br />
<strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong> (career development <strong>and</strong> psychosocial support) <strong>and</strong> <strong>job</strong><strong>related</strong><br />
<strong>stress</strong> of 204 mentor±prote ge dyads. Results of Partial Least Squares analysis<br />
revealed that mentor transformational behavior was more positively <strong>related</strong> to <strong>mentoring</strong><br />
<strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong> than transactional contingent reward behavior, while mentor<br />
laissez-faire behavior was negatively <strong>related</strong> to <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong>. Both<br />
mentor transformational behavior <strong>and</strong> <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong> were negatively<br />
<strong>related</strong> to prote ge <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>. The relationship between mentor transformational<br />
behavior <strong>and</strong> prote ge <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong> was moderated by the level of <strong>mentoring</strong><br />
<strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong>. Results are discussed as they relate to researchers <strong>and</strong> practitioners<br />
who are becoming interested in ®nding ways to develop organizational members <strong>and</strong><br />
allay <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>. Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.<br />
Introduction<br />
Increased complexity in organizational work environments has given rise to higher levels of<br />
<strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong> experienced by organizational members (Brockner et al., 1992; Champy, 1995).<br />
Job-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong> is de®ned as an uncomfortable <strong>and</strong> undesirable feeling experienced by an<br />
individual `who is required to deviate from normal or self-desired functioning in the work place<br />
as the result of opportunities, constraints, or dem<strong>and</strong>s relating to potentially important work<strong>related</strong><br />
outcomes' (Parker <strong>and</strong> DeCotiis, 1983, p. 165). Job-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong> has been linked to<br />
failing individual health <strong>and</strong> illness (Kram <strong>and</strong> Hall, 1989), decreased individual performance<br />
(Jamal, 1990; Motowidlo, Packard <strong>and</strong> Manning, 1986), decreased organizational e€ectiveness<br />
(Beehr <strong>and</strong> Newman, 1978; Motowidlo et al., 1986), <strong>and</strong> increased organizational health care<br />
costs (Manning, Jackson <strong>and</strong> Fusilier, 1996). In fact, <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong> has been estimated to cost<br />
corporate America $200 billion annually in absenteeism, lost productivity, accidents, <strong>and</strong> medical<br />
* Correspondence to: John J. Sosik, Department of Management <strong>and</strong> Organization, Great Valley School of<br />
Graduate Professional Studies, The Pennsylvania State University, Malvern, PA 19355, U.S.A. Tel.: (610) 648 3254.<br />
E-mail: jjs20@psu.edu<br />
{ Author note: An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1997 Academy of Management Conference in<br />
Boston, Massachusetts.<br />
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 20 June 1997<br />
Accepted 18 August 1998
366 J. J. SOSIK AND V. M. GODSHALK<br />
insurance (Gibson, 1993; Laws, 1996). Moreover, <strong>stress</strong>-<strong>related</strong> costs may approximate 10 per<br />
cent of the U.S. Gross National Product (Sullivan <strong>and</strong> Bhagat, 1992). At issue for organizations<br />
is how to reduce <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong> <strong>and</strong> its detrimental consequences.<br />
Mentoring is a form of social support which may allay <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong> of organizational<br />
members (House, 1981; Kram <strong>and</strong> Hall, 1989). Mentoring is de®ned as `a deliberate pairing of a<br />
more skilled or experienced person with a lesser skilled or experienced one, with the agreed-upon<br />
goal of having the lesser skilled person grow <strong>and</strong> develop speci®c competencies' (Murray, 1991,<br />
p. xiv). Mentors provide both career development <strong>and</strong> psychosocial support <strong>functions</strong> to prote ge s<br />
(Kram, 1985; Noe, 1988). Psychosocial support <strong>functions</strong> include acceptance, role modelling,<br />
coaching, <strong>and</strong> counselling. These <strong>functions</strong> parallel leadership behaviors identi®ed by Yukl (1990)<br />
such as supporting, motivating <strong>and</strong> inspiring, <strong>and</strong> developing. Career development <strong>functions</strong><br />
include sponsorship, protection, challenging assignments, exposure, <strong>and</strong> visibility. These <strong>functions</strong><br />
parallel leadership behaviors identi®ed by Yukl (1990) such as clarifying roles <strong>and</strong> objectives,<br />
monitoring, <strong>and</strong> networking. Prior research (e.g., Bass, 1998; House, 1996; Sc<strong>and</strong>ura <strong>and</strong><br />
Schriesheim, 1994; Yukl, 1994) suggests that mentors may exhibit a variety of leadership behaviors<br />
or <strong>styles</strong> while interacting with prote ge s. <strong>Leadership</strong> style is de®ned here as acts or behaviors<br />
exhibited by the mentor which in¯uence prote ge s (Bass, 1990). A key question, however, is what<br />
leadership <strong>styles</strong>/behaviors distinguish mentors who are inclined to foster <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong><br />
e€ective in allaying prote ge <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong> from those who are less inclined to do so. In<br />
answering this question, direct implications for recruitment, selection, <strong>and</strong> training of mentors can<br />
be found. For example, if key leadership behaviors which allay <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong> via <strong>mentoring</strong> can<br />
be identi®ed, then individuals who exhibit these behaviors can be selected or trained as mentors.<br />
Scholars in organizational behavior (e.g., Bass, 1990, 1998; Yukl, 1994) have encouraged<br />
researchers to explore relationships between mentor leadership <strong>styles</strong>, <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong>, <strong>and</strong><br />
work-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>. Yet no research has focused on how mentor leadership style(s) <strong>and</strong> the<br />
development of mentor±prote ge relationships may a€ect <strong>stress</strong> as experienced by the prote ge .<br />
Given that <strong>mentoring</strong> programmes have gained increased importance in today's competitive<br />
business environment (Burke, McKenna <strong>and</strong> McKeen, 1991; Sc<strong>and</strong>ura, 1992), it appears<br />
necessary to investigate how mentor leadership style(s) may in¯uence the e€ectiveness of <strong>mentoring</strong><br />
<strong>functions</strong> in allaying perceived <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>. Accordingly, this paper focuses on adding to<br />
our underst<strong>and</strong>ing of <strong>mentoring</strong> behavior by identifying from the leadership literature behaviors<br />
that mentors could use to be more e€ective in their <strong>mentoring</strong> roles.<br />
This paper extends prior work in three ways. First, it examines the conceptual similarities <strong>and</strong><br />
di€erences between leadership <strong>and</strong> <strong>mentoring</strong>. Second, it presents a theoretical model which<br />
integrates aspects of the leadership, <strong>mentoring</strong>, <strong>and</strong> occupational <strong>stress</strong> literatures. Third, it<br />
examines whether transformational leadership (cf. Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978) has a more favorable<br />
e€ect on <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>, directly <strong>and</strong> via <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong>, as compared to other leadership<br />
<strong>styles</strong> such as laissez-faire <strong>and</strong> transactional contingent reward. No previous published work has<br />
explored these linkages.<br />
<strong>Leadership</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>mentoring</strong><br />
The literatures on leadership (e.g., Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1990, 1994) <strong>and</strong> <strong>mentoring</strong> (e.g., Kram,<br />
1985; Noe, 1988) have established similarities between leadership <strong>and</strong> <strong>mentoring</strong>. For example,<br />
Schein (1978) described leaders as creators <strong>and</strong> manipulators of culture, while Wilson <strong>and</strong> Elman<br />
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)
LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 367<br />
(1990) described mentors as transfer agents of culture. Gladstone (1988) argued that mentors<br />
behave as leaders when they shape values, act as an example, <strong>and</strong> de®ne meanings for prote ge s.<br />
Thibodeaux <strong>and</strong> Lowe (1996) found convergence of in-group Leader±Member Exchange (LMX)<br />
relations <strong>and</strong> <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong>.<br />
At the same time, the leadership <strong>and</strong> <strong>mentoring</strong> literatures have established several di€erences<br />
between the two constructs. First, leadership involves a performance-oriented in¯uence process,<br />
while <strong>mentoring</strong> involves a long-term role-model relationship which is primarily career <strong>and</strong><br />
development-oriented (Burke et al., 1991). Second, leadership involves one leader <strong>and</strong> one or<br />
more followers, whereas <strong>mentoring</strong> usually involves one mentor <strong>and</strong> one prote ge . <strong>Leadership</strong><br />
may be a more formal, overt, <strong>and</strong> direct in¯uence process, while <strong>mentoring</strong> may be a more<br />
informal, subtle, <strong>and</strong> indirect in¯uence process (Appelbaum, Ritchie <strong>and</strong> Shapiro, 1994). Graen<br />
<strong>and</strong> Sc<strong>and</strong>ura (1986) suggested that leadership is distinct from <strong>mentoring</strong> but e€ective LMX<br />
relations may be a function of being mentored by a leader. Third, not all experienced leaders<br />
become e€ective mentors (Ragins <strong>and</strong> Cotton, 1993). Fourth, empirical distinction between<br />
leadership <strong>and</strong> <strong>mentoring</strong> has been found by Sc<strong>and</strong>ura <strong>and</strong> Schriesheim (1994), Eisenbach (1992,<br />
`An exploration of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>and</strong> leadership as inter<strong>related</strong> concepts'. Unpublished doctoral<br />
dissertation, University of Miami), <strong>and</strong> Morgan (1989).<br />
Given the ambiguity regarding the distinctiveness of leadership <strong>and</strong> <strong>mentoring</strong>, we relied upon<br />
the work of Yukl (1990, 1994) <strong>and</strong> Noe (1988) to propose approximate conceptual similarities<br />
<strong>and</strong> distinctions between speci®c leadership behaviors <strong>and</strong> <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> shown in<br />
Table 1. Yukl (1990) developed a taxonomy of leader behavior which integrates several earlier<br />
taxonomies (e.g., Mintzberg, 1973; Stogdill, 1963) of initiating structure (i.e., task-oriented) <strong>and</strong><br />
consideration (i.e., relationship-oriented) leader behaviors. Some leader behaviors are primarily<br />
task-oriented (e.g., planning <strong>and</strong> organizing, problem solving, clarifying roles <strong>and</strong> objectives,<br />
monitoring), while others are primarily relationship oriented (i.e., supporting, developing,<br />
networking, recognizing). Yukl (1994) argued that certain leader behaviors include some<br />
Table 1. Approximate conceptual similarities <strong>and</strong> distinctions between leadership behaviors <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong><br />
Leader behavior Primary behavior Mentoring function (Noe, 1988)<br />
(Yukl, 1990) orientation Career development Psychosocial support<br />
Planning <strong>and</strong> organizing Task Coaching<br />
Problem solving<br />
Task<br />
Clarifying roles <strong>and</strong> objectives Task Challenging assignments Role modelling<br />
Informing<br />
Task<br />
Monitoring Task Protection<br />
Motivating <strong>and</strong> inspiring Mixed Role modelling<br />
Consulting<br />
Mixed<br />
Delegating<br />
Mixed<br />
Supporting Relationship Counselling<br />
Developing <strong>and</strong> <strong>mentoring</strong> Relationship Sponsorship<br />
Coaching<br />
Challenging assignments<br />
Managing con¯ict <strong>and</strong><br />
Relationship<br />
team building<br />
Networking Relationship Exposure/visibility<br />
Sponsorship<br />
Recognizing Relationship Acceptance/con®rmation<br />
Rewarding Relationship Acceptance/con®rmation<br />
Note. Primary behavior orientation based on Yukl (1994). Speci®c <strong>mentoring</strong> function indicates area of overlap with<br />
leadership behavior.<br />
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)
368 J. J. SOSIK AND V. M. GODSHALK<br />
component behaviors that are concerned with both task <strong>and</strong> people. For instance, <strong>mentoring</strong><br />
may involve both task-oriented clarifying behaviors <strong>and</strong> people-oriented developing behaviors<br />
(Yukl, 1994). However, path±goal theory (House, 1996) suggests that people-oriented behaviors<br />
are more appropriate than task-oriented behaviors for enhancing the development <strong>and</strong> <strong>job</strong><br />
satisfaction of lower echelon employees (e.g., prote ge s).<br />
Mintzberg (1973) identi®ed participating in developmental activities (e.g., <strong>mentoring</strong>) as a key<br />
leader role. Prior research (e.g., Kram, 1985; Noe, 1988) indicates that mentors provide both<br />
psychosocial support <strong>and</strong> career development <strong>functions</strong> to prote ge s. As noted above, psychosocial<br />
support <strong>functions</strong> parallel leadership behaviors identi®ed by Yukl (1990) such as supporting,<br />
motivating <strong>and</strong> inspiring, <strong>and</strong> developing. Career development <strong>functions</strong> parallel leadership<br />
behaviors identi®ed by Yukl (1990) such as clarifying roles <strong>and</strong> objectives, developing, <strong>and</strong><br />
networking. While some <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> (e.g., protection) may not parallel leadership<br />
behavior <strong>and</strong> some leadership behaviors (e.g., team building) may not parallel <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong>,<br />
Table 1 suggests some conceptual overlap between leadership <strong>and</strong> <strong>mentoring</strong>. However,<br />
conceptual distinctions between leader behaviors <strong>and</strong> <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> shown in Table 1 are<br />
in line with evidence of empirical distinctiveness between the constructs found in research cited<br />
above. Given that Table 1 highlights both similarities <strong>and</strong> di€erences between leader behaviors<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>and</strong> mentors may display leader behaviors (Gladstone, 1988), we<br />
concluded that leadership behaviors displayed by a mentor may in¯uence prote ge perceptions of<br />
<strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong>.<br />
Theoretical background<br />
Manning et al.'s (1996) simpli®ed model of work <strong>stress</strong>, adapted from Matteson <strong>and</strong> Ivancevich<br />
(1982), provides the general theoretical framework for this study. According to Manning et al.<br />
(1996), personal (e.g., prote ge age) <strong>and</strong> external (e.g., mentor's leadership behavior) sources of<br />
<strong>stress</strong> in¯uence <strong>stress</strong> as experienced, which in turn can a€ect potential outcomes (e.g., physical,<br />
psychological, organizational factors). In addition, having social support (e.g., <strong>mentoring</strong><br />
<strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong>) can reduce <strong>stress</strong> as experienced <strong>and</strong> moderate the in¯uence of external<br />
sources of <strong>stress</strong> on <strong>stress</strong> as experienced (Manning et al., 1996; Parker <strong>and</strong> DeCotiis, 1983). The<br />
present study focuses on examining in¯uences of external sources of <strong>stress</strong> (mentor's leadership<br />
behavior) <strong>and</strong> social support (prote ge perception of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong>) on <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong><br />
<strong>stress</strong> as experienced by the prote ge .<br />
Based upon Manning et al.'s (1996) model of work <strong>stress</strong>, we proposed the general framework<br />
shown in Figure 1, to predict the relationships of mentor leadership style with prote ge <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong><br />
<strong>stress</strong>, directly <strong>and</strong> via <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong> by prote ge . Figure 1 illustrates several key<br />
relationships. First, mentor leadership style is seen as being associated with both prote ge receipt of<br />
<strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>. Second, prote ge receipt of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> will<br />
in¯uence the level of prote ge <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>. Third, as suggested by Manning et al. (1996),<br />
prote ge receipt of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> will moderate the relationship between mentor transformational<br />
leadership behavior <strong>and</strong> prote ge <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>. These relationships are described in<br />
detail below.<br />
To link leadership <strong>styles</strong> to <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>, we draw<br />
upon literature on the transformational±transactional leadership paradigm which has <strong>received</strong><br />
extensive theoretical <strong>and</strong> empirical attention (e.g., Bass, 1985; Bennis, 1989; Bryman, 1992;<br />
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)
LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 369<br />
Figure 1. A model of leadership style, <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong>, <strong>and</strong> <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong><br />
Burns, 1978; Conger <strong>and</strong> Kanungo, 1987; Dubinsky, Yammarino <strong>and</strong> Jolson, 1995; Howell <strong>and</strong><br />
Avolio, 1993; Podsako€ et al., 1990; Sashkin <strong>and</strong> Rosenbach, 1993; Shamir, House <strong>and</strong> Arthur,<br />
1993; Yammarino et al., 1997). Several reviews (e.g., Bass, 1990, 1998; Kirkpatrick <strong>and</strong> Locke,<br />
1996) <strong>and</strong> meta-analyses (Gaspar, 1992Ð`Transformational leadership: an integrative review of<br />
the literature'. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University; Lowe, Kroeck<br />
<strong>and</strong> Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Patterson et al., 1995) have indicated that transactional leadership<br />
can result in expected performance levels, while transformational leadership can result in<br />
individual, group, <strong>and</strong> unit performance beyond expectations. In fact, transformational leadership<br />
is seen as a particularly powerful source of e€ective leadership in Army, Navy, <strong>and</strong> Air Force<br />
settings (e.g., Curphy, 1992; Yammarino <strong>and</strong> Bass, 1990), computer-mediated group settings<br />
(e.g., Sosik, Avolio <strong>and</strong> Kahai, 1997), innovative research <strong>and</strong> development contexts (e.g., Howell<br />
<strong>and</strong> Higgins, 1992; Howell <strong>and</strong> Avolio, 1993), total quality management programmes (Sosik <strong>and</strong><br />
Dionne, 1997), <strong>and</strong> <strong>stress</strong> reduction contexts (Seltzer, Numero€ <strong>and</strong> Bass, 1989).<br />
The transactional±transformational leadership paradigm is grounded upon seminal work<br />
by Burns (1978) <strong>and</strong> Bass (1985). Bass <strong>and</strong> Avolio's (1994) Full Range of <strong>Leadership</strong> (FRL) model<br />
represents a re®nement of Bass (1985) <strong>and</strong> is the foundation of extensive training of individuals<br />
from industry, education, military, religious, <strong>and</strong> non-pro®t sectors. The FRL model proposes<br />
that every leader may display some amount of laissez-faire, transactional, <strong>and</strong> transformational<br />
leadership <strong>styles</strong>. Subsumed within each style are particular behaviors. The most ine€ective <strong>and</strong><br />
passive style is laissez-faire, characterized by delays of action, absence, <strong>and</strong> indi€erence. More<br />
e€ective <strong>styles</strong> include transactional leadership, which involves `leaders approaching followers with<br />
an eye to exchanging one thing for another' (Burns, 1978, p. 4). The most e€ective form of<br />
transactional leadership is contingent reward leadership where one sets goals, clari®es desired<br />
outcomes, provides both positive <strong>and</strong> negative feedback, <strong>and</strong> exchanges rewards <strong>and</strong> recognition<br />
for accomplishments when they are deserved. Transformational leadership involves forming `a<br />
relationship of mutual stimulation <strong>and</strong> elevation that converts followers into leaders <strong>and</strong> may<br />
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)
370 J. J. SOSIK AND V. M. GODSHALK<br />
convert leaders into moral agents' (Burns, 1978, p. 4). Bass <strong>and</strong> Avolio (1994) identi®ed four<br />
behaviors associated with transformational leaders: individualized considerationÐgiving personal<br />
attention to followers to promote their development <strong>and</strong> achievement; intellectual stimulationÐ<br />
enabling followers to think of old problems in new ways; inspirational motivationÐcommunicating<br />
high performance expectations through the projection of a powerful, con®dent, dynamic<br />
presence; <strong>and</strong> idealized in¯uenceÐdisplaying role model behaviors for followers through<br />
exemplary personal achievements, character, <strong>and</strong>/or behavior.<br />
The FRL model of leadership was chosen, as opposed to other leadership models, to link<br />
leadership style to <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong> for several reasons. First,<br />
the FRL model leadership <strong>styles</strong> subsume speci®c leader behaviors found in Yukl's (1990)<br />
taxonomy of leader behaviors. Second, while other leadership models depict two-dimensional<br />
models of leadership behavior, such as directive versus participative (House, 1996) or task versus<br />
relations-oriented (Fiedler, 1967), the FRL model covers leadership <strong>styles</strong> which may subsume<br />
prior models of leader behavior. For example, Bass (1998) argued that transformational <strong>and</strong><br />
transactional leadership can be either directive or participative. Thus, by considering transformational,<br />
transactional, <strong>and</strong> laissez-faire leadership, the FRL model provides a rich array of<br />
leader behaviors that other leadership models may lack. Third, the FRL model has been widely<br />
researched in a variety of evaluative investigations (see Bass, 1998 for a comprehensive review).<br />
Fourth, the FRL model describes speci®c behaviors which may facilitate mentor training in terms<br />
of transactional <strong>and</strong> transformational relationships <strong>and</strong> their impacts on prote ge s.<br />
Hypotheses<br />
<strong>Leadership</strong> <strong>styles</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong><br />
Sc<strong>and</strong>ura <strong>and</strong> Schriesheim (1994) argued that transformational leadership is consistent with<br />
requirements for e€ective <strong>mentoring</strong>. Mentor transformational leadership behavior may be more<br />
congruent with prote ge receipt of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> than transactional or laissez-faire<br />
leadership <strong>styles</strong> for several reasons. First, transformational leadership builds follower trust<br />
(Podsako€ et al., 1990). By exhibiting idealized in¯uence, transformational leaders may be<br />
viewed by their followers as a trustworthy symbol of success <strong>and</strong> accomplishment. These<br />
idealized in¯uence behaviors are similar to role modelling behaviors identi®ed by Noe (1988) as<br />
being associated with the psychosocial support function of <strong>mentoring</strong>. Perceived as trustworthy,<br />
respected <strong>and</strong> admirable role models, mentors who exhibit idealized in¯uence may enhance their<br />
prote ge 's ability to undertake calculated risks to advance their careers.<br />
Second, transformational leadership involves (a) spending time teaching <strong>and</strong> coaching others,<br />
(b) treating others as individuals with unique needs, abilities <strong>and</strong> aspirations, (c) helping others<br />
develop strengths, <strong>and</strong> (d) listening attentively to concerns of others (Bass <strong>and</strong> Avolio, 1994).<br />
These individually considerate behaviors are likely to facilitate counselling <strong>and</strong> individualized<br />
coaching of prote ge s, identi®ed by Noe (1988) as important aspects of <strong>mentoring</strong>.<br />
Third, transformational leadership encourages others to reformulate assumptions through<br />
considering the absurd, fantasizing, <strong>and</strong> focusing on the context rather than the task (Bass <strong>and</strong><br />
Avolio, 1994). These methods of intellectual stimulation are useful in fostering prote ge creativity<br />
<strong>and</strong> developing prote ge cognitive abilities (Torrance, 1983). In addition, intellectual stimulation<br />
develops analytical skills through reexamining assumptions, seeking di€erent perspectives,<br />
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)
LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 371<br />
suggesting new ways of performing tasks, <strong>and</strong> rethinking what has never been questioned before.<br />
According to Torrance (1983), these e€ects also may foster prote ge intellectual development.<br />
Fourth, in their e€orts to motivate others, transformational leaders articulate inspirational<br />
long-term visions which attach meaning <strong>and</strong> importance to human development. By linking the<br />
signi®cance of human development (e.g., developing new skills <strong>and</strong> higher levels of creative<br />
thinking, trust, <strong>and</strong> responsibility) to the successful attainment of the broader organizational<br />
mission, these leaders enhance others' belief that they can be e€ective contributors to a high<br />
achieving organization (Shamir et al., 1993). These inspirationally motivating behaviors are<br />
similar to ecacy <strong>and</strong> con®dence building behaviors required by mentors (Kram, 1985). On the<br />
basis of these arguments, we expected a strong positive relationship between mentor transformational<br />
leadership behavior <strong>and</strong> prote ge receipt of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong>.<br />
Mentor transactional contingent reward leadership behavior also may be associated with<br />
prote ge receipt of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong>. When a leader sets goals, clari®es outcomes <strong>and</strong> exchanges<br />
rewards <strong>and</strong> recognition for follower accomplishments, followers generally achieve expected performance<br />
(Bass, 1985). A contingent reward leader may lay the foundation for follower development<br />
by clarifying desired developmental outcomes, discussing in speci®c terms learning<br />
objectives which outline what must be accomplished, <strong>and</strong> rewarding the follower when she/he<br />
identi®es <strong>and</strong> participates in developmental activities. Similarly, a <strong>mentoring</strong> relationship, in<br />
which contingent reward behavior is displayed by the mentor, is based upon the assumption that<br />
by clarifying what the mentor expects <strong>and</strong> then rewarding the prote ge for developmental behavior,<br />
the mentor directs the prote ge to the desired developmental outcome. In fact, Thibodeaux <strong>and</strong><br />
Lowe (1996) found mentored individuals to report greater supervisory use of rewards than nonmentored<br />
individuals. In addition, prote ge trust may be enhanced to the extent that the mentor<br />
(a) negotiates, agrees, exchanges, <strong>and</strong> bargains with the prote ge by establishing a `learning<br />
contract'; (b) communicates a clear underst<strong>and</strong>ing to the prote ge about what the mentor <strong>and</strong><br />
prote ge will do for one another in order to adhere to the learning contract; <strong>and</strong> (c) rewards<br />
developmental behavior. These behaviors parallel contingent reward leadership <strong>and</strong> are characteristic<br />
of what Covey (1997) <strong>and</strong> Podsako€ et al. (1990) describe as behaviors that promote<br />
trustÐa key aspect of e€ective mentor±prote ge relationships (Murray, 1991; Yukl, 1994).<br />
E€ective <strong>mentoring</strong> provides career development <strong>and</strong> psychosocial support for the prote geÂ<br />
(Kram, 1985). Given that contingent reward behavior involves goal setting (Bass, 1985) <strong>and</strong> setting<br />
career goals promotes career development (Kram, 1985), mentors who display contingent reward<br />
behavior may provide career development to prote ge s by setting career goals. Since contingent<br />
reward behavior is generally associated with increased <strong>job</strong> satisfaction (Sims <strong>and</strong> Lorenzi, 1992)<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>job</strong> satisfaction is associated with receiving psychosocial support (Bahniuk, Dobos <strong>and</strong> Hill,<br />
1990; Parasuraman, Greenhaus <strong>and</strong> Granrose, 1992), mentors who display contingent reward<br />
behaviors may provide psychosocial support for prote ge s by increasing prote ge <strong>job</strong> satisfaction.<br />
However, contingent reward behavior focuses on getting the task done <strong>and</strong> is less likely to be<br />
associated with stimulating greater development of others than transformational behavior (Bass,<br />
1998). Contingent reward behavior attends less to relational aspects of interactions <strong>and</strong> more to<br />
de®ning the task <strong>and</strong> level of expected performance. Given the importance of relational aspects in<br />
mentor±prote ge relationships (Kram <strong>and</strong> Bragar, 1991) <strong>and</strong> the task orientation of contingent<br />
reward behavior, we expected mentor contingent reward behavior to be less positively associated<br />
with prote ge receipt of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> than transformational behavior.<br />
Mentor laissez-faire behavior may be totally inconsistent with prote ge receipt of <strong>mentoring</strong><br />
<strong>functions</strong>. Laissez-faire leadership results in less concentration on work, poor quality of work,<br />
<strong>and</strong> low levels of productivity, cohesiveness <strong>and</strong> satisfaction (Bass, 1990). Applied to <strong>mentoring</strong><br />
relationships, these e€ects may be detrimental to the skill <strong>and</strong> career development of the prote ge .<br />
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)
372 J. J. SOSIK AND V. M. GODSHALK<br />
In addition, laissez-faire behavior strives to maintain the status quo through delay, absence,<br />
<strong>and</strong> indi€erence. However, <strong>mentoring</strong> requires a mentor to actively look for <strong>and</strong> ®nd opportunities<br />
for prote ge development (Yukl, 1994), provide both psychosocial <strong>and</strong> career facilitation<br />
support (Noe, 1988), serve as a role model, <strong>and</strong> spend time developing the prote ge (Kram,<br />
1985). Laissez-faire behavior on the part of the mentor is not likely to ful®l these requirements.<br />
Thus, we expected a negative relationship between mentor laissez-faire behavior <strong>and</strong> prote geÂ<br />
receipt of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong>. Based on the above discussion, we proposed the following<br />
hypotheses:<br />
Hypothesis 1a: Mentor transformational leadership behavior will be positively <strong>related</strong> to<br />
prote ge receipt of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong>.<br />
Hypothesis 1b: Mentor transactional contingent reward leadership behavior will have a lower<br />
positive relationship with prote ge receipt of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> than mentor transformational<br />
leadership behavior.<br />
Hypothesis 1c: Mentor laissez-faire leadership behavior will be negatively <strong>related</strong> to prote geÂ<br />
receipt of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong>.<br />
<strong>Leadership</strong> <strong>styles</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong><br />
Job-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong> is often a function of an individual's perception of organizational <strong>and</strong><br />
environmental events <strong>and</strong> meaning attached to these events (McCauley, 1987; Schuler, 1980). The<br />
meaning which individuals associate with these events is often `managed' or in¯uenced by<br />
signi®cant others, such as leaders <strong>and</strong> mentors (Kram <strong>and</strong> Hall, 1989; Smircich <strong>and</strong> Morgan,<br />
1982). For example, when a mentor manages the meaning of organizational events for a prote ge ,<br />
he or she in¯uences the manner in which the prote ge perceives, interprets, <strong>and</strong> acts upon <strong>job</strong><strong>related</strong><br />
events (e.g., <strong>stress</strong>ful events). In this role, the mentor engages in numerous leadership<br />
behaviors (e.g., motivating, communicating) which provide underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>and</strong> reduce uncertainty<br />
associated with perceived hostile events. In fact, leadership behavior has been linked to<br />
e€ectiveness of individuals dealing with combat conditions (Kalay, 1983), con¯ict (Katz, 1977),<br />
role <strong>stress</strong> (LaRocco <strong>and</strong> Jones, 1978), panic (Kugihara <strong>and</strong> Misumi, 1984), <strong>and</strong> disaster (Watson,<br />
1984). Thus, a prote ge 's <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong> may be in¯uenced by the mentor's leadership style.<br />
Laissez-faire style, involving avoidance or absence of leadership, provides no meaning or clari-<br />
®cation of events for followers. Lack of leader communication undermines follower trust in the<br />
leader (Bass, 1998; Podsako€ et al., 1990) <strong>and</strong> may serve to intensify follower fear of the unknown<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>. Given the importance of communication in both <strong>mentoring</strong> relationships<br />
(Murray, 1991) <strong>and</strong> <strong>stress</strong> reduction (McCauley, 1987), mentors who fail to communicate may<br />
be like laissez-faire leaders in both behavior <strong>and</strong> in impact of their behavior on prote ge s. Thus,<br />
we expected that mentor laissez-faire behavior would be positively <strong>related</strong> to prote ge <strong>job</strong><strong>related</strong><br />
<strong>stress</strong>.<br />
Stress may be allayed by reducing uncertainty through e€ective communication (McCauley,<br />
1987), raising ecacy expectations (B<strong>and</strong>ura, 1986), <strong>and</strong> developing supportive group relationships<br />
(Schuler, 1980). Contingent reward behavior may reduce uncertainty, raise ecacy expectations,<br />
<strong>and</strong> get agreement on what needs to be done by clarifying performance expectations (Sims<br />
<strong>and</strong> Lorenzi, 1992). As such, contingent reward behavior may provide mentors with mechanisms<br />
for allaying <strong>job</strong>-<strong>stress</strong> experienced by prote ge s. Thus, we expected mentor contingent reward<br />
leadership to be negatively <strong>related</strong> to prote ge <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>.<br />
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)
LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 373<br />
While these transactional methods to allay <strong>stress</strong> may satisfy immediate satisfaction needs of<br />
prote ge s, they are unlikely to establish long-term positive e€ectiveness in coping with <strong>stress</strong> (Bass,<br />
1998). Prior research (e.g., Mulder, van Eck <strong>and</strong> deJong, 1971; Seltzer, Numero€ <strong>and</strong> Bass, 1989)<br />
suggests that transformational behavior displayed by mentors may provide the most e€ective<br />
means to allay prote ge <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>. For example, Seltzer et al. (1989) found that transformational<br />
leadership based on charismatic <strong>and</strong> individually considerate behaviors was negatively<br />
<strong>related</strong> to follower <strong>stress</strong>. Transformational leadership arouses team spirit, reframes <strong>stress</strong>ful<br />
events into developmental opportunities, <strong>and</strong> inspires others to perceive dicult situations as<br />
meaningful challenges necessary for developing one's professional <strong>and</strong> personal skills (Shamir<br />
et al., 1993). By emphasizing the importance of collective action, transformational leadership<br />
evokes higher-order needs (e.g., sense of belonging to a larger entity) <strong>and</strong> moves followers into a<br />
vigilant search for long-term readiness. As such, follower <strong>stress</strong> may be reduced as `the<br />
insecurity of feeling isolated is replaced by the security of a sense of belonging' (Bass, 1998, p. 46).<br />
These <strong>stress</strong>-reducing behaviors parallel acceptance <strong>and</strong> con®rmation behaviors associated with<br />
the psychosocial support function of <strong>mentoring</strong> (Kram <strong>and</strong> Hall, 1989). Thus, we expected that<br />
mentor transformational leadership behavior would be more negatively <strong>related</strong> to prote ge <strong>job</strong><strong>related</strong><br />
<strong>stress</strong> than transactional contingent reward behavior. Taken together, the above<br />
arguments suggest:<br />
Hypothesis 2a: Mentor transformational leadership behavior will be negatively <strong>related</strong> to<br />
prote ge <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>.<br />
Hypothesis 2b: Mentor transactional contingent reward leadership behavior will have a lower<br />
negative relationship with prote ge <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong> than mentor transformational leadership<br />
behavior.<br />
Hypothesis 2c: Mentor laissez-faire behavior will be positively <strong>related</strong> to prote ge <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong><br />
<strong>stress</strong>.<br />
Mentoring <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong><br />
The relationship between <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong> <strong>and</strong> prote ge <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong> may be a<br />
function of the positive outcomes <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> provide. Mentoring has been positively<br />
associated with e€ective socialization of young employees (Schein, 1978), promotions <strong>and</strong><br />
compensation (Dreher <strong>and</strong> Ash, 1990), career mobility (Sc<strong>and</strong>ura, 1992), career satisfaction<br />
(Fagenson, 1989), career commitment (Colarelli <strong>and</strong> Bishop, 1990), <strong>and</strong> <strong>job</strong> satisfaction<br />
(Bahniuk et al., 1990); <strong>and</strong> negatively associated with turnover intentions (Viator <strong>and</strong> Sc<strong>and</strong>ura,<br />
1991). These ®ndings suggest that <strong>mentoring</strong> may provide the prote ge with career development<br />
opportunities <strong>and</strong> career goals.<br />
Individuals who perceive low career development opportunities <strong>and</strong> discrepancies with career<br />
goals resulting from a lack of social support experience high levels of <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>, while<br />
those who receive social support <strong>and</strong> opportunities for development report lower <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong><br />
<strong>stress</strong> (Parker <strong>and</strong> DeCotiis, 1983). In addition, prior research cited above suggests that<br />
individuals who participate in <strong>mentoring</strong> relationships exhibit positive/functional organizational<br />
attitudes <strong>and</strong> behaviors. For example, Mowday, Porter <strong>and</strong> Steers (1982) argued that individuals<br />
a€ectively respond to aspects of the work environment <strong>and</strong> these reactions in¯uence their<br />
attitudes towards their <strong>job</strong>s. Job-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong> may cause individuals to deviate from normal<br />
functioning (Jamal, 1990). Mentoring appears to help individuals cope with <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong> by<br />
providing both career development <strong>and</strong> psychosocial assistance <strong>and</strong>, therefore, may allow these<br />
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)
374 J. J. SOSIK AND V. M. GODSHALK<br />
individuals to function normally in the organization. On the basis of this literature, we propose<br />
the following hypothesis:<br />
Hypothesis 3: Prote ge receipt of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> will be negatively <strong>related</strong> to prote geÂ<br />
<strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>.<br />
As noted above, Manning et al. (1996) argued that social support may moderate e€ects of<br />
external sources of <strong>stress</strong> on perceived <strong>stress</strong>. A mentor's leadership style may be an external<br />
source of <strong>stress</strong> (Matteson <strong>and</strong> Ivancevich, 1982; Seltzer et al., 1989). Mentoring <strong>functions</strong> are a<br />
form of social support (House, 1981) <strong>and</strong> may provide an antidote to <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong> (Kram<br />
<strong>and</strong> Hall, 1989). However, <strong>stress</strong> reduction e€orts are more e€ective when perceptions of <strong>stress</strong><br />
are changed via development of long-term readiness <strong>and</strong> coping mechanisms (McCauley, 1987).<br />
Such changes in perceptions of <strong>stress</strong> may be facilitated by the developmental nature of<br />
transformational leadership (Sc<strong>and</strong>ura <strong>and</strong> Schriesheim, 1994) <strong>and</strong> its focus on promoting<br />
fundamental change in moving individuals beyond immediate concerns toward concern for an<br />
attractive future (Bennis, 1989; Burns, 1978). Similarly, <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> promote fundamental<br />
changes in prote ge s in terms of attitudes (e.g., perception of <strong>stress</strong>) <strong>and</strong> career <strong>and</strong> selfdevelopment<br />
(Kram <strong>and</strong> Hall, 1989).<br />
These arguments suggest that a mentor's e€orts to allay prote ge <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong> via<br />
transformational behavior will be moderated by prote ge receipt of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong>. In<br />
essence, when <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong> are high, the negative impact of mentor<br />
transformational behavior on prote ge <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong> is stronger. Conversely, when <strong>mentoring</strong><br />
<strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong> are low, the negative impact of mentor transformational behavior on prote geÂ<br />
<strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong> is lower. Our expectation is based on a cognitive consistency argument where<br />
the underlying rule is that when <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong> are low, transformational<br />
behaviors such as individualized consideration may be perceived as inauthentic or insincere <strong>and</strong><br />
therefore ought not promote development of <strong>stress</strong>-reducing mechanisms. When <strong>mentoring</strong><br />
<strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong> are high, transformational behaviors may be perceived as being consistent with<br />
<strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> in terms of developmental orientation <strong>and</strong> therefore promote development<br />
of <strong>stress</strong>-reducing mechanisms. Thus, all else being equal, if we had two groups of prote ge s where<br />
the ®rst group <strong>received</strong> low levels of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>and</strong> the second group the opposite, we<br />
would expect a low to possibly negative association between mentor transformational behavior<br />
<strong>and</strong> prote ge <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong> for the ®rst group <strong>and</strong> a high negative association for the second<br />
group.<br />
Unlike transformational behavior, transactional contingent reward behavior displayed<br />
by mentors may promote a cost-bene®t exchange relationship with prote ge s (Sc<strong>and</strong>ura<br />
<strong>and</strong> Schriescheim, 1994). Such behavior is not likely to develop prote ge long-term positive<br />
e€ectiveness in coping with <strong>stress</strong>ful conditions or reducing perceptions of <strong>stress</strong> (Bass, 1998).<br />
Similarly, absence or avoidance on the part of a laissez-faire mentor is inconsistent with<br />
<strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>and</strong> therefore is not likely to promote <strong>stress</strong> reduction e€orts. Thus, we<br />
hypothesized:<br />
Hypothesis 4: Prote ge receipt of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> will moderate the negative relationship<br />
between mentor transformational leadership behavior <strong>and</strong> prote ge <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>.<br />
Speci®cally, mentor transformational leadership behavior will be more negatively <strong>related</strong><br />
to prote ge <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong> when prote ge receipt of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> is high rather than<br />
low.<br />
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)
LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 375<br />
Method<br />
Sample <strong>and</strong> procedure<br />
Two-hundred <strong>and</strong> thirty adult students enrolled in a masters of management programme in a<br />
large public university in the Northeast participated in the study for course credit. Participants<br />
were full-time corporate employees from various industries who were involved in either formal<br />
or informal <strong>mentoring</strong> relationships. The industries represented include: services (22 per cent),<br />
manufacturing (17 per cent), ®nancial/insurance (16 per cent), pharmaceuticals (7 per cent),<br />
transportation/utilities (6 per cent), telecommunications (6 per cent), public administration (1 per<br />
cent), <strong>and</strong> other unidenti®ed industries (25 per cent). Mentoring relationships ranged in length<br />
from 1 year to 12 years, with the average being 2.7 years. Participants ranged in age from 20 years<br />
to 57 years, with the average age being 31. They had worked, on average, 4.8 years with their<br />
companies <strong>and</strong> had a range of company tenure from 2 months to 40 years. Fifty-six per cent of<br />
the participants were male, <strong>and</strong> the vast majority (82 per cent) were Caucasian. The remaining<br />
18 per cent of the sample consisted of African American (6 per cent), Hispanic (2 per cent), Asian<br />
(7 per cent), Native American (1 per cent), <strong>and</strong> non-responding (2 per cent) participants.<br />
Data were collected through two questionnaires, which were distributed to participants in<br />
class, completed outside of class, <strong>and</strong> returned directly to the researchers. The ®rst questionnaire<br />
was completed by the proteÂge <strong>and</strong> included items measuring <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong>,<br />
perceived <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>, <strong>and</strong> demographic information. This questionnaire contained the<br />
following instructions to de®ne <strong>mentoring</strong> relationships for participants.<br />
`Please provide information regarding your experiences with <strong>mentoring</strong> relationships.<br />
Mentoring relationships are characterized by a close, professional relationship between two<br />
individualsÐone usually more senior in some regard. The mentor <strong>and</strong> prote ge may or may not<br />
be with the same company.'<br />
In addition, the following information was read to participants prior to distribution of the<br />
questionnaires.<br />
`Mentoring is de®ned as a deliberate pairing of a more skilled or experienced person with a<br />
lesser skilled or experienced one, with the agreed-upon goal of having the lesser skilled person<br />
grow <strong>and</strong> develop speci®c competencies. Your mentor may or may not be your manager.'<br />
The second questionnaire included items measuring leadership behaviors <strong>and</strong> was completed by<br />
the prote ge 's mentor. This questionnaire was mailed by each mentor directly to the researchers<br />
using a pre-addressed, stamped return envelope. A total of 204 usable responses, representing<br />
88 per cent of all participant cases, were used in the data analysis. Ninety-one per cent<br />
(186 participants) were in informal <strong>mentoring</strong> relationships while nine per cent (18 participants)<br />
were in formal <strong>mentoring</strong> relationships. Eighty-®ve per cent of mentors were managers/supervisors<br />
of the prote ge s. Of the 15 per cent which were not, 10 per cent were mentored by peers <strong>and</strong><br />
5 per cent were mentored by other individuals.<br />
Data analysis<br />
The hypotheses were tested using Partial Least Squares (PLS; Wold, 1985), a structural equation<br />
modeling technique. PLS has been used by a growing number of researchers in organizational<br />
behavior (e.g., Duxbury <strong>and</strong> Higgins, 1991; House, Spangler <strong>and</strong> Woycke, 1991; Kahai, Sosik<br />
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)
376 J. J. SOSIK AND V. M. GODSHALK<br />
<strong>and</strong> Avolio, 1997). PLS o€ers several bene®ts over traditional techniques such as ANOVA or<br />
regression. These bene®ts are discussed in Appendix A.<br />
We used PLS-Graph (version 2.91.02.08), a graphics-based program for performing PLS<br />
analysis in this study. PLS generates estimates of st<strong>and</strong>ardized regression coecients (i.e., path<br />
coecients) for the model paths, which can then be used to measure the relationships between<br />
latent variables. A jackkni®ng procedure called blindfolding was used to compute st<strong>and</strong>ard errors<br />
<strong>and</strong> assess signi®cance of estimates of path coecients (Wold, 1985). The blindfolding procedure<br />
omits a part of the data matrix for a particular construct <strong>and</strong> then estimates the model parameters<br />
(e.g., path coecients) associated with that construct. This process is repeated as often as the<br />
omission distance, which refers to how many data points in the data matrix are skipped before<br />
omitting one data point. An omission distance of 9 was employed (Sambamurthy <strong>and</strong> Chin, 1994).<br />
A conservative hurdle rate of p 5 0.001 was used to indicate signi®cance.<br />
Full sample data (n ˆ 204) was utilized to test Hypothesis 1a through Hypothesis 3, in terms of<br />
the unmoderated model. To test Hypothesis 4 in terms of the moderating e€ect of <strong>mentoring</strong><br />
<strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong>, we split the sample into two sub-samples (i.e., low <strong>and</strong> high levels of<br />
<strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong>). Partitioning of the data into these sub-samples is discussed below.<br />
This approach parallels more traditional moderated regression by testing a model separately for<br />
each sub-sample (Duxbury <strong>and</strong> Higgins, 1991). Unpaired t-tests were used to test for di€erences<br />
in st<strong>and</strong>ardized regression coecients across the sub-samples (see Duxbury <strong>and</strong> Higgins, 1991).<br />
In PLS, constructs may be modelled using re¯ective or formative indicators. Re¯ective<br />
indicators are suggested when they arise from the construct, because of which they tend to covary<br />
(e.g., components of transformational leadership). Formative indicators are suggested when they<br />
combine to form a construct (e.g., aspects of socio-economic status) (Falk <strong>and</strong> Miller, 1992).<br />
Modelling of constructs examined in the present study is discussed below.<br />
Measurement of constructs<br />
Information was obtained from participants <strong>and</strong> from their mentors. Multiple-item measures<br />
were used to assess mentor leadership behaviors <strong>and</strong> prote ge perceptions of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong><br />
<strong>received</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>. Items for the measures are listed in Appendix B.<br />
Mentor's leadership behaviors<br />
Mentor leadership style/behavior was measured using items from the Multifactor <strong>Leadership</strong><br />
Questionnaire (MLQ-5X; Bass <strong>and</strong> Avolio, 1997). While previous versions of the MLQ have been<br />
criticized for failure to empirically generate the factor structure proposed by Bass <strong>and</strong> Avolio<br />
(1994) to underlie transformational leadership (e.g., Bycio, Hackett <strong>and</strong> Allen, 1995; Yukl, 1994),<br />
research on the MLQ-Form 5X (e.g., Avolio, Bass <strong>and</strong> Jung, 1997; Bass <strong>and</strong> Avolio, 1997; Bass,<br />
1998) has been shown it to be a psychometrically sound instrument. Mentors were asked to judge<br />
how frequently they exhibited speci®c behaviors measured by the MLQ-5X. Each behavior was<br />
measured on a ®ve-point frequency scale ranging from not at all (0) to frequently, if not always<br />
(4). Laissez-faire leadership was measured using two items from the MLQ-5X. Contingent reward<br />
leadership was measured using three items from the MLQ-5X. The following four-item scales was<br />
used as indicators of transformational leadership: (a) idealized in¯uenceÐbehavior (a ˆ 0.75),<br />
(b) inspirational motivation (a ˆ 0.72), (c) intellectual stimulation (a ˆ 0.72), <strong>and</strong> (d)<br />
individualized consideration (a ˆ 0.64).<br />
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)
LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 377<br />
Mentoring <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong><br />
To assess the degree of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>received</strong> by the prote ge , we used two 10-item scales from Noe<br />
(1988) as indicators of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong>: (a) career development (a ˆ 0.86), <strong>and</strong> (b) psychosocial<br />
support (a ˆ 0.87). Prote ge s were asked to indicate their extent of agreement with each item<br />
using a ®ve-point scale ranging from disagree strongly (1) to agree strongly (5). Hypothesis 4,<br />
which pertained to the moderating e€ect of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong>, was tested by creating<br />
two sub-samples based on a median split: low <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong> sub-sample (scale<br />
score 53.85; n ˆ 103) <strong>and</strong> high <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong> sub-sample (scale score 43.85,<br />
n ˆ 101).<br />
Job-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong><br />
Job-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong> perceived by the prote ge was measured using six items from Parasuraman<br />
(1977, `Sources <strong>and</strong> outcomes of organizational <strong>stress</strong>: a multidimensional study of the<br />
antecedents, <strong>and</strong> attitudinal <strong>and</strong> behavioral indices of <strong>job</strong> <strong>stress</strong>'. Unpublished doctoral<br />
dissertation, State University of New York at Bu€alo). Prote ge s were asked to judge how often<br />
they experienced situations described in each item. Each situation was measured on a ®ve-point<br />
frequency scale ranging from never occurs (1) to constantly occurs (5).<br />
The indicators of laissez-faire, contingent reward, <strong>and</strong> transformational leadership were<br />
expected to covary (see Bass, 1998), as were the indicators of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>, thereby indicating that they arise from their respective constructs. Therefore,<br />
these indicators were modelled as re¯ective.<br />
Control variables<br />
Theoretical work on <strong>mentoring</strong> (e.g., Kram, 1985; Murray, 1991) suggests that prote geÂ<br />
experience (i.e., age, <strong>job</strong> level, <strong>job</strong> tenure, education level), industry, <strong>and</strong> mentor gender can a€ect<br />
mentor behavior, <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong>, <strong>and</strong> prote ge <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>. To control for<br />
these potential e€ects, age, <strong>job</strong> level, <strong>job</strong> tenure, education level, industry, <strong>and</strong> mentor gender<br />
were entered into the PLS model as covariates. Each covariate was modelled as a single-item<br />
indicator. PLS is insensitive to how the indicators of single-indicator constructs are modelled.<br />
Results<br />
Table 2 presents the scale means, st<strong>and</strong>ard deviations, <strong>and</strong> product moment correlations among<br />
the measures. PLS generates statistics to test the reliability <strong>and</strong> validity of latent constructs with<br />
two or more re¯ective indicators. Reliability was assessed by ®rst examining the factor loadings of<br />
indicators: a common rule of thumb is that the factor loadings should exceed 0.7 since this implies<br />
that less than half of the indicator's variance is due to error (Fornell <strong>and</strong> Larcker, 1981). Next, we<br />
computed each construct's composite scale reliability (Fornell <strong>and</strong> Larcker, 1981), a measure of<br />
internal consistency similar to Cronbach's alpha. Fornell <strong>and</strong> Larcker (1981) recommended using<br />
a criterion cut-o€ of 0.7 or more. Also, the average variance extracted by the construct<br />
from indicators was examined. For this criterion, Fornell <strong>and</strong> Larcker (1981) recommended using<br />
a cut-o€ of 0.5 or more.<br />
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)
378 J. J. SOSIK AND V. M. GODSHALK<br />
Table 2. Means, st<strong>and</strong>ard deviations, <strong>and</strong> intercorrelations<br />
Construct Indicators<br />
Mentoring level Correlations between constructs<br />
Low High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11<br />
M S.D. M S.D.<br />
1. Laissez-faire 0.76 0.77 0.57 0.59 (0.80)<br />
2. Transactional contingent reward 3.02 0.67 3.24 0.60 0.11 (0.75)<br />
3. Transformational leadership Idealized in¯uence 2.89 0.68 3.08 0.72 0.05 0.59 (0.78)<br />
Inspirational motivation 3.05 0.62 3.13 0.55<br />
Intellectual stimulation 3.12 0.61 3.20 0.56<br />
Individualized consideration 3.31 0.48 3.47 0.50<br />
4. Mentoring <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong> Psychosocial support 3.74 0.54 4.59 0.97 0.15 0.02 0.06 (0.84)<br />
Career development 2.84 0.70 4.34 1.05<br />
5. Job <strong>stress</strong> 2.73 0.82 2.78 1.39 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.14 (0.80)<br />
6. Age 31.41 6.91 29.90 7.39 0.08 0.12 0.09 0.16 0.07 ±<br />
7. Mentor gender 1.81 0.84 1.94 1.52 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.40 ±<br />
8. Industry 6.81 3.55 6.28 3.46 0.01 0.07 0.05 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.18 ±<br />
9. Education 5.98 0.72 5.79 1.03 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.17 0.17 0.08 0.07 0.04 ±<br />
10. Job tenure 3.15 3.07 3.29 3.13 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.12 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.04 ±<br />
11. Job level 2.03 1.44 2.32 2.17 0.14 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.20 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.16 0.17 ±<br />
Note. Gender coded: 1 ˆ female, 2 ˆ male. Industry coded: 1 ˆ accounting, 2 ˆ consulting, 3 ˆ ®nancial/insurance, 4 ˆ manufacturing, 5 ˆ pharmaceuticals,<br />
6 ˆ public administration, 7 ˆ retailing/hospitality, 8 ˆ services (health, legal), 9 ˆ telecommunications, 10 ˆ utilities/transportation, 11 ˆ other. Education level<br />
ranged from 1 ˆ high school to 7 ˆ graduate degree. Job level coded: 1 ˆ non-supervisory, 2 ˆ ®rst line manager, 3 ˆ middle management, 4 ˆ upper management,<br />
5 ˆ executive. Bold-faced elements on the diagonal represent the square root of the average variance extracted. O€ diagonal elements are correlations between constructs.<br />
Signi®cant correlations (p 5 0.05) are underlined.<br />
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)
Table 3. Factor loadings, composite scale reliability, <strong>and</strong> average variance extracted to assess reliability of<br />
measures<br />
Construct<br />
Measures<br />
LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 379<br />
Factor<br />
loading<br />
Weights of<br />
measures<br />
Composite<br />
scale<br />
reliability<br />
Average<br />
variance<br />
extracted<br />
1. Laissez-faire LF 1 0.92 0.79 0.78 0.64<br />
LF 2 0.68 0.45<br />
2. Transactional contingent reward CR1 0.74 0.47 0.79 0.56<br />
CR2 0.82 0.54<br />
CR3 0.67 0.35<br />
3. Transformational leadership II 0.81 0.36 0.86 0.62<br />
IM 0.68 0.15<br />
IS 0.76 0.20<br />
IC 0.89 0.54<br />
4. Mentoring <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong> PSYCH 0.85 0.61 0.83 0.71<br />
CARDEV 0.84 0.58<br />
5. Job <strong>stress</strong> STRESS1 0.76 0.31 0.91 0.63<br />
STRESS2 0.81 0.19<br />
STRESS3 0.74 0.12<br />
STRESS4 0.89 0.27<br />
STRESS5 0.71 0.18<br />
STRESS6 0.83 0.19<br />
Note. LFˆ laissez-faire; CR ˆ contingent reward; II ˆ idealized in¯uence-behavior; IM ˆ inspirational motivation;<br />
IS ˆ intellectual stimulation; IC ˆ individualized consideration; PSYCH ˆ psychosocial support; CARDEV ˆ career<br />
development; STRESS ˆ <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>.<br />
Table 3 shows the factor loadings, weights, composite scale reliabilities, <strong>and</strong> average variance<br />
extracted based on PLS analysis of full sample data. With the exception of factor loadings of one<br />
indicator of laissez-faire, contingent reward, <strong>and</strong> transformational leadership constructs, which<br />
were slightly below the recommended criterion cut-o€, all reliability criteria were met by the<br />
study's constructs. In PLS, convergent <strong>and</strong> discriminant validity of indicators of re¯ective<br />
constructs is assessed using criteria similar to a multi-trait/multi-method analysis (Falk <strong>and</strong><br />
Miller, 1992; Kahai et al., 1997). One criterion is that the construct representing the items should<br />
share more variance with its items than with other constructs in the model (Carmines <strong>and</strong> Zeller,<br />
1979). A matrix is shown in Table 2, in which the diagonal elements show the square root of<br />
the average variance shared by a construct with its indicators. For adequate convergent <strong>and</strong><br />
discriminant validity, the diagonal elements should be greater than entries in the corresponding<br />
rows <strong>and</strong> columns. Results summarized in Table 2 indicate this criterion was met.<br />
Results of PLS analysis<br />
Results of PLS analysis to test the hypotheses are presented in Table 4. As predicted by<br />
Hypothesis 1a, there was a positive relationship between mentor transformational leadership<br />
behavior <strong>and</strong> prote ge receipt of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong>. As predicted by Hypothesis 1b, there was a<br />
positive relationship between mentor transactional contingent reward leadership behavior <strong>and</strong><br />
prote ge receipt of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong>. As expected, the positive in¯uence of mentor transactional<br />
contingent reward leadership behavior on prote ge receipt of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> was<br />
not as strong as that of mentor transformational leadership behavior. As predicted by Hypothesis<br />
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)
380 J. J. SOSIK AND V. M. GODSHALK<br />
Table 4. Results of Partial Least Squares analysis<br />
Hypothesis <strong>and</strong> proposed relation<br />
St<strong>and</strong>ardized<br />
path coecient t(8) a<br />
H1a: Transformational leadership ! <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong> 0.15 28.08*<br />
H1b: Transactional contingent reward ! <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong> 0.06 5.38*<br />
H1c: Laissez-faire ! <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong> 0.15 23.26*<br />
H2a: Transformational leadership ! <strong>job</strong> <strong>stress</strong> 0.08 15.58*<br />
H2b: Transactional contingent reward ! <strong>job</strong> <strong>stress</strong> 0.01 1.74<br />
H2c: Laissez-faire ! <strong>job</strong> <strong>stress</strong> 0.01 1.61<br />
H3: Mentoring <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong> ! <strong>job</strong> <strong>stress</strong> 0.11 29.22*<br />
H4: Transformational leadership ! <strong>job</strong> <strong>stress</strong><br />
0.01 1.59<br />
(low <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong> sub-sample)<br />
Transformational leadership ! <strong>job</strong> <strong>stress</strong><br />
(high <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong> sub-sample)<br />
0.31 44.49*<br />
Note. Hˆ hypothesis. The variance explained in <strong>job</strong> <strong>stress</strong> by all measures <strong>and</strong> covariates was 11 per cent. The variance<br />
explained in <strong>mentoring</strong> by all measures <strong>and</strong> covariates was 12 per cent.<br />
a Degrees of freedom for t-test based on omission distance minus 1 (Sambamurthy <strong>and</strong> Chin, 1994).<br />
* p 5 0.001, two-tailed.<br />
1c, mentor laissez-faire leadership behavior was negatively <strong>related</strong> to prote ge receipt of <strong>mentoring</strong><br />
<strong>functions</strong>. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was fully supported.<br />
Hypothesis 2a also was supported. Mentor transformational leadership behavior was<br />
negatively <strong>related</strong> to prote ge <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>. However, both Hypotheses 2b <strong>and</strong> 2c were not<br />
supported. Mentor transactional contingent reward <strong>and</strong> laissez-faire leadership behaviors<br />
were not <strong>related</strong> to prote ge <strong>job</strong> <strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>. Hypothesis 3 was supported. Prote ge receipt<br />
of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> was negatively associated with prote ge <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>. Hypothesis 4<br />
also was supported. Mentor transformational leadership behavior was more negatively<br />
<strong>related</strong> to prote ge <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong> in the high <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong> subsample<br />
(path coecient ˆ0.31) than in the low <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong> subsample (path coecient<br />
ˆ 0.01) (t(8) ˆ43.03, p 5 0.001).<br />
Several covariates had signi®cant e€ects (p
LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 381<br />
coecient ˆ 0.08, t(8) ˆ 12.35). In addition, prote ge <strong>job</strong> tenure (path coecient ˆ 0.10,<br />
t(8) ˆ 25.08), prote ge <strong>job</strong> level (path coecient ˆ 0.17, t(8) ˆ 49.31), <strong>and</strong> prote ge education<br />
level (path coecient ˆ 0.14, t(8) ˆ 41.4) were each positively <strong>related</strong> to prote ge <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong><br />
<strong>stress</strong>. Male mentors were associated with more prote ge <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong> than female mentors<br />
(path coecient ˆ 0.07, t(8) ˆ 8.82).<br />
Discussion<br />
An important ®nding of the present study is that various leadership <strong>styles</strong>/behaviors displayed by<br />
mentors can have di€erential associations with prote ge perceptions of both <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong><br />
<strong>received</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>job</strong> <strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>. Speci®cally, ®ndings revealed that mentor transformational<br />
leadership was associated with increased prote ge receipt of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>and</strong> reduced<br />
prote ge <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>. While mentor transactional contingent reward leadership also was<br />
found to be associated with increased prote ge receipt of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong>, the association was<br />
not as strong as that of transformational leadership <strong>and</strong> prote ge receipt of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong>.<br />
In addition, mentor laissez-faire leadership was found to be negatively <strong>related</strong> to prote ge receipt<br />
of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong>.<br />
This pattern of results supports prior research which highlights the ecacy of transformational<br />
leadership in developing subordinates (e.g., Bass, 1998; Sc<strong>and</strong>ura <strong>and</strong> Schreisheim, 1994; Sosik<br />
<strong>and</strong> Dionne, 1997; Yukl, 1994) <strong>and</strong> allaying subordinate <strong>stress</strong> (e.g., Seltzer et al., 1989). These<br />
results also are in line with results of Aryee, Chay, <strong>and</strong> Chew (1996), Burke et al. (1991), Burke<br />
(1984), <strong>and</strong> Mackey (1996) which suggested that e€ective <strong>mentoring</strong> relationships may be predicted<br />
by development-linked leadership qualities of the mentor. For example, Mackey (1996)<br />
identi®ed planning <strong>and</strong> goal setting, building prote ge self-ecacy, explaining the importance<br />
of the task in relation to the `big picture', <strong>and</strong> giving individualized attention as aspects of e€ective<br />
<strong>mentoring</strong>. These behaviors parallel those exhibited by transformational leaders who augment<br />
contingent reward behavior with inspiring, charismatic, <strong>and</strong> individually considerate behaviors<br />
(Bass, 1998).<br />
Why is transformational leadership displayed by a mentor e€ective in promoting prote ge receipt<br />
of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong>? One possible explanation involves emotional <strong>and</strong> self-concept development<br />
support. Speci®cally, Thibodeaux <strong>and</strong> Lowe (1996) found that in-group LMX individuals<br />
reported higher levels of emotional involvement <strong>and</strong> self-concept development <strong>mentoring</strong> outcomes<br />
than out-group LMX individuals. Given that transformational leadership promotes a<br />
strong emotional attachment of followers to the leader (Bass, 1985) <strong>and</strong> motivates individuals by<br />
developing <strong>and</strong> linking their self-concept to a collective mission (Shamir et al., 1993), results of the<br />
present study suggest that transformational leadership behavior displayed by mentors may<br />
facilitate the construction of perceptions of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> by prote ge s via emotional <strong>and</strong><br />
self-concept based mechanisms. As such, future research should explore the role of emotions <strong>and</strong><br />
the self-concept in <strong>mentoring</strong> relationships.<br />
An alternate explanation is provided by the <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>and</strong> leadership literatures. A<br />
common theme running through the <strong>mentoring</strong> literature (e.g., Burke, 1984; Kram, 1985;<br />
Noe, 1988) is that a mentor is viewed as a learned <strong>and</strong> trusted advisorÐa source of wisdom.<br />
Several leadership scholars (e.g., DiTomaso, 1993; Etzioni, 1961; Weber, 1947) have used the<br />
concept of wisdom to de®ne charisma, the largest component of variance in transformational<br />
leadership (Bass, 1998). Speci®cally, charisma can be viewed as the accumulation of basic truths,<br />
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)
382 J. J. SOSIK AND V. M. GODSHALK<br />
purposes, <strong>and</strong> meanings via experiences <strong>and</strong> self-awareness over time (DiTomaso, 1993). In fact,<br />
Sosik <strong>and</strong> Dworakivsky (1998) found elements of leader wisdom (i.e., private self-awareness <strong>and</strong><br />
purpose-in-life) to be positively <strong>related</strong> to charismatic leadership. Given that a mentor shares<br />
experience, wisdom, knowledge <strong>and</strong> perspective with a prote ge (Kram, 1985), it may be that a<br />
mentor's charisma facilitates receipt of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> by the prote ge .<br />
To test this speculation, we performed a post-hoc test which involved correlating the components<br />
of transformational leadership (i.e., idealized in¯uence, inspirational motivation,<br />
intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration), contingent reward leadership, <strong>and</strong> laissezfaire<br />
leadership with psychosocial support <strong>and</strong> career development <strong>functions</strong> of <strong>mentoring</strong>.<br />
Results indicated that psychosocial support was positively <strong>related</strong> to two aspects of charismatic<br />
leadershipÐidealized in¯uence (r ˆ 0.21, p 5 0.01) <strong>and</strong> inspirational motivation (r ˆ 0.17,<br />
p 5 0.05)Ðas well as individualized consideration (r ˆ 0.18, p 5 0.04) <strong>and</strong> contingent reward<br />
(r ˆ 0.22, p 5 0.01). No leadership behaviors were associated with the career development<br />
function of <strong>mentoring</strong>. These results suggest that mentors who augment contingent reward<br />
behavior with charismatic <strong>and</strong> individually considerate behaviors may provide psychosocial<br />
support to prote ge s. Future research should identify which aspects of leadership or substitutes<br />
for leadership (e.g., prote ge development-linked reward systems <strong>and</strong> aspects of <strong>job</strong>s) may<br />
in¯uence the career development function of <strong>mentoring</strong> (Aryee et al., 1996).<br />
Two additional key ®ndings of the present study were that prote ge receipt of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong><br />
was negatively <strong>related</strong> to prote ge <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong> <strong>and</strong> that prote ge receipt of <strong>mentoring</strong><br />
<strong>functions</strong> strengthened the negative relationship between mentor transformational leadership<br />
behavior <strong>and</strong> prote ge <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>. The former ®nding provides support for theoretical <strong>and</strong><br />
empirical indications that <strong>mentoring</strong> can allay <strong>stress</strong> experienced by prote ge s (e.g., House, 1981;<br />
Kram <strong>and</strong> Hall, 1989; Parker <strong>and</strong> DeCotiis, 1983). However, given that both <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong><br />
<strong>received</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong> were reported by prote ge s, this result should be interpreted with<br />
caution since common method variance may be a potential alternative explanation for<br />
this ®nding.<br />
The latter ®nding provides support for Bass (1998) <strong>and</strong> House (1981) who suggested that<br />
development-oriented leadership (i.e., transformational leadership) coupled with social support<br />
(i.e., <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>received</strong>) can reduce <strong>stress</strong> experienced by prote ge s. Thus, it may be<br />
that social support provided by <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>and</strong> the sense of identity with a social network of<br />
support emphasized in transformational leadership may help allay prote ge <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>.<br />
Future research should explore the mechanisms by which transformational leadership <strong>and</strong><br />
prote ge receipt of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> may interact to allay prote ge <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>.<br />
Implications<br />
Results of the present study suggest several managerial implications. First, to enhance prote geÂ<br />
receipt of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong>, mentors should be trained to avoid laissez-faire behaviors <strong>and</strong> to<br />
exhibit transformational leadership behaviors, such as idealized in¯uence <strong>and</strong> individualized<br />
consideration. Because contemporary management thought encourages providing autonomy to<br />
one's subordinates, mentors may fall into the trap of confusing empowerment with laissez-faire<br />
behaviors. To avoid such a folly, mentors should be trained to di€erentiate between empowerment<br />
<strong>and</strong> laissez-faire leadership. Empowerment encompasses providing psychological support<br />
<strong>and</strong> tangible resources to bolster autonomy <strong>and</strong> ecacy of prote ge e€orts. In contrast, laissezfaire<br />
represents the absence <strong>and</strong> abdication of mentor involvement in the mentor±prote geÂ<br />
relationship (Bass, 1998).<br />
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)
LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 383<br />
Second, Senge (1996) argues that to be competitive in the next millennium, an organization's<br />
intellectual capital (i.e., knowledge resources <strong>and</strong> learning structures) should be mentored by<br />
leaders who possess wisdom. Given that charisma can be de®ned in terms of wisdom (DiTomaso,<br />
1993), our results suggest that mentors should focus on exhibiting idealized in¯uence <strong>and</strong><br />
inspirational motivation to build e€ective <strong>mentoring</strong> relationships. Both idealized in¯uence<br />
<strong>and</strong> inspirational motivation represent charismatic leadership, a relationship in which followers<br />
form a strong emotional attachment to the leader based on common internalized values <strong>and</strong><br />
identi®cation with the leader (Bass, 1985; House, 1996). To the extent that psychosocial support<br />
involves mentor±prote ge value congruence, prote ge respect <strong>and</strong> emulation of the mentor, <strong>and</strong><br />
mentor emotional encouragement of the prote ge (Kram, 1985; Thibodeaux <strong>and</strong> Lowe, 1996),<br />
study ®ndings suggest that idealized in¯uence <strong>and</strong> inspirational motivation may be useful<br />
behaviors for promoting <strong>mentoring</strong> e€ectiveness.<br />
Third, given increased levels of <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong> experienced by organizational members<br />
(Brockner et al., 1992), organizations should implement <strong>and</strong> support <strong>mentoring</strong> programmes to<br />
help allay employee <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>. This implication is important since employee <strong>stress</strong> has<br />
been associated with signi®cant costs, both ®nancial (Laws, 1996) <strong>and</strong> health-<strong>related</strong> (Manning<br />
et al., 1996). Results of the present study suggest that organizations should couple <strong>mentoring</strong><br />
programmes with transformational leadership training for mentors to maximize reductions in<br />
prote ge <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong> (<strong>and</strong> its associated costs).<br />
Limitations <strong>and</strong> future research paths<br />
Certain limitations of the study, which are suggestive of future research paths, should be noted.<br />
First, the sample consisted of graduate student participants, who collectively represented<br />
employees from a wide variety of ages, backgrounds, <strong>and</strong> industries. Such a sample was judged<br />
preferable to using employees within the same organization due to the potential for data<br />
re¯ecting shared participant pool, organizationally-speci®c values, or <strong>mentoring</strong> relationships<br />
that may or may not be representative of the general population. Nevertheless, the limitations of<br />
generalizations from `convenient' sample data are acknowledged. Subsequent investigations<br />
could employ samples from speci®c organizations <strong>and</strong> industries.<br />
Second, MLQ-5X items employed in the present study to measure the laissez-faire construct<br />
may be subject to socially desirable responses. While prior research (Bass <strong>and</strong> Avolio, 1989) has<br />
indicated that the MLQ leadership measures are not likely to be associated with social desirability<br />
bias, the potential for such bias in self-reports on laissez-faire items cannot be ruled out.<br />
Future independent research should be conducted on potential social desirability bias in self <strong>and</strong><br />
other ratings of MLQ-5X items, especially those measuring laissez-faire leadership.<br />
Third, given that 91 per cent of our sample were involved in informal <strong>mentoring</strong> relationships,<br />
results of the present study are generalizable to informal <strong>mentoring</strong> relationships. Chao, Walz,<br />
<strong>and</strong> Gardner (1992) noted distinctions in process between formal <strong>and</strong> informal <strong>mentoring</strong><br />
relationships. Future research should replicate the present study using a sample comprised of<br />
primarily formal <strong>mentoring</strong> relationships.<br />
Fourth, the present study examined the linkage between mentor transformational leadership<br />
behavior <strong>and</strong> prote ge <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong> under high <strong>and</strong> low levels of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong><br />
<strong>received</strong>. Other important variables may potentially moderate this linkage. For example, future<br />
research could focus on how cross-gender (Burke <strong>and</strong> McKeen, 1990), <strong>and</strong>/or cross-cultural<br />
(Cox, 1993) issues may a€ect transformational leadership <strong>and</strong> <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>. In addition,<br />
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)
384 J. J. SOSIK AND V. M. GODSHALK<br />
subsequent studies could examine how stages of professional careers (Dalton, Thompson <strong>and</strong><br />
Price, 1977) may in¯uence this relationship.<br />
Despite these limitations, the present study o€ers some support for the proposed conceptual<br />
model <strong>and</strong> a preliminary empirical basis for comparison in future research. Given increased<br />
recognition of <strong>mentoring</strong> relationships as an antidote to <strong>stress</strong> (Kram <strong>and</strong> Hall, 1989), it is hoped<br />
that the present study has underscored the importance of appropriate mentor behavior in promoting<br />
e€ective <strong>mentoring</strong> relationships <strong>and</strong> reducing prote ge <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>. In addition, it is<br />
hoped the present study will arouse researchers to examine mechanisms which can facilitate<br />
<strong>mentoring</strong> e€ectiveness <strong>and</strong> outcomes. Subsequent research should examine <strong>and</strong> re®ne the<br />
proposed model to further our knowledge concerning relationships among mentor leadership<br />
<strong>styles</strong>/behaviors, prote ge receipt of <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong>, <strong>and</strong> outcomes of <strong>mentoring</strong> such as<br />
reduced prote ge <strong>job</strong>-<strong>related</strong> <strong>stress</strong>.<br />
Acknowledgements<br />
The authors gratefully acknowledge the helpful suggestions of Denise Potosky, Eric Stein,<br />
George Watson <strong>and</strong> three anonymous reviewers on earlier versions of this paper, <strong>and</strong> the data<br />
collection <strong>and</strong> analysis support <strong>received</strong> from Georgia Gordon-Martin.<br />
References<br />
Appelbaum, S. H., Ritchie, S. <strong>and</strong> Shapiro, B. T. (1994). `Mentoring revisited: an organizational behaviour<br />
construct', International Journal of Career Management, 6, 3±10.<br />
Aryee, S., Chay, Y. W. <strong>and</strong> Chew, J. (1996). `The motivation to mentor among managerial employees',<br />
Group & Organization Management, 21, 261±277.<br />
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M. <strong>and</strong> Jung, D. I. (1997). Replicated Con®rmatory Factor Analyses of the Multifactor<br />
<strong>Leadership</strong> Questionnaire, Center for <strong>Leadership</strong> Studies, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY.<br />
Bahniuk, M. H., Dobos, J. <strong>and</strong> Hill, S. E. (1990). `The impact of <strong>mentoring</strong>, collegial support, <strong>and</strong> information<br />
adequacy on career success: a replication', Journal of Social Behavior <strong>and</strong> Personality, 5, 431±451.<br />
B<strong>and</strong>ura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Action <strong>and</strong> Thought: A Social Cognitive View, Prentice Hall,<br />
Englewood Cli€s, NJ.<br />
Bass, B. M. (1985). <strong>Leadership</strong> <strong>and</strong> Performance Beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York.<br />
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass <strong>and</strong> Stodgill's H<strong>and</strong>book of <strong>Leadership</strong>, Free Press, New York.<br />
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational <strong>Leadership</strong>: Industry, Military, <strong>and</strong> Educational Impact, Lawrence<br />
Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.<br />
Bass, B. M. <strong>and</strong> Avolio, B. J. (1989). `Potential biases in leadership measures: how prototypes, leniency, <strong>and</strong><br />
general satisfaction relate to ratings <strong>and</strong> rankings of transformational <strong>and</strong> transactional leadership<br />
constructs', Educational <strong>and</strong> Psychological Measurement, 49, 509±527.<br />
Bass, B. M. <strong>and</strong> Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving Organizational E€ectiveness Through Transformational<br />
<strong>Leadership</strong>, Sage, Thous<strong>and</strong> Oaks, CA.<br />
Bass, B. M. <strong>and</strong> Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full Range <strong>Leadership</strong> Development: Manual for the Multifactor<br />
<strong>Leadership</strong> Questionnaire, Mind Garden, Palo Alto, CA.<br />
Beehr, T. A. <strong>and</strong> Newman, J. E. (1978). `Job <strong>stress</strong>, employee health, <strong>and</strong> organizational e€ectiveness: a<br />
facet analysis, model <strong>and</strong> literature review', Personnel Psychology, 31, 665±699.<br />
Bennis, W. (1989). On Becoming a Leader, Simon & Schuster, New York.<br />
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)
LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 385<br />
Bookstein, F. (1986). `The elements of latent variable models: a cautionary lecture'. In: Lamb, M., Brown,<br />
A. <strong>and</strong> Rogo€, B. (Eds) Advances in Developmental Psychology, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale,<br />
NJ, pp. 203±230.<br />
Brockner, J., Grover, S., Reed, T. F. <strong>and</strong> DeWitt, R. L. (1992). `Layo€s, <strong>job</strong> insecurity, <strong>and</strong> survivors' work<br />
e€ort: evidence of an inverted-U relationship', Academy of Management Journal, 35, 413±425.<br />
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma <strong>and</strong> <strong>Leadership</strong> in Organizations, Sage Publications, London.<br />
Burke, R. J. (1984). `Mentors in organizations', Group & Organization Studies, 9, 353±372.<br />
Burke, R. J. <strong>and</strong> McKeen, C. A. (1990). `Mentoring in organizations: implications for women', Journal of<br />
Business Ethics, 9, 317±332.<br />
Burke, R. J., McKenna, C. S. <strong>and</strong> McKeen, C. A. (1991). `How do mentorships di€er from typical<br />
supervisory relationships?', Psychological Reports, 68, 459±466.<br />
Burns, J. M. (1978). <strong>Leadership</strong>, Harper & Row, New York.<br />
Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D. <strong>and</strong> Allen, J. S. (1995). `Further assessments of Bass's (1985) conceptualization of<br />
transactional <strong>and</strong> transformational leadership', Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468±478.<br />
Carmines, E. <strong>and</strong> Zeller, R. (1979). Reliability <strong>and</strong> Validity Assessment, Sage University Paper Series on<br />
Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, No. 07-017, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.<br />
Champy, J. (1995). Reengineering Management, Harper Business, New York.<br />
Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M. <strong>and</strong> Gardner, P. (1992). `Formal <strong>and</strong> informal mentorships: a comparison<br />
on <strong>mentoring</strong> <strong>functions</strong> <strong>and</strong> contrast with nonmentored counterparts', Personnel Psychology, 45,<br />
619±636.<br />
Colarelli, S. M. <strong>and</strong> Bishop, R. C. (1990). `Career commitment: <strong>functions</strong>, correlates <strong>and</strong> management',<br />
Group & Organization Studies, 15, 158±176.<br />
Conger, J. A. <strong>and</strong> Kanungo, R. N. (1987). `Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership'.<br />
In: Conger, J. A. <strong>and</strong> Kanungo, R. N. (Eds) Charismatic <strong>Leadership</strong>: The Elusive Factor in Organizational<br />
E€ectiveness, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 78±97.<br />
Covey, S. R. (1997). `Modeling <strong>and</strong> <strong>mentoring</strong>', Executive Excellence, 14, 3±4.<br />
Cox, T. (1993). Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research & Practice, Berrett-Koehler<br />
Publishers, San Francisco, CA.<br />
Curphy, G. J. (1992). `An empirical investigation of the e€ects of transformational <strong>and</strong> transactional<br />
leadership on organizational climate, attrition <strong>and</strong> performance'. In: Clark, K. E., Clark,<br />
M. B. <strong>and</strong> Campbell, D. R. (Eds) Impact of <strong>Leadership</strong>, The Center for Creative <strong>Leadership</strong>,<br />
Greensboro, NC.<br />
Dalton, G. W., Thompson, P. H. <strong>and</strong> Price, R. L. (1977). `The four stages of professional careers: A new<br />
look at performance by professionals', Organizational Dynamics, 6, 19±42.<br />
DiTomaso, N. (1993). `Weber's social history <strong>and</strong> Etzioni's structural theory of charisma in organizations:<br />
implications for thinking about charismatic leadership', <strong>Leadership</strong> Quarterly, 4, 257±275.<br />
Dreher, G. F. <strong>and</strong> Ash, R. A. (1990). `A comparative study of <strong>mentoring</strong> among men <strong>and</strong> women in<br />
managerial, professional, <strong>and</strong> technical positions', Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 539±546.<br />
Dubinsky, A. J., Yammarino, F. J. <strong>and</strong> Jolson, M. A. (1995). `An examination of linkages between<br />
personality characteristics <strong>and</strong> dimensions of transformational leadership', Journal of Business <strong>and</strong><br />
Psychology, 9, 315±335.<br />
Duxbury, R. M. <strong>and</strong> Higgins, C. A. (1991). `Gender di€erences in work±family con¯ict', Journal of Applied<br />
Psychology, 76, 60±74.<br />
Etzioni, A. (1961). A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations, The Free Press, New York.<br />
Fagenson, E. A. (1989). `The mentor advantage: perceived career/<strong>job</strong> experiences of prote ge s versus<br />
nonprote ge s', Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 309±320.<br />
Falk, R. F. <strong>and</strong> Miller, N. B. (1992). A Primer for Soft Modeling, The University of Akron Press,<br />
Akron, OH.<br />
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A Theory of <strong>Leadership</strong> E€ectiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York.<br />
Fornell, C. <strong>and</strong> Larcker, D. (1981). `Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables <strong>and</strong><br />
measurement error', Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39±50.<br />
Gibson, V. M. (1993). `Stress in the workplace: a hidden cost factor', HR Focus, 70, 15±16.<br />
Gladstone, M. S. (1988). Mentoring: A Strategy for Learning in a Rapidly Changing Society, CEGEP John<br />
Abbot College, Research <strong>and</strong> Development Secretariat, Montreal.<br />
Graen, G. B. <strong>and</strong> Sc<strong>and</strong>ura, T. A. (1986). `A theory of dyadic career reality', Research in Personnel <strong>and</strong><br />
Human Resource Management, 4, 147±181.<br />
House, J. S. (1981). Work Stress <strong>and</strong> Social Support, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.<br />
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)
386 J. J. SOSIK AND V. M. GODSHALK<br />
House, R. J. (1996). `Path±goal theory of leadership: lessons, legacy, <strong>and</strong> a reformulated theory', <strong>Leadership</strong><br />
Quarterly, 7, 323±352.<br />
House, R. J., Spangler, W. D. <strong>and</strong> Woycke, J. (1991). `Personality <strong>and</strong> charisma in the U.S. presidency: a<br />
psychological theory of leader e€ectiveness', Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 364±396.<br />
Howell, J. M. <strong>and</strong> Avolio, B. J. (1993). `Predicting consolidated unit performance: leadership behavior,<br />
locus of control <strong>and</strong> support for innovation', Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891±902.<br />
Howell, J. M. <strong>and</strong> Higgins, C. A. (1990). `Champions of technological innovations', Administrative Science<br />
Quarterly, 35, 317±341.<br />
Jamal, M. (1990). `Relationship of <strong>job</strong> <strong>stress</strong> <strong>and</strong> Type-A behavior to employees' <strong>job</strong> satisfaction,<br />
organizational commitment, psychosomatic health problems, <strong>and</strong> turnover motivation', Human<br />
Relations, 43, 727±738.<br />
Kahai, S. S., Sosik, J. J. <strong>and</strong> Avolio, B. J. (1997). `E€ects of leadership style <strong>and</strong> problem structure on work<br />
group process <strong>and</strong> outcomes in an electronic meeting system environment', Personnel Psychology, 50,<br />
121±146.<br />
Kalay, E. (1983). The Comm<strong>and</strong>er in Stress Situations in IDF Combat Units During the `Peace for Galilee'<br />
Campaign. Paper, Third International Conference on Psychological Stress <strong>and</strong> Adjustment in Time of<br />
War <strong>and</strong> Peace, Tel Aviv, Israel.<br />
Katz, R. (1977). `The in¯uence of group con¯ict on leadership e€ectiveness', Organizational Behavior <strong>and</strong><br />
Human Performance, 20, 265±286.<br />
Kirkpatrick, S. A. <strong>and</strong> Locke, E. A. (1996). `Direct <strong>and</strong> indirect e€ects of three core charismatic leadership<br />
components on performance <strong>and</strong> attitudes', Journal of Applied Psychology, 19, 71±75.<br />
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at Work, Scott, Foresman <strong>and</strong> Company, Glenview, IL.<br />
Kram, K. E. <strong>and</strong> Bragar, M. C. (1991). `Development through <strong>mentoring</strong>: a strategic approach for the<br />
1990s'. In: Montross, D. H. <strong>and</strong> Shinkman, C. J. (Eds) Career Development in the 1990s: Theory <strong>and</strong><br />
Practice, Charles C. Thomas, Spring®eld, Ill.<br />
Kram, K. E. <strong>and</strong> Hall, D. T. (1989). `Mentoring as an antidote to <strong>stress</strong> during corporate trauma', Human<br />
Resource Management, 24, 493±510.<br />
Kugihara, N. <strong>and</strong> Misumi, J. (1984). `An experimental study of the e€ect of leadership types on followers'<br />
escaping behaviors in a fearful emergency maze-situation', Japanese Journal of Psychology, 55, 214±220.<br />
LaRocco, J. M. <strong>and</strong> Jones, A. P. (1978). `Co-worker <strong>and</strong> leader support as moderators of <strong>stress</strong>±strain<br />
relationships in work situations', Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 629±634.<br />
Laws, J. (1996). `The enormous cost of <strong>job</strong> <strong>stress</strong>', Occupational Health & Safety, 65, 4±5.<br />
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G. <strong>and</strong> Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). `E€ectiveness correlates of transformational<br />
<strong>and</strong> transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review', <strong>Leadership</strong> Quarterly, 7, 385±425.<br />
Mackey, J. (1996). `The <strong>mentoring</strong> role: instruction by example'. In: Hendricks, W. (Ed.) Coaching,<br />
Mentoring, <strong>and</strong> Managing, Career Press, Franklin Lakes, NJ, pp. 127±156.<br />
Manning, M. R., Jackson, C. N. <strong>and</strong> Fusilier, M. R. (1996). `Occupational <strong>stress</strong>, social support, <strong>and</strong> the<br />
costs of health care', Academy of Management Journal, 39, 738±750.<br />
Matteson, M. T. <strong>and</strong> Ivancevich, J. M. (1982). Managing Job-Stress <strong>and</strong> Health, Free Press, New York.<br />
McCauley, C. D. (1987). `Stress <strong>and</strong> the eye of the beholder', Issues & Observations, 7, 1±16.<br />
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The Nature of Managerial Work, Harper & Row, New York.<br />
Morgan, R. B. (1989). `Reliability <strong>and</strong> validity of a factor analytically derived measure of leadership<br />
behavior <strong>and</strong> characteristics', Educational <strong>and</strong> Psychological Measurement, 49, 911±919.<br />
Motowidlo, S. J., Packard, J. S. <strong>and</strong> Manning, M. R. (1986). `Occupational <strong>stress</strong>: its causes <strong>and</strong><br />
consequences for <strong>job</strong> performance', Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 618±629.<br />
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W. <strong>and</strong> Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee±Organizational Linkages: The<br />
Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism <strong>and</strong> Turnover, Academic Press, New York.<br />
Mulder, M., van Eck, R. <strong>and</strong> deJong, R. D. (1971). `An organization in crisis <strong>and</strong> noncrisis situations',<br />
Human Relations, 24, 19±41.<br />
Murray, M. (1991). Beyond the Myths <strong>and</strong> Magic of Mentoring, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.<br />
Noe, R. (1988). `An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned <strong>mentoring</strong> relationships',<br />
Personnel Psychology, 41, 457±479.<br />
Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. H. <strong>and</strong> Granrose, C. S. (1992). `Role <strong>stress</strong>ors, social support, <strong>and</strong> wellbeing<br />
among two-career couples', Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 339±356.<br />
Parker, D. F. <strong>and</strong> DeCotiis, T. A. (1983). `Organizational determinants of <strong>job</strong> <strong>stress</strong>', Organizational<br />
Behavior <strong>and</strong> Human Performance, 32, 160±177.<br />
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)
LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 387<br />
Patterson, C., Fuller, J. B., Kester, K. <strong>and</strong> Stringer, D. Y. (1995). A Meta-Analytic Examination of<br />
<strong>Leadership</strong> Style <strong>and</strong> Selected Compliance Outcomes. (May) Paper presented at the Society for Industrial<br />
<strong>and</strong> Organizational Psychology, Orl<strong>and</strong>o, FL.<br />
Podsako€, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Morman, R. H. <strong>and</strong> Fetter, R. (1990). `Transformational leadership<br />
behaviors <strong>and</strong> their e€ects on follower's trust in leader, satisfaction, <strong>and</strong> organizational citizenship<br />
behaviors', <strong>Leadership</strong> Quarterly, 1, 107±142.<br />
Ragins, B. R. <strong>and</strong> Cotton, J. L. (1993). `Gender <strong>and</strong> willingness to mentor in organizations', Journal of<br />
Management, 19, 97±111.<br />
Sambamurthy, V. <strong>and</strong> Chin, W. W. (1994). `The e€ects of group attitudes toward alternative GDSS<br />
designs on the decision-making performance of computer-supported groups', Decision Sciences, 25,<br />
215±241.<br />
Sashkin, M. <strong>and</strong> Rosenbach, W. E. (1993). `A new leadership paradigm'. In: Rosenbach, W. E. <strong>and</strong> Taylor,<br />
R. L. (Eds) Contemporary Issues in <strong>Leadership</strong>, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 87±108.<br />
Sc<strong>and</strong>ura, T. (1992). `Mentorship <strong>and</strong> career mobility: an empirical investigation', Journal of Organizational<br />
Behavior, 13, 169±174.<br />
Sc<strong>and</strong>ura, T. A. <strong>and</strong> Schriesheim, C. A. (1994). `Leader±member exchange <strong>and</strong> supervisor career<br />
<strong>mentoring</strong> as complementary constructs in leadership research', Academy of Management Journal, 37,<br />
1588±1602.<br />
Schein, E. H. (1978). Career Dynamics: Matching Individual <strong>and</strong> Organizational Needs, Addison-Wesley,<br />
Reading, MA.<br />
Schuler, R. S. (1980). `De®nition <strong>and</strong> conceptualization of <strong>stress</strong> in organizations', Organizational Behavior<br />
<strong>and</strong> Human Performance, 25, 184±215.<br />
Seltzer, J., Numero€, R. E. <strong>and</strong> Bass, B. M. (1989). `Transformational leadership: is it a source of more or<br />
less burnout or <strong>stress</strong>?', Journal of Health <strong>and</strong> Human Resource Administration, 12, 174±185.<br />
Senge, P. (1996). `Leading learning organizations', Executive Excellence, 13, 10±11.<br />
Shamir, B., House, R. <strong>and</strong> Arthur, M. (1993). `The motivational e€ects of charismatic leadership: a selfconcept<br />
based theory', Organization Science, 4, 1±17.<br />
Sims, H. <strong>and</strong> Lorenzi, P. (1992). The New <strong>Leadership</strong> Paradigm, Sage Publications, Newberry Park, CA.<br />
Smircich, L. <strong>and</strong> Morgan, G. (1982). `<strong>Leadership</strong>: the Management of Meaning', Journal of Applied<br />
Behavioral Science, 18, 257±273.<br />
Sosik, J. J. <strong>and</strong> Dionne, S. D. (1997). `<strong>Leadership</strong> <strong>styles</strong> <strong>and</strong> Deming's behavior factors', Journal of Business<br />
<strong>and</strong> Psychology, 11, 447±462.<br />
Sosik, J. J. <strong>and</strong> Dworakivsky, A. C. (1998) `Self-concept based aspects of the charismatic leader: more than<br />
meets the eye', <strong>Leadership</strong> Quarterly, 9, 503±526.<br />
Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J. <strong>and</strong> Kahai, S. S. (1997). `E€ects of leadership style <strong>and</strong> anonymity on group<br />
potency <strong>and</strong> e€ectiveness in a group decision support system environment', Journal of Applied<br />
Psychology, 82, 89±103.<br />
Stodgill, R. M. (1963). Manual for the Leader Behavior QuestionnaireÐForm XII, Bureau of Business<br />
Research, Columbus: Ohio State University.<br />
Sullivan, S. E. <strong>and</strong> Bhagat, R. S. (1992). `Organizational <strong>stress</strong>, <strong>job</strong> satisfaction <strong>and</strong> <strong>job</strong> performance: where<br />
do we go from here?', Journal of Management, 18, 353±374.<br />
Thibodeaux, H. F. <strong>and</strong> Lowe, R. H. (1996). `Convergence of leader±member exchange <strong>and</strong> <strong>mentoring</strong>: an<br />
investigation of social in¯uence patterns', Journal of Social Behavior <strong>and</strong> Personality, 11, 97±114.<br />
Torrance, E. P. (1983). `Role of mentors in creative achievement', The Creative Child <strong>and</strong> Adult Quarterly,<br />
8, 8±18.<br />
Viator, R. E. <strong>and</strong> Sc<strong>and</strong>ura, T. (1991). `A study of mentor±prote ge relationships in large public accounting<br />
®rms', Accounting Horizons, 5, 20±30.<br />
Watson, B. M. (1984). `Lawrence, KansasÐbefore <strong>and</strong> after `the day after'', Public Management, 66,<br />
13±15.<br />
Weber, M. (1947). In: Parsons, T. (Ed.) The Theory of Social <strong>and</strong> Economic Organization, translated by<br />
Henderson A. M., Parsons T, The Free Press, New York.<br />
Wilson, J. A. <strong>and</strong> Elman, N. S. (1990). `Organizational bene®ts of <strong>mentoring</strong>', Academy of Management<br />
Executive, 4, 88±93.<br />
Wold, H. (1985). `Systems analysis by Partial Least Squares'. In: Nijkamp, P., Leitner, H. <strong>and</strong> Wrigley, N.<br />
(Eds) Measuring the Unmeasurable, Martinus Nijho€, Dordrecht, pp. 221±252.<br />
Yammarino, F. J. <strong>and</strong> Bass, B. M. (1990). `Long-term forecasting of transformational leadership <strong>and</strong> its<br />
e€ects among Naval ocers: some preliminary ®ndings'. In: Clark, K. E. <strong>and</strong> Clark, M. R. (Eds)<br />
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)
388 J. J. SOSIK AND V. M. GODSHALK<br />
Measures of <strong>Leadership</strong>, Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative <strong>Leadership</strong>, <strong>Leadership</strong> Library of<br />
America, West Orange, NJ.<br />
Yammarino, F. J., Dubinsky, A. J., Comer, L. B. <strong>and</strong> Jolson, M. A. (1997). `Women <strong>and</strong> transformational<br />
<strong>and</strong> contingent reward leadership: a multiple-levels-of-analysis perspective', Academy of Management<br />
Journal, 40, 205±222.<br />
Yukl, G. (1990). Skills for Managers <strong>and</strong> Leaders, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cli€s, NJ.<br />
Yukl, G. (1994). <strong>Leadership</strong> in Organizations, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cli€s, NJ.<br />
Appendix A<br />
Overview of Partial Least Squares (PLS) analysis<br />
PLS enables analysis of complex nomological networks of constructs, as in the present study,<br />
which would be impossible or dicult in the context of traditional techniques (Falk <strong>and</strong> Miller,<br />
1992). PLS does not make assumptions about (a) data distributions to estimate model<br />
parameters, (b) observation independence, or (c) variable metrics (Fornell <strong>and</strong> Larcker, 1981).<br />
Because of its less restrictive assumptions, PLS is highly suitable for the early stages of theory<br />
building <strong>and</strong> testing <strong>and</strong>/or when sample sizes are small (Falk <strong>and</strong> Miller, 1992; Wold, 1985).<br />
This feature of PLS makes it suitable even over LISREL, another structural modeling technique,<br />
which is suitable for con®rmatory stages of theory building <strong>and</strong> testing (Falk <strong>and</strong> Miller, 1992).<br />
PLS simultaneously assess both the structural component, representing the relationship among<br />
constructs, <strong>and</strong> the measurement component, representing the relationship between constructs<br />
<strong>and</strong> their measures (Fornell <strong>and</strong> Larcker, 1981). The simultaneous analysis of structural <strong>and</strong><br />
measurement components facilitates measurement reliability <strong>and</strong> validity assessments within the<br />
context of the theoretical model being tested. Thus, in accordance with contemporary philosophy<br />
of science views (Falk <strong>and</strong> Miller, 1992), PLS acknowledges that psychometric properties of<br />
measures derive their meaning from the nomological network of relationships in which the<br />
measures are employed. In traditional analysis, assessment of the measurements component is<br />
performed separately from the relationship among constructs (e.g., Cronbach's are estimated for<br />
scales of constructs ®rst to assess their reliability <strong>and</strong> then these scales are used in regression<br />
analysis to examine the relationship among constructs). Results generated by PLS can be<br />
interpreted by considering them in the context of regression <strong>and</strong> principal components factor<br />
analysis (Bookstein, 1986). PLS generates estimates of st<strong>and</strong>ardized regression path coecients,<br />
computes R 2 (i.e., proportion of variance explained) for endogenous constructs, <strong>and</strong> produces<br />
factor loadings <strong>and</strong> weights of indicators of constructs. The weights of indicators are the<br />
regression coecients by which the st<strong>and</strong>ardized scores of the measures of the construct are<br />
multiplied before being summed up to obtain factor scores for the construct.<br />
(Adapted from Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (1998) Inspiring group creativity. Small<br />
Group Research, 29(1), 3±31. Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications, Inc.)<br />
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)
LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 389<br />
Appendix B<br />
Questionnaire items<br />
Laissez-faire<br />
I am absent when needed.<br />
I delay responding to urgent questions.<br />
Transactional contingent reward<br />
I discuss in speci®c terms who is responsible for achieving performance targets.<br />
I make it clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved.<br />
I express satisfaction when others meet expectations.<br />
Transformational leadership<br />
Inspirational motivation<br />
I talk optimistically about the future.<br />
I talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished.<br />
I articulate a compelling vision of the future.<br />
I express con®dence that goals will be achieved.<br />
Idealized in¯uence<br />
I talk about my most important values <strong>and</strong> beliefs.<br />
I specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose.<br />
I consider the moral <strong>and</strong> ethical consequences of decisions.<br />
I emphasize the importance of having a collective sense of mission.<br />
Intellectual stimulation<br />
I re-examine critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate.<br />
I seek di€ering perspectives when solving problems.<br />
I get others to look at problems from many di€erent angles.<br />
I suggest new ways of looking at how to complete assignments.<br />
Individualized consideration<br />
I spend time teaching <strong>and</strong> coaching.<br />
I treat others as individuals rather than just as a member of a group.<br />
I consider the individual as having di€erent needs, abilities <strong>and</strong> aspirations from others.<br />
I help others develop their strengths.<br />
Mentoring <strong>functions</strong><br />
Psychosocial support<br />
I agree with my mentors' attitudes <strong>and</strong> values regarding my career.<br />
I respect <strong>and</strong> admire my mentor.<br />
I will try to be like my mentor when I reach a similar position in my career.<br />
My mentor has demonstrated good listening skills in our conversations.<br />
My mentor has discussed my questions or concerns regarding feelings of competence,<br />
commitment to advancement, relationships with peers <strong>and</strong> supervisors or work/family<br />
con¯icts.<br />
My mentor has encouraged me to prepare for advancements.<br />
My mentor has encouraged me to talk openly about my anxiety <strong>and</strong> fears that detracts from<br />
my work.<br />
My mentor has conveyed empathy for the concerns <strong>and</strong> feelings that I have discussed with<br />
him/her.<br />
My mentor has conveyed feelings of respect for me as an individual.<br />
My mentor has encouraged me to try new ways of behaving in my <strong>job</strong>.<br />
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)
390 J. J. SOSIK AND V. M. GODSHALK<br />
Career development<br />
Mentor helped you to ®nish assignments/tasks to meet deadlines that otherwise would have<br />
been dicult to complete.<br />
Mentor gave you assignments that increased written <strong>and</strong> personal contact with upper<br />
management.<br />
Mentor assigned responsibilities to you that have increased your contact with managers who<br />
may judge your potential for future advancement.<br />
Mentor gave you assignments or tasks in your work that prepare you for an advanced<br />
position.<br />
Mentor gave you assignments that present opportunities to learn new skills.<br />
Mentor reduced unnecessary risk that could be a detriment.<br />
Mentor provided you with feedback regarding your performance.<br />
Job <strong>stress</strong><br />
Your <strong>job</strong> makes you upset.<br />
Your <strong>job</strong> makes you frustrated.<br />
You are under strain on the <strong>job</strong>.<br />
Your <strong>job</strong> makes you tense.<br />
The amount of work you have to do interferes with how well it gets done.<br />
Your <strong>job</strong> places you under a great deal of <strong>stress</strong>.<br />
Your <strong>job</strong> makes you jumpy <strong>and</strong> nervous.<br />
Your <strong>job</strong> puts you under a lot of pressure.<br />
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)