Leadership styles, mentoring functions received, and job-related stress

Journal of Organizational Behavior
J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)
Leadership styles, mentoring functions
received, and job-related stress:
a conceptual model and preliminary study
JOHN J. SOSIK*{ AND VERONICA M. GODSHALK
Department of Management and Organization, Great Valley School of Graduate Professional Studies,
The Pennsylvania State University, Malvern, PA 19355, U.S.A.
Summary
This research examined linkages between mentor leadership behaviors (laissez-faire,
transactional contingent reward, and transformational), prote ge perception of
mentoring functions received (career development and psychosocial support) and jobrelated
stress of 204 mentor±prote ge dyads. Results of Partial Least Squares analysis
revealed that mentor transformational behavior was more positively related to mentoring
functions received than transactional contingent reward behavior, while mentor
laissez-faire behavior was negatively related to mentoring functions received. Both
mentor transformational behavior and mentoring functions received were negatively
related to prote ge job-related stress. The relationship between mentor transformational
behavior and prote ge job-related stress was moderated by the level of mentoring
functions received. Results are discussed as they relate to researchers and practitioners
who are becoming interested in ®nding ways to develop organizational members and
allay job-related stress. Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Introduction
Increased complexity in organizational work environments has given rise to higher levels of
job-related stress experienced by organizational members (Brockner et al., 1992; Champy, 1995).
Job-related stress is de®ned as an uncomfortable and undesirable feeling experienced by an
individual `who is required to deviate from normal or self-desired functioning in the work place
as the result of opportunities, constraints, or demands relating to potentially important workrelated
outcomes' (Parker and DeCotiis, 1983, p. 165). Job-related stress has been linked to
failing individual health and illness (Kram and Hall, 1989), decreased individual performance
(Jamal, 1990; Motowidlo, Packard and Manning, 1986), decreased organizational e€ectiveness
(Beehr and Newman, 1978; Motowidlo et al., 1986), and increased organizational health care
costs (Manning, Jackson and Fusilier, 1996). In fact, job-related stress has been estimated to cost
corporate America $200 billion annually in absenteeism, lost productivity, accidents, and medical
* Correspondence to: John J. Sosik, Department of Management and Organization, Great Valley School of
Graduate Professional Studies, The Pennsylvania State University, Malvern, PA 19355, U.S.A. Tel.: (610) 648 3254.
E-mail: jjs20@psu.edu
{ Author note: An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1997 Academy of Management Conference in
Boston, Massachusetts.
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 20 June 1997
Accepted 18 August 1998

366 J. J. SOSIK AND V. M. GODSHALK
insurance (Gibson, 1993; Laws, 1996). Moreover, stress-related costs may approximate 10 per
cent of the U.S. Gross National Product (Sullivan and Bhagat, 1992). At issue for organizations
is how to reduce job-related stress and its detrimental consequences.
Mentoring is a form of social support which may allay job-related stress of organizational
members (House, 1981; Kram and Hall, 1989). Mentoring is de®ned as `a deliberate pairing of a
more skilled or experienced person with a lesser skilled or experienced one, with the agreed-upon
goal of having the lesser skilled person grow and develop speci®c competencies' (Murray, 1991,
p. xiv). Mentors provide both career development and psychosocial support functions to prote ge s
(Kram, 1985; Noe, 1988). Psychosocial support functions include acceptance, role modelling,
coaching, and counselling. These functions parallel leadership behaviors identi®ed by Yukl (1990)
such as supporting, motivating and inspiring, and developing. Career development functions
include sponsorship, protection, challenging assignments, exposure, and visibility. These functions
parallel leadership behaviors identi®ed by Yukl (1990) such as clarifying roles and objectives,
monitoring, and networking. Prior research (e.g., Bass, 1998; House, 1996; Scandura and
Schriesheim, 1994; Yukl, 1994) suggests that mentors may exhibit a variety of leadership behaviors
or styles while interacting with prote ge s. Leadership style is de®ned here as acts or behaviors
exhibited by the mentor which in¯uence prote ge s (Bass, 1990). A key question, however, is what
leadership styles/behaviors distinguish mentors who are inclined to foster mentoring functions
e€ective in allaying prote ge job-related stress from those who are less inclined to do so. In
answering this question, direct implications for recruitment, selection, and training of mentors can
be found. For example, if key leadership behaviors which allay job-related stress via mentoring can
be identi®ed, then individuals who exhibit these behaviors can be selected or trained as mentors.
Scholars in organizational behavior (e.g., Bass, 1990, 1998; Yukl, 1994) have encouraged
researchers to explore relationships between mentor leadership styles, mentoring functions, and
work-related stress. Yet no research has focused on how mentor leadership style(s) and the
development of mentor±prote ge relationships may a€ect stress as experienced by the prote ge .
Given that mentoring programmes have gained increased importance in today's competitive
business environment (Burke, McKenna and McKeen, 1991; Scandura, 1992), it appears
necessary to investigate how mentor leadership style(s) may in¯uence the e€ectiveness of mentoring
functions in allaying perceived job-related stress. Accordingly, this paper focuses on adding to
our understanding of mentoring behavior by identifying from the leadership literature behaviors
that mentors could use to be more e€ective in their mentoring roles.
This paper extends prior work in three ways. First, it examines the conceptual similarities and
di€erences between leadership and mentoring. Second, it presents a theoretical model which
integrates aspects of the leadership, mentoring, and occupational stress literatures. Third, it
examines whether transformational leadership (cf. Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978) has a more favorable
e€ect on job-related stress, directly and via mentoring functions, as compared to other leadership
styles such as laissez-faire and transactional contingent reward. No previous published work has
explored these linkages.
Leadership and mentoring
The literatures on leadership (e.g., Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1990, 1994) and mentoring (e.g., Kram,
1985; Noe, 1988) have established similarities between leadership and mentoring. For example,
Schein (1978) described leaders as creators and manipulators of culture, while Wilson and Elman
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)

LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 367
(1990) described mentors as transfer agents of culture. Gladstone (1988) argued that mentors
behave as leaders when they shape values, act as an example, and de®ne meanings for prote ge s.
Thibodeaux and Lowe (1996) found convergence of in-group Leader±Member Exchange (LMX)
relations and mentoring functions.
At the same time, the leadership and mentoring literatures have established several di€erences
between the two constructs. First, leadership involves a performance-oriented in¯uence process,
while mentoring involves a long-term role-model relationship which is primarily career and
development-oriented (Burke et al., 1991). Second, leadership involves one leader and one or
more followers, whereas mentoring usually involves one mentor and one prote ge . Leadership
may be a more formal, overt, and direct in¯uence process, while mentoring may be a more
informal, subtle, and indirect in¯uence process (Appelbaum, Ritchie and Shapiro, 1994). Graen
and Scandura (1986) suggested that leadership is distinct from mentoring but e€ective LMX
relations may be a function of being mentored by a leader. Third, not all experienced leaders
become e€ective mentors (Ragins and Cotton, 1993). Fourth, empirical distinction between
leadership and mentoring has been found by Scandura and Schriesheim (1994), Eisenbach (1992,
`An exploration of mentoring and leadership as interrelated concepts'. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Miami), and Morgan (1989).
Given the ambiguity regarding the distinctiveness of leadership and mentoring, we relied upon
the work of Yukl (1990, 1994) and Noe (1988) to propose approximate conceptual similarities
and distinctions between speci®c leadership behaviors and mentoring functions shown in
Table 1. Yukl (1990) developed a taxonomy of leader behavior which integrates several earlier
taxonomies (e.g., Mintzberg, 1973; Stogdill, 1963) of initiating structure (i.e., task-oriented) and
consideration (i.e., relationship-oriented) leader behaviors. Some leader behaviors are primarily
task-oriented (e.g., planning and organizing, problem solving, clarifying roles and objectives,
monitoring), while others are primarily relationship oriented (i.e., supporting, developing,
networking, recognizing). Yukl (1994) argued that certain leader behaviors include some
Table 1. Approximate conceptual similarities and distinctions between leadership behaviors and
mentoring functions
Leader behavior Primary behavior Mentoring function (Noe, 1988)
(Yukl, 1990) orientation Career development Psychosocial support
Planning and organizing Task Coaching
Problem solving
Task
Clarifying roles and objectives Task Challenging assignments Role modelling
Informing
Task
Monitoring Task Protection
Motivating and inspiring Mixed Role modelling
Consulting
Mixed
Delegating
Mixed
Supporting Relationship Counselling
Developing and mentoring Relationship Sponsorship
Coaching
Challenging assignments
Managing con¯ict and
Relationship
team building
Networking Relationship Exposure/visibility
Sponsorship
Recognizing Relationship Acceptance/con®rmation
Rewarding Relationship Acceptance/con®rmation
Note. Primary behavior orientation based on Yukl (1994). Speci®c mentoring function indicates area of overlap with
leadership behavior.
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)

368 J. J. SOSIK AND V. M. GODSHALK
component behaviors that are concerned with both task and people. For instance, mentoring
may involve both task-oriented clarifying behaviors and people-oriented developing behaviors
(Yukl, 1994). However, path±goal theory (House, 1996) suggests that people-oriented behaviors
are more appropriate than task-oriented behaviors for enhancing the development and job
satisfaction of lower echelon employees (e.g., prote ge s).
Mintzberg (1973) identi®ed participating in developmental activities (e.g., mentoring) as a key
leader role. Prior research (e.g., Kram, 1985; Noe, 1988) indicates that mentors provide both
psychosocial support and career development functions to prote ge s. As noted above, psychosocial
support functions parallel leadership behaviors identi®ed by Yukl (1990) such as supporting,
motivating and inspiring, and developing. Career development functions parallel leadership
behaviors identi®ed by Yukl (1990) such as clarifying roles and objectives, developing, and
networking. While some mentoring functions (e.g., protection) may not parallel leadership
behavior and some leadership behaviors (e.g., team building) may not parallel mentoring functions,
Table 1 suggests some conceptual overlap between leadership and mentoring. However,
conceptual distinctions between leader behaviors and mentoring functions shown in Table 1 are
in line with evidence of empirical distinctiveness between the constructs found in research cited
above. Given that Table 1 highlights both similarities and di€erences between leader behaviors
and mentoring functions and mentors may display leader behaviors (Gladstone, 1988), we
concluded that leadership behaviors displayed by a mentor may in¯uence prote ge perceptions of
mentoring functions received.
Theoretical background
Manning et al.'s (1996) simpli®ed model of work stress, adapted from Matteson and Ivancevich
(1982), provides the general theoretical framework for this study. According to Manning et al.
(1996), personal (e.g., prote ge age) and external (e.g., mentor's leadership behavior) sources of
stress in¯uence stress as experienced, which in turn can a€ect potential outcomes (e.g., physical,
psychological, organizational factors). In addition, having social support (e.g., mentoring
functions received) can reduce stress as experienced and moderate the in¯uence of external
sources of stress on stress as experienced (Manning et al., 1996; Parker and DeCotiis, 1983). The
present study focuses on examining in¯uences of external sources of stress (mentor's leadership
behavior) and social support (prote ge perception of mentoring functions received) on job-related
stress as experienced by the prote ge .
Based upon Manning et al.'s (1996) model of work stress, we proposed the general framework
shown in Figure 1, to predict the relationships of mentor leadership style with prote ge job-related
stress, directly and via mentoring functions received by prote ge . Figure 1 illustrates several key
relationships. First, mentor leadership style is seen as being associated with both prote ge receipt of
mentoring functions and job-related stress. Second, prote ge receipt of mentoring functions will
in¯uence the level of prote ge job-related stress. Third, as suggested by Manning et al. (1996),
prote ge receipt of mentoring functions will moderate the relationship between mentor transformational
leadership behavior and prote ge job-related stress. These relationships are described in
detail below.
To link leadership styles to mentoring functions received and job-related stress, we draw
upon literature on the transformational±transactional leadership paradigm which has received
extensive theoretical and empirical attention (e.g., Bass, 1985; Bennis, 1989; Bryman, 1992;
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)

LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 369
Figure 1. A model of leadership style, mentoring functions received, and job-related stress
Burns, 1978; Conger and Kanungo, 1987; Dubinsky, Yammarino and Jolson, 1995; Howell and
Avolio, 1993; Podsako€ et al., 1990; Sashkin and Rosenbach, 1993; Shamir, House and Arthur,
1993; Yammarino et al., 1997). Several reviews (e.g., Bass, 1990, 1998; Kirkpatrick and Locke,
1996) and meta-analyses (Gaspar, 1992Ð`Transformational leadership: an integrative review of
the literature'. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University; Lowe, Kroeck
and Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Patterson et al., 1995) have indicated that transactional leadership
can result in expected performance levels, while transformational leadership can result in
individual, group, and unit performance beyond expectations. In fact, transformational leadership
is seen as a particularly powerful source of e€ective leadership in Army, Navy, and Air Force
settings (e.g., Curphy, 1992; Yammarino and Bass, 1990), computer-mediated group settings
(e.g., Sosik, Avolio and Kahai, 1997), innovative research and development contexts (e.g., Howell
and Higgins, 1992; Howell and Avolio, 1993), total quality management programmes (Sosik and
Dionne, 1997), and stress reduction contexts (Seltzer, Numero€ and Bass, 1989).
The transactional±transformational leadership paradigm is grounded upon seminal work
by Burns (1978) and Bass (1985). Bass and Avolio's (1994) Full Range of Leadership (FRL) model
represents a re®nement of Bass (1985) and is the foundation of extensive training of individuals
from industry, education, military, religious, and non-pro®t sectors. The FRL model proposes
that every leader may display some amount of laissez-faire, transactional, and transformational
leadership styles. Subsumed within each style are particular behaviors. The most ine€ective and
passive style is laissez-faire, characterized by delays of action, absence, and indi€erence. More
e€ective styles include transactional leadership, which involves `leaders approaching followers with
an eye to exchanging one thing for another' (Burns, 1978, p. 4). The most e€ective form of
transactional leadership is contingent reward leadership where one sets goals, clari®es desired
outcomes, provides both positive and negative feedback, and exchanges rewards and recognition
for accomplishments when they are deserved. Transformational leadership involves forming `a
relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and may
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)

370 J. J. SOSIK AND V. M. GODSHALK
convert leaders into moral agents' (Burns, 1978, p. 4). Bass and Avolio (1994) identi®ed four
behaviors associated with transformational leaders: individualized considerationÐgiving personal
attention to followers to promote their development and achievement; intellectual stimulationÐ
enabling followers to think of old problems in new ways; inspirational motivationÐcommunicating
high performance expectations through the projection of a powerful, con®dent, dynamic
presence; and idealized in¯uenceÐdisplaying role model behaviors for followers through
exemplary personal achievements, character, and/or behavior.
The FRL model of leadership was chosen, as opposed to other leadership models, to link
leadership style to mentoring functions received and job-related stress for several reasons. First,
the FRL model leadership styles subsume speci®c leader behaviors found in Yukl's (1990)
taxonomy of leader behaviors. Second, while other leadership models depict two-dimensional
models of leadership behavior, such as directive versus participative (House, 1996) or task versus
relations-oriented (Fiedler, 1967), the FRL model covers leadership styles which may subsume
prior models of leader behavior. For example, Bass (1998) argued that transformational and
transactional leadership can be either directive or participative. Thus, by considering transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire leadership, the FRL model provides a rich array of
leader behaviors that other leadership models may lack. Third, the FRL model has been widely
researched in a variety of evaluative investigations (see Bass, 1998 for a comprehensive review).
Fourth, the FRL model describes speci®c behaviors which may facilitate mentor training in terms
of transactional and transformational relationships and their impacts on prote ge s.
Hypotheses
Leadership styles and mentoring functions received
Scandura and Schriesheim (1994) argued that transformational leadership is consistent with
requirements for e€ective mentoring. Mentor transformational leadership behavior may be more
congruent with prote ge receipt of mentoring functions than transactional or laissez-faire
leadership styles for several reasons. First, transformational leadership builds follower trust
(Podsako€ et al., 1990). By exhibiting idealized in¯uence, transformational leaders may be
viewed by their followers as a trustworthy symbol of success and accomplishment. These
idealized in¯uence behaviors are similar to role modelling behaviors identi®ed by Noe (1988) as
being associated with the psychosocial support function of mentoring. Perceived as trustworthy,
respected and admirable role models, mentors who exhibit idealized in¯uence may enhance their
prote ge 's ability to undertake calculated risks to advance their careers.
Second, transformational leadership involves (a) spending time teaching and coaching others,
(b) treating others as individuals with unique needs, abilities and aspirations, (c) helping others
develop strengths, and (d) listening attentively to concerns of others (Bass and Avolio, 1994).
These individually considerate behaviors are likely to facilitate counselling and individualized
coaching of prote ge s, identi®ed by Noe (1988) as important aspects of mentoring.
Third, transformational leadership encourages others to reformulate assumptions through
considering the absurd, fantasizing, and focusing on the context rather than the task (Bass and
Avolio, 1994). These methods of intellectual stimulation are useful in fostering prote ge creativity
and developing prote ge cognitive abilities (Torrance, 1983). In addition, intellectual stimulation
develops analytical skills through reexamining assumptions, seeking di€erent perspectives,
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)

LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 371
suggesting new ways of performing tasks, and rethinking what has never been questioned before.
According to Torrance (1983), these e€ects also may foster prote ge intellectual development.
Fourth, in their e€orts to motivate others, transformational leaders articulate inspirational
long-term visions which attach meaning and importance to human development. By linking the
signi®cance of human development (e.g., developing new skills and higher levels of creative
thinking, trust, and responsibility) to the successful attainment of the broader organizational
mission, these leaders enhance others' belief that they can be e€ective contributors to a high
achieving organization (Shamir et al., 1993). These inspirationally motivating behaviors are
similar to ecacy and con®dence building behaviors required by mentors (Kram, 1985). On the
basis of these arguments, we expected a strong positive relationship between mentor transformational
leadership behavior and prote ge receipt of mentoring functions.
Mentor transactional contingent reward leadership behavior also may be associated with
prote ge receipt of mentoring functions. When a leader sets goals, clari®es outcomes and exchanges
rewards and recognition for follower accomplishments, followers generally achieve expected performance
(Bass, 1985). A contingent reward leader may lay the foundation for follower development
by clarifying desired developmental outcomes, discussing in speci®c terms learning
objectives which outline what must be accomplished, and rewarding the follower when she/he
identi®es and participates in developmental activities. Similarly, a mentoring relationship, in
which contingent reward behavior is displayed by the mentor, is based upon the assumption that
by clarifying what the mentor expects and then rewarding the prote ge for developmental behavior,
the mentor directs the prote ge to the desired developmental outcome. In fact, Thibodeaux and
Lowe (1996) found mentored individuals to report greater supervisory use of rewards than nonmentored
individuals. In addition, prote ge trust may be enhanced to the extent that the mentor
(a) negotiates, agrees, exchanges, and bargains with the prote ge by establishing a `learning
contract'; (b) communicates a clear understanding to the prote ge about what the mentor and
prote ge will do for one another in order to adhere to the learning contract; and (c) rewards
developmental behavior. These behaviors parallel contingent reward leadership and are characteristic
of what Covey (1997) and Podsako€ et al. (1990) describe as behaviors that promote
trustÐa key aspect of e€ective mentor±prote ge relationships (Murray, 1991; Yukl, 1994).
E€ective mentoring provides career development and psychosocial support for the prote geÂ
(Kram, 1985). Given that contingent reward behavior involves goal setting (Bass, 1985) and setting
career goals promotes career development (Kram, 1985), mentors who display contingent reward
behavior may provide career development to prote ge s by setting career goals. Since contingent
reward behavior is generally associated with increased job satisfaction (Sims and Lorenzi, 1992)
and job satisfaction is associated with receiving psychosocial support (Bahniuk, Dobos and Hill,
1990; Parasuraman, Greenhaus and Granrose, 1992), mentors who display contingent reward
behaviors may provide psychosocial support for prote ge s by increasing prote ge job satisfaction.
However, contingent reward behavior focuses on getting the task done and is less likely to be
associated with stimulating greater development of others than transformational behavior (Bass,
1998). Contingent reward behavior attends less to relational aspects of interactions and more to
de®ning the task and level of expected performance. Given the importance of relational aspects in
mentor±prote ge relationships (Kram and Bragar, 1991) and the task orientation of contingent
reward behavior, we expected mentor contingent reward behavior to be less positively associated
with prote ge receipt of mentoring functions than transformational behavior.
Mentor laissez-faire behavior may be totally inconsistent with prote ge receipt of mentoring
functions. Laissez-faire leadership results in less concentration on work, poor quality of work,
and low levels of productivity, cohesiveness and satisfaction (Bass, 1990). Applied to mentoring
relationships, these e€ects may be detrimental to the skill and career development of the prote ge .
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)

372 J. J. SOSIK AND V. M. GODSHALK
In addition, laissez-faire behavior strives to maintain the status quo through delay, absence,
and indi€erence. However, mentoring requires a mentor to actively look for and ®nd opportunities
for prote ge development (Yukl, 1994), provide both psychosocial and career facilitation
support (Noe, 1988), serve as a role model, and spend time developing the prote ge (Kram,
1985). Laissez-faire behavior on the part of the mentor is not likely to ful®l these requirements.
Thus, we expected a negative relationship between mentor laissez-faire behavior and prote geÂ
receipt of mentoring functions. Based on the above discussion, we proposed the following
hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1a: Mentor transformational leadership behavior will be positively related to
prote ge receipt of mentoring functions.
Hypothesis 1b: Mentor transactional contingent reward leadership behavior will have a lower
positive relationship with prote ge receipt of mentoring functions than mentor transformational
leadership behavior.
Hypothesis 1c: Mentor laissez-faire leadership behavior will be negatively related to prote geÂ
receipt of mentoring functions.
Leadership styles and job-related stress
Job-related stress is often a function of an individual's perception of organizational and
environmental events and meaning attached to these events (McCauley, 1987; Schuler, 1980). The
meaning which individuals associate with these events is often `managed' or in¯uenced by
signi®cant others, such as leaders and mentors (Kram and Hall, 1989; Smircich and Morgan,
1982). For example, when a mentor manages the meaning of organizational events for a prote ge ,
he or she in¯uences the manner in which the prote ge perceives, interprets, and acts upon jobrelated
events (e.g., stressful events). In this role, the mentor engages in numerous leadership
behaviors (e.g., motivating, communicating) which provide understanding and reduce uncertainty
associated with perceived hostile events. In fact, leadership behavior has been linked to
e€ectiveness of individuals dealing with combat conditions (Kalay, 1983), con¯ict (Katz, 1977),
role stress (LaRocco and Jones, 1978), panic (Kugihara and Misumi, 1984), and disaster (Watson,
1984). Thus, a prote ge 's job-related stress may be in¯uenced by the mentor's leadership style.
Laissez-faire style, involving avoidance or absence of leadership, provides no meaning or clari-
®cation of events for followers. Lack of leader communication undermines follower trust in the
leader (Bass, 1998; Podsako€ et al., 1990) and may serve to intensify follower fear of the unknown
and job-related stress. Given the importance of communication in both mentoring relationships
(Murray, 1991) and stress reduction (McCauley, 1987), mentors who fail to communicate may
be like laissez-faire leaders in both behavior and in impact of their behavior on prote ge s. Thus,
we expected that mentor laissez-faire behavior would be positively related to prote ge jobrelated
stress.
Stress may be allayed by reducing uncertainty through e€ective communication (McCauley,
1987), raising ecacy expectations (Bandura, 1986), and developing supportive group relationships
(Schuler, 1980). Contingent reward behavior may reduce uncertainty, raise ecacy expectations,
and get agreement on what needs to be done by clarifying performance expectations (Sims
and Lorenzi, 1992). As such, contingent reward behavior may provide mentors with mechanisms
for allaying job-stress experienced by prote ge s. Thus, we expected mentor contingent reward
leadership to be negatively related to prote ge job-related stress.
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)

LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 373
While these transactional methods to allay stress may satisfy immediate satisfaction needs of
prote ge s, they are unlikely to establish long-term positive e€ectiveness in coping with stress (Bass,
1998). Prior research (e.g., Mulder, van Eck and deJong, 1971; Seltzer, Numero€ and Bass, 1989)
suggests that transformational behavior displayed by mentors may provide the most e€ective
means to allay prote ge job-related stress. For example, Seltzer et al. (1989) found that transformational
leadership based on charismatic and individually considerate behaviors was negatively
related to follower stress. Transformational leadership arouses team spirit, reframes stressful
events into developmental opportunities, and inspires others to perceive dicult situations as
meaningful challenges necessary for developing one's professional and personal skills (Shamir
et al., 1993). By emphasizing the importance of collective action, transformational leadership
evokes higher-order needs (e.g., sense of belonging to a larger entity) and moves followers into a
vigilant search for long-term readiness. As such, follower stress may be reduced as `the
insecurity of feeling isolated is replaced by the security of a sense of belonging' (Bass, 1998, p. 46).
These stress-reducing behaviors parallel acceptance and con®rmation behaviors associated with
the psychosocial support function of mentoring (Kram and Hall, 1989). Thus, we expected that
mentor transformational leadership behavior would be more negatively related to prote ge jobrelated
stress than transactional contingent reward behavior. Taken together, the above
arguments suggest:
Hypothesis 2a: Mentor transformational leadership behavior will be negatively related to
prote ge job-related stress.
Hypothesis 2b: Mentor transactional contingent reward leadership behavior will have a lower
negative relationship with prote ge job-related stress than mentor transformational leadership
behavior.
Hypothesis 2c: Mentor laissez-faire behavior will be positively related to prote ge job-related
stress.
Mentoring functions received and job-related stress
The relationship between mentoring functions received and prote ge job-related stress may be a
function of the positive outcomes mentoring functions provide. Mentoring has been positively
associated with e€ective socialization of young employees (Schein, 1978), promotions and
compensation (Dreher and Ash, 1990), career mobility (Scandura, 1992), career satisfaction
(Fagenson, 1989), career commitment (Colarelli and Bishop, 1990), and job satisfaction
(Bahniuk et al., 1990); and negatively associated with turnover intentions (Viator and Scandura,
1991). These ®ndings suggest that mentoring may provide the prote ge with career development
opportunities and career goals.
Individuals who perceive low career development opportunities and discrepancies with career
goals resulting from a lack of social support experience high levels of job-related stress, while
those who receive social support and opportunities for development report lower job-related
stress (Parker and DeCotiis, 1983). In addition, prior research cited above suggests that
individuals who participate in mentoring relationships exhibit positive/functional organizational
attitudes and behaviors. For example, Mowday, Porter and Steers (1982) argued that individuals
a€ectively respond to aspects of the work environment and these reactions in¯uence their
attitudes towards their jobs. Job-related stress may cause individuals to deviate from normal
functioning (Jamal, 1990). Mentoring appears to help individuals cope with job-related stress by
providing both career development and psychosocial assistance and, therefore, may allow these
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)

374 J. J. SOSIK AND V. M. GODSHALK
individuals to function normally in the organization. On the basis of this literature, we propose
the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Prote ge receipt of mentoring functions will be negatively related to prote geÂ
job-related stress.
As noted above, Manning et al. (1996) argued that social support may moderate e€ects of
external sources of stress on perceived stress. A mentor's leadership style may be an external
source of stress (Matteson and Ivancevich, 1982; Seltzer et al., 1989). Mentoring functions are a
form of social support (House, 1981) and may provide an antidote to job-related stress (Kram
and Hall, 1989). However, stress reduction e€orts are more e€ective when perceptions of stress
are changed via development of long-term readiness and coping mechanisms (McCauley, 1987).
Such changes in perceptions of stress may be facilitated by the developmental nature of
transformational leadership (Scandura and Schriesheim, 1994) and its focus on promoting
fundamental change in moving individuals beyond immediate concerns toward concern for an
attractive future (Bennis, 1989; Burns, 1978). Similarly, mentoring functions promote fundamental
changes in prote ge s in terms of attitudes (e.g., perception of stress) and career and selfdevelopment
(Kram and Hall, 1989).
These arguments suggest that a mentor's e€orts to allay prote ge job-related stress via
transformational behavior will be moderated by prote ge receipt of mentoring functions. In
essence, when mentoring functions received are high, the negative impact of mentor
transformational behavior on prote ge job-related stress is stronger. Conversely, when mentoring
functions received are low, the negative impact of mentor transformational behavior on prote geÂ
job-related stress is lower. Our expectation is based on a cognitive consistency argument where
the underlying rule is that when mentoring functions received are low, transformational
behaviors such as individualized consideration may be perceived as inauthentic or insincere and
therefore ought not promote development of stress-reducing mechanisms. When mentoring
functions received are high, transformational behaviors may be perceived as being consistent with
mentoring functions in terms of developmental orientation and therefore promote development
of stress-reducing mechanisms. Thus, all else being equal, if we had two groups of prote ge s where
the ®rst group received low levels of mentoring functions and the second group the opposite, we
would expect a low to possibly negative association between mentor transformational behavior
and prote ge job-related stress for the ®rst group and a high negative association for the second
group.
Unlike transformational behavior, transactional contingent reward behavior displayed
by mentors may promote a cost-bene®t exchange relationship with prote ge s (Scandura
and Schriescheim, 1994). Such behavior is not likely to develop prote ge long-term positive
e€ectiveness in coping with stressful conditions or reducing perceptions of stress (Bass, 1998).
Similarly, absence or avoidance on the part of a laissez-faire mentor is inconsistent with
mentoring functions and therefore is not likely to promote stress reduction e€orts. Thus, we
hypothesized:
Hypothesis 4: Prote ge receipt of mentoring functions will moderate the negative relationship
between mentor transformational leadership behavior and prote ge job-related stress.
Speci®cally, mentor transformational leadership behavior will be more negatively related
to prote ge job-related stress when prote ge receipt of mentoring functions is high rather than
low.
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)

LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 375
Method
Sample and procedure
Two-hundred and thirty adult students enrolled in a masters of management programme in a
large public university in the Northeast participated in the study for course credit. Participants
were full-time corporate employees from various industries who were involved in either formal
or informal mentoring relationships. The industries represented include: services (22 per cent),
manufacturing (17 per cent), ®nancial/insurance (16 per cent), pharmaceuticals (7 per cent),
transportation/utilities (6 per cent), telecommunications (6 per cent), public administration (1 per
cent), and other unidenti®ed industries (25 per cent). Mentoring relationships ranged in length
from 1 year to 12 years, with the average being 2.7 years. Participants ranged in age from 20 years
to 57 years, with the average age being 31. They had worked, on average, 4.8 years with their
companies and had a range of company tenure from 2 months to 40 years. Fifty-six per cent of
the participants were male, and the vast majority (82 per cent) were Caucasian. The remaining
18 per cent of the sample consisted of African American (6 per cent), Hispanic (2 per cent), Asian
(7 per cent), Native American (1 per cent), and non-responding (2 per cent) participants.
Data were collected through two questionnaires, which were distributed to participants in
class, completed outside of class, and returned directly to the researchers. The ®rst questionnaire
was completed by the proteÂge and included items measuring mentoring functions received,
perceived job-related stress, and demographic information. This questionnaire contained the
following instructions to de®ne mentoring relationships for participants.
`Please provide information regarding your experiences with mentoring relationships.
Mentoring relationships are characterized by a close, professional relationship between two
individualsÐone usually more senior in some regard. The mentor and prote ge may or may not
be with the same company.'
In addition, the following information was read to participants prior to distribution of the
questionnaires.
`Mentoring is de®ned as a deliberate pairing of a more skilled or experienced person with a
lesser skilled or experienced one, with the agreed-upon goal of having the lesser skilled person
grow and develop speci®c competencies. Your mentor may or may not be your manager.'
The second questionnaire included items measuring leadership behaviors and was completed by
the prote ge 's mentor. This questionnaire was mailed by each mentor directly to the researchers
using a pre-addressed, stamped return envelope. A total of 204 usable responses, representing
88 per cent of all participant cases, were used in the data analysis. Ninety-one per cent
(186 participants) were in informal mentoring relationships while nine per cent (18 participants)
were in formal mentoring relationships. Eighty-®ve per cent of mentors were managers/supervisors
of the prote ge s. Of the 15 per cent which were not, 10 per cent were mentored by peers and
5 per cent were mentored by other individuals.
Data analysis
The hypotheses were tested using Partial Least Squares (PLS; Wold, 1985), a structural equation
modeling technique. PLS has been used by a growing number of researchers in organizational
behavior (e.g., Duxbury and Higgins, 1991; House, Spangler and Woycke, 1991; Kahai, Sosik
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)

376 J. J. SOSIK AND V. M. GODSHALK
and Avolio, 1997). PLS o€ers several bene®ts over traditional techniques such as ANOVA or
regression. These bene®ts are discussed in Appendix A.
We used PLS-Graph (version 2.91.02.08), a graphics-based program for performing PLS
analysis in this study. PLS generates estimates of standardized regression coecients (i.e., path
coecients) for the model paths, which can then be used to measure the relationships between
latent variables. A jackkni®ng procedure called blindfolding was used to compute standard errors
and assess signi®cance of estimates of path coecients (Wold, 1985). The blindfolding procedure
omits a part of the data matrix for a particular construct and then estimates the model parameters
(e.g., path coecients) associated with that construct. This process is repeated as often as the
omission distance, which refers to how many data points in the data matrix are skipped before
omitting one data point. An omission distance of 9 was employed (Sambamurthy and Chin, 1994).
A conservative hurdle rate of p 5 0.001 was used to indicate signi®cance.
Full sample data (n ˆ 204) was utilized to test Hypothesis 1a through Hypothesis 3, in terms of
the unmoderated model. To test Hypothesis 4 in terms of the moderating e€ect of mentoring
functions received, we split the sample into two sub-samples (i.e., low and high levels of
mentoring functions received). Partitioning of the data into these sub-samples is discussed below.
This approach parallels more traditional moderated regression by testing a model separately for
each sub-sample (Duxbury and Higgins, 1991). Unpaired t-tests were used to test for di€erences
in standardized regression coecients across the sub-samples (see Duxbury and Higgins, 1991).
In PLS, constructs may be modelled using re¯ective or formative indicators. Re¯ective
indicators are suggested when they arise from the construct, because of which they tend to covary
(e.g., components of transformational leadership). Formative indicators are suggested when they
combine to form a construct (e.g., aspects of socio-economic status) (Falk and Miller, 1992).
Modelling of constructs examined in the present study is discussed below.
Measurement of constructs
Information was obtained from participants and from their mentors. Multiple-item measures
were used to assess mentor leadership behaviors and prote ge perceptions of mentoring functions
received and job-related stress. Items for the measures are listed in Appendix B.
Mentor's leadership behaviors
Mentor leadership style/behavior was measured using items from the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ-5X; Bass and Avolio, 1997). While previous versions of the MLQ have been
criticized for failure to empirically generate the factor structure proposed by Bass and Avolio
(1994) to underlie transformational leadership (e.g., Bycio, Hackett and Allen, 1995; Yukl, 1994),
research on the MLQ-Form 5X (e.g., Avolio, Bass and Jung, 1997; Bass and Avolio, 1997; Bass,
1998) has been shown it to be a psychometrically sound instrument. Mentors were asked to judge
how frequently they exhibited speci®c behaviors measured by the MLQ-5X. Each behavior was
measured on a ®ve-point frequency scale ranging from not at all (0) to frequently, if not always
(4). Laissez-faire leadership was measured using two items from the MLQ-5X. Contingent reward
leadership was measured using three items from the MLQ-5X. The following four-item scales was
used as indicators of transformational leadership: (a) idealized in¯uenceÐbehavior (a ˆ 0.75),
(b) inspirational motivation (a ˆ 0.72), (c) intellectual stimulation (a ˆ 0.72), and (d)
individualized consideration (a ˆ 0.64).
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)

LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 377
Mentoring functions received
To assess the degree of mentoring received by the prote ge , we used two 10-item scales from Noe
(1988) as indicators of mentoring functions: (a) career development (a ˆ 0.86), and (b) psychosocial
support (a ˆ 0.87). Prote ge s were asked to indicate their extent of agreement with each item
using a ®ve-point scale ranging from disagree strongly (1) to agree strongly (5). Hypothesis 4,
which pertained to the moderating e€ect of mentoring functions received, was tested by creating
two sub-samples based on a median split: low mentoring functions received sub-sample (scale
score 53.85; n ˆ 103) and high mentoring functions received sub-sample (scale score 43.85,
n ˆ 101).
Job-related stress
Job-related stress perceived by the prote ge was measured using six items from Parasuraman
(1977, `Sources and outcomes of organizational stress: a multidimensional study of the
antecedents, and attitudinal and behavioral indices of job stress'. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, State University of New York at Bu€alo). Prote ge s were asked to judge how often
they experienced situations described in each item. Each situation was measured on a ®ve-point
frequency scale ranging from never occurs (1) to constantly occurs (5).
The indicators of laissez-faire, contingent reward, and transformational leadership were
expected to covary (see Bass, 1998), as were the indicators of mentoring functions received and
job-related stress, thereby indicating that they arise from their respective constructs. Therefore,
these indicators were modelled as re¯ective.
Control variables
Theoretical work on mentoring (e.g., Kram, 1985; Murray, 1991) suggests that prote geÂ
experience (i.e., age, job level, job tenure, education level), industry, and mentor gender can a€ect
mentor behavior, mentoring functions received, and prote ge job-related stress. To control for
these potential e€ects, age, job level, job tenure, education level, industry, and mentor gender
were entered into the PLS model as covariates. Each covariate was modelled as a single-item
indicator. PLS is insensitive to how the indicators of single-indicator constructs are modelled.
Results
Table 2 presents the scale means, standard deviations, and product moment correlations among
the measures. PLS generates statistics to test the reliability and validity of latent constructs with
two or more re¯ective indicators. Reliability was assessed by ®rst examining the factor loadings of
indicators: a common rule of thumb is that the factor loadings should exceed 0.7 since this implies
that less than half of the indicator's variance is due to error (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Next, we
computed each construct's composite scale reliability (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), a measure of
internal consistency similar to Cronbach's alpha. Fornell and Larcker (1981) recommended using
a criterion cut-o€ of 0.7 or more. Also, the average variance extracted by the construct
from indicators was examined. For this criterion, Fornell and Larcker (1981) recommended using
a cut-o€ of 0.5 or more.
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)

378 J. J. SOSIK AND V. M. GODSHALK
Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations
Construct Indicators
Mentoring level Correlations between constructs
Low High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
M S.D. M S.D.
1. Laissez-faire 0.76 0.77 0.57 0.59 (0.80)
2. Transactional contingent reward 3.02 0.67 3.24 0.60 0.11 (0.75)
3. Transformational leadership Idealized in¯uence 2.89 0.68 3.08 0.72 0.05 0.59 (0.78)
Inspirational motivation 3.05 0.62 3.13 0.55
Intellectual stimulation 3.12 0.61 3.20 0.56
Individualized consideration 3.31 0.48 3.47 0.50
4. Mentoring functions received Psychosocial support 3.74 0.54 4.59 0.97 0.15 0.02 0.06 (0.84)
Career development 2.84 0.70 4.34 1.05
5. Job stress 2.73 0.82 2.78 1.39 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.14 (0.80)
6. Age 31.41 6.91 29.90 7.39 0.08 0.12 0.09 0.16 0.07 ±
7. Mentor gender 1.81 0.84 1.94 1.52 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.40 ±
8. Industry 6.81 3.55 6.28 3.46 0.01 0.07 0.05 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.18 ±
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 ±
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 ±
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 ±
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,
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
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,
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.
Signi®cant correlations (p 5 0.05) are underlined.
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)

Table 3. Factor loadings, composite scale reliability, and average variance extracted to assess reliability of
measures
Construct
Measures
LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 379
Factor
loading
Weights of
measures
Composite
scale
reliability
Average
variance
extracted
1. Laissez-faire LF 1 0.92 0.79 0.78 0.64
LF 2 0.68 0.45
2. Transactional contingent reward CR1 0.74 0.47 0.79 0.56
CR2 0.82 0.54
CR3 0.67 0.35
3. Transformational leadership II 0.81 0.36 0.86 0.62
IM 0.68 0.15
IS 0.76 0.20
IC 0.89 0.54
4. Mentoring functions received PSYCH 0.85 0.61 0.83 0.71
CARDEV 0.84 0.58
5. Job stress STRESS1 0.76 0.31 0.91 0.63
STRESS2 0.81 0.19
STRESS3 0.74 0.12
STRESS4 0.89 0.27
STRESS5 0.71 0.18
STRESS6 0.83 0.19
Note. LFˆ laissez-faire; CR ˆ contingent reward; II ˆ idealized in¯uence-behavior; IM ˆ inspirational motivation;
IS ˆ intellectual stimulation; IC ˆ individualized consideration; PSYCH ˆ psychosocial support; CARDEV ˆ career
development; STRESS ˆ job-related stress.
Table 3 shows the factor loadings, weights, composite scale reliabilities, and average variance
extracted based on PLS analysis of full sample data. With the exception of factor loadings of one
indicator of laissez-faire, contingent reward, and transformational leadership constructs, which
were slightly below the recommended criterion cut-o€, all reliability criteria were met by the
study's constructs. In PLS, convergent and discriminant validity of indicators of re¯ective
constructs is assessed using criteria similar to a multi-trait/multi-method analysis (Falk and
Miller, 1992; Kahai et al., 1997). One criterion is that the construct representing the items should
share more variance with its items than with other constructs in the model (Carmines and Zeller,
1979). A matrix is shown in Table 2, in which the diagonal elements show the square root of
the average variance shared by a construct with its indicators. For adequate convergent and
discriminant validity, the diagonal elements should be greater than entries in the corresponding
rows and columns. Results summarized in Table 2 indicate this criterion was met.
Results of PLS analysis
Results of PLS analysis to test the hypotheses are presented in Table 4. As predicted by
Hypothesis 1a, there was a positive relationship between mentor transformational leadership
behavior and prote ge receipt of mentoring functions. As predicted by Hypothesis 1b, there was a
positive relationship between mentor transactional contingent reward leadership behavior and
prote ge receipt of mentoring functions. As expected, the positive in¯uence of mentor transactional
contingent reward leadership behavior on prote ge receipt of mentoring functions was
not as strong as that of mentor transformational leadership behavior. As predicted by Hypothesis
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)

380 J. J. SOSIK AND V. M. GODSHALK
Table 4. Results of Partial Least Squares analysis
Hypothesis and proposed relation
Standardized
path coecient t(8) a
H1a: Transformational leadership ! mentoring functions received 0.15 28.08*
H1b: Transactional contingent reward ! mentoring functions received 0.06 5.38*
H1c: Laissez-faire ! mentoring functions received 0.15 23.26*
H2a: Transformational leadership ! job stress 0.08 15.58*
H2b: Transactional contingent reward ! job stress 0.01 1.74
H2c: Laissez-faire ! job stress 0.01 1.61
H3: Mentoring functions received ! job stress 0.11 29.22*
H4: Transformational leadership ! job stress
0.01 1.59
(low mentoring functions received sub-sample)
Transformational leadership ! job stress
(high mentoring functions received sub-sample)
0.31 44.49*
Note. Hˆ hypothesis. The variance explained in job stress by all measures and covariates was 11 per cent. The variance
explained in mentoring by all measures and covariates was 12 per cent.
a Degrees of freedom for t-test based on omission distance minus 1 (Sambamurthy and Chin, 1994).
* p 5 0.001, two-tailed.
1c, mentor laissez-faire leadership behavior was negatively related to prote ge receipt of mentoring
functions. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was fully supported.
Hypothesis 2a also was supported. Mentor transformational leadership behavior was
negatively related to prote ge job-related stress. However, both Hypotheses 2b and 2c were not
supported. Mentor transactional contingent reward and laissez-faire leadership behaviors
were not related to prote ge job related stress. Hypothesis 3 was supported. Prote ge receipt
of mentoring functions was negatively associated with prote ge job-related stress. Hypothesis 4
also was supported. Mentor transformational leadership behavior was more negatively
related to prote ge job-related stress in the high mentoring functions received subsample
(path coecient ˆ0.31) than in the low mentoring functions received subsample (path coecient
ˆ 0.01) (t(8) ˆ43.03, p 5 0.001).
Several covariates had signi®cant e€ects (p

LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 381
coecient ˆ 0.08, t(8) ˆ 12.35). In addition, prote ge job tenure (path coecient ˆ 0.10,
t(8) ˆ 25.08), prote ge job level (path coecient ˆ 0.17, t(8) ˆ 49.31), and prote ge education
level (path coecient ˆ 0.14, t(8) ˆ 41.4) were each positively related to prote ge job-related
stress. Male mentors were associated with more prote ge job-related stress than female mentors
(path coecient ˆ 0.07, t(8) ˆ 8.82).
Discussion
An important ®nding of the present study is that various leadership styles/behaviors displayed by
mentors can have di€erential associations with prote ge perceptions of both mentoring functions
received and job related stress. Speci®cally, ®ndings revealed that mentor transformational
leadership was associated with increased prote ge receipt of mentoring functions and reduced
prote ge job-related stress. While mentor transactional contingent reward leadership also was
found to be associated with increased prote ge receipt of mentoring functions, the association was
not as strong as that of transformational leadership and prote ge receipt of mentoring functions.
In addition, mentor laissez-faire leadership was found to be negatively related to prote ge receipt
of mentoring functions.
This pattern of results supports prior research which highlights the ecacy of transformational
leadership in developing subordinates (e.g., Bass, 1998; Scandura and Schreisheim, 1994; Sosik
and Dionne, 1997; Yukl, 1994) and allaying subordinate stress (e.g., Seltzer et al., 1989). These
results also are in line with results of Aryee, Chay, and Chew (1996), Burke et al. (1991), Burke
(1984), and Mackey (1996) which suggested that e€ective mentoring relationships may be predicted
by development-linked leadership qualities of the mentor. For example, Mackey (1996)
identi®ed planning and goal setting, building prote ge self-ecacy, explaining the importance
of the task in relation to the `big picture', and giving individualized attention as aspects of e€ective
mentoring. These behaviors parallel those exhibited by transformational leaders who augment
contingent reward behavior with inspiring, charismatic, and individually considerate behaviors
(Bass, 1998).
Why is transformational leadership displayed by a mentor e€ective in promoting prote ge receipt
of mentoring functions? One possible explanation involves emotional and self-concept development
support. Speci®cally, Thibodeaux and Lowe (1996) found that in-group LMX individuals
reported higher levels of emotional involvement and self-concept development mentoring outcomes
than out-group LMX individuals. Given that transformational leadership promotes a
strong emotional attachment of followers to the leader (Bass, 1985) and motivates individuals by
developing and linking their self-concept to a collective mission (Shamir et al., 1993), results of the
present study suggest that transformational leadership behavior displayed by mentors may
facilitate the construction of perceptions of mentoring functions by prote ge s via emotional and
self-concept based mechanisms. As such, future research should explore the role of emotions and
the self-concept in mentoring relationships.
An alternate explanation is provided by the mentoring and leadership literatures. A
common theme running through the mentoring literature (e.g., Burke, 1984; Kram, 1985;
Noe, 1988) is that a mentor is viewed as a learned and trusted advisorÐa source of wisdom.
Several leadership scholars (e.g., DiTomaso, 1993; Etzioni, 1961; Weber, 1947) have used the
concept of wisdom to de®ne charisma, the largest component of variance in transformational
leadership (Bass, 1998). Speci®cally, charisma can be viewed as the accumulation of basic truths,
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)

382 J. J. SOSIK AND V. M. GODSHALK
purposes, and meanings via experiences and self-awareness over time (DiTomaso, 1993). In fact,
Sosik and Dworakivsky (1998) found elements of leader wisdom (i.e., private self-awareness and
purpose-in-life) to be positively related to charismatic leadership. Given that a mentor shares
experience, wisdom, knowledge and perspective with a prote ge (Kram, 1985), it may be that a
mentor's charisma facilitates receipt of mentoring functions by the prote ge .
To test this speculation, we performed a post-hoc test which involved correlating the components
of transformational leadership (i.e., idealized in¯uence, inspirational motivation,
intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration), contingent reward leadership, and laissezfaire
leadership with psychosocial support and career development functions of mentoring.
Results indicated that psychosocial support was positively related to two aspects of charismatic
leadershipÐidealized in¯uence (r ˆ 0.21, p 5 0.01) and inspirational motivation (r ˆ 0.17,
p 5 0.05)Ðas well as individualized consideration (r ˆ 0.18, p 5 0.04) and contingent reward
(r ˆ 0.22, p 5 0.01). No leadership behaviors were associated with the career development
function of mentoring. These results suggest that mentors who augment contingent reward
behavior with charismatic and individually considerate behaviors may provide psychosocial
support to prote ge s. Future research should identify which aspects of leadership or substitutes
for leadership (e.g., prote ge development-linked reward systems and aspects of jobs) may
in¯uence the career development function of mentoring (Aryee et al., 1996).
Two additional key ®ndings of the present study were that prote ge receipt of mentoring functions
was negatively related to prote ge job-related stress and that prote ge receipt of mentoring
functions strengthened the negative relationship between mentor transformational leadership
behavior and prote ge job-related stress. The former ®nding provides support for theoretical and
empirical indications that mentoring can allay stress experienced by prote ge s (e.g., House, 1981;
Kram and Hall, 1989; Parker and DeCotiis, 1983). However, given that both mentoring functions
received and job-related stress were reported by prote ge s, this result should be interpreted with
caution since common method variance may be a potential alternative explanation for
this ®nding.
The latter ®nding provides support for Bass (1998) and House (1981) who suggested that
development-oriented leadership (i.e., transformational leadership) coupled with social support
(i.e., mentoring functions received) can reduce stress experienced by prote ge s. Thus, it may be
that social support provided by mentoring and the sense of identity with a social network of
support emphasized in transformational leadership may help allay prote ge job-related stress.
Future research should explore the mechanisms by which transformational leadership and
prote ge receipt of mentoring functions may interact to allay prote ge job-related stress.
Implications
Results of the present study suggest several managerial implications. First, to enhance prote geÂ
receipt of mentoring functions, mentors should be trained to avoid laissez-faire behaviors and to
exhibit transformational leadership behaviors, such as idealized in¯uence and individualized
consideration. Because contemporary management thought encourages providing autonomy to
one's subordinates, mentors may fall into the trap of confusing empowerment with laissez-faire
behaviors. To avoid such a folly, mentors should be trained to di€erentiate between empowerment
and laissez-faire leadership. Empowerment encompasses providing psychological support
and tangible resources to bolster autonomy and ecacy of prote ge e€orts. In contrast, laissezfaire
represents the absence and abdication of mentor involvement in the mentor±prote geÂ
relationship (Bass, 1998).
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)

LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 383
Second, Senge (1996) argues that to be competitive in the next millennium, an organization's
intellectual capital (i.e., knowledge resources and learning structures) should be mentored by
leaders who possess wisdom. Given that charisma can be de®ned in terms of wisdom (DiTomaso,
1993), our results suggest that mentors should focus on exhibiting idealized in¯uence and
inspirational motivation to build e€ective mentoring relationships. Both idealized in¯uence
and inspirational motivation represent charismatic leadership, a relationship in which followers
form a strong emotional attachment to the leader based on common internalized values and
identi®cation with the leader (Bass, 1985; House, 1996). To the extent that psychosocial support
involves mentor±prote ge value congruence, prote ge respect and emulation of the mentor, and
mentor emotional encouragement of the prote ge (Kram, 1985; Thibodeaux and Lowe, 1996),
study ®ndings suggest that idealized in¯uence and inspirational motivation may be useful
behaviors for promoting mentoring e€ectiveness.
Third, given increased levels of job-related stress experienced by organizational members
(Brockner et al., 1992), organizations should implement and support mentoring programmes to
help allay employee job-related stress. This implication is important since employee stress has
been associated with signi®cant costs, both ®nancial (Laws, 1996) and health-related (Manning
et al., 1996). Results of the present study suggest that organizations should couple mentoring
programmes with transformational leadership training for mentors to maximize reductions in
prote ge job-related stress (and its associated costs).
Limitations and future research paths
Certain limitations of the study, which are suggestive of future research paths, should be noted.
First, the sample consisted of graduate student participants, who collectively represented
employees from a wide variety of ages, backgrounds, and industries. Such a sample was judged
preferable to using employees within the same organization due to the potential for data
re¯ecting shared participant pool, organizationally-speci®c values, or mentoring relationships
that may or may not be representative of the general population. Nevertheless, the limitations of
generalizations from `convenient' sample data are acknowledged. Subsequent investigations
could employ samples from speci®c organizations and industries.
Second, MLQ-5X items employed in the present study to measure the laissez-faire construct
may be subject to socially desirable responses. While prior research (Bass and Avolio, 1989) has
indicated that the MLQ leadership measures are not likely to be associated with social desirability
bias, the potential for such bias in self-reports on laissez-faire items cannot be ruled out.
Future independent research should be conducted on potential social desirability bias in self and
other ratings of MLQ-5X items, especially those measuring laissez-faire leadership.
Third, given that 91 per cent of our sample were involved in informal mentoring relationships,
results of the present study are generalizable to informal mentoring relationships. Chao, Walz,
and Gardner (1992) noted distinctions in process between formal and informal mentoring
relationships. Future research should replicate the present study using a sample comprised of
primarily formal mentoring relationships.
Fourth, the present study examined the linkage between mentor transformational leadership
behavior and prote ge job-related stress under high and low levels of mentoring functions
received. Other important variables may potentially moderate this linkage. For example, future
research could focus on how cross-gender (Burke and McKeen, 1990), and/or cross-cultural
(Cox, 1993) issues may a€ect transformational leadership and job-related stress. In addition,
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)

384 J. J. SOSIK AND V. M. GODSHALK
subsequent studies could examine how stages of professional careers (Dalton, Thompson and
Price, 1977) may in¯uence this relationship.
Despite these limitations, the present study o€ers some support for the proposed conceptual
model and a preliminary empirical basis for comparison in future research. Given increased
recognition of mentoring relationships as an antidote to stress (Kram and Hall, 1989), it is hoped
that the present study has underscored the importance of appropriate mentor behavior in promoting
e€ective mentoring relationships and reducing prote ge job-related stress. In addition, it is
hoped the present study will arouse researchers to examine mechanisms which can facilitate
mentoring e€ectiveness and outcomes. Subsequent research should examine and re®ne the
proposed model to further our knowledge concerning relationships among mentor leadership
styles/behaviors, prote ge receipt of mentoring functions, and outcomes of mentoring such as
reduced prote ge job-related stress.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the helpful suggestions of Denise Potosky, Eric Stein,
George Watson and three anonymous reviewers on earlier versions of this paper, and the data
collection and analysis support received from Georgia Gordon-Martin.
References
Appelbaum, S. H., Ritchie, S. and Shapiro, B. T. (1994). `Mentoring revisited: an organizational behaviour
construct', International Journal of Career Management, 6, 3±10.
Aryee, S., Chay, Y. W. and Chew, J. (1996). `The motivation to mentor among managerial employees',
Group & Organization Management, 21, 261±277.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M. and Jung, D. I. (1997). Replicated Con®rmatory Factor Analyses of the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire, Center for Leadership Studies, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY.
Bahniuk, M. H., Dobos, J. and Hill, S. E. (1990). `The impact of mentoring, collegial support, and information
adequacy on career success: a replication', Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 431±451.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Action and Thought: A Social Cognitive View, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cli€s, NJ.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stodgill's Handbook of Leadership, Free Press, New York.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational Leadership: Industry, Military, and Educational Impact, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J. (1989). `Potential biases in leadership measures: how prototypes, leniency, and
general satisfaction relate to ratings and rankings of transformational and transactional leadership
constructs', Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 509±527.
Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving Organizational E€ectiveness Through Transformational
Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full Range Leadership Development: Manual for the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire, Mind Garden, Palo Alto, CA.
Beehr, T. A. and Newman, J. E. (1978). `Job stress, employee health, and organizational e€ectiveness: a
facet analysis, model and literature review', Personnel Psychology, 31, 665±699.
Bennis, W. (1989). On Becoming a Leader, Simon & Schuster, New York.
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)

LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 385
Bookstein, F. (1986). `The elements of latent variable models: a cautionary lecture'. In: Lamb, M., Brown,
A. and Rogo€, B. (Eds) Advances in Developmental Psychology, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale,
NJ, pp. 203±230.
Brockner, J., Grover, S., Reed, T. F. and DeWitt, R. L. (1992). `Layo€s, job insecurity, and survivors' work
e€ort: evidence of an inverted-U relationship', Academy of Management Journal, 35, 413±425.
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and Leadership in Organizations, Sage Publications, London.
Burke, R. J. (1984). `Mentors in organizations', Group & Organization Studies, 9, 353±372.
Burke, R. J. and McKeen, C. A. (1990). `Mentoring in organizations: implications for women', Journal of
Business Ethics, 9, 317±332.
Burke, R. J., McKenna, C. S. and McKeen, C. A. (1991). `How do mentorships di€er from typical
supervisory relationships?', Psychological Reports, 68, 459±466.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership, Harper & Row, New York.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D. and Allen, J. S. (1995). `Further assessments of Bass's (1985) conceptualization of
transactional and transformational leadership', Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468±478.
Carmines, E. and Zeller, R. (1979). Reliability and Validity Assessment, Sage University Paper Series on
Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, No. 07-017, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Champy, J. (1995). Reengineering Management, Harper Business, New York.
Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M. and Gardner, P. (1992). `Formal and informal mentorships: a comparison
on mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentored counterparts', Personnel Psychology, 45,
619±636.
Colarelli, S. M. and Bishop, R. C. (1990). `Career commitment: functions, correlates and management',
Group & Organization Studies, 15, 158±176.
Conger, J. A. and Kanungo, R. N. (1987). `Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership'.
In: Conger, J. A. and Kanungo, R. N. (Eds) Charismatic Leadership: The Elusive Factor in Organizational
E€ectiveness, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 78±97.
Covey, S. R. (1997). `Modeling and mentoring', Executive Excellence, 14, 3±4.
Cox, T. (1993). Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research & Practice, Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
Curphy, G. J. (1992). `An empirical investigation of the e€ects of transformational and transactional
leadership on organizational climate, attrition and performance'. In: Clark, K. E., Clark,
M. B. and Campbell, D. R. (Eds) Impact of Leadership, The Center for Creative Leadership,
Greensboro, NC.
Dalton, G. W., Thompson, P. H. and Price, R. L. (1977). `The four stages of professional careers: A new
look at performance by professionals', Organizational Dynamics, 6, 19±42.
DiTomaso, N. (1993). `Weber's social history and Etzioni's structural theory of charisma in organizations:
implications for thinking about charismatic leadership', Leadership Quarterly, 4, 257±275.
Dreher, G. F. and Ash, R. A. (1990). `A comparative study of mentoring among men and women in
managerial, professional, and technical positions', Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 539±546.
Dubinsky, A. J., Yammarino, F. J. and Jolson, M. A. (1995). `An examination of linkages between
personality characteristics and dimensions of transformational leadership', Journal of Business and
Psychology, 9, 315±335.
Duxbury, R. M. and Higgins, C. A. (1991). `Gender di€erences in work±family con¯ict', Journal of Applied
Psychology, 76, 60±74.
Etzioni, A. (1961). A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations, The Free Press, New York.
Fagenson, E. A. (1989). `The mentor advantage: perceived career/job experiences of prote ge s versus
nonprote ge s', Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 309±320.
Falk, R. F. and Miller, N. B. (1992). A Primer for Soft Modeling, The University of Akron Press,
Akron, OH.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A Theory of Leadership E€ectiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981). `Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error', Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39±50.
Gibson, V. M. (1993). `Stress in the workplace: a hidden cost factor', HR Focus, 70, 15±16.
Gladstone, M. S. (1988). Mentoring: A Strategy for Learning in a Rapidly Changing Society, CEGEP John
Abbot College, Research and Development Secretariat, Montreal.
Graen, G. B. and Scandura, T. A. (1986). `A theory of dyadic career reality', Research in Personnel and
Human Resource Management, 4, 147±181.
House, J. S. (1981). Work Stress and Social Support, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)

386 J. J. SOSIK AND V. M. GODSHALK
House, R. J. (1996). `Path±goal theory of leadership: lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory', Leadership
Quarterly, 7, 323±352.
House, R. J., Spangler, W. D. and Woycke, J. (1991). `Personality and charisma in the U.S. presidency: a
psychological theory of leader e€ectiveness', Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 364±396.
Howell, J. M. and Avolio, B. J. (1993). `Predicting consolidated unit performance: leadership behavior,
locus of control and support for innovation', Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891±902.
Howell, J. M. and Higgins, C. A. (1990). `Champions of technological innovations', Administrative Science
Quarterly, 35, 317±341.
Jamal, M. (1990). `Relationship of job stress and Type-A behavior to employees' job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, psychosomatic health problems, and turnover motivation', Human
Relations, 43, 727±738.
Kahai, S. S., Sosik, J. J. and Avolio, B. J. (1997). `E€ects of leadership style and problem structure on work
group process and outcomes in an electronic meeting system environment', Personnel Psychology, 50,
121±146.
Kalay, E. (1983). The Commander in Stress Situations in IDF Combat Units During the `Peace for Galilee'
Campaign. Paper, Third International Conference on Psychological Stress and Adjustment in Time of
War and Peace, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Katz, R. (1977). `The in¯uence of group con¯ict on leadership e€ectiveness', Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 20, 265±286.
Kirkpatrick, S. A. and Locke, E. A. (1996). `Direct and indirect e€ects of three core charismatic leadership
components on performance and attitudes', Journal of Applied Psychology, 19, 71±75.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at Work, Scott, Foresman and Company, Glenview, IL.
Kram, K. E. and Bragar, M. C. (1991). `Development through mentoring: a strategic approach for the
1990s'. In: Montross, D. H. and Shinkman, C. J. (Eds) Career Development in the 1990s: Theory and
Practice, Charles C. Thomas, Spring®eld, Ill.
Kram, K. E. and Hall, D. T. (1989). `Mentoring as an antidote to stress during corporate trauma', Human
Resource Management, 24, 493±510.
Kugihara, N. and Misumi, J. (1984). `An experimental study of the e€ect of leadership types on followers'
escaping behaviors in a fearful emergency maze-situation', Japanese Journal of Psychology, 55, 214±220.
LaRocco, J. M. and Jones, A. P. (1978). `Co-worker and leader support as moderators of stress±strain
relationships in work situations', Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 629±634.
Laws, J. (1996). `The enormous cost of job stress', Occupational Health & Safety, 65, 4±5.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). `E€ectiveness correlates of transformational
and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review', Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385±425.
Mackey, J. (1996). `The mentoring role: instruction by example'. In: Hendricks, W. (Ed.) Coaching,
Mentoring, and Managing, Career Press, Franklin Lakes, NJ, pp. 127±156.
Manning, M. R., Jackson, C. N. and Fusilier, M. R. (1996). `Occupational stress, social support, and the
costs of health care', Academy of Management Journal, 39, 738±750.
Matteson, M. T. and Ivancevich, J. M. (1982). Managing Job-Stress and Health, Free Press, New York.
McCauley, C. D. (1987). `Stress and the eye of the beholder', Issues & Observations, 7, 1±16.
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The Nature of Managerial Work, Harper & Row, New York.
Morgan, R. B. (1989). `Reliability and validity of a factor analytically derived measure of leadership
behavior and characteristics', Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 911±919.
Motowidlo, S. J., Packard, J. S. and Manning, M. R. (1986). `Occupational stress: its causes and
consequences for job performance', Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 618±629.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W. and Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee±Organizational Linkages: The
Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism and Turnover, Academic Press, New York.
Mulder, M., van Eck, R. and deJong, R. D. (1971). `An organization in crisis and noncrisis situations',
Human Relations, 24, 19±41.
Murray, M. (1991). Beyond the Myths and Magic of Mentoring, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Noe, R. (1988). `An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships',
Personnel Psychology, 41, 457±479.
Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. H. and Granrose, C. S. (1992). `Role stressors, social support, and wellbeing
among two-career couples', Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 339±356.
Parker, D. F. and DeCotiis, T. A. (1983). `Organizational determinants of job stress', Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 160±177.
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)

LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 387
Patterson, C., Fuller, J. B., Kester, K. and Stringer, D. Y. (1995). A Meta-Analytic Examination of
Leadership Style and Selected Compliance Outcomes. (May) Paper presented at the Society for Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.
Podsako€, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Morman, R. H. and Fetter, R. (1990). `Transformational leadership
behaviors and their e€ects on follower's trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship
behaviors', Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107±142.
Ragins, B. R. and Cotton, J. L. (1993). `Gender and willingness to mentor in organizations', Journal of
Management, 19, 97±111.
Sambamurthy, V. and Chin, W. W. (1994). `The e€ects of group attitudes toward alternative GDSS
designs on the decision-making performance of computer-supported groups', Decision Sciences, 25,
215±241.
Sashkin, M. and Rosenbach, W. E. (1993). `A new leadership paradigm'. In: Rosenbach, W. E. and Taylor,
R. L. (Eds) Contemporary Issues in Leadership, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 87±108.
Scandura, T. (1992). `Mentorship and career mobility: an empirical investigation', Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 13, 169±174.
Scandura, T. A. and Schriesheim, C. A. (1994). `Leader±member exchange and supervisor career
mentoring as complementary constructs in leadership research', Academy of Management Journal, 37,
1588±1602.
Schein, E. H. (1978). Career Dynamics: Matching Individual and Organizational Needs, Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA.
Schuler, R. S. (1980). `De®nition and conceptualization of stress in organizations', Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 25, 184±215.
Seltzer, J., Numero€, R. E. and Bass, B. M. (1989). `Transformational leadership: is it a source of more or
less burnout or stress?', Journal of Health and Human Resource Administration, 12, 174±185.
Senge, P. (1996). `Leading learning organizations', Executive Excellence, 13, 10±11.
Shamir, B., House, R. and Arthur, M. (1993). `The motivational e€ects of charismatic leadership: a selfconcept
based theory', Organization Science, 4, 1±17.
Sims, H. and Lorenzi, P. (1992). The New Leadership Paradigm, Sage Publications, Newberry Park, CA.
Smircich, L. and Morgan, G. (1982). `Leadership: the Management of Meaning', Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 18, 257±273.
Sosik, J. J. and Dionne, S. D. (1997). `Leadership styles and Deming's behavior factors', Journal of Business
and Psychology, 11, 447±462.
Sosik, J. J. and Dworakivsky, A. C. (1998) `Self-concept based aspects of the charismatic leader: more than
meets the eye', Leadership Quarterly, 9, 503±526.
Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J. and Kahai, S. S. (1997). `E€ects of leadership style and anonymity on group
potency and e€ectiveness in a group decision support system environment', Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82, 89±103.
Stodgill, R. M. (1963). Manual for the Leader Behavior QuestionnaireÐForm XII, Bureau of Business
Research, Columbus: Ohio State University.
Sullivan, S. E. and Bhagat, R. S. (1992). `Organizational stress, job satisfaction and job performance: where
do we go from here?', Journal of Management, 18, 353±374.
Thibodeaux, H. F. and Lowe, R. H. (1996). `Convergence of leader±member exchange and mentoring: an
investigation of social in¯uence patterns', Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 97±114.
Torrance, E. P. (1983). `Role of mentors in creative achievement', The Creative Child and Adult Quarterly,
8, 8±18.
Viator, R. E. and Scandura, T. (1991). `A study of mentor±prote ge relationships in large public accounting
®rms', Accounting Horizons, 5, 20±30.
Watson, B. M. (1984). `Lawrence, KansasÐbefore and after `the day after'', Public Management, 66,
13±15.
Weber, M. (1947). In: Parsons, T. (Ed.) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, translated by
Henderson A. M., Parsons T, The Free Press, New York.
Wilson, J. A. and Elman, N. S. (1990). `Organizational bene®ts of mentoring', Academy of Management
Executive, 4, 88±93.
Wold, H. (1985). `Systems analysis by Partial Least Squares'. In: Nijkamp, P., Leitner, H. and Wrigley, N.
(Eds) Measuring the Unmeasurable, Martinus Nijho€, Dordrecht, pp. 221±252.
Yammarino, F. J. and Bass, B. M. (1990). `Long-term forecasting of transformational leadership and its
e€ects among Naval ocers: some preliminary ®ndings'. In: Clark, K. E. and Clark, M. R. (Eds)
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)

388 J. J. SOSIK AND V. M. GODSHALK
Measures of Leadership, Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership, Leadership Library of
America, West Orange, NJ.
Yammarino, F. J., Dubinsky, A. J., Comer, L. B. and Jolson, M. A. (1997). `Women and transformational
and contingent reward leadership: a multiple-levels-of-analysis perspective', Academy of Management
Journal, 40, 205±222.
Yukl, G. (1990). Skills for Managers and Leaders, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cli€s, NJ.
Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in Organizations, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cli€s, NJ.
Appendix A
Overview of Partial Least Squares (PLS) analysis
PLS enables analysis of complex nomological networks of constructs, as in the present study,
which would be impossible or dicult in the context of traditional techniques (Falk and Miller,
1992). PLS does not make assumptions about (a) data distributions to estimate model
parameters, (b) observation independence, or (c) variable metrics (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Because of its less restrictive assumptions, PLS is highly suitable for the early stages of theory
building and testing and/or when sample sizes are small (Falk and Miller, 1992; Wold, 1985).
This feature of PLS makes it suitable even over LISREL, another structural modeling technique,
which is suitable for con®rmatory stages of theory building and testing (Falk and Miller, 1992).
PLS simultaneously assess both the structural component, representing the relationship among
constructs, and the measurement component, representing the relationship between constructs
and their measures (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The simultaneous analysis of structural and
measurement components facilitates measurement reliability and validity assessments within the
context of the theoretical model being tested. Thus, in accordance with contemporary philosophy
of science views (Falk and Miller, 1992), PLS acknowledges that psychometric properties of
measures derive their meaning from the nomological network of relationships in which the
measures are employed. In traditional analysis, assessment of the measurements component is
performed separately from the relationship among constructs (e.g., Cronbach's are estimated for
scales of constructs ®rst to assess their reliability and then these scales are used in regression
analysis to examine the relationship among constructs). Results generated by PLS can be
interpreted by considering them in the context of regression and principal components factor
analysis (Bookstein, 1986). PLS generates estimates of standardized regression path coecients,
computes R 2 (i.e., proportion of variance explained) for endogenous constructs, and produces
factor loadings and weights of indicators of constructs. The weights of indicators are the
regression coecients by which the standardized scores of the measures of the construct are
multiplied before being summed up to obtain factor scores for the construct.
(Adapted from Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (1998) Inspiring group creativity. Small
Group Research, 29(1), 3±31. Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications, Inc.)
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)

LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 389
Appendix B
Questionnaire items
Laissez-faire
I am absent when needed.
I delay responding to urgent questions.
Transactional contingent reward
I discuss in speci®c terms who is responsible for achieving performance targets.
I make it clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved.
I express satisfaction when others meet expectations.
Transformational leadership
Inspirational motivation
I talk optimistically about the future.
I talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished.
I articulate a compelling vision of the future.
I express con®dence that goals will be achieved.
Idealized in¯uence
I talk about my most important values and beliefs.
I specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose.
I consider the moral and ethical consequences of decisions.
I emphasize the importance of having a collective sense of mission.
Intellectual stimulation
I re-examine critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate.
I seek di€ering perspectives when solving problems.
I get others to look at problems from many di€erent angles.
I suggest new ways of looking at how to complete assignments.
Individualized consideration
I spend time teaching and coaching.
I treat others as individuals rather than just as a member of a group.
I consider the individual as having di€erent needs, abilities and aspirations from others.
I help others develop their strengths.
Mentoring functions
Psychosocial support
I agree with my mentors' attitudes and values regarding my career.
I respect and admire my mentor.
I will try to be like my mentor when I reach a similar position in my career.
My mentor has demonstrated good listening skills in our conversations.
My mentor has discussed my questions or concerns regarding feelings of competence,
commitment to advancement, relationships with peers and supervisors or work/family
con¯icts.
My mentor has encouraged me to prepare for advancements.
My mentor has encouraged me to talk openly about my anxiety and fears that detracts from
my work.
My mentor has conveyed empathy for the concerns and feelings that I have discussed with
him/her.
My mentor has conveyed feelings of respect for me as an individual.
My mentor has encouraged me to try new ways of behaving in my job.
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)

390 J. J. SOSIK AND V. M. GODSHALK
Career development
Mentor helped you to ®nish assignments/tasks to meet deadlines that otherwise would have
been dicult to complete.
Mentor gave you assignments that increased written and personal contact with upper
management.
Mentor assigned responsibilities to you that have increased your contact with managers who
may judge your potential for future advancement.
Mentor gave you assignments or tasks in your work that prepare you for an advanced
position.
Mentor gave you assignments that present opportunities to learn new skills.
Mentor reduced unnecessary risk that could be a detriment.
Mentor provided you with feedback regarding your performance.
Job stress
Your job makes you upset.
Your job makes you frustrated.
You are under strain on the job.
Your job makes you tense.
The amount of work you have to do interferes with how well it gets done.
Your job places you under a great deal of stress.
Your job makes you jumpy and nervous.
Your job puts you under a lot of pressure.
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)