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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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: ProteÂ geÂ receipt of mentoring functions will be negatively related to proteÂ 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 proteÂ geÂ 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 proteÂ geÂ job-related stress via transformational behavior will be moderated by proteÂ geÂ receipt of mentoring functions. In essence, when mentoring functions received are high, the negative impact of mentor transformational behavior on proteÂ geÂ job-related stress is stronger. Conversely, when mentoring functions received are low, the negative impact of mentor transformational behavior on proteÂ 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 proteÂ geÂ 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 proteÂ geÂ 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 proteÂ geÂ s (Scandura and Schriescheim, 1994). Such behavior is not likely to develop proteÂ geÂ 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: ProteÂ geÂ receipt of mentoring functions will moderate the negative relationship between mentor transformational leadership behavior and proteÂ geÂ job-related stress. Speci®cally, mentor transformational leadership behavior will be more negatively related to proteÂ geÂ job-related stress when proteÂ geÂ 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 proteÂgeÂ 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 proteÂ geÂ 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 proteÂ geÂ '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 proteÂ geÂ 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)
Page 1 and 2: Journal of Organizational Behavior
Page 3 and 4: LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 36
Page 9: LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 37
Page 15 and 16: Table 3. Factor loadings, composite

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?