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 Unpublished doctoral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