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

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)