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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 proteÂ geÂ receipt of mentoring functions. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was fully supported. Hypothesis 2a also was supported. Mentor transformational leadership behavior was negatively related to proteÂ geÂ 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 proteÂ geÂ job related stress. Hypothesis 3 was supported. ProteÂ geÂ receipt of mentoring functions was negatively associated with proteÂ geÂ job-related stress. Hypothesis 4 also was supported. Mentor transformational leadership behavior was more negatively related to proteÂ geÂ 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, proteÂ geÂ job tenure (path coecient ˆ 0.10, t(8) ˆ 25.08), proteÂ geÂ job level (path coecient ˆ 0.17, t(8) ˆ 49.31), and proteÂ geÂ education level (path coecient ˆ 0.14, t(8) ˆ 41.4) were each positively related to proteÂ geÂ job-related stress. Male mentors were associated with more proteÂ geÂ 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 proteÂ geÂ perceptions of both mentoring functions received and job related stress. Speci®cally, ®ndings revealed that mentor transformational leadership was associated with increased proteÂ geÂ receipt of mentoring functions and reduced proteÂ geÂ job-related stress. While mentor transactional contingent reward leadership also was found to be associated with increased proteÂ geÂ receipt of mentoring functions, the association was not as strong as that of transformational leadership and proteÂ geÂ receipt of mentoring functions. In addition, mentor laissez-faire leadership was found to be negatively related to proteÂ geÂ 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 proteÂ geÂ 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 proteÂ geÂ 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 proteÂ geÂ 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)
Page 1 and 2: Journal of Organizational Behavior
Page 3 and 4: LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 36
Page 15: 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?