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

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)