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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

370 J. J. SOSIK AND V. M. GODSHALK convert leaders into moral agents' (Burns, 1978, p. 4). Bass and Avolio (1994) identi®ed four behaviors associated with transformational leaders: individualized considerationÐgiving personal attention to followers to promote their development and achievement; intellectual stimulationÐ enabling followers to think of old problems in new ways; inspirational motivationÐcommunicating high performance expectations through the projection of a powerful, con®dent, dynamic presence; and idealized in¯uenceÐdisplaying role model behaviors for followers through exemplary personal achievements, character, and/or behavior. The FRL model of leadership was chosen, as opposed to other leadership models, to link leadership style to mentoring functions received and job-related stress for several reasons. First, the FRL model leadership styles subsume speci®c leader behaviors found in Yukl's (1990) taxonomy of leader behaviors. Second, while other leadership models depict two-dimensional models of leadership behavior, such as directive versus participative (House, 1996) or task versus relations-oriented (Fiedler, 1967), the FRL model covers leadership styles which may subsume prior models of leader behavior. For example, Bass (1998) argued that transformational and transactional leadership can be either directive or participative. Thus, by considering transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership, the FRL model provides a rich array of leader behaviors that other leadership models may lack. Third, the FRL model has been widely researched in a variety of evaluative investigations (see Bass, 1998 for a comprehensive review). Fourth, the FRL model describes speci®c behaviors which may facilitate mentor training in terms of transactional and transformational relationships and their impacts on proteÂ geÂ s. Hypotheses Leadership styles and mentoring functions received Scandura and Schriesheim (1994) argued that transformational leadership is consistent with requirements for e€ective mentoring. Mentor transformational leadership behavior may be more congruent with proteÂ geÂ receipt of mentoring functions than transactional or laissez-faire leadership styles for several reasons. First, transformational leadership builds follower trust (Podsako€ et al., 1990). By exhibiting idealized in¯uence, transformational leaders may be viewed by their followers as a trustworthy symbol of success and accomplishment. These idealized in¯uence behaviors are similar to role modelling behaviors identi®ed by Noe (1988) as being associated with the psychosocial support function of mentoring. Perceived as trustworthy, respected and admirable role models, mentors who exhibit idealized in¯uence may enhance their proteÂ geÂ 's ability to undertake calculated risks to advance their careers. Second, transformational leadership involves (a) spending time teaching and coaching others, (b) treating others as individuals with unique needs, abilities and aspirations, (c) helping others develop strengths, and (d) listening attentively to concerns of others (Bass and Avolio, 1994). These individually considerate behaviors are likely to facilitate counselling and individualized coaching of proteÂ geÂ s, identi®ed by Noe (1988) as important aspects of mentoring. Third, transformational leadership encourages others to reformulate assumptions through considering the absurd, fantasizing, and focusing on the context rather than the task (Bass and Avolio, 1994). These methods of intellectual stimulation are useful in fostering proteÂ geÂ creativity and developing proteÂ geÂ cognitive abilities (Torrance, 1983). In addition, intellectual stimulation develops analytical skills through reexamining assumptions, seeking di€erent perspectives, Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)
LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 371 suggesting new ways of performing tasks, and rethinking what has never been questioned before. According to Torrance (1983), these e€ects also may foster proteÂ geÂ intellectual development. Fourth, in their e€orts to motivate others, transformational leaders articulate inspirational long-term visions which attach meaning and importance to human development. By linking the signi®cance of human development (e.g., developing new skills and higher levels of creative thinking, trust, and responsibility) to the successful attainment of the broader organizational mission, these leaders enhance others' belief that they can be e€ective contributors to a high achieving organization (Shamir et al., 1993). These inspirationally motivating behaviors are similar to ecacy and con®dence building behaviors required by mentors (Kram, 1985). On the basis of these arguments, we expected a strong positive relationship between mentor transformational leadership behavior and proteÂ geÂ receipt of mentoring functions. Mentor transactional contingent reward leadership behavior also may be associated with proteÂ geÂ receipt of mentoring functions. When a leader sets goals, clari®es outcomes and exchanges rewards and recognition for follower accomplishments, followers generally achieve expected performance (Bass, 1985). A contingent reward leader may lay the foundation for follower development by clarifying desired developmental outcomes, discussing in speci®c terms learning objectives which outline what must be accomplished, and rewarding the follower when she/he identi®es and participates in developmental activities. Similarly, a mentoring relationship, in which contingent reward behavior is displayed by the mentor, is based upon the assumption that by clarifying what the mentor expects and then rewarding the proteÂ geÂ for developmental behavior, the mentor directs the proteÂ geÂ to the desired developmental outcome. In fact, Thibodeaux and Lowe (1996) found mentored individuals to report greater supervisory use of rewards than nonmentored individuals. In addition, proteÂ geÂ trust may be enhanced to the extent that the mentor (a) negotiates, agrees, exchanges, and bargains with the proteÂ geÂ by establishing a `learning contract'; (b) communicates a clear understanding to the proteÂ geÂ about what the mentor and proteÂ geÂ will do for one another in order to adhere to the learning contract; and (c) rewards developmental behavior. These behaviors parallel contingent reward leadership and are characteristic of what Covey (1997) and Podsako€ et al. (1990) describe as behaviors that promote trustÐa key aspect of e€ective mentor±proteÂ geÂ relationships (Murray, 1991; Yukl, 1994). E€ective mentoring provides career development and psychosocial support for the proteÂ geÂ (Kram, 1985). Given that contingent reward behavior involves goal setting (Bass, 1985) and setting career goals promotes career development (Kram, 1985), mentors who display contingent reward behavior may provide career development to proteÂ geÂ s by setting career goals. Since contingent reward behavior is generally associated with increased job satisfaction (Sims and Lorenzi, 1992) and job satisfaction is associated with receiving psychosocial support (Bahniuk, Dobos and Hill, 1990; Parasuraman, Greenhaus and Granrose, 1992), mentors who display contingent reward behaviors may provide psychosocial support for proteÂ geÂ s by increasing proteÂ geÂ job satisfaction. However, contingent reward behavior focuses on getting the task done and is less likely to be associated with stimulating greater development of others than transformational behavior (Bass, 1998). Contingent reward behavior attends less to relational aspects of interactions and more to de®ning the task and level of expected performance. Given the importance of relational aspects in mentor±proteÂ geÂ relationships (Kram and Bragar, 1991) and the task orientation of contingent reward behavior, we expected mentor contingent reward behavior to be less positively associated with proteÂ geÂ receipt of mentoring functions than transformational behavior. Mentor laissez-faire behavior may be totally inconsistent with proteÂ geÂ receipt of mentoring functions. Laissez-faire leadership results in less concentration on work, poor quality of work, and low levels of productivity, cohesiveness and satisfaction (Bass, 1990). Applied to mentoring relationships, these e€ects may be detrimental to the skill and career development of the proteÂ geÂ . 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 5: LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 36
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?