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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

372 J. J. SOSIK AND V. M. GODSHALK In addition, laissez-faire behavior strives to maintain the status quo through delay, absence, and indi€erence. However, mentoring requires a mentor to actively look for and ®nd opportunities for proteÂ geÂ development (Yukl, 1994), provide both psychosocial and career facilitation support (Noe, 1988), serve as a role model, and spend time developing the proteÂ geÂ (Kram, 1985). Laissez-faire behavior on the part of the mentor is not likely to ful®l these requirements. Thus, we expected a negative relationship between mentor laissez-faire behavior and proteÂ geÂ receipt of mentoring functions. Based on the above discussion, we proposed the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 1a: Mentor transformational leadership behavior will be positively related to proteÂ geÂ receipt of mentoring functions. Hypothesis 1b: Mentor transactional contingent reward leadership behavior will have a lower positive relationship with proteÂ geÂ receipt of mentoring functions than mentor transformational leadership behavior. Hypothesis 1c: Mentor laissez-faire leadership behavior will be negatively related to proteÂ geÂ receipt of mentoring functions. Leadership styles and job-related stress Job-related stress is often a function of an individual's perception of organizational and environmental events and meaning attached to these events (McCauley, 1987; Schuler, 1980). The meaning which individuals associate with these events is often `managed' or in¯uenced by signi®cant others, such as leaders and mentors (Kram and Hall, 1989; Smircich and Morgan, 1982). For example, when a mentor manages the meaning of organizational events for a proteÂ geÂ , he or she in¯uences the manner in which the proteÂ geÂ perceives, interprets, and acts upon jobrelated events (e.g., stressful events). In this role, the mentor engages in numerous leadership behaviors (e.g., motivating, communicating) which provide understanding and reduce uncertainty associated with perceived hostile events. In fact, leadership behavior has been linked to e€ectiveness of individuals dealing with combat conditions (Kalay, 1983), con¯ict (Katz, 1977), role stress (LaRocco and Jones, 1978), panic (Kugihara and Misumi, 1984), and disaster (Watson, 1984). Thus, a proteÂ geÂ 's job-related stress may be in¯uenced by the mentor's leadership style. Laissez-faire style, involving avoidance or absence of leadership, provides no meaning or clari- ®cation of events for followers. Lack of leader communication undermines follower trust in the leader (Bass, 1998; Podsako€ et al., 1990) and may serve to intensify follower fear of the unknown and job-related stress. Given the importance of communication in both mentoring relationships (Murray, 1991) and stress reduction (McCauley, 1987), mentors who fail to communicate may be like laissez-faire leaders in both behavior and in impact of their behavior on proteÂ geÂ s. Thus, we expected that mentor laissez-faire behavior would be positively related to proteÂ geÂ jobrelated stress. Stress may be allayed by reducing uncertainty through e€ective communication (McCauley, 1987), raising ecacy expectations (Bandura, 1986), and developing supportive group relationships (Schuler, 1980). Contingent reward behavior may reduce uncertainty, raise ecacy expectations, and get agreement on what needs to be done by clarifying performance expectations (Sims and Lorenzi, 1992). As such, contingent reward behavior may provide mentors with mechanisms for allaying job-stress experienced by proteÂ geÂ s. Thus, we expected mentor contingent reward leadership to be negatively related to proteÂ geÂ job-related stress. Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)
LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 373 While these transactional methods to allay stress may satisfy immediate satisfaction needs of proteÂ geÂ s, they are unlikely to establish long-term positive e€ectiveness in coping with stress (Bass, 1998). Prior research (e.g., Mulder, van Eck and deJong, 1971; Seltzer, Numero€ and Bass, 1989) suggests that transformational behavior displayed by mentors may provide the most e€ective means to allay proteÂ geÂ job-related stress. For example, Seltzer et al. (1989) found that transformational leadership based on charismatic and individually considerate behaviors was negatively related to follower stress. Transformational leadership arouses team spirit, reframes stressful events into developmental opportunities, and inspires others to perceive dicult situations as meaningful challenges necessary for developing one's professional and personal skills (Shamir et al., 1993). By emphasizing the importance of collective action, transformational leadership evokes higher-order needs (e.g., sense of belonging to a larger entity) and moves followers into a vigilant search for long-term readiness. As such, follower stress may be reduced as `the insecurity of feeling isolated is replaced by the security of a sense of belonging' (Bass, 1998, p. 46). These stress-reducing behaviors parallel acceptance and con®rmation behaviors associated with the psychosocial support function of mentoring (Kram and Hall, 1989). Thus, we expected that mentor transformational leadership behavior would be more negatively related to proteÂ geÂ jobrelated stress than transactional contingent reward behavior. Taken together, the above arguments suggest: Hypothesis 2a: Mentor transformational leadership behavior will be negatively related to proteÂ geÂ job-related stress. Hypothesis 2b: Mentor transactional contingent reward leadership behavior will have a lower negative relationship with proteÂ geÂ job-related stress than mentor transformational leadership behavior. Hypothesis 2c: Mentor laissez-faire behavior will be positively related to proteÂ geÂ job-related stress. Mentoring functions received and job-related stress The relationship between mentoring functions received and proteÂ geÂ job-related stress may be a function of the positive outcomes mentoring functions provide. Mentoring has been positively associated with e€ective socialization of young employees (Schein, 1978), promotions and compensation (Dreher and Ash, 1990), career mobility (Scandura, 1992), career satisfaction (Fagenson, 1989), career commitment (Colarelli and Bishop, 1990), and job satisfaction (Bahniuk et al., 1990); and negatively associated with turnover intentions (Viator and Scandura, 1991). These ®ndings suggest that mentoring may provide the proteÂ geÂ with career development opportunities and career goals. Individuals who perceive low career development opportunities and discrepancies with career goals resulting from a lack of social support experience high levels of job-related stress, while those who receive social support and opportunities for development report lower job-related stress (Parker and DeCotiis, 1983). In addition, prior research cited above suggests that individuals who participate in mentoring relationships exhibit positive/functional organizational attitudes and behaviors. For example, Mowday, Porter and Steers (1982) argued that individuals a€ectively respond to aspects of the work environment and these reactions in¯uence their attitudes towards their jobs. Job-related stress may cause individuals to deviate from normal functioning (Jamal, 1990). Mentoring appears to help individuals cope with job-related stress by providing both career development and psychosocial assistance and, therefore, may allow these 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 7: LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 37
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?