the relationship between career motivation and self-efficacy with protégé career success

Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 72–91

www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

The relationship between career motivationand self-efficacy with prot�eeg�ee career success

Rachel Day and Tammy D. Allen*

Department of Psychology, The University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue,

PCD4118G, Tampa, FL 33620-7200, USA

Received 15 May 2002

Abstract

Research exploring the underlying processes involved in successful mentorships has been

lacking. In the present study, the roles of career motivation and career self-efficacy as explan-

atory factors were examined. Career motivation mediated the relationship between career

mentoring and performance effectiveness. Contrary to prediction, only marginal support

was received for career self-efficacy as a mediator between mentoring and indicators of career

success. This research is unique in that it was the first to reveal linkages between mentoring,

career self-efficacy, career motivation and prot�eeg�ee career success. Theoretical and practical

implications of results are discussed.

� 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

Keywords: Mentor; Prot�eeg�ee; Career motivation; Career self-efficacy; Career success

1. Introduction

Mentoring relationships continue to be a topic of research interest—and for good

reason. Research has found that those who are mentored experience considerable

benefits such as higher salaries and promotions (Dreher & Ash, 1990; Roche,

1979; Scandura, 1992; Whitely & Coetsier, 1993) and perceive more satisfaction, ca-

reer mobility, and recognition than those who are not mentored (Fagenson, 1989).

Until now, there has been a gap in the literature examining why mentoring results

* Corresponding author. Fax: 1-813-974-4617.

E-mail address: [email protected] (T.D. Allen).

0001-8791/$ - see front matter � 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00036-8

mail to: [email protected]

R. Day, T.D. Allen / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 72–91 73

in these positive career outcomes. The objective of the present study is to begin to

bridge this gap by examining both career motivation (CM) and self-efficacy as me-

diators of the relationship between mentoring and measures of career success.

1.1. Mentoring

A mentor is generally defined as an experienced employee who serves as a role

model and provides support and direction to a prot�eeg�ee. Mentors provide feedback

regarding career plans and interpersonal development and are committed to helping

the prot�eeg�ee succeed in the adult working world (Kram, 1985). According to Kram

(1985), mentors provide two broad categories of mentoring functions. Career func-

tions include sponsorship, coaching, exposure/visibility, protection and the provision

of challenging assignments. Psychosocial functions relate more to the interpersonalaspect of the relationship and include role modeling, counseling, friendship and ac-

ceptance (Kram, 1985). Studies exploring the dimensionality of mentoring have sup-

ported the existence of these two main mentoring functions (e.g., Noe, 1988).

1.2. Career motivation

It seems possible that CM is one factor that can help explain the benefits prot�eeg�eesrealize from mentoring relationships. CM is theorized as being comprised of threecomponents: career resilience, career insight, and career identity (London, 1983). Ca-

reer resilience is the ability to adapt to changing circumstances, even when circum-

stances are discouraging or disruptive. It consists of characteristics such as belief

in self, willingness to take risks, and need for achievement. Career insight is the abil-

ity to be realistic about one�s career and consists of establishing clear, feasible career

goals and realizing one�s strengths and weaknesses. Career identity is the extent that

one defines oneself by one�s work. It is associated with job, organizational, and pro-

fessional involvement, need for advancement, and recognition.In the literature, the term career commitment is often used interchangeably with

CM (Carson & Bedeian, 1994). Colarelli and Bishop (1990) examined personal and

situational correlates of career commitment and found that of the variables inves-

tigated, having a mentor was the most robust correlate. It was suggested that

mentoring increases career commitment by three means. First, mentoring facilitates

self-directedness, career involvement, career success, and positive attitudes toward

the prot�eeg�ee�s career. Second, the mentor may demonstrate the rewards that can

be attained if an individual sticks with a career. Finally, mentoring helps the devel-opment of career commitment because both the mentoring relationship and career

commitment revolve around the needs and ambitions of individuals (Colarelli &

Bishop, 1990).

London and colleagues (London, 1990; London & Bray, 1984; London & Mone,

1987) have made several suggestions as to how to develop, support and enhance CM.

To promote CM employees should be provided with positive reinforcement for good

performance, given opportunities for achievement and input, and receive support for

skill development (London & Bray, 1984). CM can also be enhanced through career

74 R. Day, T.D. Allen / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 72–91

development support. This can be achieved by encouraging employees to think

about the long-term effects of their current work behavior and to develop career

plans. Information about career options should be provided and realistic expecta-

tions cultivated. Goal setting should be encouraged and fair and accurate feedback

provided. Finally, to heighten CM, work involvement should be emphasized by pro-viding job challenges, and by encouraging professional activities and opportunities

for leadership and advancement (London & Mone, 1987). Supporting these sugges-

tions, Noe, Noe, and Bachhuber (1990) found individuals were more likely to have

high levels of CM when their manager was supportive, provided clear performance

feedback, encouraged subordinates to set career goals, initiated discussions related to

development and career-related issues and made the job challenging. That is, man-

ager mentor-like behaviors were associated with higher levels of CM among subor-

dinates. In sum, the existing literature suggests a relationship between mentoring andcareer motivation.

Hypothesis 1. Mentored individuals will have a higher level of CM than those who

have not been mentored.

Hypothesis 2a. Among those who are mentored, there will be a positive relationship

between psychosocial mentoring and career motivation.

Hypothesis 2b. Among those who are mentored, there will be a positive relationship

between career mentoring and CM.

We suggest that CM plays a part in the relationship between mentoring and indi-

cators of career success. It seems likely that mentoring relates to prot�eeg�ee CM, which

in turn relates to prot�eeg�ee career success. For example, London (1983) stated that one

aspect of CM is the desire for upward mobility. He suggested individuals would es-

tablish career paths to further their advancement possibilities, request to be consid-ered for promotions, volunteer for important assignments, request and assume

leadership roles, and request salary increases. London also suggested that those high

in CM might have greater career advancement opportunities since they work harder

on projects that affect their career. CM behaviors have been theorized to predict pro-

motions and salaries, yet only one empirical study to date has shown CM to be as-

sociated with promotions (Jones & Whitmore, 1995). We extend this line of research

in the present study by relating CM with both objective and subjective indicators of

career success.Past studies have primarily used objective measures such as employee income,

promotion rate and job title to define career success (Dreher & Ash, 1990; Orpen,

1995; Scandura, 1992; Whitely, Dougherty, & Dreher, 1991). However, solely using

objective criteria to determine success may neglect important information. For ex-

ample, Korman, Wittig-Berman, and Lang (1981) found that managers, who ap-

peared successful by reason of position and income, did not feel successful or

proud of their accomplishments. It is important to explore individuals� appraisalof their own success because these perceptions are likely to impact their career


development (Gattiker & Larwood, 1986; Hall & Mirvis, 1995). Thus, research has

suggested that objective approaches be used in conjunction with subjective criteria

for a more complete assessment of career success (Gattiker & Larwood, 1986;

Judge, Cable, Boudreau, & Bretz, 1995; Turban & Dougherty, 1994).

Hypothesis 3. Career motivation will positively relate to objective and subjective

career success.

Hypothesis 4a. Career motivation will mediate the relationship between career

mentoring and career success.

Hypothesis 4b. Career motivation will mediate the relationship between psychoso-

cial mentoring and career success.

2. Self-esteem and self-efficacy

Mentoring theory suggests that through psychosocial support, a mentor helps de-

velop the prot�eeg�ee�s sense of competence, confidence and self-esteem (Kram, 1983).

This proposition was supported in a study exploring antecedents and consequences

of mentoring among health-care professionals (Koberg, Boss, & Goodman, 1998).The authors found that those who received more mentoring reported higher levels

of self-esteem than those who reported less mentoring. However, Koberg et al. did

not assess differences in self-esteem between prot�eeg�ees and nonprot�eeg�ees. Seibert�s(1999) longitudinal quasi-experiment addresses this issue. The effectiveness of a facil-

itated formal mentoring program in a Fortune 100 corporation was examined over a

one-year period. Similar to Koberg et al., Seibert found that prot�eeg�ees who received

more psychosocial mentoring reported higher levels of self-esteem than those who

received less psychosocial mentoring; however the effect of psychosocial mentoringon self-esteem was not enough to produce significant differences between mentored

and nonmentored groups. The author concluded that the effectiveness of mentoring

programs may not as great as commonly assumed.

In this study, it is proposed that self-efficacy, rather than self-esteem, relates to

mentoring. The two constructs, although distinct, do correlate considerably, as high

as r ¼ :75 (Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2000; Eden & Aviram, 1993). One possible reason

for Seibert�s (1999) unanticipated finding is that self-esteem is recognized as a traitthat may have short-term fluctuations but generally demonstrates long-term stabilityand hence would not be greatly affected by mentoring (Costa & McCrae, 1994). Self-

efficacy on the other hand, defined as one�s judgments of ‘‘how well one can execute

courses of action required to deal with prospective situations’’ (Bandura, 1982,

p. 122), is more malleable. According to the social cognitive view, self-efficacy

is not a static trait, it is dynamic, directly changeable, and is linked to particular

performance domains (Bandura, 1986; VanVianen, 1999).

Self-efficacy beliefs are usually determined and modified by four informational

sources: performance attainment (personal accomplishments), vicarious experience(modeling), verbal persuasion, and physiological states and reactions (VanVianen,


1999). Two of these sources are especially important to the mentoring relationship.

Vicarious experience, or observing similar others succeed or fail at a particular activ-

ity effects self-efficacy (VanVianen, 1999). Role modeling provided by a mentor

should provide this vicarious experience for the prot�eeg�ee. Secondly, verbal persuasion(telling the prot�eeg�ee that he/she possessed capabilities) should also contribute to self-efficacy. A mentor being more accomplished, experienced and often influential seems

to be an ideal source for increasing a prot�eeg�ee�s self-efficacy since credibility and ex-

pertness of the source are important factors that affect the success of the persuasion

(Bandura, 1986).

Following consideration of the relevant literature, it is reasonable to assume that

mentoring relates to prot�eeg�ee self-efficacy. Mentoring theory suggests that mentors

provide guidance, role modeling and acceptance to their prot�eeg�ees, which relates to

their sense of competence and self worth (Kram, 1985). Another aspect of mentoringis assigning challenging tasks to the prot�eeg�ee. This may generate perceptions in the

prot�eeg�ee that he/she is capable and competent to perform those tasks, which should

in turn relate to self-efficacy.

Generalized self-efficacy ‘‘represents individuals� perception of their ability to per-

form across a variety of situations’’ (Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998, p. 170). Conversely,

task specific self-efficacy relates more to the task at hand, and is considered more eas-

ily alterable than generalized self-efficacy. In this study, career self-efficacy, a con-

text-specific form of self-efficacy, was examined. Career self-efficacy is the degreethat one believes that he or she is capable of successfully managing one�s career (Kos-

sek, Roberts, Fisher, & Demarr, 1998). Accordingly, the following relationships were

expected between mentoring and career self-efficacy:

Hypothesis 5. Mentored individuals will report higher levels of career self-efficacy

than will nonmentored individuals.

Hypothesis 6a. Among those who are mentored, there will be a positive relationshipbetween psychosocial mentoring and career self-efficacy.

Hypothesis 6b. Among those who are mentored, there will be a positive relationship

between career mentoring and career self-efficacy.

Several studies have concluded that self-efficacy is related to task effort and per-

formance, persistence, resilience in the face of failure, effective problem solving and

self-control (Bandura, 1986; Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Hysong & Quinones, 1997; Prus-sia, Anderson, & Manz, 1998; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Although no known stud-

ies have specifically tested self-efficacy�s relationship to subjective career success,

promotions or salary, it is conceivable that individuals �high� in self-efficacy would

surpass less efficacious individuals regarding these indicators of success. In the pres-

ent study, it was posited that self-efficacy relates to salary, promotions, subjective

career success and performance effectiveness.

Studies examining self-efficacy have found it mediates the relation between self-

leadership strategies and performance (Prussia et al., 1998). In addition, self-efficacy


has been found to mediate the relationship between performance attainment, phys-

iological arousal and verbal persuasion and ambition for a managerial position

(VanVianen, 1999). In the present study, it is suggested that self-efficacy mediates

the relationship between mentoring and career success.

Hypothesis 7. Self-efficacy will positively relate to prot�eeg�ee career success.

Hypothesis 8a. Self-efficacy will mediate the relationship between career mentoring

and career success.

Hypothesis 8b. Self-efficacy will mediate the relationship between psychosocial

mentoring and career success.

3. Method

3.1. Participants and procedure

The participants were 125 employees from a southeastern municipality. The ma-

jority were Caucasian (86.4%, n ¼ 108) and approximately half were female (53.6%,

n ¼ 67). Most participants (67.2%, n ¼ 84) had attained at least a bachelors degree.Mean organizational tenure was 10.6 (SD ¼ 8:7) years and average job tenure was

4.9 (SD ¼ 6:2) years. Participants were obtained from a group labeled �SAMP Em-

ployees� (Supervisory, Administrative, Managerial, and Professional). They worked

in various departments including, accounting, customer service, economic develop-

ment, fire, gas, human resources, information technology, library, parks and recrea-

tion, planning and development, police, public works and solid wastes.

Questionnaires were distributed via email to all 320 SAMP employees. Partici-

pants were told that the survey was part of a career development research projectbeing conducted by researchers at a local university and that responses would be

kept confidential. The participants returned the surveys via email to a human re-

sources assistant within the organization who was unaware of the study�s purpose.The surveys, which contained no identifying information, were printed and

given to the researchers. One reminder message was sent to encourage participants

to complete and return the survey. A total of 125 were completed for a response rate

of 39%.

3.2. Measures

Prot�eeg�ee status. Participants responded �yes� or �no� to the following question:

‘‘Over the course of your career, have you had a mentor? A mentor is an experienced

employee who serves as a role model, provides support, direction and feedback re-

garding career plans and interpersonal development. A mentor is also someone

who is in a position of power, who looks out for you, gives you advice and/or brings

your accomplishments to the attention of people who have power in the company.’’


This definition was based on past research (e.g., Fagenson, 1992). Those without

prot�eeg�ee experience were coded ‘‘1’’ and prot�eeg�ees were coded ‘‘2.’’ Almost half of

the sample (48%, n ¼ 61) indicated that they have had or have a mentor. Of those,

26.2% (n ¼ 16) reported that the relationship was current. The average number of

mentors reported over the span of the participant�s career was 2.3 (SD ¼ 1:9).Mentorship type. To assess whether the mentorship developed formally or infor-

mally, a recognized description (Ragins & Cotton, 1999) was used: ‘‘In order to

assist individuals in their development and advancement, some organizations have

established formal mentoring programs, where prot�eeg�ees and mentors are linked in

some way. This may be accomplished by assigning mentors or by just providing

formal opportunities aimed at developing the relationship. To recap, formal men-

toring programs are developed with organizational assistance. Informal mentoring

relationships are developed spontaneously, without organizational assistance.’’Only 8.2% ðn ¼ 5Þ reported their mentorships had been formally initiated. Almost

half (46.6%, n ¼ 27) had mentors who were employees at their current organiza-

tion. Most (96.7%) prot�eeg�ees indicated their mentor had also been their supervisor

at one point during their career, and 64.4 percent of mentors were male. The av-

erage amount of time spent with the mentor each month was 34.8 hours

(SD ¼ 43:6).Mentoring functions. Participants who indicated they had been mentored an-

swered questions assessing mentoring functions. If respondents had more than onementor, they were instructed to respond pertaining to their most influential mentor.

Mentoring functions were measured with Noe�s (1988) 21-item scale. The measure

includes seven career function items (e.g., ‘‘My mentor gave me assignments that

presented opportunities to learn new skills.’’) and 14 psychosocial items (e.g., ‘‘I

try to imitate the work behavior of my mentor.’’). This scale has been used in previ-

ous research (e.g., Allen, McManus, & Russell, 1999; Chao, 1997; Koberg et al.,

1998; Seibert, 1999) with reliabilities ranging from .79 to .93 for career mentoring

and .84 to .94 for psychosocial mentoring. In the current study, reliability estimatesfor the career and psychosocial mentoring scales as indicated by coefficient a were

.87 and .84, respectively. Noe provided initial factor analytic support for the two-

factor structure. Additional support for the construct validity of the measure has

been provided by Chao (1997) who found some evidence that mentor behaviors

varied along with phases of the mentorship as expected.

Career motivation. Items were combined from the CM measure developed by Noe

et al. (1990) and London (1993) to best represent the construct defined in London�s(1983) theory of career motivation. London�s (1993) 17-item CM instrument empha-sizes feelings and attitudes related to work and career. A sample item is: �I can ade-

quately handle work problems that come my way.� Noe et al.�s (1990) 27-item CM

measures focuses on behaviors. A sample item is: �To what extent do you spend your

free time on activities that will help your job?� Reasonably high convergent validity

has been found between London�s (1993) and Noe et al.�s (1990) scales suggesting

that the two measure the same construct (London & Noe, 1997). In order to inves-

tigate both attitudes and behaviors of CM the two scales were combined and mod-

ified in this study. In addition, two items were added to the career identity


component of the scale to further reflect the �desire for upward mobility subdomain�as found in London�s (1983) theory. The revised scale was sent to Manuel London

as a content expert, who reviewed the items for appropriateness. The result was a

21-item measure assessing both CM attitudes and behaviors, which is shown in

Appendix A. Content adequacy of the revised measure was supported by a pilotstudy (results are available from the lead author). Since the purpose of our study

was examine the relation between CM as a whole with our other variables of interest,

we averaged the responses across the 21 items to form a composite measure of CM.

This approach has been endorsed by other researchers (Wolf, London, Casey, & Pu-

faul, 1995). However, exploratory analyses examining the three dimensions of CM

and their relations with the study variables can be obtained from the first author. Co-

efficient a for this scale was .84.

Career self-efficacy. Career self-efficacy was assessed using Kossek et al.�s (1998)11-item measure. This scale reflects the belief that one is able to perform well at

managing one�s career. A sample item is, �When I make plans for my career, I am

confident that I can make them work�. Responses were indicated on a 5-point Lik-

ert-type scale, with higher scores indicating higher levels of self-efficacy. Coefficient

a was .81.

Subjective career success. Subjective career success was assessed using Turban and

Dougherty�s (1994) 4-item measure (e.g., �Compared to my coworkers, my career has

been very successful�). Responses were indicated on a 5-point Likert scale rangingfrom (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. Higher scores indicated a greater de-

gree of subjective career success. Answers were averaged to produce a total career

satisfaction score. Coefficient a reported by Turban and Dougherty (1994) was

.87. An a of .83 was obtained in the current study.

Performance effectiveness. Performance effectiveness was measured with Williams

and Anderson�s (1991) 7-item, in-role behavior scale (e.g., ‘‘Meeting formal perfor-

mance requirements of my job.’’). A five-point scale was used with responses ranging

from ineffective (1) to highly effective (5). Higher scores indicated better perfor-mance. Williams and Anderson (1991) reported a coefficient a of .91 and Allen

and Rush (1998) reported an estimate of .95. In the present study coefficient awas .90.

Objective career success. Salary and promotion information was obtained through

participant self-report. Participants reported the number of promotions they had re-

ceived. The following definition of promotions was adapted from Whitely et al.

(1991): �significant increases in annual salary, significant increases in scope of respon-

sibility, changes in job level or rank, or eligibility for bonuses, incentive, stock plans,etc.� Participants also reported their current annual salary.

Demographics. Participants answered questions regarding age, race, and gender.

Control variables. Like previous research examining mentoring and career success,

several variables were considered as potential controls (Ragins & Cotton, 1999; Scan-

dura, 1992). The variables considered included: number of mentors, mentor gender,

mentor as supervisor, mentor as employee at prot�eeg�ee�s current organization, hoursspent with mentor per month, participant age, race, gender, organizational tenure,

job tenure, and education. Similar to the procedure used by Ragins and Cotton,


because of the large number of control variables that warranted consideration and the

desire to preserve power, only covariates that demonstrated significant correlations

with the dependent variables and low intercorrelations were entered into the regres-

sion equations. In addition, a series of regression analyses were conducted of control

variable by independent variable interactions on each dependent variable to testhomogeneity of regression assumptions imperative to covariance analyses. Based

on these criteria, mentor gender, participant age, participant gender and education

were selected as covariates for analyses including current salary. Organizational

tenure was included in analyses involving number of promotions.

4. Results

Correlations, means, and standard deviations are displayed in Table 1. Hypothe-

ses 1 and 5 were tested by independent sample t tests. Hypothesis 1 suggested men-

tored individuals (M ¼ 4:24, SD ¼ 0:37) would report higher levels of CM than

nonmentored individuals (M ¼ 4:02, SD ¼ 0:40). The test was significant, providing

support for Hypothesis 1, (tð123Þ ¼ 3:16, p < :01). Hypothesis 5 proposed that men-

tored individuals (M ¼ 4:27, SD ¼ 0:39) would report higher levels of self-efficacy

than nonmentored individuals (M ¼ 4:15, SD ¼ 0:46). The test was not significant

(tð122Þ ¼ 1:48, ns). Thus, no support was found for Hypothesis 5.Hypotheses 2a, 2b, 3, 6a, 6b, and 7 were tested with zero-order correlations. Hy-

pothesis 2a suggested a positive relationship between psychosocial mentoring and

CM. The result was significant indicating that as psychosocial mentoring increased,

so did career motivation, (r ¼ :31, p < :05). Hypothesis 2b proposed a positive rela-

tionship between career mentoring and CM. The results indicated that career men-

toring significantly related to CM, (r ¼ :28, p < :05). Thus, Hypotheses 2a and 2b

were supported.

Hypothesis 3 posited that CM would relate positively to objective (salary, promo-tions, performance) and subjective indicators of career success. The results indicated

significant relationships between CM and current salary (r ¼ :46, p < :001), subjec-tive career success (r ¼ :39, p < :001), and performance effectiveness (r ¼ :42,p < :001). CM was not related to promotions (r ¼ :14, ns). Thus, Hypothesis 3

was partially supported.

Hypothesis 6a proposed a positive relationship between psychosocial mentoring

and self-efficacy. The correlation between self-efficacy and psychosocial mentoring

approached, but did not reach significance, (r ¼ :24, p ¼ :06). Thus, Hypothesis 6awas not supported. Hypothesis 6b predicted a positive relationship between career

mentoring and self-efficacy. A significant correlation (r ¼ :29, p < :05) was obtained,providing support for Hypothesis 6b.

Hypothesis 7 posited that self-efficacy would relate positively to prot�eeg�ee career

success. The results supported significant relationships between self-efficacy and cur-

rent salary (r ¼ :30, p < :001), career success (r ¼ :42, p < :001), and performance

effectiveness (r ¼ :40, p < :001). Self-efficacy was not related to promotions. Thus,

Hypothesis 7 received partial support.

Table

1

Means,standard

deviations,andinterrelations

Variable

MSD

12

34

56

78

9

1.Prot� eeg�eestatus

1.49

0.50

—

2.Number

ofmentors

2.30

1.88

——

3.Gender

ofmentor

1.36

0.48

—).17

—

4.Mentorassupervisor

1.81

0.39

—).01

).01

—

5.Mentorem

ployee

atorg

1.47

0.50

—).02

).17

.36��

—

6.Hours

spentw/m

entor

34.82

43.60

—.18

.07

.18

).20

—

7.Participantage

3.91

0.97

.12

.11

).31�

).03

.02

.02

—

8.Participantrace

1.12

0.033

.08

).02

).02

).04

).11

.02

).20�

—

9.Participantgender

1.54

0.50

).08

).19

.52��

.05

).04

.08

).24��

.04

—

10.Org

tenure

10.58

8.66

).14

.40��

).11

.10

.28�

).04

.33��

).26��

).13

11.Jobtenure

4.89

6.18

).12

.03

).06

.19

.01

.29�

.31��

).12

).01

12.Education

3.28

1.27

.25��

).16

.04

).32�

).09

).37��

).03

.19�

).13

13.Currentsalary

$47,876

$16,351

.24��

).07

).31�

).09

).25

).22

.22�

.04

).47��

14.Number

ofpromotions

1.95

1.83

.26��

.24

).09

).07

.17

).07

.12

).07

).11

15.Career

mentoring

3.97

0.82

—).05

).01

.44��

.02

).01

).11

.07

).17

16.Psychosocialmentoring

4.17

0.53

—).15

.18

.18

).09

).04

).29�

.12

).09

17.Career

motivation

4.13

0.40

.27��

.13

).16

.09

).07

).08

.03

.12

).26��

18.Self-effi

cacy

4.21

0.43

.13

).05

).23

.07

).05

).08

.04

.13

).04

19.Career

success

3.66

0.76

.12

.15

).07

).17

).18

).12

).10

).06

).13

20.Perform

ance

effective.

4.42

0.49

.13

.01

).03

).02

).18

).06

).08

).03

.08


Table

1(continued)

Variable

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

1.Prot� eeg� ee

status

2.Number

ofmentors

3.Gender

ofmentor

4.Mentorassupervisor

5.Mentorem

ployee

atorg.

6.Hours

spentw/m

entor

7.Participantage

8.Participantrace

9.Participantgender

10.Org

tenure

—

11.Jobtenure

.49��

—

12.Education

).19�

).08

—

13.Currentsalary

.15

.16

.36��

—

14.Number

ofpromotions

.48��

.02

).13

.09

—

15.Career

mentoring

).18

.15

).09

).01

).09

—

16.Psychosocialmentoring

).32�

).05

.05

).06

).24

.63��

—

17.Career

motivation

.15

.13

.34��

.46��

.14

.28�

.31�

18.Self-effi

cacy

.00

.02

.10

.30��

.09

29�

.24

.58��

—

19.Career

success

.00

).04

.09

.45��

.17

.07

.07

.39��

.42��

20.Perform

ance

effective.

.04

.06

.10

.11

.12

.28�

.23

.41��

.40��

.34��

—

N�sformentoringvariablesrangefrom

56to

61.N�sforallother

variablesrangefrom

116to

125.

Prot� eeg� ee

status:1,nonprot� eeg� ee,2,prot� eeg� ee.

Mentorem

ployed

atprot� eeg� ee�sorganization:1,¼

no,2,yes.

Age:

7-pointscale

rangingfrom

�under

20years.�to

�over

70years.�

Gender:1¼

male,2¼

female.Mentorassupervisor:1,no;2,yes.

Hours

spentw/m

entor:per

month

Race:1¼

non-m

inority,2¼minority.

Education:6pointordinalscale

rangingfrom

highschoolto

doctoraldegree.

*p<

:05.

**p<

:01.



4.1. Mediation analyses

Hypotheses 4a,4b,8a and 8b were tested using hierarchical regression. Baron and

Kenny�s (1986) conditions for mediation were followed: (1) the independent variable

must relate to the mediator, (2) the independent variable must relate to the dependedvariable, (3) the mediator must relate to the dependent variable, and (4) the effect of

the independent variable on the dependent variable must be less after controlling for

the mediator.

Hypothesis 4a suggested CM would mediate the relationship between career men-

toring and career success. To test condition (1), the hypothesized mediator, CM, was

regressed on the predictor, career mentoring, yielding a significant relationship,

F ð1; 58Þ ¼ 4:90, p < :05. Of the four dependent variables, only performance effective-

ness demonstrated a significant relationship with the career mentoring (r ¼ 28,p < :05). Accordingly, to test condition (2), the dependent variable, performance effec-

tiveness, was regressed on career mentoring, which also exhibited a significant relation-

ship, F ð1; 58Þ ¼ 4:86, p < :05. No covariates were entered since no study variables

exhibited significant relationships with performance effectiveness. Conditions (3) and

(4) were tested by regressing CM and career mentoring on performance effectiveness

sequentially (Holmbeck, 1997). First, performance effectiveness was regressed on career

mentoring and CM was added. Then performance effectiveness was regressed on car-

eer motivation and career mentoring was added. Results are presented in Table 2.The addition of CM in the first equation explained significant variance associated

with performance beyond that of career mentoring. Career mentoring became non-

significant in step 2. In the second equation, career mentoring did not explain any

significant variance in performance beyond CM. Career mentoring had no effect

Table 2

Hierarchical regression mediation a analyses with career motivation as mediator

Independent variables Standardized regression weights

Performance effectiveness

Step 1 Step 2

Equation 1

Career mentoring .28� .18

Career motivation .35��

R2 at each step .08 .19

R2 D .11��

F 6.66��

Equation 2

Career motivation .40�� .35��

Career mentoring .18


R2 D .03

F 6.66��

* p < :05.** p < :01.


on performance when CM was controlled. Hence, CM fully mediated the relation-

ship between career mentoring and performance effectiveness. Hence, partial support

was found for Hypothesis 4a.

Hypothesis 4b suggested that CM would mediate the relationship between psy-

chosocial mentoring and career success. To test condition (1), the proposed media-tor, CM, was regressed on psychosocial mentoring. The results indicated that

psychosocial mentoring and CM were significantly related F ð1; 58Þ ¼ 6:18, p < :05.Condition (2), was not supported. Because psychosocial mentoring was not related

to any of the four dependent variables, tests for mediation were not appropriate.

Thus, no support was found for Hypothesis 4b.

Hypothesis 8a posited that self-efficacy would mediate the relationship between

career mentoring and career success. To test condition (1), the hypothesized media-

tor, self-efficacy, was regressed on the predictor, career mentoring, yielding a signif-icant relationship, F ð1; 58Þ ¼ 5:26, p < :05. Again, of the four dependent variables,

only performance effectiveness demonstrated a significant relationship with the inde-

pendent variable, career mentoring (r ¼ 28, p < :05). As in Hypothesis 4a, to test

condition (2), the dependent variable, performance effectiveness, was regressed on

career mentoring, exhibiting a significant relationship, F ð1; 58Þ ¼ 4:86, p < :05. Con-ditions (3) and (4) were tested by regressing self-efficacy and career mentoring on

performance effectiveness sequentially. First, performance effectiveness was regressed

on career mentoring and self-efficacy was added. Then performance effectiveness wasregressed on self-efficacy and career mentoring was added. Results are presented in

Table 3. Career mentoring no longer had a significant effect on performance effec-

tiveness after the addition of self-efficacy to the equation. However the change

in R2 was not significant, R2D ¼ :04, FD ¼ 2:67, p ¼ :11. In the second equation,

career mentoring did not explain any significant variance in performance above

Table 3

Hierarchical regression mediation analyses with self-efficacy as mediator

Independent variables Standardized regression weights

Performance effectiveness

Step 1 Step 2

Equation 1

Career mentoring .28� .22

Self-efficacy .21


R2 D .04

F 3.84�

Equation 2

Self-efficacy .28� .21

Career mentoring .22


R2 D .04

F 3.84�

* p < :05.


self-efficacy. The change in R2 approached, but did not reach significance, R2D ¼ :04,FD ¼ 2:79, p ¼ :10. Consequently, marginal support was found for Hypothesis 8a.

Hypothesis 8b suggested that self-efficacy would mediate the relationship between

psychosocial mentoring and career success. Hypothesis 8b could not be tested since

psychosocial mentoring was not related to any of the four dependent variables andwas therefore not supported.

5. Discussion

This study sought to extend our understanding of the prot�eeg�ee—career success re-

lationship and advance our knowledge of the processes involved. CM and self-efficacy

were explored as mediators of the relationship between mentoring and prot�eeg�ee ben-efits. Results indicated that prot�eeg�ees reported more CM than did nonprot�eeg�ees andthat CM mediated the relationship between career mentoring and prot�eeg�ee perfor-

mance. Contrary to expectations, the mediation hypotheses involving the salary, pro-

motions and subjective career success were not supported. Only marginal support was

received for self-efficacy as a mediator between mentoring and performance.

Several suggestions have been made delineating ways to enhance, develop and

support CM (London, 1990; London & Bray, 1984; London & Mone, 1987). Some

of these include providing positive reinforcement for good performance, giving op-portunities for achievement, supporting career development and providing job chal-

lenges (London & Bray, 1984; London & Mone, 1987). Moreover, Noe et al. (1990)

demonstrated individuals with managers who were supportive, provided clear per-

formance feedback, encouraged subordinates to set career goals and provided other

mentor-like functions were more likely to report high levels of CM than those who

did not have such managers. Accordingly, we suggested mentoring would relate to

CM. In the current study, we found mentored individuals did report higher levels

of CM than those who had not been mentored. In addition, receiving more mentor-ing was related to greater career motivation. These results are meaningful for several

reasons. First, CM may be added to the list of career-related variables associated

with mentoring for prot�eeg�ees. This finding is important because it may further en-

courage mentorships in organizations. Companies may be more willing to advance

mentorships knowing that it relates to CM since CM has been related to productive

training behaviors, (Wolf et al., 1995), participation in developmental activities, em-

ployee career advancement and promotions (Jones & Whitmore, 1995). Conse-

quently, the relationship between mentoring and CM should serve to promote theadvancement of mentoring in organizations.

We also predicted that CM would relate to career success. London (1983) sug-

gested behaviors such as desire for upward mobility, risk taking, and resilience to

career barriers should give rise to career achievement. In the current study, CM pos-

itively related to salary, subjective reports of career success, and performance. These

findings are notable as they expand the current literature on the CM. Contrary to

findings reported by Jones and Whitmore (1995), CM did not significantly relate

to promotions. This null finding might be explained by specific policies practiced


by the organization studied. The firm�s administration revealed promotions were not

awarded based on employee performance or achievements, but primarily on tenure.

This may have attenuated the results regarding promotions throughout this study

and should be noted as a boundary condition.

Although we found expected relationships between CM and mentoring, as well asbetween CM and career success, we found limited support for our mediation hypoth-

eses. The only support found was that CM fully mediated the relationship between

career mentoring and performance effectiveness. Moreover, an unexpected finding

was that psychosocial mentoring was not related to any of the four indicators of ca-

reer success studied. In addition, career mentoring was only related to performance

and did not exhibit significant relationships with salary, promotions or subjective ca-

reer success. Thus, the appropriate conditions for mediation to be tested were not

met in many cases. These findings are contrary to prior research that has demon-strated positive associations between mentoring and career success as measured by

promotion and salary (e.g., Dreher & Ash, 1990; Scandura, 1992; Whitely et al.,

1991). One possible explanation for these results is that perhaps in this sample, de-gree of mentoring provided did not play as large a role in success as did merely

the presence of a mentor. In other words, perhaps having a mentor was sufficient

to produce benefits regardless of the extent mentoring functions were provided. As

shown in Table 1, data in the current study indicated that prot�eeg�ees had significantly

higher salaries and promotions than did nonprot�eeg�ees.As predicted, participants who received more career mentoring reported greater

career self-efficacy. Recall that career mentoring includes encouraging the prot�eeg�eeto take on challenging assignments, and providing coaching and exposure. It may

be that these mentoring activities reinforce prot�eeg�ee feelings that he or she is capableand competent. We also expected that prot�eeg�ees who received more psychosocial

mentoring would report greater career self-efficacy. Kram (1985) noted that mentors

provide role modeling, guidance, and acceptance to the prot�eeg�ee that affect his/her

sense of self worth and competence. Contrary to expectations, the correlation be-tween career self-efficacy and psychosocial mentoring only approached significance.

Given the moderate effect size obtained (r¼ .24), the nonsignificant result is likely

due to a lack of power. Additional research examining the relationship between ca-

reer self-efficacy and mentoring seems warranted.

The relationship between self-efficacy and performance has been demonstrated

numerous times (Hysong & Quinones, 1997; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). However,

no other known study has specifically investigated career self-efficacy�s relationshipwith subjective career success, promotions or salary. We found that career self-effi-cacy related to salary, subjective career success, and performance effectiveness, but

not to promotions. As mentioned earlier, the manner that promotions were distrib-

uted at the participating firm may explain these results. Previous research has called

for an explanation of how mentoring relates to career success (Turban & Dougherty,

1994). This study attempted to provide a rudimentary response to this call.

Little research in the mentoring arena has investigated potential mediators

involved in the mentoring–career success relationship. Although most of our medi-

ation hypotheses were not supported, findings from this research do expand the


nomological network of constructs related to mentoring. We hope the present study

inspires future investigations geared toward identifying the underlying processes

involved in mentoring relationships. One idea for future research is to assess prot�eeg�eeCM and career self-efficacy prior to and after a mentoring relationship. This type of

research would provide a clearer understanding of the nature of the relationshipsamong these variables.

5.1. Limitations

Limitations of the current study should be noted. The sample was smaller than

preferred and may have restricted the power needed to obtain significant results. Fu-

ture research with larger samples is needed to support significant findings and reeval-

uate ambiguous results from this study. Because this study was cross-sectional,causality cannot be inferred. Based on theory and past research, our mediation hy-

potheses proposed a presumed causal order, such that mentoring leads to career mo-

tivation and career self-efficacy, which in turn leads to career success. Although past

research has suggested that mentors enhance CM in prot�eeg�ees, the reverse may also be

true. That is, since individuals high in CM are more proactive in their careers, it

is possible that they would be more likely to seek out mentors. Likewise, Whitely

et al. (1991) suggested that an individual�s career success could increase the chances

of obtaining a mentor. Ultimately, it is conceivable that the relationships betweenmentoring and career outcomes are reciprocal. As aptly suggested by Dreher and

Ash (1990), ‘‘early career success is likely to increase the availability of mentoring

experiences, which in turn contribute to employee competence, opportunity and sub-

sequent success’’ (p. 545). Future research utilizing longitudinal designs is needed to

better evaluate the true causal flow of these relationships.

This study relied on self-reports as the method of data collection. Although self-

report data are prone to numerous distortions, Podsakoff and Organ (1986) note

that factual information, such as salary and promotion, are less likely to suffer fromproblems of common method variance. However, the significant relationships

found among the other, more subjective, study variables may be due, in part, to

common method variance. The use of self-report data was of particular concern

with the performance effectiveness measure. Self-reports of performance are vulner-

able to egocentric bias, wherein self-raters are inclined to inflate their ratings for

self-enhancement purposes (Holzback, 1978). Thus, further replication of this study

should include multisource ratings of performance. It should also be recognized

that the response rate was lower than desired. Accordingly, we cannot rule-out thatcertain groups may have been more predisposed to respond. Generalizability of our

results needs to be ascertained through future research.

6. Conclusion

This research is the first to examine the roles that career motivation and self-

efficacy play in the processes involving mentorships and career success. Very little


research has attempted to explain why prot�eeg�ees are more successful than their non-

mentored counterparts. Future research should continue to explore additional fac-

tors that help explain prot�eeg�ee success.

Appendix A. Career motivation scale. Adapted from London (1993) and Noe et al.

(1990)

Career insight

1.
I have a specific plan for achieving my career goal. N 2. I have changed or revised my career goals based on new information I have
received regarding my situation or myself. N

3.
I have sought job assignments that will help me obtain my career goal. N
4.
I have clear career goals. L
5.
I have realistic career goals. L
6.
I know my strengths (what I can do well). L
7.
I am aware of my weaknesses (the things I am not good at). L
Career resilience

1.
I am able to adapt to changing circumstances. L
2.
I am willing to take risks. (Outcomes with uncertain outcomes) L
3.
I welcome job and organizational changes. L 4. I can adequately handle work problems that come my way. L
5.
I believe other people when they tell me that I have done a good job. N
6.
I have designed better ways of doing my work. N
7.
I have outlined ways of accomplishing jobs without waiting for my boss. N
Career identity

1.
I am very involved in my job. L
2.
I see myself as a professional and or technical expert. L
3.
I spend free time on activities that will help my job. N
4.
I have taken courses toward a job-related degree. N
5.
I stay abreast of developments in my line of work. N
6.
I have volunteered for important assignments with the intent of helping to
further my advancement possibilities. D
7. I have requested to be considered for promotions. D
L, Items from London�s scale; N, Items from Noe�s Scale, D, New Items.

References

Allen, T. D., McManus, S. E., & Russell, J. E. A. (1999). Newcomer socialization and stress: Formal peer

relationships as a source of support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 453–470.

Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on

performance judgements: A field study and laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology,

83(2), 247–260.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147.


Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of though and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological

research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

Carson, K. D., & Bedeian, A. G. (1994). Career commitment: Construction of a measure and examination

of its psychometric properties. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 237–262.

Chao, G. T. (1997). Mentoring phases and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 15–28.

Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2000). Generalized self-efficacy and self-esteem are distinguishable

constructs. Paper presented at the 60th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management

(Organizational Behavior Division), Toronto, Canada.

Colarelli, S. M., & Bishop, R. C. (1990). Career commitment: Functions, correlates and management.

Group and Organizational Studies, 15, 158–176.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1994). Set like plaster? Evidence for the stability of adult personality. In T.

F. Heatherton, & J. L. Weinberger (Eds.), Can personality change? (pp. 21–40). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Dreher, G. F., & Ash, R. A. (1990). A comparative study of mentoring men and women in

managerial, professional, and technical positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 539–

546.

Eden, D., & Aviram, A. (1993). Self-efficacy training to speed reemployment: Helping people to help

themselves. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(3), 352–360.

Fagenson, E. A. (1989). The mentor advantage: Perceived career/job experiences of prot�eeg�ees versus non-prot�eeg�ees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 309–320.

Fagenson, E. A. (1992). Mentoring—Who needs it? A Comparison of prot�eeg�ees� and nonprot�eeg�ees

needs for power, achievement, affiliation, and autonomy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 41,

48–60.

Gattiker, U. E., & Larwood, L. (1986). Subjective career success: A study of managers and support

personnel. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1(2), 78–94.

Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and

malleability. Academy of Management Review, 12, 472–485.

Hall, D. T., & Mirvis, P. H. (1995). The new protean career. In A. Howard (Ed.), The changing nature of

work. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Holmbeck, G. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators

and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology literatures. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(4), 599–610.

Holzback, R. L. (1978). Rater bias in performance ratings: Supervisor, self, and peer ratings. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 63, 579–588.

Hysong, S. J., & Quinones, M. A. (1997). The relationship between self-efficacy and performance: A meta-

analysis. Paper presented at the 12th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO.

Jones, R. G., & Whitmore, M. D. (1995). Evaluating developmental assessment centers as interventions.

Personnel Psychology, 48(2), 377–388.

Judge, T. A., Cable, D., Boudreau, J., & Bretz, R. (1995). An empirical investigation of the predictors of

executive career success. Personnel Psychology, 48, 485–519.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. E. (1998). The power of being positive: The relation between positive

self-concept and job performance. Human Performance, 11(2/3), 167–187.

Koberg, C. S., Boss, W., & Goodman, E. (1998). Factors and outcomes associated with mentoring among

health-care professionals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 58–72.

Korman, A., Wittig-Berman, U., & Lang, D. (1981). Career success and personal failure: Alienation in

professionals and managers. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 342–360.

Kossek, E. E., Roberts, K., Fisher, S., & Demarr, B. (1998). Career self-management: A quasi-

experimental assessment of the effects of a training intervention. Personnel Psychology, 51,

935–962.


Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 608–

625.

Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL:

Scott Foresman.

London, M. (1983). Toward a theory of career motivation. Academy of Management Review, 8, 620–

630.

London, M. (1990). Enhancing career motivation in late career. Journal of Organizational Change

Management, 3(2), 58–71.

London, M. (1993). Relationships between career motivation, empowerment and support for career

development. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 55–69.

London, M., & Bray, D. W. (1984). Measuring and developing young Managers� career motivation.

Journal of Management and Development, 3, 3–25.

London, M., & Mone, E. M. (1987). Career management and survival in the workplace. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

London, M., & Noe, R. (1997). London�s career motivation theory: An update on measurement and

research. Journal of Career Assessment, 5(1), 61–80.

Noe, R. A. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships.

Personnel Psychology, 41, 457–479.

Noe, R. A., Noe, A. W., & Bachhuber, J. A. (1990). An investigation of correlates of career motivation.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 340–356.

Orpen, C. (1995). The effects of mentoring on employees� career success. Journal of Social Psychology,

135(5), 667–668.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects.

Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.

Prussia, G. E., Anderson, J. S., & Manz, C. C. (1998). Self-leadership and performance outcomes:

The Mediating influence of self-efficacy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 523–

538.

Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and

women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4),

529–550.

Roche, G. R. (1979). Much ado about mentors. Harvard Business Review, 57, 14–28.

Scandura, T. A. (1992). Mentorship and career mobility: An empirical investigation. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 13, 169–174.

Seibert, S. (1999). The effectiveness of facilitated mentoring: A Longitudinal quasi-experiment. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 54, 483–502.

Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis.

Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240–261.

Turban, D., & Dougherty, T. (1994). Role of prot�eeg�ee personality in receipt of mentoring and career

success. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 688–702.

VanVianen, A. E. M. (1999). Managerial self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, and work-role salience as

determinants of ambition for a managerial position. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(3),

639–665.

Whitely, W., Dougherty, T. W., & Dreher, G. F. (1991). Relationship of career mentoring and

socioeconomic origin to managers� and professionals� early career progress. Academy of Management

Journal, 34(2), 331–351.

Whitely, W., & Coetsier, P. (1993). The relationship of career mentoring to early career outcomes.

Organization Studies, 14(3), 419–441.

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as

predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3),

601–617.

Wolf, G., London, M., Casey, J., & Pufaul, J. (1995). Career experience and motivation as predictors

of training behaviors and outcomes for displaced engineers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47,

316–331.


Further reading

Fagenson, E. A. (1988). The power of a mentor: Prot�eeg�ees� and not prot�eeg�ees� perceptions of their own

power in organizations. Group and Organization Studies, 13, 182–194.

Sherer, M., & Adams, C. (1983). Construct validation of self-efficacy scale. Psychological Report, 53,

902–989.

the relationship between career motivation and self-efficacy with protégé career success

Documents