師徒功能與工作不安全感關係之探討 - 政大學術集成

全文

(1)國立政治大學. 企業管理研究所(MBA 學位學程). 碩士學位論文. 師徒功能與工作不安全感關係之探討. Mentoring Support and Job Insecurity in Mentoring Relationships. 指導教授：胡昌亞博士研究生：黃柏儒. 中華民國 104 年 7 月.

(2) Abstract This study examined the role of mentoring support played in the relationship between mentors’ and protégés’ perceived job insecurity. Using survey data collected from 153 ongoing mentoring dyads from several industries in Taiwan, regression results indicated that mentors’ job insecurity was positively related to protégés’ job insecurity whereas mentors’ job insecurity was negatively related to mentoring support protégés received. Furthermore, mentoring support was negatively related to protégés’ job insecurity. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.. Keywords job insecurity, mentoring support. i.

(3) Acknowledgements First and foremost I offer my sincerest gratitude to my advisor, Dr Changya Hu, who has supported me throughout my thesis with her patience and knowledge whilst allowing me the room to work in my own way. I attribute the level of my Master’s degree to her encouragement and effort and without her this thesis, too, would not have been completed or written. One simply could not wish for a better or friendlier advisor.. In addition, I would like to thank my thesis committee members, Dr Chun-Chi Yang and Prof. Tzu-Ting Lin, for all of their guidance through this process; their discussion, ideas, and feedback have been absolutely invaluable.. I thank my fellow research partner, Ching-Wei Chuang, for the endless questionnaires packing before they were sent and the help with collecting research data together.. Finally, I thank my parents for supporting me throughout all my studies at University, and for providing a home in which to complete my writing up.. ii.

(4) Table of Contents Abstract ...................................................................................................................... i Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... ii Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 1 1-1 Research Background and Motives .............................................................. 1 1-2 Research Objectives .................................................................................... 3 Chapter 2 Literature Review ...................................................................................... 4 2-1 Job Insecurity .............................................................................................. 4 2-2 Mentoring Relationships .............................................................................. 5 2-3 Research Framework ................................................................................... 9 Chapter 3 Method.................................................................................................... 10 3-1 Participants and Procedure......................................................................... 10 3-2 Measures ....................................................................................................11 3-3 Data Analysis ............................................................................................ 12 Chapter 4 Results .................................................................................................... 13 4-1 Demographic Variables .............................................................................. 13 4-2 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis .......................................... 15 4-2-1 Descriptive of the Study variables ................................................... 15 4-2-2 Correlation Analysis among the Study Variables ............................. 15 4-3 Hypotheses Testing .................................................................................... 17 Chapter 5 Discussion ............................................................................................... 20 5-1 Summary ................................................................................................... 20 5-2 Theoretical Implications ............................................................................ 20 5-3 Managerial Implications ............................................................................ 21 5-4 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research ....................................... 21 Reference ................................................................................................................ 23 Appendix................................................................................................................. 26. iii.

(5) Chapter 1 Introduction. 1-1 Research Background and Motives Over the past few decades, career changes happened so rapidly that many researchers have taken a further look at it (Gowing, Kraft & Campbell Quick, 1998; Pfeffer, 1998; Sverke, Hellgren, Näswall, Chirumbolo, De Witte & Goslinga, 2004), the changes were often caused by recession, improved technologies and intense competition from globalization, which immensely altered the business environment. In order for organizations and companies to survive in the new context with increased competition such as more productive foreign firms, intensified currency risk or losing protection from trade barriers; many of them had to lower operating cost by transferring jobs from developed countries to less developed countries, innovate new technologies by adopting automation production which leads to fewer job openings, and improve management efficiency by reducing the scale of operation. However, the alterations were not always beneficial for employees because the attempt to adapt is the frequent use of privatization, mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures, layoff, outsourcing, organization restructuring and downsizing. The effect of such actions often caused the employees to be feeling uncertain and insecure about their current jobs or even their careers. Thus, the concept of job insecurity has been increasingly studied (Sverke, De Witte, Näswall, & Hellgren, 2010).. According to Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984), job insecurity was defined as the “perceived powerlessness to maintain desired continuity in a threatened job situation. Job insecurity is a common phenomenon in the workplace and it has often been assumed to have negative effects. From an individual perspective, it is the health 1.

(6) and well-being of employees that may be negatively affected, while, from an organizational perspective, work behaviors and attitudes may be affected negatively (Hellgren, Sverke & Isaksson, 1999). In efforts to reduce employee’s perceived job insecurity within organizations, this study would examine if mentoring support alleviate the negative effects of job insecurity.. Mentoring support is a critical career resource for employees in organizations. Mentors are individuals with advanced experience and knowledge who are committed to provide upward support and mobility to their protégés’ careers (Hunt & Michael, 1983; Kram, 1985a). Mentors help their protégés by providing two general types of support: career development supports, which facilitate the protégé's advancement in the organization, and psychosocial supports, which contribute to the protégé's personal growth and professional development (Kram, 1985a). Furthermore, mentoring has also been found to have a positive impact on organizational socialization (Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1993), job satisfaction (Koberg, Boss, Chappell, & Ringer, 1994), and reduced turnover intentions (Viator & Scandura, 1991). It is clear that mentoring support helps protégés manage uncertainty better, socialized and adjust to the organizations. Given the positivity and benefits of mentorship, it is in the researcher’s interest to examine the role of mentoring support in the relationship of job insecurity between mentors and protégés.. 2.

(7) 1-2 Research Objectives Based on the research background and motives in Section 1-1, this study will examine the following research questions: 1. Examine the relationship of perceived job insecurity between mentor and protégé. 2. Examine the relationship between mentors’ job insecurity and mentoring support. 3. Examine the relationship between mentoring support and protégés’ job insecurity.. 3.

(8) Chapter 2 Literature Review. 2-1 Job Insecurity In recent years, due to changes in working life, brought on by organizations’ having to adjust to a more global context and especially the recessions that have hit many countries, job insecurity is now a major issue for many employees (Burke & Cooper, 2000). In literature on motivation at work, job insecurity has only been considered indirectly. Both Herzberg (1959) as well as Maslow (1954) suggested that having secure employment motivates employees to perform and it has been considered as part of the basis for well-being of the workforce. Over time, the scientific focus has shifted from job security being a motivator to job insecurity being a work-related stressor (Ashford, et al., 1989; Herzberg, 1959; Maslow, 1954). The concept of job insecurity, as we know it today, has mainly developed out of research conducted over the last few decades.. Job insecurity has been defined as the employee’s “perceived powerlessness to maintain desired continuity in a threatened job situation (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984)”. The two key aspects affecting the experiencing and severity of job insecurity, are: (1) powerlessness, a feeling of not being able to change the situation; and (2) the perceived threat of job loss. Research on job insecurity is based on the assumption that a potential job loss is an undesired event, especially since employment provides income and financial security. Besides this function, employment also provides individuals with a time structure, social contacts, a collective purpose, a social identity, status, and activities (Jahoda, 1982). According to Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984), another important aspect that contributes to job insecurity perceptions is the 4.

(9) perceived probability of job loss, which in combination with the powerlessness felt and the severity of the threat contributes to the strength of job insecurity experiences (Ashford et al. 1989; Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984; Kinnunen & Nätti, 1994). This shows that the individual’s interpretation is crucial to understanding the job insecurity experience.. In addition, there is also evidence that job insecurity is linked to improved productivity, this is explained by employees working harder in order to stand out from their colleagues, and trying to increase their value to the organization (Sverke, Hellgren & Naswall , 2006). However, research evidence also indicates that in the long run this leads to increased long term sickness absence (D’Souza, Strazdins, Broom, Rodgers & Berry, 2006), and creativity and problem solving ability decrease with job insecurity (Probst, Stewart, Gruys & Tierney, 2007); which ultimately suggests job insecurity to be detrimental to an organization’s performance.. 2-2 Mentoring Relationships According to social information processing approach (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), individual’s perception and judgment of the job environment are affected by coworkers’ attitudes. In this case, protégés are the less experienced and knowledgeable ones in the company. When the protégés encounter uncertainty or difficulty in a work setting, they are very likely to approach their mentors for guidance or assistance. During the process of communication and socialization, protégés perception of meaningfulness and importance of the job is affected by mentors. For instance, if the mentors continuously maintain that a job is horrible, boring or undesirable, the protégés would probably assimilate the judgments into their own. Thus, the development of protégés’ job attitude is highly influenced by mentors. 5.

(10) On the basis of theory and research reviewed above, this study hypothesized that mentors would pass on their job insecurity to their protégés and affecting protégés’ perceived job insecurity.. Hypothesis 1: Mentors’ job insecurity will be positively related to protégés’ job insecurity.. According to Ragins and Scandura (1999), there were expected costs and benefits associated with being a mentor, five categories of benefits were identified: rewarding experience, improved job performance, loyal base of support, recognition by others and generativity. Expected costs were that mentoring was more trouble than it was worth, the relationship could be dysfunctional, nepotism could occur, poor protégés could reflect badly on the mentor and energy drain could result. The researchers used total costs and benefits, they found out that intention to mentor was positively related to expected benefits and negatively related to expected costs. On the other hand, study has found that the outcomes of job insecurity include increased emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, psychological distress, psychosomatic complaints, and decreased personal accomplishment (De Witte et al., 2010). Therefore, we can assume that job insecurity could be a cost or factor affecting the willingness of mentoring, as the mentors with job insecurity are already exhausted and unsatisfied with the company. Thus, those mentors will provide less mentoring support.. 6.

(11) On the basis of theory and research reviewed above, this study also expected that the mentors would provide different types or levels of mentoring functions depending on their severity of job insecurity.. Hypothesis 2: Mentor’s job insecurity will be negatively related to mentoring supports perceived by protégés.. According to Kram's mentor role theory (1985a), mentors can provide two broad categories of mentoring support. First, they provide career development support, which help protégés learn the business and facilitate the protégé's advancement in the organization. Kram (1985a) theorized that mentors can provide five specific career development functions: sponsoring promotions and lateral moves (sponsorship); coaching the protégé (coaching); protecting the protégé from adverse forces (protection); providing challenging assignments (challenging assignments); and increasing the protégé's exposure and visibility (exposure). Then, the second broad category of mentoring functions consists of psychosocial functions. These behaviors address interpersonal aspects of the mentoring relationship and enhance the protégé's sense of competence, self-efficacy, professional and personal development. Career development functions depend on the mentor's power and position in the organization, whereas psychosocial functions depend on the quality of the interpersonal relationship and the emotional bond that underlies the relationship. Career development functions focus on the organization and the protégé's career, whereas psychosocial functions affect the protégé on personal level and extend to other parts of life, such as the protégé's personal development. In addition, Kram (1985a) mentioned that mentors may provide four psychosocial functions: helping the protégé develop a sense of professional self (acceptance and confirmation), providing problem-solving 7.

(12) (counselling), giving respect and support (friendship), and providing identification and role modeling (role modeling). Also, mentoring is not an all or none phenomenon, a mentor may provide all or just some of these functions.. Furthermore, past research has shown that individuals felt anxious and insecure about their jobs are more likely to seek out the feedback of a senior person via the mentoring relationship. Uncertainty is an aversive state for such individuals and feedback may reduce ambiguity by giving them information about appropriate behaviors (Ashford & Black, 1996). Thus, mentors may help to alleviate some of protégés’ anxiety about work performance or job insecurity in the workplace.. On the basis of theory and research reviewed above, this study also expected that the amount of protégés’ perceived job insecurity could be alleviated by the effect of mentoring supports.. Hypothesis 3: Mentoring supports that protégés received will be negatively related to protégés’ job insecurity.. 8.

(13) 2-3 Research Framework Based on literature review and hypothesis above, Figure 2.1 below demonstrates the framework of this study.. H2. Mentoring supports H3. Protégés’ job insecurity. Mentors’ job insecurity H1. Figure 2.1 Research Framework. 9.

(14) Chapter 3 Method. 3-1 Participants and Procedure Starting from early March 2015, over 200 pairs of mentor and protégé research questionnaires were given out respectively through friends, ex-colleagues and relatives of the researcher. By the end of April 2015, a total of 153 pairs of samples were collected. The samples consist of mentors and protégés from different industries such as finance, real estate, services, accommodation, transportation, manufacturing, educational and information technology.. The questionnaires were distributed in hard copies, there are 2 forms of questionnaire designed for mentors and protégés respectively and each type of questionnaire was paired up with another, then packed together along with selfaddressed envelopes. Each pair of sample was separately filled by a set of related mentor and protégé, in order to perform a reliable result, the questionnaires were marked and distributed accordingly to the participants. All of the participants are either currently working or previously had working experiences. To encourage respondents to participate in the survey, a small gift was packed along with the questionnaires and the envelopes. All the questionnaires were completed anonymously and matching codes were used to pair returned questionnaires.. 10.

(15) 3-2 Measures Chinese-translated questionnaire consists of measures related to mentor’s function support and perceived job insecurity for mentor and protégé. The back translation procedure was used to ensure the semantic equivalence. The following paragraphs elaborate more on the definition of each measure.. 1. Perceived job insecurity Both perceived job insecurity for mentor and protégé were measured using the Job Insecurity Scale (JIS), a scale of four items originally developed by De Witte (2000), and on a 5-point Likert type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The respondents answered a total of 4 items based on their perceptions of their current or previous working condition. Sample statements for mentor’s perceived job insecurity include “Chances are, I will soon lose my job” (α = .77), and for protégé’s perceived job insecurity “I feel insecure about the future of my job” (α = .80). 2. Mentor’s function support Mentor’s function support was assessed with 9 items on a 5-point agreement scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Items such as “My mentor cares about my career development” or “My mentor put in extra time and energy on helping my career” are the examples (α = .83). 3. Demographics variables Respondents were also asked to answer items regarding their educational level, gender, mentorship time and formality. The mentioned variables give us a general view of the samples and there is a possibility that they could affect the process and result of mentorship. Thus, most of the demographic variables are regarded as control variables in this study. 11.

(16) 3-3 Data Analysis Data analysis was conducted and proceeded through several stages using SPSS 21. Firstly, the demographic variables were analyzed by conducting frequency distribution which allows me to get a general view of the samples and check for any miss-keyed data. Then, reliability analysis was performed using Cronbach’s alpha on each measures to assure that the data collected were reliable. Moving on to regression analysis, it was conducted to examine the alleviation effect of mentoring supports.. 12.

(17) Chapter 4 Results. 4-1 Demographic Variables A total of 153 pairs of samples were collected. Within these data, demographic characteristics include participants’ gender, age, educational level, mentorship time and formality of mentorship. The demographic characteristics are shown in Table 4.1.. The sample consists of 51% male mentors (N = 78) and 54.3% female protégés (N = 82). Most of the mentors are aged between 26 to 45 years old (69.2%, N = 106), 19.6% (N = 30) are aged between 46 to 55 years old, while almost half of the protégés are aged between 26 to 35 years old (48%, N = 72), 36% (N = 54) are under 25 years old and only 16% (N = 24) are over 36 years old. In addition, 46.8% (N = 65) of the participants’ mentorship time are between 1 to 3 years, 15.8% (N = 22) of mentorship time are under 1 year, 15.8% (N = 22) are between 3 to 5 years and 21.6% (N = 30) over 5 years. The average mentorship time is 3.78 years (SD = 5.79), this indicates that the mentors and protégés have known each other for certain amount of time which allows the effect of mentoring to be influential.. Overall, the participants are well-educated, with 47.1% (N = 72) of mentors holding a bachelor’s degree, 26.8% (N = 41) with a postgraduate degree, while 51.7% (N = 78) of protégés attended university and 23.8% (N = 36) had postgraduate education. Furthermore, 77% (N = 117) of mentorship are formal which were assigned by their company, while 23% (N = 35) are not.. 13.

(18) Table 4.1 Demographic Characteristics Item Mentor Gender Protégé Gender. Mentors’ Age. Protégés’ Age. Mentors’ Educational Level. Protégés’ Educational Level. Mentorship Time (M=3.78 years). Formality of Mentorship. Category. Number. Percentage (%). Male. 78. 51.0. Female. 75. 49.0. Male. 69. 45.7. Female. 82. 54.3. Under 25 years old. 8. 5.2. 26 - 35 years old. 38. 24.8. 36 - 45 years old. 68. 44.4. 46 - 55 years old. 30. 19.6. Over 56 years old. 9. 6.0. Under 25 years old. 54. 36.0. 26 - 35 years old. 72. 48.0. 36 - 45 years old. 14. 9.4. 46 - 55 years old. 8. 5.3. Over 56 years old. 2. 1.3. Middle school. 3. 2.0. High school. 23. 15.0. College. 14. 9.1. University. 72. 47.1. Postgraduate. 41. 26.8. Middle school. 1. 0.7. High school. 23. 15.2. College. 13. 8.6. University. 78. 51.7. Postgraduate. 36. 23.8. Under 1 year. 22. 15.8. 1 to 3 years. 65. 46.8. 3 to 5 years. 22. 15.8. 5 to 7 years. 5. 3.6. 7 to 9 years. 11. 7.9. Over 9 years. 14. 10.1. Formal. 117. 77.0. Informal. 35. 23.0. 14.

(19) 4-2 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis Table 4.2 shows the mean, standard deviations, coefficients of correlation, and reliability coefficients of the study variables.. 4-2-1 Descriptive of the Study variables Looking at mentor’s job insecurity, the participants averagely tend to be feeling secured with their jobs (M = 2.07, SD = .62). On the other hand, the protégés also seem to have lower job insecurity on average (M = 2.18, SD = .66). In terms of mentoring function, the protégés think that they have received sufficient support from their mentors (M = 3.89, SD = .65).. 4-2-2 Correlation Analysis among the Study Variables We can see that the mentor’s job insecurity correlates negatively with mentoring function, this suggests that individuals with stronger confident with their jobs or careers are more likely and willing to help their protégés.. Furthermore, protégé’s perceived job insecurity is positively correlated with mentor’s job insecurity, which means that a mentor does not only have a positive influence on the protégé but also can pass on immense negative impact. On the other hand, protégé’s job insecurity is negatively correlated with mentoring function, this shows that protégé can feel more secured with higher amount of mentoring supports.. 15.

(20) Table 4.2 Coefficients α, Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of the Study Variables. Mean. SD. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. Mentor gender. 1.49. .50. -. 2. Protégé gender. 1.55. .50. .16. -. 3. Mentorship time. 3.78. 5.79. .13. -.03. -. 4. Formality of mentorship. 1.24. .43. -.07. -.07. .06. -. 5. Mentor’s job insecurity. 2.07. .62. -.07. -.04. .15. -.10. (.77). 6. Mentoring support. 3.89. .65. .03. .05. .04. .04. -.24**. (.89). 7. Protégé’s job insecurity. 2.18. .66. .07. -.05. -.13*. .004. .22**. -.24*. 7. (.80). Note: N = 137, **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Gender: 1 = Male, 2 = Female; Mentorship time (year); Formality of mentorship: 1 = Formal, 2 = Informal. Main effect variable, process variable and outcome variable are measured on a 5-point agreement scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.. 16.

(21) 4-3 Hypotheses Testing Hypothesis 1, which stated that mentors’ job insecurity is positively related to protégés’ job insecurity, was supported (Table 4.3; β = .26, p < .01, ∆R² = .06, p < .01). Then, Hypothesis 2 which stated that mentor’s job insecurity negatively relates to mentoring supports, it was also supported (β = -.24, p < .01, ∆R² = .06, p < .01). Moving on to Hypothesis 3, which stated that mentoring supports will be negatively related to protégés’ job insecurity (β = -.18, p < .01) was also supported.. 17.

(22) Table 4.3 Results of Regressing Mentoring Support on Mentor’s Job Insecurity and Protégé’s Job Insecurity on Mentor’s Job Insecurity and Protégé’s Job Insecurity on Mentor’s Job Insecurity and Mentoring Support (N = 137). Mentoring support (Step 2). Protégé’s job insecurity. β. β. Mentor gender. .01. .10. Protégé gender. .07. -.07. Mentorship time. .04. -.14. Formality of mentorship. .03. .02. F. .23. .93. R². .01. .03. ∆R². .01. .03. -.023. -.002. -.24**. .26 **. F. 1.76**. 2.62**. R². .06**. .09**. ∆R². .06**. .06**. Adj R². .03**. .06**. Predictors. Controls. Adj R² Predictor (Steps 1 & 2) Mentor’s job insecurity. Predictor and Mediators (Step3) Mentor’s job insecurity. .21*. Mentoring support. -.18**. F. 3.02**. R². .12**. ∆R². .10**. Adj R². .08**. Gender: 1 = Male, 2 = Female; Mentorship time (year); Formality of mentorship: 1 = Formal, 2 = Informal. Standardized regression coefficients are reported. *p < .05, **p < .01.. 18.

(23) Table 4.4 Summary of results of hypotheses Hypotheses. Results. Mentor’s job insecurity will be positively related to protégé’s job. Supported. Hypothesis 1:. insecurity. Hypothesis 2: Mentor’s job insecurity will be negatively related to mentoring. Supported. functions perceived by protégés. Hypothesis 3: Mentoring supports that protégés receive will be negatively related to protégé’s job insecurity.. 19. Supported.

(24) Chapter 5 Discussion. 5-1 Summary The main purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between mentor’s job insecurity and protégés’ job insecurity; and the role that mentoring support plays in the above relationship. The relationships among the above variables are proposed and supported. Through the findings in this study, we found out that, as predicted, the mentor has a significant influence on protégé’s perceived job insecurity. Secondly, this study found out that mentoring functions play an important role in lowering mentors’ job insecurity and it showed that mentors with low job insecurity are more willing to provide more support for their protégés. In terms of mentoring function’s mediating effect between mentor and protégé’s job insecurity, the outcome was supported. It significantly lessened the impact of protégés’ job insecurity impact passed on by their mentors.. 5-2 Theoretical Implications Although previous research has shown that mentoring relationship can contribute to the protégé's personal growth and professional development (Hunt & Michael, 1983; Kram, 1985a), the role of mentoring support in protégé’s well-being has been rarely examined. One of the few studies that examined the role of mentoring support and protégé stress found a negative relationship between the two variables (Sosik & Godshalk, 2000), but this study found that mentoring support alleviate the job insecurity perceptions of protégés.. 20.

(25) 5-3 Managerial Implications Based on the research results, this research would like to suggest companies to set up mentorship system within organizations for practical implications. This study showed that mentoring functions are beneficial to both mentors and protégés on reducing the effect of job insecurity. The mentorships in this study are mostly formal, therefore, by providing a mentorship system, the employees are able to feel more comfortable and stable working condition, which will result higher productivity and better performances. In addition, employees who experience job insecurity may not be a suitable mentor because they can pass on the negative attitude and are unable or unwilling to provide decent mentoring support to their protégés, which would minimize the benefit of mentoring program. On other hand, companies may consider to provide assistance for insecure mentors to allow them keep contributing in the organization.. 5-4 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research Several limitations and future research directions should be noticed:. 1. Conduct research on participants both with and without mentorship This study focused on the effect of mentoring functions on the job insecurity perceived by mentors and protégés, but there is no comparison with the people who are not in mentorship. Therefore, I suggest that future study can investigate on the comparison of participants’ perceived job insecurity before and after applying mentoring functions.. 21.

(26) 2. Focus on specific industry The samples are gathered from various industries and this might result in bias derived from certain characteristics of industries, if they compose major proportion of the samples. For instance, the turnover rate in finance industry is usually high and employees are not intended to stay in the same company for a long time, which means high job insecurity may not be a significant factor in such industry.. 3. Limited amount of research samples This study was conducted using paired sample of mentors and protégés, and it was not an easy task to collect them. The samples were mostly collected from friends, relatives and colleagues, which making the sample size limited and insufficient.. 4. Limited time for data collection The data was collected in short period of time (1 month), future research can consider using longer time to collect and investigate the influence in the long run.. 22.

(27) Reference Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: Antecedents, tactics, and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 199–214. Ashford, S. J., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1989). Content, cause, and consequences of job insecurity: A theory based measure and substantive test. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 803-829. Baron, R. M. and Kenny, D. A. (1986) "The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research – Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51(6), pp. 1173–1182. Burke, R. J., & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.). (2000). The organization in crisis: Downsizing, restructuring, and privatization. Oxford: Blackwell. De Witte, H., De Cuyper, N., Handaja, Y., Sverke, M., Näswall, K., & Hellgren, J. (2010). Associations between quantitative and qualitative job insecurity and well-being: A test in Belgian banks. International Studies of Management & Organization. D’Souza, R.M., Strazdins, L., Broom, D.H., Rodgers, B., & Berry, H.L. (2006). ‘Work demands, job insecurity and sickness absence from work. How productive is the new flexible labour force?’ Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 30, 3, pp. 205-212. Godshalk, V.M., & Sosik, J.J. (2000). Does mentor-protégé agreement on mentor leadership behavior influence the quality of mentoring relationships? Group & Organization Management, 25 (3), 291-317.. 23.

(28) Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity. Academy of Management Review, 9, 438-448. Hellgren, Sverke & Isaksson (1999). European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Volume 8, Issue 2 Herzberg, Frederick. (1959). The Motivation to Work. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Hunt, D.M. , & Michael, C. (1983). Mentorship—A career training and development tool. Academy of Management Review. Jahoda, M. (1982). Employment and unemployment: A social-psychological analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Kinnunen, U., & Na¨tti, J. (1994). Job insecurity in Finland: Antecedents and consequences. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. Koberg, C. S., Boss, R. W., Chappell, D., & Ringer, R. C. (1994). Correlates and consequences of protege mentoring in a large hospital. Group and Organization Management, 19, 219-239. Kram, K. E. (1985a). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Marilyn K. Gowing, John D. Kraft, and James Campbell Quick. (1998). The new organizational reality: Downsizing, restructuring, and revitalization, edited. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and Personality New York: Harper. Milliman, J. F. (1992). Causes, consequences, and moderating factors of career plateauing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Southern California Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. (1993). The role of mentoring in the information gathering processes of newcomers during early organizational socialization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 170-183. 24.

(29) Pfeffer, J. (1997). New directions for organization theory: Problems and prospects. New York: Oxford University Press. Probst, T.M., Stewart, S.M., Gruys, M.L., & Tierney, B.W. (2007). ‘Productivity, counterproductivity and creativity: The ups and downs of job insecurity’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 3, pp. 479-497. Ragins, B. R., & Scandura, T. A. (1999). Burden or blessing? Expected costs and benefits of being a mentor. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 493–509. Slancik, Gerald R., Pfeffer Jeffrey (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 23, No.2, pp. 224-253. Sverke, M., De Witte, H., Näswall, K., & Hellgren, J. (2010). European perspectives on job insecurity: Editorial introduction. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 31, 175-178. Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., & Naswall, K. (2006), ‘Job insecurity: A literature review’, National Institute for Working Life Report. Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., Näswall, K., Chirumbolo, A., De Witte, H. & Goslinga, S. (2004). Job Insecurity and Union Membership: European Unions in the Wake of Flexible Production. Brussels: P.I.E.-Peter Lang. Viator, R. E., & Scandura, T. A. (1991). A study of mentor-protégé relationships in large public accounting firms. Accounting Horizons, 5, 20-30.. 25.

(30) Appendix. 師徒關係問卷調查（師父問卷）親愛的業界先進，您好！謝謝您填寫這份問卷。這份問卷的主要目的是瞭解您對徒弟的看法以及您的個人特質。問卷中題目若涉及您對徒弟的看法，請針對請您協助參與本研究的這位徒弟來作答，其他則依據您的真實狀況來填答。本問卷採用無記名方式，公司的任何人，包括您的徒弟，都不會看到您所填寫的答案，請您放心地據實填答。填寫完成後，請您將完成的問卷密封放入回郵信封中直接寄回給研究者。若您對本研究有任何問題，歡迎您跟我們聯繫。謝謝您的合作。祝您身體健康、工作順利！. 胡昌亞博士國立政治大學企業管理學系莊謹維黃柏儒研究生敬上. 填寫說明在一段師徒關係中，『師父』通常是指公司中較資深的員工，具有相當程度的專業、經驗與能力。可以指導、發展或協助較資淺的員工（徒弟）成長，協助他們適應組織。『徒弟』則指在師徒關係中，接受師父協助與支持的人，通常為公司中較資淺的員工。. 第一部份：徒弟的基本資料請針對與您共同參與研究的這位徒弟，填寫框內的基本資料： 1. 2. 3. 4.. 這位徒弟的性別是：□ 男性 □ 女性。您與這位徒弟認識約 _________年 _________月您與這位徒弟的師徒關係迄今共約_________ 年 _________ 月您是否為這位徒弟的直屬主管？ □ 是 □ 否. 5. 這段師徒關係是否由公司配對或指派的？ □ 是 26. □ 否.

(31) 第二部分、個人工作感受非不無同法針對下列敘述進行評估，並在右邊欄位中（1 到 5）圈選出常不同您對這些敘述的同意程度。數字越大，表示您越同意這個同判敘述。意意別意本部份主要目的是想了解您在目前組織中工作的感受。請. 非常同意. 1 我可能就要失去這份工作了。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 2 我很確定我能保住這份的工作。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 3 我對這工作的未來有著不安全感。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 4 在不久的將來，我有可能會失去這份工作。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 第三部分、個人基本資料請針對您的個人背景資料，在 □ 中勾選出合適的答案，或在 ______ 中填答適當的答案。 1 您的年齡是 2 您的性別是. ________ 歲。 □ 1)男性. □ 2)女性. 3 您的學歷是 □ 1)國中或以下 □ 2)高中或高職 □ 3)專科（二專,三專或五專） □ 4)大學(含技職院校) □ 5)研究所 4 您的工作總年資是 ______ 年______月。 5 您在目前這家公司的年資是 ______ 年 ______ 月。 6 您的工作性質 □ 1)生產 □ 2)業務（含銷售、行銷企劃） □ 3)工程（含研究開發、品管）□ 4)管理（含人事、資訊、財務） □ 5)後勤（含物料、採購、進出口、出貨）. □ 6)其他__________. 7 您的職務是 □ 1)現場人員 □ 2)一般職員 □ 3)基層主管 □ 4)中級主管 □ 5)高級主管 8 您目前所服務的公司產業別是 □ 1)資訊與通訊傳播業 □ 3)不動產業 □ 5)住宿與餐飲業 □ 7)一般製造業 □ 9)高科技電子業. 27. □ 2)金融與保險業 □ 4)服務業 □ 6)運輸及倉業 □ 8)營造業 □ 10)其他_____.

(32) 問卷至此全部結束，請您檢查有無漏答。感謝您的幫忙！若您有任何疑問，請與我們聯繫：02-2939-3091 # 81008. 師徒關係問卷調查（徒弟問卷）親愛的業界先進，您好！謝謝您填寫這份問卷。這份問卷的主要目的是瞭解您對師父的看法以及您的個人特質。問卷中題目若涉及您對師父的看法，請針對請您協助參與本研究的這位師父來作答，其他則依據您的真實狀況來填答。本問卷採用無記名方式，公司的任何人，包括您的師父，都不會看到您所填寫的答案，請您放心地據實填答。填寫完成後，請您將完成的問卷密封放入回郵信封中直接寄回給研究者。若您對本研究有任何問題，歡迎您跟我們聯繫。謝謝您的合作。祝您身體健康、工作順利！. 胡昌亞博士國立政治大學企業管理學系莊謹維黃柏儒研究生敬上. 填寫說明在一段師徒關係中，『師父』通常是指公司中較資深的員工，具有相當程度的專業、經驗與能力。可以指導、發展或協助較資淺的員工（徒弟）成長，協助他們適應組織。『徒弟』則指在師徒關係中，接受師父協助與支持的人，通常為公司中較資淺的員工。. 第一部份：師父的基本資料請針對與您共同參與研究的這位師父，填寫框內的基本資料： 6. 7. 8. 9.. 這位師父的性別是：□ 男性 □ 女性。您與這位師父認識約_________ 年 _________ 月您與這位師父的師徒關係迄今共約_________ 年 _________ 月您是否為這位師父的直屬部屬？ □ 是 □ 否. 10. 這段師徒關係是否由公司配對或指派的？ 28. □ 是. □ 否.

(33) 第二部分、師徒關係感受本部分是想了解您對目前師父的感受。請針對下列敘述進非不無同法行評估，並在右邊欄位中（1 到 5）圈選出您對這些敘述的常不同同意程度。數字越大，表示這個敘述越能夠說明您的感判同受。意意別意. 非常同意. 1 我的師父關心我的職涯發展。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 2 我的師父幫我協調並整合我在職業上的目標。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 3 我的師父投入額外的時間與精力在我的職涯上。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 4 我能跟我的師父分享我的私人問題。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 5 我和我的師父會彼此交換心事。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 我將我的師父視為朋友。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7 我會嘗試仿效我師父的行為。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 8 我佩服我師父鼓舞他人的能力。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 9 我敬佩我師父教導他人的能力。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 第三部分、個人工作感受本部份主要目的是想了解您在目前組織中工作的感受。請針對下列敘述進行評估，並在右邊欄位中（1 到 5）圈選出您對這些敘述的同意程度。數字越大，表示您越同意這個敘述。. 非不無同常法不同判同意意別意. 非常同意. 1 我可能就要失去這份工作了。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 2 我很確定我能保住這份的工作。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 3 我對這工作的未來有著不安全感。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 4 在不久的將來，我有可能會失去這份工作。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 第四部分、個人基本資料請針對您的個人背景資料，在 □ 中勾選出合適的答案，或在 ______ 中填答適當的答案。 1 您的年齡是 2 您的性別是. ________ 歲。 □ 1)男性. □ 2)女性. 3 您的學歷是 □ 1)國中或以下 □ 2)高中或高職 □ 3)專科（二專,三專或五專） □ 4)大學(含技職院校) □ 5)研究所. 29.

(34) 4 您的工作總年資是 ______ 年______月。 5 您在目前這家公司的年資是 ______ 年 ______ 月。 □ 2)業務（含銷售、行銷企劃） 6 您的工作性質是 □ 1)生產 □ 3)工程（含研究開發、品管）□ 4)管理（含人事、資訊、財務） □ 5)後勤（含物料、採購、進出口、出貨） □ 6)其他__________ 7 您的職務是 □ 1)現場人員 □ 2)一般職員 □ 3)基層主管 □ 4)中級主管 □ 5)高級主管 8 您目前所服務的公司產業別是 □ 1)資訊與通訊傳播業 □ 3)不動產業 □ 5)住宿與餐飲業 □ 7)一般製造業 □ 9)高科技電子業. □ 2)金融與保險業 □ 4)服務業 □ 6)運輸及倉儲業 □ 8)營造業 □ 10)其他_______. 問卷至此全部結束，請您檢查有無漏答。感謝您的幫忙！聯絡電話：02-2939-3091 # 81008. 30.

(35)