行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫 成果報告
師徒關係中師父利他人格與知覺徒弟師父相似性對師徒功
能之影響
研究成果報告(精簡版)
計 畫 類 別 ： 個別型 計 畫 編 號 ： NSC 98-2410-H-004-073- 執 行 期 間 ： 98 年 08 月 01 日至 99 年 10 月 31 日 執 行 單 位 ： 國立政治大學企業管理學系 計 畫 主 持 人 ： 胡昌亞 計畫參與人員： 碩士班研究生-兼任助理人員：&；#20931；博崧 博士班研究生-兼任助理人員：王豫萱 報 告 附 件 ： 出席國際會議研究心得報告及發表論文 處 理 方 式 ： 本計畫涉及專利或其他智慧財產權，1 年後可公開查詢中 華 民 國 100 年 01 月 27 日
1
行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告
師徒關係中師父利他人格與知覺徒弟師父相似性對師徒功能之影響
計畫編號：NSC98-2410-H-004-073-
執行期限：98 年 08 月 01 日至 99 年 10 月 31 日
主持人：胡昌亞 國立政治大學企業管理學系副教授
計畫參與人員：王豫萱 國立政治大學企業管理研究所博士生
一、 中英文摘要 摘要 許多組織的師徒制度皆會請主管擔任師父 以協助員工發展與進步，但目前相關研究 卻很少討論主管師徒制 (supervisory mentoring) 的效益。本研究採用互動取向 及師父的角度，檢驗師父利他人格與知覺 徒弟師父相似性對師徒功能的關係。研究 結果顯示，當知覺徒弟師父相似性較高， 師父的利他人格與師徒功能的關係會較強， 同時本研究也進一步討論研究限制與管理 意涵。 關鍵詞：主管師徒制、相似性、利他、互 動取向 AbstractIt is common for supervisors to serve as mentors to promote desired work behaviors and attitudes of subordinates and to help talented employees advance in the company. However, supervisory mentoring has
attracted limited research attention. By adopting an interactionist approach and taking a mentor’s perspective, this study examined individual (supervisory mentors’ altruism) and situational (perceived
similarity to protégés) factors that relate to mentoring functions. According to our results, the positive relationship between supervisory mentors’ altruism and mentoring functions was stronger when mentors perceived low levels of similarity to their protégés. This study also discussed
theoretical and practical implications of these findings.
Keywords：Supervisory mentoring,
Similarity, Altruism, Interactionist approach 二、文獻探討與研究結果
Mentoring is usually defined as an interpersonal relationship, typically between a senior experienced employee (the mentor) and a junior employee (the protégé) (Kram, 1985; Scandura & Ragins, 1993). Kram’s (1985) work identified two mentoring
functions that often are provided by mentors, including career and psychosocial functions. Moreover, some researchers suggested that the role modeling is the third type of mentoring function (Castro & Scandura, 2004; C. Hu, 2008; Pellegrini & Scandura, 2005). Most studies examined the mentoring relationship from the protégé’s perspective. However, there’s a lack of research on supervisory mentoring, in which the mentor is also the immediate supervisor of the protégé who has authority over the protégé (Allen, 2003, 2007; Allen & Eby, 2004; Allen, Poteet, & Burroughs, 1997; Allen, Poteet, Russell, & Dobbins, 1997; Aryee, Chay, & Chew, 1996; Bozionelos, 2004; Godshalk & Sosik, 2007; Lankau, Riordan, & Thomas, 2005; Niehoff, 2006; Ragins & Cotton, 1993; Ragins & McFarlin, 1990; Richard, Ismail, Bhuian, & Taylor, in press; Scandura & Schriesheim, 1994; Scandura & Williams, 2004; Tepper, 1995; Tonidandel, Avery, & Phillips, 2007).
2 Supervisory mentoring deserves
more research attention for at least four reasons. First, because supervisors usually have frequent formal and informal
interactions with subordinates, they can be a mentor directly to promote desired work behaviors and to shape attitudes of
subordinates in the workplace (Richard, et al., in press; Scandura & Williams, 2004; Sosik & Godshalk, 2005; Tepper, 1995). Aryee et al. (1996) had found that
opportunities to interact on the job relate positively to the intention to mentor others. Second, supervisory mentors assume more organizational power and authority over their protégés, and they may have more influence to subordinates protégé than non-supervisory mentors (Fagenson-Eland, Marks, & Amendola, 1997; Godshalk & Sosik, 2007; Scandura & Williams, 2004; Sosik & Godshalk, 2005; Tepper, 1995). The power imbalance let subordinate protégés may perceive more barriers to taking initiative while in a supervisory mentoring relationship. And the supervisory mentors may provide nurturing mentoring rather than exploiting protégés to prevent dysfunctional mentoring (Feldman, 1999; Scandura, 1998). Third, since supervisory mentors’ job responsibilities include setting performance standards and supervising performance, some researchers had argued that several aspects of mentoring overlap with a supervisor’s normal job duties (Godshalk & Sosik, 2007; Scandura & Williams, 2004). Finally, supervisory mentors also tend to be experts on their subordinate protégés’ job tasks and usually providing support. Because instrumental or emotional social support from supervisors has substantial influence on subordinates’ work attitudes and behavior (Ng & Sorensen, 2008), this intimate knowledge of the work context and ability which let supervisory mentors to provide consistently higher quality mentoring to subordinate protégés
than non-supervisory mentors. Based on the above reasons, we suggest that empirical investigation of effective mentoring in the context of supervisory mentoring is necessary for researchers to develop more understanding.
There’re some individual and situational factors may affect subordinate protégés when they receive mentoring from supervisory mentors. Since roles and duties are different in a mentoring relationship, mentors likely have different cognitions and expectations than their protégés (Allen, 2007; Allen, Poteet, & Burroughs, 1997; Raabe & Beehr, 2003). Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to focus on the mentor’s perspective to investigate the relationship of mentor’s altruism (individual factor), perceived similarity to protégés (situational factor), and the interaction of these factors with protégés’ mentoring perceptions.
Supervisory Mentoring
A supervisory mentoring relationship refers to a mentoring dyad in which the mentor is also the protégé’s immediate supervisor (Scandura & Schriesheim, 1994; Scandura & Williams, 2004; Tepper, 1995). In this context, the supervisory mentor has authority over the subordinate protégé, and it may make the subordinate protégé’s decrease to express emotions or opinions of their career advancement and performance. This vulnerability stems from the possibility of the supervisory mentor manipulating or exploiting the subordinate protégé, and it may result in a dysfunctional mentoring relationship. Accordingly, some researchers had identified supervisory mentoring as potentially leading to dysfunctional mentoring due to role
conflicts (Feldman, 1999; Godshalk & Sosik, 2007; Scandura, 1998). But having a supervisory mentor still can be
3 mentor can control over task assignments
and career management opportunities for the subordinate protégé. Supervisory mentors assign the challenging tasks to the protégé that avoid job role conflicts or work overload, sponsor advancement opportunities, and increase protégés’ exposure to important individuals.
Supervisory mentors are in the best position to provide psychosocial support when subordinate protégés experience conflicts in their work roles, such as counseling and friendship. Actually, supervisory mentors have more career and psychosocial leverage than non-supervisory mentors.
In results from related studies, protégés with supervisory mentors received more career and psychosocial mentoring (Fagenson-Eland, et al., 1997; Ragins & Cotton, 1999; Scandura & Williams, 2004; Sosik & Godshalk, 2005; Tepper, 1995), and regarded their supervisory mentors as role models (Javidan, Bemmels, Devine, & Dastmalchian, 1995). The special dynamic that exists in supervisory mentoring due to power imbalances requires further research to elaborate and clarify the complexity of supervisory mentoring.
Perceived Similarity and Mentoring
The similarity-attraction paradigm suggests that individuals are attracted to those who are similar to themselves because of easier communication and shared values and perspectives, and it’s easy to develop more agreeable relationships (Byrne, 1971, 1997). The mutual identification is a core element in developing mentoring
relationships, and the similarity-attraction paradigm is generally considered the theoretical underpinning of past mentoring studies (Allen & Eby, 2007; Ensher, Grant-Vallone, & Marelich, 2002; Lankau, et al., 2005; Ragins & Kram, 2007; Sosik & Godshalk, 2005; Turban, Dougherty, & Lee, 2002; Wanberg, Kammeyer-Mueller, &
Marchese, 2006). However, researchers focused mainly on demographic similarities, but the role of attitudinal similarity was ignored in related studies (Ensher, et al., 2002; Lankau, et al., 2005; Nielson & Eisenbach, 2003; Turban, et al., 2002; Wanberg, et al., 2006).
Ensher and Murphy (1997) had found that demographic similarity and perceived deep-level attitudinal similarity were significantly associated with mentoring functions. Lankau et al. (2005) also found that mentoring functions were related to actual demographic similarity, perceived demographic similarity, and perceived deep-level attitudinal similarity. In addition to discuss demographic similarity between mentoring pairs, researchers of interpersonal relationships suggested that perceived attitudinal similarity also plays a critical role in predicting individual
outcomes for two reasons. First, perceived attitudinal similarities are more important in predicting any individual’s outcomes (Nielson & Eisenbach, 2003; Turban, et al., 2002; Turban & Jones, 1988). Second, length of the relationship weakens the effects of surface-level demographic dissimilarities but strengthens the effects of perceived deep-level (attitudinal and value) similarities (Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998; Turban, et al., 2002). We also offered two reasons why mentors’ perceived similarity to protégés may predict mentoring behaviors. First, similarity increases the possibility that individuals will receive consensual
validation for their own viewpoints, and it will generate positive attitudes and
behaviors toward the similar other, including mentoring behaviors (Sears & Rowe, 2003). Second, when an individual perceives others to be similar, the individual may have a feeling of closeness and this creates a sense of “oneness” (Cialdini, Brown, Lewis, Luce, & Neuberg, 1997, p. 483). This sense leads people to perceive themselves in
4 others (Neuberg et al., 1997, p. 510) and
may foster helping behaviors toward the similar others. Therefore, the supervisory mentor who is mentoring high-similarity protégés is motivated to provide mentoring functions by both altruistic motivation (helping the protégé) and egoistic
motivation (helping the self that resides in the protégé).
Because there’re only few studies have found preliminary support for a positive relationship between perceived similarity and mentoring functions, and these findings were based either on
single-source data (e.g., Burke, McKeen, & McKenna, 1993; Ensher, et al., 2002; Turban, et al., 2002; Wanberg, et al., 2006) or on multiple-sourced data where perceived similarity was related to only certain types of mentoring functions (Lankau, et al., 2005; Wanberg, et al., 2006). To this end, we replicate and extend this line of research using data collected from multiple sources and in the context of supervisory mentoring.
Hypothesis 1: Mentors’ perceived similarity to their protégé relates positively to protégés’ perceptions of the mentoring functions received.
Mentors’ Altruism and Mentoring
Empirical evidences suggested that a mentors’ personality can affect their
attitudes, propensity, and involvement in the mentoring relationship (Allen, 2003; Allen, Poteet, Russell, et al., 1997; Aryee, et al., 1996; Bozionelos, 2004; Niehoff, 2006). In a supervisory mentoring situation, the supervisor is required beyond the formal job requirements. Therefore, mentoring can be considered a form of prosocial behavior (Allen, 2003; Aryee, et al., 1996; Kanungo & Conger, 1993). Personality traits such as the mentor’s altruism that capture the
prosocial aspects of an individual can be meaningful predictors of mentoring
functions perceived by protégés because altruistic individuals tend to show concern for others and engage in helping behaviors without strong situational incentives (e.g. company rewards). Altruistic individuals may more likely provide advice and support for new members than less-altruistic
individuals.
Past studies had examined the role of prosocial-related personality traits in
mentoring and the traits were
operationalized by altruism or agreeableness (Allen, 2003; Aryee, et al., 1996; Bozionelos, 2004; Niehoff, 2006). The results provided preliminary support for the positive
relationship between prosocial-related traits and mentoring. Some researchers tested mentors’ prosocial-related traits and mentoring functions by self-reported data from mentors (Allen, 2003; Aryee, et al., 1996; Niehoff, 2006). Although these studies found that prosocial personality related positively to the mentoring provided, but the significant relationship still had the threat of common method variance
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003), and it limits the applicability of these research findings.
In summary, the relationship between the mentor’s altruism and the mentoring functions perceived by protégés has not been well-examined in the extant literature. To address this gap in the research, we examined the relationships between the mentor’s prosocial-related traits— specifically altruism—and
mentoring functions perceived by protégés. By using data collected from multiple sources in the context of supervisory mentoring, we provided a stronger control for the potential method variance and extended previous studies in another mentoring context.
Hypothesis 2: Mentors’ altruism relates positively to protégés’ perceptions of
5
the mentoring functions received.
The Interaction between Similarity and Mentor Altruism
From an interactionist perspective, individuals vary in their personality, cognition and motivation, resulting in
different responses and sensitivity to stimuli. The individual’s behavior can be influenced by the interaction between the personality traits and the environment. (Pervin, 1968; Schneider, 1983; Terborg, 1981).
Therefore, a strictly trait or situational approach to individual behavior may be misleading and inaccurate conceptually and empirically (Bowers, 1973). Aryee et al. (1996) had found that the interaction
between mentor’s altruism and opportunities for interaction related significantly to
mentors’ intention to mentor others. Besides this study, we hadn’t found any other study on the interaction between a mentor’s individual characteristics and situational factors on the mentoring functions perceived by protégés. To narrow this gap, we adopted an interactionist perspective and examined the interaction between the situational factors and the individual factors related to mentors on the mentoring functions reported by protégés. Based on the theory of objective
self-awareness (Duval & Wicklund, 1972; Ickes, 1982), an individual’s attention is directed to external or situational sources of information, and this external information becomes more salient than the internal information and will be the major
determinant of an individual’s behavior. Indeed, Brief and Motowidlo (1986) noted that mentor employees with a personal disposition of high altruism have the tendency to engage in prosocial behavior regardless of the situational cues.
According to the above perspectives, we argued that when supervisors have a strong altruistic tendency, the altruistic
motivation is salient and will drive the supervisory mentors to display prosocial behavior toward subordinate protégés through mentoring. For these supervisory mentors, their reason for mentoring is not only about similarity perception between themselves and their protégés to drive them to help the subordinate protégé. Such behavior is also a manifestation of the altruism personality trait. Specifically, for those supervisors low on altruism, the reason to mentor is a result of their
perceived similarity to their protégés via the mechanism of similarity attraction rather than the result of altruistic motivation. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed.
Hypothesis 3: The interaction between mentors’ perceived similarity to their protégés and mentors’ altruism relates significantly to protégés’ perceptions of mentoring functions received.
METHOD
Participants
We used anonymous surveys which distributed to individuals who were involved in an ongoing supervisory-mentoring
relationship. After excluding the missing data or unable to match a protégé from with a mentor form, we had 198 dyad surveys for analyses. The average age of protégés and mentors were 30.31 and 38.53 years (SD = 7.34; 7.78), the average tenure of protégés and mentors in their current organization were 48.57 and 107.24 months (SD = 62.16; 84.94), the average length of the working relationship with supervisory mentor was 32.87 months (SD = 39.26), 81 (41%) protégé and 127 (64%) mentors participants were men.
Measures
Because all subjects are Traditional Chinese native speakers, all items were
6 translated from English into Traditional
Chinese with the back-translation approach (Brislin, (1980).
Mentoring functions. Protégé
participants responded to the 9-item
Mentoring Functions Questionnaire (MFQ-9; Castro & Scandura, 2004) to indicate the mentoring functions they received. It includes three mentoring functions (career, psychosocial, and role modeling) and had acceptable reliability and construct validity in related studies (Castro & Scandura, 2004; C. Hu, 2008; Pellegrini & Scandura, 2005). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the whole scale (9 items) and each dimension were .93, .89, .89, and .90. The coefficients also showed in table 1.
Altruism. To measure mentors’
altruism, we used the 8-item Altruism subscale under the Agreeableness dimension in the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R, Costa & McCrae, 1992). This Altruism subscale won’t be confused with the concept of agreeableness and also showed acceptable internal consistency (Ames, 2008). In our study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .82.
Perceived similarity. Mentor
participants responded to 6-items concerning the perceived similarity between themselves and the subordinate protégé. These items were the same scale used by Lankau et al. (2005) to measure perceived deep-level similarity. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .90.
Control variables. We controlled
demographic background and length of working relationship (Fagenson-Eland, et al., 1997; Lankau, et al., 2005; Tonidandel, et al., 2007; Turban & Dougherty, 1994), including protégé and mentor age, sex, and length of working relationship.
Analysis
We conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) following suggestions by Anderson &
Gerbing (1988) to ensure the construct validity, and also tested the convergent and discriminant validities of the all variables. Finally, we used hierarchal regression analyses to test all hypotheses following Baron and Kenny’s (1986) suggestions. To prevent colinearity issues, two antecedent variables had be centered while testing the hypotheses (Aiken & West, 1991).
RESULTS
We conducted CFAs on a
three-factor model (nine items of measuring mentoring functions loaded on one single mentoring construct) and a five-factor model (nine items loaded on three mentoring constructs) to test the convergent validity (Anderson & Gerbing, (1988)). Results of the CFAs suggest that, all items had
significant factor loadings (p < .05) on the corresponding factors, supporting
convergent validity for both models. The chi-square values of the two models indicated were both significant (3-factor: 2
(226) = 761.62, p < .05; 5-factor: 2(220) =
517.26, p < .05), other practical fit indices fell within acceptable ranges (3-factor: RMSEA = .08; SRMR = .08; NNFI = .91; CFI = .92; PGFI = .61; 5-factor: RMSEA = .08; SRMR = .07; NNFI = .96; CFI = .96; PGFI = .65 ) (L.-t. Hu & Bentler, 1999). We examined the discriminant validity with chi-square difference tests that fixed the correlation between each pair of latent constructs to the value of one. For the five-factor model, the ten chi-square difference values with one degree of freedom ranged from 21.99 to 84.98. For the three-factor model, the three chi-square difference values with one degree of
freedom ranged from 85.61 to 120.32. All 13 chi-square difference tests were all significant, supporting discriminant validity for both models. We also conducted a chi-square difference test of nested model (van der Sluis, Dolan, & Stoel, (2005).
7 The result of the chi-square difference test
suggested that the model fit of the
five-factor model was significantly better than the three-factor model (2
(6) = 199.36, p
< .05). Therefore, we analyzed our hypotheses separately for each of three mentoring functions, but also reported the results for overall mentoring in a
supplementary analysis.
Table 1 shows the descriptive results. And the results of hierarchical regression
analyses in table 2 provided full support for Hypothesis 1 as the mentors’ perceived similarity with their protégé related positively to the protégés’ perceptions of mentoring received in the relationship (Career: = .22, p < .01; Psychosocial: = .23, p < .01; Role Modeling: = .16, p < .05). Hypothesis 2 was partial supported as mentors’ altruism related positively to protégés’ perceptions of career mentoring ( = .19, p < .01) and role modeling ( = .22, p < .01), but not for psychosocial mentoring ( = .10, p =.18). Hypothesis 3 also was supported as the interactional effect (Career: = .-15, p < .01; Psychosocial: = -.16, p < .05; Role Modeling: = -.16, p < .05). Furthermore, the negative beta coefficients suggested that the relationships were conformed to our prediction. The results showed in figures 1 to 4.
三、 討論
We concluded several findings from this study. First, the results support the similarity-attraction paradigm in mentoring in two ways. The first way is to use multiple-sourced data and avoid the risk of common method bias (Burke, et al., 1993; Ensher, et al., 2002; Turban, et al., 2002; Wanberg, et al., 2006). And the second way is to extend previous research in that
perceived similarity is related not only to psychosocial mentoring but also to career mentoring and role modeling (Lankau, et al., 2005; Wanberg, et al., 2006).
Second, we found the mentor’s altruism is associated with the mentoring functions perceived by protégés, with the exception of psychosocial mentoring. It extends previous studies that identify mentor altruism as an antecedent of mentoring in two ways. The first way is to use
multiple-sourced data, our findings provide further evidence that mentor altruism relates to mentoring functions protégés perceive (actual behavior) rather than just the intention to mentor others (behavioral intentions) indentified in previous studies (Allen, 2003; Aryee, et al., 1996). The second way is that our use of NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) provided
preliminary evidence that in the context of mentoring where provision of mentoring is critical, traits such as altruism that directly relate to prosocial propensity are pivotal. In order to compare to Allen’s (2003) study, we conducted a supplementary analysis to combine psychosocial mentoring and role modeling into one variable. We also found a significant relationship between perceived similarity and the combined variable ( = .18, p < .05).
A third key finding is that the mentoring functions protégés received are jointly influenced by mentor altruism and perceived similarity. In general, the supervisory mentor provides more mentoring functions to the subordinate protégé when the mentor’s perceived similarity to the protégé is high. This suggested that situational factors and
individual characteristics are complementary processes related to mentoring functions reported by protégés. Mentoring research will benefit from an interactionist approach when considering factors that contribute to the mentoring protégés receive.
A final important finding is that the demographic characteristics of the
mentoring dyads in terms of gender and age don't relate to mentoring functions, whereas
8 the length of working relationship relates to
mentoring functions. Our finding differs from that of Allen’s (2003) findings but is similar to the findings reported by Lankau et al. (2005) who examined formal mentoring relationships. This suggested that the length of the working relationship may be particularly important for supervisory or formal mentoring since the initiation of these types of mentoring relationships usually are not driven by mutual attraction or identification.
四、 計畫結果自評
According to our findings, we also suggest some implications. Because of the degree of perceived similarity may be less relevant for highly altruistic mentors. Supervisory mentors who have a higher altruism tendency will show more mentoring functions, regardless of their perceived similarity of protégés. Organizations should be cautious about pairing a low altruistic mentor with a low perceived-similarity subordinate protégé. If such a pairing is unavoidable, the organization should provide specific incentives for mentoring (Aryee, et al., 1996; Ragins & Scandura, 1994, 1999) and provide training to mentors that lowers their perceived cost and
increases their perceived benefit of being mentors (Ragins & Scandura, 1994, 1999).
Although we extend previous research by taking an interactionist approach, some limitations should be noted. First, our study may not be generalizable to
non-supervisory mentoring relationships. However, since past research regarding supervisory mentoring is not abundant, our study not only contributes to understand supervisory mentoring relationship, but it also increases the knowledge that a
supervisor can be an effective mentor under the conditions of high altruism and similar with the protégé. Second, although we tried to explain the relationship based on
theory, causal relationships still can’t be warranted. It’s an issue but a possible alternative may be that as subordinate protégés receive more mentoring, they adapt and tailor their behaviors to their
supervisory mentors, which in turn increases perceived similarity reported by supervisory mentors.
五、 參考文獻
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple
regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage
Publications.
Allen, T. D. (2003). Mentoring others: A dispositional and motivational approach.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62,
134-154.
Allen, T. D. (2007). Mentoring relationships from the perspective of the mentor. In B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The
handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 123-147). Los
Angeles: Sage Publications.
Allen, T. D., & Eby, L. T. (2004). Factors related to mentor reports of mentoring functions provided: Gender and relational characteristics. Sex Roles, 50, 129-139. Allen, T. D., & Eby, L. T. (2007). The
Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach. Malden,
MA; Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Allen, T. D., Poteet, M. L., & Burroughs, S.
M. (1997). The mentor's perspective: A qualitative inquiry and future research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
51, 70-89.
Allen, T. D., Poteet, M. L., Russell, J. E. A., & Dobbins, G. H. (1997). A field study of factors related to supervisors' willingness to mentor others. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 50, 1-22.
Ames, D. R. (2008). Assertiveness expectancies: How hard people push depends on the consequences they predict.
9
Psychology, 95(6), 1541-1557.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.
Aryee, S., Chay, Y. W., & Chew, J. (1996). The motivation to mentor among
managerial employees: An interactionist approach. Group & Organization
Management, 21, 261-277.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:
Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Bowers, K. S. (1973). Situationism in psychology: An analysis and a critique.
Psychological Review, 80, 307-336.
Bozionelos, N. (2004). Mentoring provided: Relation to mentor's career success, personality, and mentoring received.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64,
24-46.
Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors.
Academy of Management Review, 11,
710-725.
Brislin, R. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.),
Handbook of cross-culture psychology
(Vol. 2, pp. 389-444). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Burke, R. J., McKeen, C. A., & McKenna, C. (1993). Correlates of mentoring in
organizations: The mentor's perspective.
Psychological Reports, 72, 883-896.
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Byrne, D. (1997). An overview (and
underview) of research and theory within the attraction paradigm. Journal of Social
& Personal Relationships, 14, 417-431.
Castro, S. L., & Scandura, T. A. (2004). The
tale of two measures: Evaluation and comparison of Scandura's (1992) and Ragins and McFarlin's (1990) mentoring measures. Paper presented at the
Southern Management Association Meeting, San Antonio, TX.
Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., & Neuberg, S. L. (1997). Reinterpreting the empathy-altruism relationship: When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 73(3), 481-494.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992).
Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Duval, S., & Wicklund, R. A. (1972). A
theory of objective self awareness. New
York,: Academic Press.
Ensher, E. A., Grant-Vallone, E. J., & Marelich, W. D. (2002). Effects of perceived attitudinal and demographic similarity on protégés' support and satisfaction gained from their mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 32, 1407-1430.
Fagenson-Eland, E. A., Marks, M. A., & Amendola, K. L. (1997). Perceptions of mentoring relationships. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 51, 29-42.
Feldman, D. C. (1999). Toxic mentors or toxic proteges? A critical re-examination of dysfunctional mentoring. Human
Resource Management Review, 9,
247-278.
Godshalk, V. M., & Sosik, J. J. (2007). Mentoring and leadership. In B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The
handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 149-178). Los
Angeles: Sage Publications.
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and
10 deep-level diversity on work group
cohesion. Academy of Management
Journal, 41, 96-107.
Hu, C. (2008). Analyses of measurement equivalence across gender in the Mentoring Functions Questionnaire (MFQ-9). Personality and Individual
Differences, 45, 199-205.
Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural
Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Ickes, W. (1982). A basic paradigm for the study of personality, roles, and social behavior. In W. Ickes & E. S. Knowles (Eds.), Personality, roles and social
Behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Javidan, M., Bemmels, B., Devine, K. S., & Dastmalchian, A. (1995). Superior and subordinate gender and the acceptance of superiors as role models. Human
Relations, 48, 1271-1284. doi:
10.1177/001872679504801102 Kanungo, R. N., & Conger, J. A. (1993).
Promoting altruism as a corporate goal.
Academy of Management Executive, 7,
37-48.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work:
Developmental relationships in
organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott
Foresman.
Lankau, M. J., Riordan, C. M., & Thomas, C. H. (2005). The effects of similarity and liking in formal relationships between mentors and proteges. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 67, 252-265.
Neuberg, S. L., Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Luce, C., Sagarin, B. J., & Lewis, B. P. (1997). Does empathy lead to anything more than superficial helping? Comment on Batson et al. (1997). Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3),
510-516.
Ng, T. W. H., & Sorensen, K. L. (2008). Toward a further understanding of the
relationships between perceptions of support and work attitudes: A meta-analysis. Group Organization
Management, 33, 243-268. doi:
10.1177/1059601107313307
Niehoff, B. P. (2006). Personality predictors of participation as a mentor. Career
Development International, 11, 321-333.
Nielson, T. R., & Eisenbach, R. J. (2003, April 30, 2009). Not all relationships are created equal: Critical factors of high quality mentoring relationships. The
International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching, 1, from
http://www.emccouncil.org/index.php?id =55
Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. (2005). Construct equivalence across groups: An unexplored issue in mentoring research.
Educational & Psychological Measurement, 65, 323-335.
Pervin, L. A. (1968). Performance and satisfaction as a function of
individual-environment fit. Psychological
Bulletin, 69, 56-68.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Raabe, B., & Beehr, T. A. (2003). Formal mentoring, versus supervisor and coworker relationships: Differences in perceptions and impact. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 24, 271-293.
Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1993). Gender and willingness to mentor in organizations. Journal of Management,
19, 97-111.
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,
11 Ragins, B. R., & Kram, K. E. (2007). The
handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice. Los Angeles:
Sage Publications.
Ragins, B. R., & McFarlin, D. B. (1990). Perceptions of mentor roles in
cross-gender mentoring relationships.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37,
321-339.
Ragins, B. R., & Scandura, T. A. (1994). Gender differences in expected outcomes of mentoring relationships. Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 957-971.
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.
Richard, O. C., Ismail, K. M., Bhuian, S. N., & Taylor, E. C. (in press). Mentoring in supervisor-subordinate dyads:
Antecedents, consequences, and test of a mediation model of mentorship. Journal
of Business Research.
Scandura, T. A. (1998). Dysfunctional mentoring relationships and outcomes.
Journal of Management, 24, 449-467.
Scandura, T. A., & Ragins, B. R. (1993). The effects of sex and gender role orientation on mentorship in male-dominated occupations. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 43, 251-265.
Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1994). Leader-member exchange and supervisor career mentoring as
complementary constructs in leadership research. Academy of Management
Journal, 37, 1588-1602.
Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2004). Mentoring and transformational
leadership: The role of supervisory career mentoring. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 65, 448-468.
Schneider, B. (1983). Interactional
psychology and organizational behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.),
Research in Organizational Behavior,
(Vol. 5, pp. 1-31). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Sears, G. J., & Rowe, P. M. (2003). A personality-based similar-to-me effect in the employment interview:
Conscientiousness, affect-versus
competence-mediated interpretations, and the role of job relevance. Canadian
Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du
comportement, 35(1), 13-24.
Sosik, J. J., & Godshalk, V. M. (2005). Examining gender similarity and mentor? Supervisory status in mentoring
relationships. Mentoring & Tutoring:
Partnership in Learning, 13, 39 - 52.
Tepper, B. J. (1995). Upward maintenance tactics in supervisory mentoring and nonmentoring relationships. Academy of
Management Journal, 38, 1191-1205.
Terborg, J. R. (1981). Interactional Psychology and Research on Human Behavior in Organizations. The Academy
of Management Review, 6, 569-576.
Tonidandel, S., Avery, D. R., & Phillips, M. G. (2007). Maximizing returns on mentoring: Factors affecting subsequent protege performance. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 28, 89-110.
Turban, D. B., & Dougherty, T. W. (1994). Role of protege personality in receipt of mentoring and career success. Academy
of Management Journal, 37, 688-702.
Turban, D. B., Dougherty, T. W., & Lee, F. K. (2002). Gender, race, and perceived similarity effects in developmental relationships: The moderating role of relationship duration. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 61, 240-262.
Turban, D. B., & Jones, A. P. (1988). Supervisor-subordinate similarity: Types, effects, and mechanisms. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 73, 228-234.
van der Sluis, S., Dolan, C. V., & Stoel, R. D. (2005). A note on testing perfect
12
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 12, 551-577.
Wanberg, C. R., Kammeyer-Mueller, J., & Marchese, M. (2006). Mentor and protege predictors and outcomes of mentoring in a formal mentoring program. Journal of
13 Table 1
Means, standard deviations and correlations of the study variables (N=198)
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Protégé Age 30.31 7.34 -
2. Protégé Gender 1.59 .49 -.21** -
3. Length of working relationships 32.87 39.26 .56** -.15* -
4. Mentor Age 39.24 7.80 .35** -.09 .34** - 5. Mentor Gender 1.36 .48 -.19** .34** -.12 -.24** - 6. Altruism 4.65 .59 .04 -.12 .01 .16* -.03 (.82) 7. Perceived similarity 3.84 .88 -.13 .00 -.04 -.07 -.01 .32** (.90) 8. Career Mentoring 3.46 .83 .06 -.04 .14 -.04 -.09 .24** .28** (.89) 9. Psychosocial Mentoring 3.36 .87 .14 -.06 .26** -.03 -.08 .15* .25** .62** (.89) 10.Role Modeling 3.58 .89 .06 .04 .09 -.03 -.04 .25** .23** .70** .60** (.90) 11.Overall Mentoring 3.47 .75 .10 -.02 .18** -.04 -.08 .24** .29** .88** .85** .88** (.93)
Note. Gender: 1 = male, 2 = female; Length of working relationships is calculated in months
14 Table2
Regression results for altruism, perceived similarity, and their interaction on mentoring protégé perceived
Predictors Career Psychosocial Role Modeling Overall mentoring
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
β β β ΔR2 β β β ΔR2 β β β ΔR2 β β β ΔR2
Controls
Protégé age -.01 .02 .01 .01 .05 .03 .05 .07 .05 .02 .06 .04
Protégé gender .01 .04 .04 -.00 .01 .01 .08 .11 .11 .03 .06 .06
Length of working relationship .17* .18* .20* .29** .28** .31** .10 .10 .13 .21* .21** .24** Mentor age -.12 -.14+ -.16* -.15* -.16* -.18* -.09 -.13 -.14+ -.14+ -.16* -.19* Mentor gender -.10 -.11 -.09 .04 -.08 -.08 -.06 .09** -.07 -.08 -.06 .02 -.10 -.10 -.08 .05+ Predictors Altruism (A) .19** .20** .10 .11 .22** .23** .20** .21** Perceived similarity (PS) .22** .20** .11** .23** .21** .08** .16* .15* .10** .23** .21** .12** Interaction A * PS -.15* .02* -.16* .03* -.16* .03* -.18** .03** F 1.44 4.64** 4.78** 3.70** 5.30** 5.50** .78 3.58** 3.92** 2.16+ 5.67** 6.09** R2 .04 .15 .17 .09 .16 .19 .02 .12 .14 .05 .17 .21 Adj R2 .01 .11 .13 .06 .13 .15 -.01 .08 .11 .03 .14 .17
15 Figure 1. The interaction between mentors’ perceived similarity to protégés and mentors’ altruism on career mentoring perceived by protégés
Perceived Similarity 3.06 3.59 3.73 3.59 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 Low High Ca reer M ento ring Low Altruism High Altruism
16 Figure 2. The interaction between mentors’ perceived similarity to protégés and mentors’ altruism on psychosocial mentoring perceived by protégés
Perceived Similarity 3.00 3.41 3.59 3.56 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 Low High Psychosocial Mentoring Low Altruism High Altruism
17 Figure 3. The interaction between mentors’ perceived similarity to protégés and mentors’ altruism on role modeling perceived by protégés
Perceived Similarity 3.16 3.80 3.65 3.84 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 Low High Ro le M o deli ng Low Altruism High Altruism
18 Figure 4. The interaction between mentors’ perceived similarity to protégés and mentors’ altruism on overall mentoring perceived by protégés
Perceived Similarity 3.08 3.60 3.61 3.71 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 Low High Ov eral l M entorin g Low Altruism High Altruism
出席國際學術會議心得報告
計畫編號
NSC98-2410-H-004-073
計畫名稱
師徒關係中師父利他人格與知覺徒弟師父相似性對師徒功能之影響出國人員姓名
服務機關及職稱
胡昌亞 國立政治大學企業管理學系會議時間地點
11 – 16 July 2010, Melbourne, Australia會議名稱
International Congress of Applied Psychology 2010 (ICAP 2010)發表論文題目
Hu, C., Wang, Y. H., Huang, J. C., & McMillan, L. (2010, July).Measurement Equivalence of the 15-item version of the Workaholism Battery across Workers from the New Zealand and Taiwan.
一、參加會議經過 七月十一日至七月十六日期間，參與其他會議議程或聆聽多場 Keynote Speaker 演講，並在 會議期間以電子壁報方式報告所入選之會議論文。此外，本論文也在議程最後一天獲選至會 場大型互動螢幕中撥放。 二、與會心得 七月十一日至七月十六日共六天參與議程或報告會議論文，使本人瞭解以心理學取向來研究 員工招募與甄選、師徒制度、以及領導領域研究議題之趨勢，對於本人未來的研究規劃有相 當的啟發。此外，透過參與會議議程與活動，能有機會與國內外優秀的研究學者交流與互動， 也使本人受益良多。
國科會補助計畫衍生研發成果推廣資料表
日期:2011/01/26國科會補助計畫
計畫名稱: 師徒關係中師父利他人格與知覺徒弟師父相似性對師徒功能之影響 計畫主持人: 胡昌亞 計畫編號: 98-2410-H-004-073- 學門領域: 人力資源管理無研發成果推廣資料
98 年度專題研究計畫研究成果彙整表
計畫主持人：胡昌亞 計畫編號： 98-2410-H-004-073-計畫名稱：師徒關係中師父利他人格與知覺徒弟師父相似性對師徒功能之影響 量化 成果項目 實際已達成 數（被接受 或已發表） 預期總達成 數(含實際已 達成數) 本計畫實 際貢獻百 分比 單位 備 註 （ 質 化 說 明：如 數 個 計 畫 共 同 成 果、成 果 列 為 該 期 刊 之 封 面 故 事 ... 等） 期刊論文 0 0 100% 研究報告/技術報告 0 0 100% 研討會論文 1 1 100% 篇 Hu, C., Wu, T. -Y., &； Wang, Y. H. (2010, April). Mentoring Functions Provided by Supervisory Mentors: An Interactionist Approach. Poster accepted for presentation at the 25th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, United State of America. 論文著作 專書 0 0 100% 申請中件數 0 0 100% 專利 已獲得件數 0 0 100% 件 件數 0 0 100% 件 技術移轉 權利金 0 0 100% 千元 碩士生 1 0 5% 博士生 1 0 25% 博士後研究員 0 0 100% 國內 參與計畫人力 （本國籍） 專任助理 0 0 100% 人次 期刊論文 0 0 100% 研究報告/技術報告 0 0 100% 國外 論文著作 研討會論文 0 0 100% 篇專書 0 0 100% 章/本 申請中件數 0 0 100% 專利 已獲得件數 0 0 100% 件 件數 0 0 100% 件 技術移轉 權利金 0 0 100% 千元 碩士生 0 0 100% 博士生 0 0 100% 博士後研究員 0 0 100% 參與計畫人力 （外國籍） 專任助理 0 0 100% 人次 其他成果
