Scholarly article on topic 'Empirical investigation of a moderating and mediating variable in between mentoring and job performance: A structural model'

Empirical investigation of a moderating and mediating variable in between mentoring and job performance: A structural model Academic research paper on "Economics and business"

CC BY-NC-ND
0
0
Share paper
Keywords
{Mentoring / Self-efficacy / "Personal learning" / "Relationship quality" / "Communication satisfaction" / "Job performance" / " Mentoring " / Autoeficacia / "Aprendizaje personal" / "Calidad de la relación" / "Satisfacción en la comunicación" / "Desempeño laboral"}

Abstract of research paper on Economics and business, author of scientific article — Jeevan Jyoti, Poonam Sharma

Abstract This study evaluates the role of self-efficacy between mentoring and its outcomes namely, relationship quality, communication satisfaction, and personal learning. It also examines the mediating role of relationship quality, communication satisfaction, and personal learning between mentoring and job performance. Besides, this moderated mediation relationship is also evaluated. Data has been collected from 276 employees working in banking sector in Jammu & Kashmir (J&K, India). The confirmatory factor analysis has been done for confirming the factor structure and structural equation modelling for testing the hypothesized relations. Results revealed that self-efficacy moderates the relationship between mentoring and personal learning, relationship quality, and communication satisfaction. Further the study revealed that interaction effect of mentoring and self-efficacy on job performance is mediated by personal learning, relationship quality, and communication satisfaction. The data has been collected using a questionnaire at a single point of time. For future research longitudinal study should be conducted.

Academic research paper on topic "Empirical investigation of a moderating and mediating variable in between mentoring and job performance: A structural model"

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology

Colegio Oficial

de Psicólogos

www.elsevier.es/rpto

Empirical investigation of a moderating and mediating variable in between mentoring and job performance: A structural model

CrossMark

JeevanJyoti, Poonam Shanria*

University Of Jammu, Jammu, India

ARTICLE INFO

Article history: Received 16 October 2015 Accepted 23 January 2017 Available online 2 March 2017

Keywords:

Mentoring

Self-efficacy

Personal learning

Relationship quality

Communication satisfaction

Job performance

ABSTRACT

Palabras clave:

Mentoring

Autoeficacia

Aprendizaje personal

Calidad de la relación

Satisfacción en la comunicación

Desempeño laboral

This study evaluates the role of self-efficacy between mentoring and its outcomes namely, relationship quality, communication satisfaction, and personal learning. It also examines the mediating role of relationship quality, communication satisfaction, and personal learning between mentoring and job performance. Besides, this moderated mediation relationship is also evaluated. Data has been collected from 276 employees working in banking sector in Jammu & Kashmir (J&K, India). The confirmatory factor analysis has been done for confirming the factor structure and structural equation modelling for testing the hypothesized relations. Results revealed that self-efficacy moderates the relationship between mentoring and personal learning, relationship quality, and communication satisfaction. Further the study revealed that interaction effect of mentoring and self-efficacy on job performance is mediated by personal learning, relationship quality, and communication satisfaction. The data has been collected using a questionnaire at a single point of time. For future research longitudinal study should be conducted.

© 2017 Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.Org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

La investigación empírica de una variable moderadora y mediadora entre el mentoring y el desempeño laboral: modelo estructural

RESUMEN

El estudio analiza el rol que juega la autoeficacia entre el mentoring y sus resultados, es decir, la calidad de la relación, la satisfacción en la comunicación y el aprendizaje personal. También indaga en el papel mediador de la calidad de la relación, la satisfacción en la comunicación y el aprendizaje personal entre el mentoring y el desempeño laboral. Además, se analiza esta relación de mediación moderada. Se recogieron datos de 276 empleados del sector bancario en Jammu y Kashmir (J&K), India. Se llevó a cabo un análisis factorial confirmatorio con el fin de confirmar la estructura factorial y el modelado de ecuaciones estructurales para probar las relaciones postuladas. Los resultados pusieron de manifiesto que la autoeficacia modera la relación entre mentoring y aprendizaje personal, calidad de la relación y satisfacción en la comunicación. Dichos datos se recogieron mediante cuestionario en un momento puntual. En investigaciones futuras debería llevarse a cabo un estudio longitudinal.

© 2017 Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. Este es un artículo Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.Org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Human resources are valuable intangible assets in the organisation. Their needs and desires are diverse, and difficult to understand. Due to increasing size of the industry and the complexity associated with its operations and human element, many

* Corresponding author. Commerce Department, University of Jammu, Jammu. India.

E-mail address: poonamsharma2386@gmail.com (P. Sharma).

organisations have been implementing mentoring programmes. Mentoring helps in increasing the morale of the employees and motivates them to achieve organisational goals. Through mentoring, organisations see their employees more personally and obtain knowledge about their personal as well as work related needs. It is just like a thread that integrates individual and organisational-based goals. Organisations can attain manifold benefits from mentoring their employees (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004; Ismail et al., 2009; Ismail & Ridzwan, 2012;

http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.rpto.2017.01.002

1576-5962/© 2017 Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid. Published by Elsevier España, S.LU. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Washington, 2011). These gains are further strengthened through the presence of a mentoring culture and a mentoring structure in the organisation (Jyoti & Sharma, 2015a). There are certain employee characteristics, like self-efficacy (Pan, Sun, & Chow, 2011) and mentor's willingness, that can also boost mentoring outcomes (Ismail & Ridzwan, 2012). Various types of mentoring programmes exist in organisations, like formal and informal mentoring programmes. Formal mentoring programmes are deliberate action plans implemented by the organisation. In this programme, organisation appoints mentors, who guide, protect, coach, and counsel mentees/employees, whereas in the informal mentoring relations develop on their own (Hansman, 2000), i.e., a person approaches a favoured person (mentor) and that person agrees to form a mentoring relationship. It develops through mutual interaction or attraction (Hu, Wang, Wang, Chen, &Jiang, 2016). Ragins and Cotton (1999) explored formal as well as informal mentoring relationships and revealed that protégés with informal mentors receive greater benefits than protégés with formal mentors. Protégés with informal mentors experience more career development and psychosocial functions than protégés with formal mentors. They also found that protégés with informal mentors are more satisfied with their mentors than protégés with formal mentors. Ragins, Cotton, and Miller (2000) also examined mentoring in both formal and informal environment. They compared career and job attitudes among individuals with formal mentors and informal mentors and found that satisfaction with a mentoring relationship had a stronger impact on attitudes, irrespective of the type of relationship, i.e., formal or informal.

Earlier conceptual and empirical research papers have revealed that mentoring results in job satisfaction (Lo, Thurasamy, & Liew, 2014). In a mentoring relationship the mentor helps the mentee understand his/her job roles and responsibilities, which removes job ambiguity and role ambiguity to a great extent (Lankau & Scandura, 2002), which in turn enhances employees' job satisfaction (Jyoti & Sharma, 2015a; Lo, Ramayah, & Kui, 2013). The mentor provides career functions and psychosocial functions, and acts as a role model to continuously encourage the mentee to exhibit his/her best talent that motivates him/her to achieve personal as well as organisation goals (Akarak & Ussahawanitchakit, 2008; Emmerik, 2008; Lo et al., 2013). Further, coaching and counselling provided by the mentor with regard to different aspects of job as well as the organisation help to develop loyalty components among the mentees that results in organisational commitment (Ghosh & Reio, 2013), low turnover (Chen, Liao, & Wen, 2014; Payne & Huffman, 2005), emotional sharing (Liu, Jun, & Weitz, 2011 ), employee satisfaction and perceived career success (Lester, Hannah, Harms, Vogelgesang, & Avolio 2011; Murphy & Ensher, 2001), etc.

Research has also been conducted on formal and informal mentoring (Chen et al., 2014; Emmerik, 2008; Germain, 2011; Okurame, 2008; Ragins et al., 2000; Ramaswami, Huang, & Dreher 2014; Washington, 2011) and on gender and race differences in mentoring (Lo et al., 2013; Ramaswami et al., 2014; Vries, Webb, & Eveline, 2006). Earlier studies have also recommended exploration of the moderating and mediating variables between mentoring and its outcomes (DuBois, Holloway, Valentin, & Cooper, 2002; Godshalk & Sosik, 2000; Jyoti & Sharma, 2015b). Previous researchers have revealed a positive impact of mentoring on quality of relationship (Lakind, Atkins, & Eddy, 2015; Langhout, Rhodes, & Osborne, 2004; Sandner, 2015), communication satisfaction (Madlock& Lightsey, 2010; Rowland, 2012), and personal learning (Lankau & Scandura, 2002; Pan et al., 2011). Further, Schunk and Mullen (2013) conceptualised that an integration of mentoring with self-regulated learning gives desired results, i.e., academic motivation, achievement, long-term productivity, and retention of individuals in the profession. Pan et al. (2011) proved that

Figure 1. Theoretical Framework.

self-efficacy moderates the relationship between mentoring and personal learning and suggested exploring this subordinate characteristic, i.e., self efficacy, between mentoring and related outcomes. Jyoti and Sharma (2015a, 2015b) proved that organisational characteristics like mentoring structure and mentoring culture strengthen the relationship between mentoring and career development, and mentoring and job satisfaction. Authors have revealed that personal characteristics such as proactive personality (Wang, Hu, Hurst, & Yang, 2014), core self-evaluation (Wu, Zhuang, & Hung, 2014), and emotional intelligence (Hu et al., 2016) moderate the relationship between mentoring and its related outcomes. Taking clue from this, we generated the theoretical framework wherein self-efficacy moderates between mentoring and relationship quality, mentoring and communication, and mentoring and personal learning. Additionally, researchers have pointed that the impact of mentoring on mentees' attitude is not direct but it is mediated through various other mechanisms and hinted at the need to explore the mediating variables (Lankau & Scandura, 2002; Liu et al., 2011; Madlock & Lightsey, 2010). Pan et al. (2011) suggested mentoring quality should be explored between mentoring and job performance. Further, Ragins et al. (2000) suggested that future research should focus on more in-depth examination of the quality of mentoring relationships. Therefore, the present research focuses on the evaluation of the mediating role of personal learning, relationship quality, and communication satisfaction between mentoring and job performance (this is presented diagrammatically in Figure 1). Further, the integrated model (moderated-mediation) about the overall impact of moderating and mediation variables between mentoring and job performance has not been evaluated earlier. This can help to reveal a clear picture of the impact of mentoring on job performance (Table 1). Thus, the focus of present research is on the mediated effect of personal learning, relationship quality, and communication satisfaction between the interaction effect of mentoring and self-efficacy on job performance.

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development

Moderation Hypotheses

There are studies which have proved career self-efficacy as a mediator between mentoring and career success (Day & Allen, 2004). Further, St-Jean and Mathieu (2015) evaluated entrepreneurial self-efficacy as a mediator between mentoring and job satisfaction as well as intention to stay, but DiRenzon, Linnehan, Shao, and Rosenberg (2010), Huang and Weng (2011), Pan et al. (2011), and Park and Lee (2012) all empirically proved that employees' self-efficacy moderates the relationship between mentoring and personal learning. Taking clue from this, we have generated the following hypotheses.

Self-efficacy, mentoring, and personal learning. Self-efficacy is defined as the personal judgement about one's capability to adopt certain behaviours and actions in order to accomplish certain objectives and expected outcomes (Pan et al., 2011; Wu, Lee, & Tsai, 2012). It has an impact on an individual's emotional reactions and thought patterns (Cherian & Jacob, 2013). Researchers

Table 1

Moderation and Mediation Studies in Mentoring Context.

S. No. Authors Outcome Variables Moderator Mediator

1 Lankau and Scandura (2002) Role ambiguity, job satisfaction and intention to leave Personal learning

2 Day and Allen (2004) Career success Career motivation and career self-efficacy

3 Rhodes, Reddy, and Grossman (2005) Substance use in adolescence Parent relations

4 Poon(2006) (conceptual) Mentoring relationship, personal and professional development Mentee's and mentor's self-efficacy

5 Byrne etal. (2008) Career success (job interpersonal, financial, hierarchical), in-rolejob performance, career satisfaction and organisational career satisfaction. Proactive personality, career motivation and career stage Career self-efficacy

6 Ismail and Jui (2009) Individuals psychosocial behaviour Gender type (same gender, cross gender)

7 Ismailetal. (2009) Individual career development Gender difference

8 Madlock and Lightsey (2010) Job satisfaction and organisational commitment Communication satisfaction

9 Fleig-Palmerand Schoorman(2011) Knowledge transfer Trust

10 Pan etal. (2011) Job performance and career satisfaction Self-efficacy Personal learning

11 Ismail and Ridzwan (2012) Individual psychosocial behavior Same gender

12 Lo etal. (2013) Job satisfaction Supervisor gender

13 Chan etal. (2013) Misconduct, prosocial behaviour, academic attitude, self-esteem and academic performance(grade) Parent relationship, teacher relationship and mentor relationship

14 Kao et al. (2014) Mentoring relationship Gender

15 Kwan, Yim, and Zhou (2014) Employees' customer orientation Gender

16 Qian, Lin, Han, Chen, and Hays (2014) Job-related stress Proteges' individual traditionality and trust in mentor

17 Collings, Swanson, and Watkins (2014) Intention to leave Integration into the new environment

18 Sun, Pan, and Chow (2014) Contextual performance and promotability - Psychological empowerment - Organisation based self-esteem - Supervisor political skill

19 Chen etal. (2014) Affective commitment and turnover intentions Power distance orientation Psychological safety

20 Michelle and Chery (2015) knowledge transfer and retention relationship affective commitment

21 Arora and Rangnekar (2015) Organisational commitment Agreeableness and conscientiousness

22 St-Jean and Mathieu (2015) Job satisfaction and intention to stay Entrepreneurial self-efficacy

23 Jyoti and Sharma (2015b) Career development Mentoring culture and mentoring structure

24 Park, Newman, Zhang, Wu, and Hooke(2015) Turnover intention Perceived organisational support

have proven that self-efficacy influences self-control, performance, task efforts (Bandura, 1986), effective problem resolving (Gist & Mitchell, 1992), feelings of stress and anxiety (Prussia, Anderson, & Manz, 1998), coping behaviour, individual choice behaviour, effort to overcome obstacles (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998), organisational commitment (Vuuren, DeJong, & Seydel 2008), etc.

According to the mentoring theory, a mentor can provide a protégé with functions such as guidance, role modelling, and acceptance (Day & Allen, 2004). These functions are directly associated with the individual's sense of ability and self-efficacy (Goh, Ogan, Ahuja, Herring, & Robinson, 2007), because a person cannot learn from a mentoring programme until and unless his/her self-urge encourages him/her to do so. Mentees' level of self-confidence, capability, and competence (indicator of self-efficacy) enhances the relationship between supervisory mentoring and personal learning. DiRenzon et al. (2010), Huang and Weng (2011), Pan et al. (2011), and Park and Lee (2012) stated that self-efficacy moderates the relationship between the mentoring function and adaptation to learning. An individuals' perceived self-efficacy is an important factor in determining behavioural performances. Further, the higher the faith the protégés have in them, the higher their capacity to learn during the mentoring relationship. Therefore, self-efficacy

boosts the relationship between mentoring and personal learning.

Hypothesis la: Mentee's self-efficacy moderates the relationship between mentoring and personal learning.

Self-efficacy, mentoring, and relationship quality. Effective mentoring helps to establish a healthy relationship between mentor and mentee (Kao, Rogers, Spitzmueller, Lin, & Lin, 2014; Sosik & Godshalk, 2005; Xu & Payne, 2014) and depends upon the amount of effort exerted by both the mentor and mentee for the sustainabil-ity of the relationship (Parra, Dubois, Neville, & Pugh-Lilly, 2002). Experienced support from a mentor has been revealed to result in personal as well as professional knowledge development, feedback, reciprocity of the relationship, friendliness, and trust. These indicators help in building sound mentor-mentee relationship (Lofstrom & Eisenschmidt, 2009). Skinner and Belmont (1993) found that the relationship quality depends upon feedback and the number of interactions that mentor and mentee experience over a period of time. This relationship is improved when mentoring is integrated with self-efficacy, and when efficacious mentee performs the task as per the mentor's expectations it helps to create a positive image in front of mentor, brings them close to each other, and helps to boost the relationship between mentor and mentee. Efficient

employees/mentees absorb the guidance provided by the mentor very quickly (Higgins & Thomas, 2001), which makes the mentor feel a sense of accomplishment and take initiative to develop better relationship in terms of quality time allocation, interactions, and informal get together. Therefore, success in mentoring in business is boosted when an employee is confident and performs the job efficaciously (Byrne, Dik & Chiaburu, 2008; Day & Allen, 2004), which in turn helps to establish a healthy relationship between the persons involved in this programme.

Hypothesis lb: Mentee's self-efficacy moderates the relationship between mentoring and the quality of relationship.

Self-efficacy, mentoring, and communication satisfaction. Madlock and Lightsey (2010), and Lasater et al. (2014) found a positive relationship between supervisor's mentoring and subordinate's communication satisfaction. In mentoring, mentees with high self-efficacy tend to be actively involved in development and learning activity, thus they are more likely to engage in and benefit more from a mentoring relationship (Allen et al., 2004; Pan et al., 2011 ). Efficacious employees are confident and able to communicate their point of view to their mentor and in turn understand their mentor's point of view too, which helps in the free flow of communication of information, learning from each other, and exchange of growth opportunities, which in turn helps to establish communication satisfaction. Mentors also communicate their ideas, challenges, and career opportunities available to efficacious employees/mentees more than to the less efficacious ones as they know that efficacious employees/mentees have a higher level of confidence to do the job. So, the mentor communicates more with them, listens, and pays more attention to such mentees, which instils a feeling of communication satisfaction among mentees. Thus, the key factor, which strengthens mentoring and communication satisfaction, is the level of mentee's self-efficacy. DiRenzon et al. (2010) stated that self-efficacy buffers the effect of mentoring related outcomes.

Hypothesis lc: Mentee's self-efficacy moderates the relationship between mentoring and communication satisfaction.

Mediation Hypotheses

Mentoring, personal learning, relationship quality, communication satisfaction, and job performance. One of the important work relationships that can serve as a platform for personal learning is mentoring (Butterworth, Henderson, & Minshell, 2008; Janasz & Godshalk, 2013; Lankau & Scandura, 2002). Individuals learn a great deal through their interactions with others, especially those with different backgrounds, expertise, and experience in the organisation. Mentoring mechanisms/functions enhance personal learning of mentees (Rueywei, Shih-Ying, & Min-Lang 2014; Schunk & Mullen, 2013) by providing knowledgeable feedback (Lofstrom & Eisenschmidt, 2009) about various activities, which in turn improve mentees' job performance (Anseel, Beatty, Shen, Lievens, & Sackett, 2015). Positive mentoring makes a mentee feel safe to ask questions, take challenging assignments, and in return mentor actively listens and welcomes mentee's to discuss various work related problems, which helps increase mentee's learning capabilities (Lankau & Scandura, 2002). This increase in the learning capability and changes in behaviours makes a mentee do his/her job in a better way (Kram, 1985). Further, Pan et al. (2011) examined the mediating role of personal learning between supervisory mentoring and career outcomes. Mentoring can influence a protégé's behavioural (personal learning) reactions towards the workplace. This behaviour is associated with a more positive job experience (performance). Further, Kram and Hall (1996) revealed that mentors are a valuable resource for learning organisations, and mentoring (vocational support) is positively related to personal learning. The mentoring support provided by a mentor helps the protégé increase his/her understanding of the job context through

learning skill, which may result in less confusion about the expectations associated with their roles in the organisation. It permits the mentee to improve his/her competencies that are related to his/her job performance (Hezlett, 2005). Liu, Liu, Kwan, and Mao (2009) found that mentoring is positively related to mentee's personal learning that in turn positively affects mentee's job performance.

Further, mentoring is an association between two people built upon trust, in which the mentor offers ongoing support and development opportunities to the mentee (Clutterbuck, 2004). Both share a common purpose of continuous development and growth, which help build the quality of relationship. It has been found that those individuals who experienced high quality relationship (as defined by measures of closeness, satisfaction, and engagement in their relationships) derived more benefits than those who experience lower quality relationships (Chan et al., 2013; Schwartz, Rhodes, Chan, & Herrera, 2011). Mentoring enhances relationship quality (Hu et al., 2016; Lakind et al., 2015; Sandner, 2015). A healthy relationship increases the frequency of interaction and acquisition of skills, which enables individuals to perform effectively (Nahrgang, Morgeson, & Illies, 2009). In a high quality mentor-protégé relationship, the mentor discusses current issues relating to the mentee's work and offers insights about the organisational work styles, informal networks, and challenges and opportunities available, which in turn enhance his/her job performance.

Madlock and Lightsey (2010) and Rowland (2012) stated that mentoring helps enhance communication satisfaction, which is a socio emotional feeling derived from positive relational interactions (Hecht, 1978). Further, it is the extent to which employees perceive satisfaction with respect to information and communication environment (Chan & Lai, 2017). Effective communication is a major part of supervisor's/mentor's strategy that results in communication satisfaction (Madlock & Lightsey, 2010). Dasgupta, Suar, and Singh (2013) revealed that perceived supervisory support at the workplace leads to better communication satisfaction. The basic aim of mentoring is to build the proficiency of the mentee to the level of self-reliance, which spreads the communication of ideas across the organisation. The mentor offers a safe environment to the mentee within which they can discuss work related issues and techniques to complete challenging tasks (Lankau & Scandura, 2002). When the mentee has complete information about his/her job, s/he is able to perform his/her job in a better way (Pavitt, 1999). Good communication helps the mentee to keep internal processes running smoothly and helps to create superior relationships with people, both within and outside the organization (Lasater et al., 2014; Shahzad, 2014). On the contrary, poor communication can result in increased uncertainty about situations, relationships, increased occupational stress, and burnout (Ray, 1993). Subordinates perform well when they are satisfied with the communication flow in their organisation. Increased communication satisfaction encourages employees to open up freely and discuss their opinions at the workplace (Shahzad, 2014). Communication satisfaction also grows when mentor communicates to his/her mentee the ways to accomplish a particular task and discuss various issues related to work, which help the mentee to perform well.

Hypothesis 2a. Personal learning mediates the relationship between mentoring and job performance.

Hypothesis2b. The relationship quality mediates the relationship between mentoring and job performance.

Hypothesis 2c. Communication satisfaction mediates the relationship between mentoring and job performance.

Moderated Mediation

By integrating mediation and moderation relationships, we propose a moderated mediation model. In our model, self-efficacy

moderates all the three paths in mediated relationships. So, in the integrated model we shall be evaluating the indirect effect of the interaction of mentoring and self efficacy on job performance through personal learning, relationship quality, and communication satisfaction. Same shall be tested through multi-group analyses.

Method

Participants

The population consisted of 1,105 employees working in five banks, namely PNB Bank, SBI Bank, J&K banks, ICICI Bank, and HDFC Bank in Jammu & Kashmir (North India). In order to avoid the problem of common method bias, information has been procured from multiple respondents, i.e., information pertaining to mentoring, personal learning, relationship quality, communication satisfaction, and self-efficacy has been procured from employees, whereas their level of job performance has been procured from their immediate superior.

Measures

Mentoring. This construct included 16 items adopted from Noe (1988). Sample items are "My mentor instructs me about my job", "My mentor helps me in coordinating my goals", "I admire by mentor's ability to teach others", etc.

Personal learning. A self-generated seven-item construct covering two dimensions, i.e., relational job learning and personal skill development of personal learning, was developed on the basis of Lankau and Scandura (2002) and Liu et al. (2009). Sample items are "I prefer to work on tasks that force me to learn new skills", "I grow and change", "I try to learn special skills and competence while pursuing work", "I learn through feedback", etc.

Relationship quality. An eight-item construct was self-generated for measuring relationship quality, covering trust, support, respect, information sharing, collaborative problem solving, and expectations (Karcher, Nakkula & Harris, 2005; Ragin et al., 2000), including items such as "We respect each other" and "Both of us are there for each other in hour of need."

Communication satisfaction. A nine-item self-generated construct was used for assessing communication satisfaction after reviewing the research papers by Hecht (1978) and Madlock and Lightsey (2010), including items such as "I can openly communicate my ideas" and "My mentor gives me feedback about my performance."

Self-efficacy. Originally this scale consisted of 10 items (Riggs, Warka, Babasa, Betancourt, & Hooker 1994). The factor loading of two items were below the threshold value, i.e., less than .50. So, we used only eight items, such as "I do not doubt my ability to do job" or "I have confidence in my ability to do job."

Job performance. Job performance has been measured with the help of 7 items (Goodman & Svyantek, 1999; Motowidlo & Van, 1994); examples are "He/she timely completes tasks assigned to him/her" and "He/she fulfils responsibilities specified in his /her job description."

Control variables. The type of bank has been taken as control variable (public and private banks).

Pilot Survey

A pilot survey was conducted with 100 bank-employees, selected conveniently, in order to achieve a representative sample. Further, data collected at this stage was also used for an exploratory factor analysis in order to identify the factor structure of all the constructs, as some of the constructs were self generated. The test of

appropriateness of a factor analysis was verified through a KMO measure of sampling adequacy, where value greater than .50 is acceptable (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, &Tatham, 2010), which indicated its relevance for further analysis. Statements with factor loading less than .50 were deleted (Hair et al., 2010). The mentoring construct comprised 16 items that got reduced to 6 items and converged undertwo factors. Similarly, the personal learning construct consisted of 7 items that converged under two factors. Further, communication satisfaction, relationship quality, job performance, and self-efficacy consisted of 9,8,7, and 8 items respectively, which got reduced to 4 items in case of all the constructs. The detailed results are presented in Table 2. Internal consistency was also measured with the Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Reliability of all the constructs ranged from .76 to .87 (see Table 2). After establishing reliability, the items retained in each construct were used for the final data collection.

Sample Size

After the pilot survey, the sample size was calculated on the basis of the following formula (Malhotra, 2007):

X = o2 Z2/D2,

where X= size of sample, ct = standard deviation, Z = standard score and D = amount of precision or allowable error in the sample.

By applying this formula, the sample size arrived at 292, which was rounded off to 300. So, 300 bank employees and their immediate superiors (n = 300) were contacted. The number of employees from each branch has been selected through proportionate method. Employees from each branch was selected on the basis of the chit method. Two hundred ninety-four employees returned back the questionnaire, out of which 18 questionnaires were incomplete, so these were not included in the study. Thus, the final sample came to 276 complete sets.

Results

Demographic Profile

Out of 276 employees, 54.7 percent are male and 45.3 percent are female. Most employees are having 1 to 3 year of relationship with their mentor (83.3 percent) and 16.7 percent of employees are having more than three years of relationship with their mentor. Most of the employees considered their immediate superior as their mentor (40.2 percent), 33 percent named their colleague whereas 22.8 percent named their hall manager as their mentor. Only 4 percent of the employees considered subordinates as their mentor. Type of bank, i.e., public or private, was taken as control variable and the results revealed no significant impact of this on dependent variables, i.e., personal learning (P = .029, p > .05), relationship quality (P = .006, p>.05), communication satisfaction (P = .056, p>.05), andjob performance (P = .049, p > .05). Further, addition or deletion of control variable did not change the relationship, so it has not been shown in the final models (Arnold, Turner, Barling, Kelloway, & Mckee, 2007).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

The validity and reliability of the constructs was assessed with the help of CFA. Second order factor models were designed for two constructs as multiple factors emerged after EFA, namely, mentoring and personal learning. Zero order factor models were designed for rest of the constructs. Fit indices of all the models are within the threshold limit, i.e., GFI, CFI values are greater than .90 and RMR is lower than .05 (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2007) (see Table 3). Standardized regression weights

60 J. Jyoti, P. Sharma /Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 33 (2017) 55-67

Table 2

Result of Exploratory Factor Analyses.

Construct Factors Loading KMO Eigen value Variance explained Cronbach Alpha

(% age)

Mentoring .792 2.147 70.23 .815

Career function

Cf3 .785

Cf4 .876

Cf5 .732

Psychosocial function 2.067

Pf2 .668

Pf3 .858

Pf4 .849

Personal learning .847 2.565 66.810 .849

Relational job learning

Pll .745

Pl2 .887

Pl3 .679

Skill development 2.112

Pl4 .658

Pl5 .8ll

Pl6 .792

Pl7 .800

Relationship quality .798 2.658 66.457 .828

Rq4 .728

Rq6 .845

Rq7 .850

Rq8 .832

Communication satisfaction .816 2.932 73.30 .877

Cs5 .8l6

Cs6 .89l

Cs7 .893

Cs8 .82l

Self-efficacy .805 2.794 69.859 .856

Se3 .784

Se4 .847

Se5 .880

Se6 .829

Job performance .783 2.625 65.632 .824

Jp3 .79l

Jp4 .8l8

Jp5 .846

Jp7 .785

(> .50) and average variance extracted (> .70) established the convergent validity (Table 4). Further, discriminant validity was also proved by comparing the model fitness of the six-factor model with the one-factor model. The goodness of model fit of the six-factor model (RMR = .053, GFI = .844, AGFI = .813, CFI = .909, RMSEA = .053) is better than the one-factor model's (RMR = .062, GFI = .834, AGFI = .805, CFI = .899, RMSEA=.61), thereby proving discriminant validity (Kluemper, McLarty, & Bing, 2015). Additionally, discriminant validity also got established by comparing the variance extracted with squared correlations amongst different constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981 ).The average variance extracted for all the constructs is higher than the squared correlation, thereby proving discriminant validity (Table 5). Reliability of the constructs has been checked through composite reliability (> .70; Table 4).

Common Method Bias

The common method bias for all the constructs in the study have been examined through common latent factor method (Podsakoff,

Table 3

Model Summary of Goodness of Fit Indices.

Construct X2/df RMR GFI AGFI CFI

Mentoring 5.197 .056 .955 .864 .947

Personal learning 3.220 .027 .959 .913 .960

Relationship quality 1.759 .014 .994 .969 .996

Communication satisfaction 5.125 .019 .982 .910 .986

Self-efficacy 3.485 .017 .987 .936 .990

Job performance 5.286 .029 .982 .910 .978

Note. x2/d/=chi-square/degrees of freedom, RMR = root mean square residual, GFI = goodness of fit index, AGFI »adjusted goodness of fit index, and CFI = comparative fit index.

MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). In this method, we added a common latent factor (CLF) to our factor structure model, and then connected it to all observed items in the model. Then the standardized regression weights from this model was compared to the standardized regression weights of a model without the CLF. The results revealed that there is no item whose difference is greater than .20 (Jyoti & Bhau, 2016). Therefore, common method bias is not a problem in this study.

Moderation Effect

SEM was used to check various relations proposed. It is a mul-tivariate technique that seeks to explain the relationship among multiple variables (Byrne, 2010). The various latent constructs were amputated to get single observed variable for each construct, as recommended by Gaskin (2012) when the number of manifest variables is large. In this study we have self-efficacy (metric variable) as moderating variable between mentoring and its outcomes, i.e.,

Table 4

Reliability and Validity Analysis.

Constructs Mean Standard Standardized Average Variance Composite

Deviation Regression Weight Extracted Reliability

Mentoring .740 .930

Career function 3.77 1.02 .867

Psychosocial function 3.63 1.05 .854

Personal learning .762 .941

Relational job learning 4.03 0.81 .929

Skill development 4.27 0.75 .814

Relationship quality (Rq) .557 .976

Rq 4 3.75 0.96 .602

Rq 6 4.05 0.85 .786

Rq 7 3.83 0.99 .815

Rq8 3.94 0.94 .769

Communication satisfaction (Cs) .648 .976

Cs 5 3.92 0.91 .742

Cs 6 3.90 0.59 .857

Cs 7 3.93 0.84 .864

Cs 8 3.94 0.89 .751

Self- efficacy (Sf) .602 .977

Se 3 4.11 0.84 .676

Se4 3.99 0.92 .780

Se5 4.14 0.88 .867

Se6 4.18 0.89 .769

Job performance (Jp) .543 .970

Jp3 3.89 0.92 .692

Jp4 3.78 1.05 .749

Jp5 3.88 1.03 .806

Jp7 3.88 1.06 .696

Table 5

Discriminant Validity and Correlation Analysis.

Constructs Mentoring Personal Relationship Communication Self-efficacy Job Performance

Learning Quality Satisfaction

Mentoring .740

Personal Learning .263** .762

(.069)

Relationship Quality .486** .502** .557

(.236) (.252)

Communication satisfaction .545** .350** .468** .648

(.297) (.122) (.219)

Self-efficacy .232** .431** .348** .347** .602

(.053) (.185) (.121) (.120)

Job performance .372** .366** .459** .406** .422** .543

(.138) (.133) (.210) (.164) (.178)

Note. Values on the diagonal axis represents the average variance extracted. Values below the diagonal axis are correlations and values in the parentheses represent squared correlation.

** p<.01

personal learning, relationship quality, and communication. Moderation of metric variable is checked through interaction effect in AMOS software (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Gaskin, 2012; Little, Card, Bovaird, Preacher, & Crandall, 2007, p. 223). In this process three models were created, in which the first model revealed that mentoring significantly affects personal learning, relationship quality, and communication satisfaction (Figure 2). The second

Figure 2. Impact of Mentoring on Personal Learning Relationship Quality and Communication Satisfaction (Model 1).

model revealed a significant impact of mentoring and self-efficacy (moderator) on personal learning, relationship quality, and communication satisfaction (Figure 3). The third model revealed that the interaction of mentoring and self-efficacy is significantly predicting personal learning (SRW = .383, p <.001), relationship quality (SRW = .567, p <.001), and communication satisfaction (SRW = .648, p<.001) and the model fit indices are also within the threshold limit (Figure 4) (RMR = .012, GFI = .933, NFI = .962, CFI = .963). Further, the R2 of the third model is better than the other two models' (Figures 2, 3, and 4).

Additionally, we also checked the moderation through multi-group analysis by dividing the data into two groups, i.e., high and low. Data has been centred around the mean of the moderating variable, i.e., self-efficacy. Firstly, the parameters for the hypothesized relationship are constrained to be equal and in the second step the parameters are not constrained. If the difference between the two models is significant (p < .05), that means the variable used for splitting the sample moderates the relationship (Jimenez-Jimenez & Sanz-Valle, 2011). The results revealed that the relationship between mentoring and personal learning, relationship quality, and communication satisfaction are significant for the constrained

Figure 3. Impact of Mentoring and Self-efficacy on Personal Learning Relationship Quality and Communication Satisfaction (Model 2).

RMR = .012, GFI = .933, NFI = .962, CFI = .963.

Figure 4. Moderating Effect of Self-efficacy (Model 3). *p <.05, **p <.01,* **p <.001.

and unconstrained models in both groups. Even though the relationship between dependent and independent is positive for both groups but this, relationship is stronger and significant when the level of self-efficacy is high (Table 6). Therefore, it is concluded that self-efficacy moderates the relationship between mentoring and personal learning, mentoring and relationship quality, and mentoring and communication satisfaction.

Further, a series of simple slop was conducted, which reveals that self-efficacy moderates the relationship between mentoring and personal learning, mentoring and relationship quality, and mentoring and communication satisfaction (Figures 5-7). Hence, hypothesis 1a, 1b, 1c are accepted.

Table 6

Comparison of Constrained and Unconstrained Models.

Relations Self-efficacy

High Low

Mentoring ^personal learning .372"" .252***

Mentoring ^relationship quality .670*** .561***

Mentoring^ communication satisfaction .721*** .624***

X2 Constrained Model 244.225 201.423

X2 Unconstrained Model 78.584 49.703

ax2 165.641** " 151.72""

Mediation Effect

In this research there are three mediators, namely, personal learning, relationship quality, and communication satisfaction, between mentoring and job performance relationship.

The mediation effect was checked through the Sobel test (Sobel, 1982). Sobel test checks whether the indirect effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable through the mediator variable is significant or not. The result revealed that an indirect effect is significant for all the three mediators and the same is shown in Figure 8 and Table 7.

CT 4-§ 3.5"

I 2.50

CL 21.51

Low mentoring

High mentoring

Moderator -Low self-efficacy M High self-efficacy

p<.001

Figure 5. The Moderating Effect of Self-efficacy between Mentoring and Personal Learning.

C O 2.5

DC 1.5

Low mentoring

High mentoring

Moderator ■Low self-efficacy M High self-efficacy

Figure 6. The Moderating Effect of Self-efficacy in between Mentoring and Relationship Quality.

c 5 ■S 4.5

I 2 I 1.5 ° 1

Low mentoring

High mentoring

Moderator -Low self-efficacy M High self-efficacy

Figure 7. The Moderating Effect of Self-efficacy in between Mentoring and Communication Satisfaction.

Further, we have three mediators at the same level. This is the case of multiple-mediation, so, in order to check multiple-mediation, we adopted Preacher and Hayes' (2008) methodology. They recommended bootstrapping of specific indirect effects to reduce omitted parameter bias. Further, including multiple mediators in one model helps to estimate the relative effect ofthe specific indirect effect associated with all mediators (Preacher & Hayes, 2008, p. 881). In Figure 8 the total effect of mentoring on job performance is significant (c = .408, p< .001). Further, the direct effect of mentoring on job performance became insignificant (c' = .131, p > .05), which suggests complete mediation. Table 7 represents the parameter estimates for the total and specific indirect effects on the association between mentoring and job performance as mediated by personal learning, relationship quality, and communication satisfaction. The total indirect effect and the specific indirect effects of personal learning, relationship quality, and communication satisfaction are all significant, as reflected by confidence intervals, as upper and lower confidence level do not contain zero (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Further, inspection of the contrast revealed a significant difference between specific indirect effect of personal learning and relationship quality (Z =1.9, p<.05), indicating that the relationship quality had a significant greater indirect effect on job performance as compared to personal learning. Therefore, hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c are accepted.

Moderated Mediation

Finally, we investigated the full model through structure equation modelling using the maximum likelihood method in the AMOS programme. In this integrated model we assessed the strength of the relationship between mentoring and job performance through the mediation of personal learning, relationship quality, and communication satisfaction at high and low level of self-efficacy. The moderated mediation is established when the

Figure 8. Mediating Role of Personal Learning, Relationship Quality and Communication Satisfaction in between Mentoring and Job Performance. Note. Values in parentheses are standard error and values without the parentheses are standard estimates. * p < .05, ** p <.01,*** p <.001.

Table 7

Multiple-mediation Analysis Personal Learning, Relationship Quality and Communication Satisfaction in between Mentoring and Job Performance.

Point Estimate SE Percentile 95% LL-UL BC 95% LL-UL Sobel Values

Specific indirect effect through mediators

Personal Learning 0.044* 0.025 0.003-0.098 0.004-0.102 2.195 (p <.05)

Relationship quality 0.129*** 0.038 0.059-0.209 0.062-0.213 3.380 (p<.001)

Communication satisfaction 0.104** 0.045 0.022-0.198 0.025-0.203 2.606 (p<.01)

TOTAL INDIRECT EFFECT 0.277 0.057 0.172-0.395 0.173-0.396

Contrasts

Personal learning vs. Relationship quality -0.085 0.0523 -0.189-0.015 -0.187-0.018

Personal learning vs. Communication satisfaction -0.060 0.581 -0.168-0.037 -0.165-0.040

Relationship quality vs. Communication satisfaction 0.025 0.060 -0.092-0.143 -0.093-0.142

Note. BC = bias corrected; 5000 bootstrap samples, LL = lower level, UL=upper level * p<.05, **p<.01,***p<.001.

Table 8

Bootstrapped Result of Moderated Mediation.

Mediator Moderator Level Conditional Boot SE Boot Boot

(self-efficacy) Indirect Effect LL 95% UL 95%

Personal learning High .147*** .054 .055 .274

Low .069** .030 .026 .147

Relationship quality High .246** .055 .152 .368

Low .197*** .057 .099 .326

Communication satisfaction High .160** .061 .055 290

Low .058 .017 .245

Note. N = 1000 Bootstrapping re-samples, LL and UL = lower level and upper level of the bias corrected confidence interval, SE=standard error. *p<.05, **p<.01,***p<.001.

conditional indirect effect of mentoring on job performance in the presence of a moderating variable is significant. The result revealed that moderated-mediation effect of mentoring on job performance through personal learning, relationship quality, and communication satisfaction for both groups is significant, as the indirect relations are significant with 95 percent confidence interval (Table 8).

Discussion

Mentoring has been researched for more than two decades and is recognised equally by academicians and practitioners. This study highlights the process that enhances the relationship between mentoring and job performance through moderating and mediating variables. This study explores three issues:

i) The moderating role played by self-efficacy in between mentoring and personal learning, mentoring and relationship quality, and mentoring and communication satisfaction relationships.

ii) The mediating role played by personal learning, relationship quality, and communication satisfaction in between mentoring and job performance relationship.

iii) The interaction effect of mentoring and self-efficacy on job performance through the mediation of personal learning, relationship quality, and communication satisfaction.

The results of the present study revealed that the impact of mentoring on personal learning, relationship quality, and communication satisfaction is boosted when the mentee is efficacious. Efficacious subordinates/mentees are capable of absorbing more from work experience, i.e., mentoring enhances mentee's personal learning (Lankau & Scandura, 2002). Mentoring gives more benefits when it is clubbed with self-efficacy, because a mentee cannot learn anything when his/her inner urge cannot force him/her to do so. Self-efficacious mentee is more capable and competent to learn more from mentoring support. He/she learns from regular interaction, getting together and the information sharing process, which helps in boosting personal learning capabilities. Guidance and coaching provided by the superior/mentor help the subordinate to learn special skills that help him/her enhance his/her competences. Efficacious employees/mentees learn more through various assignments in the mentoring relationships and have the urge to gain more and more, which gives them the opportunities to continuously grow and learn new skills, thereby enhancing employees'/mentees' personal learning. Further, mentoring helps in establishing a healthy relationship between mentor and mentee. This relationship is more strengthened when mentoring is integrated with the mentee's self-efficacy. The efficacious mentee is

able to complete all the tasks assigned by the mentor in a better way, which helps in creating a positive image in the mind of the mentor and brings them closer. A mentor with a positive mentee image interacts more with efficacious mentees.The frequent interactions help to built congenial relationship and ultimately results in a better relationship quality between the two. In addition to this, self-efficacious mentees with mentoring support feel more confident and are able to communicate their queries and ideas without hesitation to the mentor. Mentor in turn solves problems and communicates necessary information to efficacious mentees with positive attitude. Nowadays organisations usually keep their employees informed about various developments occurring in the organisation. Mentor serves as a channel of communication regarding updated information to the mentee. A self-efficacious employee/mentee is able to grasp this information in a better way due to his/her intellectual capabilities. If there is any confusion regarding any aspect, the efficacious mentee is able to clarify the same without any hesitation in a better manner. Thus, the mentor feels happy to share, listen, and pay attention with a more efficacious mentee than with a less efficacious mentee, which enhances communication satisfaction among mentees.

Furthermore, mentoring effectiveness is reflected in better subordinates' job performance through their learning quotient, positive communication, and better relationship quality. The buddy approach (assignment of a mentor to the new entrants) used in the banking sector helps to improve the learning capability of the subordinate by providing a better solution to the work related issues and hence improving performance. Mentoring instils in mentees a sense of competence, identity, learning skill, and effectiveness in his or her role, which helps in enhancing personal learning. Further, personal learning is a useful asset, which is essential for good performance. Mentee's performance is directly affected by skill and competence, which are developed through personal learning. Mentor supports his/her mentee at every stage. His/her support is reflected in three ways. Firstly, through career support, that helps mentee to develop their career. Secondly, through psychosocial support, in the form of regular discussion and information sharing, which helps in increasing mentee sense of competence, identity, and work-role effectiveness. Thirdly, the mentor serves as a role model in terms of appropriate attitudes, values, and behaviours for the mentee. All this helps in building a sound relationship between mentor and mentee. Further, mentor's behaviour involves building trust, inspiring a shared vision, encouraging creativity, and emphasising development, which results into establishing a healthy relationship between both of them. This sound relationship between them helps the mentee to improve job performance. Mentoring support helps the mentee to acquire the necessary skills and experiences needed to perform work, and protect them from uncertainties. Mentor also helps the mentee in building confidence, overcoming pressures, assisting in personal life, and teaching with

examples, which helps in creating communication satisfaction. When the mentor listens, pays attention to mentee, and gives regular feedback about performance, increases the level of job performance. Positive feedback by mentor boosts mentee's morale and enhances his/herjob performance.

Finally, the combined effect of mentee's mentoring and self-efficacy indirectly affects job performance through personal learning, relationship quality, and communication satisfaction. When a self-efficacious mentee gets positive mentoring, it improves his/her attitude towards learning, helps to build quality based relationship between mentor and mentee, and generates satisfaction with communication patterns, which ultimately results in better job performance.

Theoretical Implications

This study contributes to the mentoring literature. This investigation is important for academicians and researchers alike. This investigation adds to the prior body of knowledge in mentoring literature by evaluating the moderating and mediating variables between mentoring and job performance. We empirically proved the moderating role of self-efficacy between mentoring and personal learning, mentoring and relationship quality, and mentoring and communication satisfaction. Further, the mediating role of personal learning, relationship quality, communication satisfaction between mentoring and job performance has also been proved. Finally, we have also proved that interaction of mentoring and self-efficacy indirectly affects job performance through personal learning, relationship quality, and communication satisfaction by conducting multi-group analysis.

Managerial Implications

In practical terms, this study has implications for manager as well as for practitioners. The results reveal positive impact of mentoring on personal learning, relationship quality, and communication satisfaction. Organisations that practise mentoring should take necessary measures to implement mentoring by developing detailed instruction guides for the mentor and mentee. Buddy approach (assignment of an experienced person to new entrants) should be used in order to increase a learning atmosphere. Mentor should advise a mentee about promotional opportunities and help him/her in achieving professional goals. Further, the results show that an individual's self-efficacy is an important moderating factor that boosts the impact of mentoring on personal learning, relationship quality, and communication satisfaction. Although self-efficacy is person specific, yet, organisations should enhance self-efficacy of their employees by making them confident about their ability to do the work. Organisations should create a strong belief in their employees' minds that they have the skill necessary to do a particular task and handle any complex situation easily. The low efficacious employee should be made a part of the team where collective effort is valued. Efficient teams help to increase the knowledge as well as the operational capability of all the members. Management should create such norms which encourage them to learn from mistakes and risk taking, which can boost the efficacy level of the employees. The manager/superior should give proper feedback about the employee's performance, which helps the employee in recognising his/her strengths and weaknesses. Further, proper coaching, counselling, and grooming help to build self confidence among employees. The results of this study suggest that personal learning, relationship quality, and communication satisfaction act as mediating agents between mentoring and job performance. In order to enhance personal learning, relationship quality, and communication satisfaction, a mentor should encourage the mentee to discuss personal and professional problems with

him/her. He should inculcate such an atmosphere in which mentee is comfortable to consider mentor as a friend and go often or socialise with each other, which strengthens their relationship. It also promotes growth through enhanced learning, better utilisation of time, effort, and resources and enriches vibrancy and productivity. Further, management should establish such a mentoring culture that encourages mentor and mentee to take interest, exhibit openness, affection, and be there for each other whenever needed. Mentor should encourage the mentee to think/talk freely and discuss work related problems there by solving problems together, which brings them close to each other and increases their communication level. Further, the management should encourage the mentor to provide a learning environment by conducting interacting session with their colleagues in the workplace, and by providing challenging assignments to their employees. A mentor should also motivate mentees to build relationship quality and communication satisfaction. This component should help improve performance. Moreover, proper evaluation programmes should be conducted to force an employee/mentee to perform well.

Social Implications

Mentor provides not only career related support but also psycho-social support to a protégé by helping him/her to solve life related issues too. So, management must develop formal as well as informal mentoring systems, so that employees are able to establish work-life balance. Further, mentoring develops the confidence level of the protégé, which helps him/her to solve social issues in a much better way. Mentoring encourages employees to speak openly and learn new things, which helps them to create a networking within the organisation as well as in the society. Outspoken and confident employees/protégés make their own ways to grow in the society and handle personal as well as professional problem easily.

Limitations and Future Research

Immense efforts have been done to make the study valid and reliable but still there are certain limitations, which can be rectified in the future. Firstly, the study is cross sectional in nature; in the future, a longitudinal study can be conducted. Secondly, more outcomes of mentoring can be taken into consideration in the future for better understanding of the concept. Further, the role of other variables, like longevity of relationship, can be explored between mentoring and its outcomes.

Conflict of Interest

The authors of this article declare no conflict of interest.

References

Akarak, P., & Ussahawanitchakit, P. (2008). Effects of mentoring on intention to leave in Thai public accounting firms: Mediators of job efficiency, commitment and performance. Review of Business Research, 8,37-46.

Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,127-136.

Anseel, F., Beatty, A. S., Shen, W., Lievens, F., & Sackett, P. R. (2015). How are we doing after 30 years? A meta-analytic review of antecedents and outcomes of feedback-seeking behaviour. Journal of Management, 41,318-348.

Arnold, K. A., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & Mckee, M. C. (2007). Transformational leadership and psychological well-being: The mediating role of meaningful work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12,193-203.

Arora, R., & Rangnekar, S. (2015). The joint effect of personality and supervisory career mentoring in predicting occupational commitment. Career Development International, 20, 63-80.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,1173-1182.

Butterworth, C., Henderson, J., & Minshell, C. (2008). Increase your status with mentoring. Occupational Health, 60(37), 29-37.

Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS (2nd ed.). New York/London: Routledge.

Byrne, Z. S., Dik, B. J., & Chiaburu, D. S. (2008). Alternatives to traditional mentoring in fostering career success. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 72,429-442.

Chan, C. S., Rhodes, S. E., Howard, W. J., Lowe, S. R. M., Schwartz, S. E. O., & Herrera, C. (2013). Pathways of influence in school-based mentoring: The mediating role of parent and teacher relationships. Journal of School Psychology, 51(10), 129-142.

Chan, S. H. J., & Lai, H. Y. I. (2017). Understanding the link between communication satisfaction, perceived justice and organisational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Business Research, 70, 214-223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jbusres.2016.08.017

Chen, C., Liao, J., & Wen, P. (2014). Why does formal mentoring matter? The mediating role of psychological safety and the moderating role of power distance orientation in the Chinese context. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25,1112-1130.

Cherian, J., & Jacob, J. (2013). Impact of self efficacy on motivation and performance of employees. International Journal of Business and Management, 8(14), 80-88.

Clutterbuck, D. (2004). Everyone needs a mentor: Fostering talent in your organisation. Chartered institute of personnel and development. London, UK: CIPD House. Retrieved from www.book.google.com

Collings, R., Swanson, U., & Watkins, R. (2014). Impact of peer mentoring on student of wellbeing, integration and retention: A controlled comparative evaluation of residential students in UK higher education. Higher Education, 68, 927-942.

Dasgupta, S. A., Suar, D., & Singh, S. (2013). Impact of managerial communication styles on employees' attitudes and behaviours. Employee Relations, 35, 173-199.

Day, R., & Allen, T. D. (2004). The relationship between career motivation and self-efficacy with protégé career success. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 64(3), 72-91.

DiRenzon, M., Linnehan, F., Shao, P., & Rosenberg, W. L. (2010). A moderated mediation model of e-mentoring. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 76(10), 292-305.

DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentin, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2002). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 157-197.

Emmerik, I. J. H. (2008). It is not only mentoring the combined influences of individual-level and team-level support onjob performance. Career Development International, 13, 575-593.

Fleig-Palmer, M. M., & Schoorman, F. D. (2011). Trust as a moderator of the relationship between mentoring and knowledge transfer. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18,334-343.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, F. D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unob-servable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.

Gaskin, J. (2012). Imputing composite variables in AMOS YouTube. Retrieved from www.yotube.com/watch?v=dsos9tqjxw8

Germain, M. L. (2011). Formal mentoring relationship and attachment theory: Implication for human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 10,123-150.

Ghosh, R., & Reio, T. G. R. (2013). Career benefits associated with mentoring for mentors: A Meta analysis. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 83(1), 106-116.

Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17,183-211.

Godshalk, V. M., & Sosik, J. J. (2000). Does mentor-protégé agreement on mentor leadership behaviour influence the quality of a mentoring relationship? Group Organisation Management, 25, 291-317.

Goh, D., Ogan, C., Ahuja, M., Herring, S. C., & Robinson, J. C. (2007). Being the same isn't enough: Impact of male and female mentor on computer self-efficacy of college students in IT related fields. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37,19-40.

Goodman, S. A., & Svyantek, D. J. (1999). Person-organisation fit and contextual performance: Do shared values matter? Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 55, 254-275.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2007). Multivariate Data Analysis (6thed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7thed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Hansman, C. A. (2000). Formal mentoring program. In A. L. Wilson, & E. R. Hayes (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 493-507). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Hecht, M. L. (1978). The conceptualisation and measurement of interpersonal communication satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 7, 253-264.

Hezlett, S. A. (2005). Protégés learning in mentoring relationships: A review ofthe literature and an exploratory case study. Advances in Development Human Resource, 7,505-526.

Higgins, M. C., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Constellations and careers: Toward understanding the effects of multiple developmental relationships. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 22, 223-247.

Hu, C., Wang, S., Wang, Y.-H., Chen, C., & Jiang, D.-Y. (2016). Understanding attraction in formal mentoring relationship from an affective perspective. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 94,104-113.

Huang, C. Y., & Weng, R. H. (2011). Determinants of relationship effectiveness and its effect on work outcome in mentorship. International Proceedings of Economics Development and Research., 7, 29-34. www.gdnet

Ismail, A., Ibrahim, Z., Jusoff, K, Jui, M. K. K, Jaya, I. H., & Mahdi, A. F. (2009). The moderating effect of gender difference between mentoring and individuals career. Canadian Social Science, 5(3), 34-46.

Ismail, A., & Jui, M. K. (2009). Formal mentoring gender type in mentoring and individuals psychosocial: A moderating model approach. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Science, 3,10-24.

Ismail, A., & Ridzwan, A.A. (2012). Relationship between mentoring program and academic performance: The mediating effect of self-efficacy. Third International conference on business and economic research proceeding. ISBN:978-967-5705-05-2. Retrieved from www.internationalconference.com.my

Janasz, S. C., & Godshalk, V. M. (2013). The role of e-mentoring in proteges' learning and satisfaction. Group & Organisation Management, 38, 743-774.

Jimenez-Jimenez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning and performance. Journal of Business Research, 64, 408-417.

Jyoti, J., & Bhau, S. (2016). Empirical investigating of moderating and mediating variables in between transformational leadership and related outcomes. International Journal of Educational Management, 30,1123-1149.

Jyoti, J., & Sharma, P. (2015a). Exploringthe impact of mentoring structure and culture between mentoring functions on job satisfaction: study of call centre employees. Vision The Journal of Business Perspective, 19,336-348.

Jyoti, J., & Sharma, P. (2015b). Impact of mentoring functions on career development: moderating role of mentoring culture and mentoring structure. Global Business Review, 16, 700-718.

Kao, K Y., Rogers, A., Spitzmueller, C., Lin, M. T., & Lin, C. H. (2014). Who should serve as my mentor? The effect of mentor gender and supervisory status on resilience in mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 85,191-203.

Karcher, M. J., Nakkula, M. J., & Harris, J. (2005). Developmental mentoring match characteristics: Correspondence between mentors and mentees assessment of relationship quality. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 26,93-110.

Kluemper, D. H., McLarty, B. D., & Bing, M. N. (2015). Acquaintance ratings of the big five personality traits: incremental validity beyond and interactive effects with self-reports in the prediction of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 237-248.

Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring atwork. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, and Company.

Kram, K. E., & Hall, D. T. (1996). Mentoring in a context of diversity and turbulence. In E. Kossek, & S. Lobel (Eds.), Managing diversity: Human resource strategies for transforming the workplace (pp. 108-136). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Kwan, H. K., Yim, F. H.-K, & Zhou, X. (2014). Effects of mentoring on customer orientation: The moderating role of gender. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 53,124-140.

Lakind, D., Atkins, M., & Eddy, J. M. (2015). Youth mentoring relationship in context: Mentor perception of youth, environment and the mentor role. Children and Youth Service Review, 53, 52-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/jxhildyouth. 2015.03.007

Langhout, R., Rhodes, J., & Osborne, L. (2004). An exploratory study of youth mentoring in an urban context: Adolescents' perceptions of relationship styles. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 293-306.

Lankau, M. J., & Scandura, T. A. (2002). An investigation of personal learning in mentoring relationships: Content, antecedents, and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 779-790.

Lasater, K., Young, P. K, Mitchell, C. G., Delahoyde, T. M., Nick, J. M., & Sikt-berg, L. (2014). Connecting in distance mentoring: Communication practices that work. Nurse Education Today, 34, 501-506. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.nedt.2013.07.009

Lester, P. B., Hannah, S. T., Harms, P. D., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Avolio, B. J. (2011). Mentoring impact on leader efficacy development: A field experiment. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10, 409-429.

Little, T. D., Card, N. A., Bovaird, J. A., Preacher, K. J., & Crandall, C. S. (2007). Structural equation modeling of mediation and moderation with contextual factors. InT. D. Little, J. A. Bovaird, & N. A. Card (Eds.), Modeling contextual effects in longitudinal studies (pp. 207-230). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from https://www.google.co.in/url

Liu, D., Liu, J., Kwan, K. H., & Mao, Y. (2009). What can I gain as a mentor? The effect of mentoring on the job performance and social status of mentors in China. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 82, 871-895.

Liu, Y., Jun, X. U., & Weitz, A. B. (2011). The role of emotional expression and mentoring in internship learning. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10,94-110.

Lo, M. C., Ramayah, T., & Kui, L. C. (2013). Mentoring and job satisfaction in Malaysia: A test on small medium enterprises in Malaysia. An International Journal of Psychology: A Bio-psychosocial Approach, 13(4), 69-90.

Lo, M. C., Thurasamy, R., & Liew, W. T. (2014). Relationship between bases of power and job stresses: Role of mentoring. Springer Plus, 3(1), 1-15. http://dx.doi. org/10.1186/2193-1801-3-432. Retrieved from http://www.springerplus. com/content/3/1/432

Lofstrom, E., & Eisenschmidt, E. (2009). Novice teacher's perspectives on mentoring: The case of the Estonian induction year. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 681-689.

Madlock, P. E., & Lightsey, C. K. (2010). The effects of supervisors' verbal aggressiveness and mentoring on their subordinates. Journal of Business Communication, 47, 42-62.

Malhotra, N. K. (2007). Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation (5th ed.). Prentice Hall of India.

Michelle, M. F.-P., & Chery, I. R. (2015). Interpersonal mentoring and its influence on rentention of valued health care worker: Moderating role of affective commitment. Health Care Management Review, 40, 56-64.

Motowidlo, S. J., & Van, S. J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475-480.

Murphy, E., & Ensher, E. A. (2001). The Role of mentoring support and self-management strategies on reported career outcomes. Journal of Career Development, 27, 229-246.

Nahrgang,J. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Ilies, R. (2009). The development of leader-member exchanges: Exploring how personality and performance influence leader and member relationships over time. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 108(10), 256-266.

Noe, R. A. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. Personnel Psychology, 41, 457-479.

Okurame, D. E. (2008). Mentoring and preferences: A diagnostic survey for equal mentoring opportunity. Equal Opportunities International, 27,519-536.

Pan, W., Sun, L. V., & Chow, J. H. S. (2011). The impact of supervisory mentoring on personal learning and career outcomes: The dual moderating effect of self-efficacy. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 78, 264-273.

Park, H. H., & Lee, S. M. (2012). The Influence of mentoring function on department adaptation of university students in a fashion related department: The moderating role of self-efficacy and mentor competence. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles, 36,1074-1086.

Park, K. H., Newman, A., Zhang, L., Wu, C., & Hooke, A. (2015). Mentoring functions and turnover intention: The mediating role of perceived organisational support. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27,1173-1191.

Parra, G. R., DuBois, D. L., Neville, H. A., & PughLilly, A. O. (2002). Mentoring relationships for youth: Investigating of a process-oriented model. Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 367-388.

Pavitt, C. (1999). Theorizing about the group communication- leadership relationship: Input-Process-Output and Functional Models. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 313-334). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Payne, S., & Huffman, A. (2005). A longitudinal examination of the influence of mentoring on organisational commitment and turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 48,158-168.

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.

Poon,J. M. L. (2006). Trust-in-Supervisor and Helping Coworkers: Moderating Effect of Perceived Politics. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21,518-553.

Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and re-sampling strategies forassess-ing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behaviour Research Methods, 40, 879-891.

Prussia, G. E., Anderson, J. S., & Manz, C. C. (1998). Self-leadership and performance outcomes: The mediating influence of self-efficacy. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 19,523-538.

Qian, J., Lin, X., Han, Z. R., Chen, Z. X., & Hays, J. M. (2014). What matters in the relationship between mentoring and job-related stress? The moderating effects of protégés' traditionality and trust in mentor. Journal of Management and Organization, 20, 608-623.

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, 529-550.

Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: The effects of type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 43,1177-1194.

Ramaswami, A., Huang, J. C., & Dreher, G. (2014). Integration of gender, mentoring and powerdistance on careerattainment: A cross- cultural comparison. Human Relations, 67,153-173.

Ray, E. B. (1993). When the links become chains. Considering dysfunctions in supportive communication in the workplace. Communication Monographs, 39, 106-111.

Rhodes, J. E., Reddy, R., & Grossman, J. B. (2005). The protective influence of mentoring on adolescents' substance use: Direct and indirect pathways. Applied Developmental Science, 9, 31-47.

Riggs, M., Warka, J., Babasa, B., Betancourt, R., & Hooker, S. (1994). Development and validation of self-efficacy and outcome expectancy scales for job-related applications. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 793-802.

Rowland, K. N. (2012). E-mentoring: An innovative twist to traditional mentoring. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 7, 228-237.

Rueywei, G., Shih-Ying, C., & Min-Lang, Y. (2014). Career outcomes ofemployees: The mediating effect of mentoring. Social Behaviour and Personality: An International Journal, 42, 487-501.

Sandner, M. (2015). The effects of high-quality students mentoring. Economic Letters, 136, 227-232.

Schunk, D. H., & Mullen, C. A. (2013). Toward a conceptual model of mentoring research: Integration with self-regulated learning. Education Psychology Review, 25,361-389.

Schwartz, S. E. O., Rhodes, J. E., Chan, C. S., & Herrera, C. (2011). The impact of school-based mentoring on youths with different relational programs. Developmental Psychology, 47, 450-462.

Shahzad, F. (2014). Impact of organizational culture on employee's job performance: An empirical study of software houses in Pakistan. International Journal ofCom-merce and Management, 24, 219-227.

Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M.J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behaviour and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571-581.

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological Methodology (pp. 290-312). Washington DC: American Sociological Association.

Sosik,J.J.,&Godshalk,V. M. (2005). Examining gender similarity and mentor's supervisory status in mentoring relationships. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 13, 39-52.

Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240-261.

St-Jean, E., & Mathieu, C. (2015). Developing attitudes towards an entrepreneurial career through mentoring: The mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Journal of Career Development, 42,325-338,10.117770894845314568190

Sun, L.-Y., Pan, W., & Chow, I. H. S. (2014). The role of supervisor political skill in mentoring: Dual motivational perspectives. Journal ofOrganisational Behaviour, 35, 213-233.

Vries, J. D., Webb, C., & Eveline, J. (2006). Mentoring for gender equality and organisational change. Employee Relations, 28, 573-587.

Vuuren, M. V., DeJong, M. D. T., & Seydel, E. R. (2008). Contributions of self and organisational efficacy expectations to commitment: A fourfold typology. Employee Relations, 30, 142-155.

Wang, Y. H., Hu, C., Hurst, C. S., & Yang, C. C. (2014). Antecedents and outcomes of career plateaus: The role of mentoring others and proactive personality. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 85,319-328.

Washington, C. E. (2011). Mentoring, organisational rank and women's perception ofadvancement opportunities in the workplace. International Journal ofBusiness and Social Science, 2(9), 162-178.

Wu, C. S., Lee, C.J., &Tsai, L. F. (2012). Influence of creativity and knowledge sharing on performance. Journal ofTechnology Management in China, 7, 23-34.

Wu, M., Zhuang, W. L., & Hung, C. C. (2014). The effects of mentoring functions on repatriate adjustment: Moderating role of core self-evaluation. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 43, 177-188.

Xu,X., & Payne, S. C. (2014). Quantity, quality, and satisfaction with mentoring: What matters most? Journal of Career Development, 41, 507-525.