Career Development International

The joint effects of personality and supervisory career mentoring in predicting

occupational commitment
Ridhi Arora Santosh Rangnekar
Article information:
To cite this document:
Ridhi Arora Santosh Rangnekar , (2015),"The joint effects of personality and supervisory career
mentoring in predicting occupational commitment", Career Development International, Vol. 20 Iss 1
pp. 63 - 80
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee At 00:22 28 January 2015 (PT)

Permanent link to this document:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CDI-12-2014-0156
Downloaded on: 28 January 2015, At: 00:22 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 84 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 63 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Yehuda Baruch, Nóra Sz#cs, Hugh Gunz, (2015),"Career studies in search of theory: the rise and
rise of concepts", Career Development International, Vol. 20 Iss 1 pp. 3-20 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
CDI-11-2013-0137

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 393769 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of

download.
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1362-0436.htm

The joint effects of personality Joint effects of

personality
and supervisory career and SCM
mentoring in predicting
occupational commitment 63

Ridhi Arora and Santosh Rangnekar Received 9 December 2014

Revised 22 December 2014
Department of Management Studies, 29 December 2014
Accepted 29 December 2014
Indian Institute of Technology-Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee At 00:22 28 January 2015 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the joint effects of personality (agreeableness and
conscientiousness) and perceived supervisory career mentoring (SCM) on occupational commitment
(OC) in the Indian context. In addition, the role of SCM support as a predictor of OC was also analyzed.
Design/methodology/approach – A cross-sectional survey-based research design was adopted
using data from 121 employees of public and private sector organizations in North India.
Findings – The results showed that the relationship between perceived SCM and OC was stronger for
employees reporting high levels of agreeableness in contrast to low agreeableness. Further, perceived
SCM support was observed as a significant predictor of OC in the Indian context.
Practical implications – This study suggests that for fostering an occupationally committed
workforce, it is critical for supervisory mentors to understand how to deal with employees of different
personality traits. Further, supervisory mentors need to be trained and empowered to render vocational
support to employees at all levels.
Originality/value – The work advances the existing work on mentoring and vocational outcomes by
demonstrating the crucial role of supervisory career support and personality interactions in predicting OC.
Keywords Careers, Mentoring, Personality, Motivation (psychology), Employee behavior,
Commitment
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
There has been an increased focus by researchers on the application of social exchange
theory to employee-organization linkage (Liden et al., 1997). This social exchange
relationship is strongly associated with an employee’s contribution in the form of
higher commitment and better performance (Shore et al., 2009). Some of the studies
also suggest that individual differences play a significant role in defining why these
relationships are stronger for some employees than for others (Kamdar et al., 2006; Shore
et al., 2009). This study investigated this exchange by integrating theory from the
mentoring and cognate literature within the context of the supervisor-subordinate
relationship. In contrast to earlier studies that have considered the dyadic interaction
from the leader-member exchange based on two-member groups, this study advances the
existing body of literature by investigating supervisory mentoring as a focal point of
the dyadic developmental relationship. To address this, the study adopted the framework
suggested by various theorists who advocated that situations interact with dispositions
to influence behavior (Bowers, 1973; Mischel, 1968). Career Development International
Vol. 20 No. 1, 2015
pp. 63-80
The authors are thankful to the Editor for his helpful comments and suggestions. The authors © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1362-0436
also thank Vivek Kumar for his support in copy-editing of this paper. DOI 10.1108/CDI-12-2014-0156
 CDI The purpose of this study was twofold. Our first goal was to look at the impact of
20,1 supervisory career mentoring (SCM) on occupational commitment (OC) in the Indian
context because very few studies have examined this relationship from the supervisory
domain perspective. The second goal was to look at interaction effects between SCM
and personality variables of conscientiousness and agreeableness in predicting OC
among Indian employees. We specifically focussed on SCM as instrumental to employees’
64 career development and advancement. SCM helps protégés identify with their organizations
and also has a direct hand in the career planning and progression of protégés within the
organizations. In addition, supervisory mentors model successful managerial behaviors
specific to the organization and enhance protégés’ talent to build alliances within their
organization (Payne and Huffman, 2005).
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee At 00:22 28 January 2015 (PT)

Necessity of research in the Indian organizational context

We understand the relevance of this study from the societal and cultural backdrop of
the Indian subcontinent (with W 15 recognized languages, diversity in terms of people
coming from different castes, and seven officially recognized religions), which also
defines the unique Indian management style (Varma et al., 2005). Besides this, several
authors who have studied Indian human resource management practices have defined
an Indian employee as “the one who respects people in power, is obedient, submissive and
law-abiding,” which also highlights the significance of conducting this study within the
realm of superior-subordinate relationships (Sparrow and Budhwar, 1997; Varma et al.,
2005). Another unique characteristic of the Indian context is the Guru-Shishya heritage of
India in which the guru serves as a teacher and philosophical guide for his or her
shishya or pupil or disciple by driving away his or her darkness and sharing knowledge
(Pio, 2005). Owing to this tradition, employees working in Indian organizations view their
supervisors as a paternalistic figure who will guide, nurture, and support them (Pellegrini
et al., 2010). Indian organizations are also known to have a stronger focus on employee
welfare, and both management and employees give due consideration to support social
relationships and reciprocal behavior (Sparrow and Budhwar, 1997). Furthermore, India’s
higher ranking on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions of power distance and collectivism
reflect strong power and authority in the hands of supervisors (Varma et al., 2005), with
subordinates being obedient, disciplined, and respectful toward those in authority. Hence,
given this backdrop, it will be worthwhile to study how subordinates in the Indian
context perceive SCM support as influencing their OC.

Literature review and development of hypotheses

SCM
There has been a growing interest in career-related mentoring in managerial and
supervisory domains (Gentry et al., 2008; Scandura and Williams, 2004). This takes
into account the traditional mentoring perspective, which represents an intense
interpersonal exchange between the supervisor (a senior experienced colleague) and the
subordinate (a junior experienced colleague) (Russell and Adams, 1997). However, this
traditional understanding of mentoring has changed a lot because of the increasing
boundarylessness in careers across organizations (Crocitto et al., 2005; Ghosh, 2014)
and the emergence of alternative forms of mentoring such as peer mentoring and
multiple developmental relationships (Dobrow and Higgins, 2005). Yet, this study
adopted the traditional conceptualization of mentoring because of two reasons. First,
the traditional mentorship model relies on one close relationship based on a shared
 sense of “belongingness and interconnectedness” than does the multiple mentorship Joint effects of
model, which asserts that multiple and less close relationships are more advantageous personality
(Allen and Eby, 2011). Second, the traditional mentorship model is built on the essence
of a long-term relationship, whereas the multiple mentorship model includes short-term
and SCM
and less intense relationships (Packard, 2003). Furthermore, we endorse that a mentoring
relationship functions more smoothly when a senior supervisor guides the junior
subordinate in career advancement in contrast to a younger person mentoring a much 65
older protégé, which faces prejudice due to the older protégé’s perception about the
younger mentor as being less experienced and less resourceful as a mentor (Ghosh, 2014;
Haggard et al., 2011). Also, previous studies have unveiled the greater accessibility
and exposure facilitated to the protégés through supervisory mentors than through
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee At 00:22 28 January 2015 (PT)

non-supervisory mentors (Richard et al., 2009). There are various functions that are
facilitated by supervisory mentors, namely, coaching, providing greater exposure and
visibility, offering challenging assignments, and providing sponsorship for individual
development and performance enhancement (Scandura and Williams, 2004).

OC
OC has not received much attention in previous research (Blau, 2009; Cohen, 2003;
Weng and McElroy, 2012). Studying OC becomes all the more important due to the
changing pace of careers, which has stimulated employees to develop a commitment to
their careers than to their organizations (Ballout, 2009). Notably, in the commitment
literature, the terminology of occupation, profession, and career is used somewhat
interchangeably (Meyer et al., 1993). However, in this study, we have used the
terminology of OC because of its greater acceptability among people from diverse
workgroups and occupations (Meyer et al., 1993; Weng and McElroy, 2012). Hall (1971)
defined OC as the magnitude of an individual’s motivation to work in a chosen career.
Later on, Blau (1985) posited it as one’s attitude to one’s profession or vocation.
Similarly, Lee et al. (2000a) referred to OC as a psychological link that an individual has
with a chosen profession. Also, OC represents the extent to which an individual
willingly accept the values of his or her occupation or line of work (Van Der Heijden
et al., 2009). All these perspectives highlight the extent to which an individual feels
enthusiastic to work in a chosen occupation (Okurame, 2012). Furthermore, in the
extant careers literature, Carson and Bedeian (1994) reported about OC on the basis of
Hall’s (1971) and London’s (1983) career motivation theory as comprising three major
dimensions-career identity, career resilience, and career planning. Career identity is the
emotional linkage and association with one’s line of work; career resilience is the degree
of willingness to persist in the face of adversities; and career planning is the active
engagement of an individual with goal-setting and goal-determination activities
(Okurame, 2012).

This study
Linking SCM and OC
The paradigm of social exchange theory suggests that employee’s strong perception
about supervisory work-related support influences employee’s commitment, job
satisfaction, and perceived career success (Dawley et al., 2010; Tymon et al., 2011).
Several studies from the literature have also identified perceived supervisory career
support as a key factor affecting employee’s career satisfaction and career development
(Wickramasinghe and Jayaweera, 2010). Additionally, there is some evidence to
 CDI suggest that supportive relationships with mentors and supervisors act as antecedents
20,1 of employee’s career commitment (Colarelli and Bishop, 1990; Kidd and Smewing,
2001). We therefore expect that perceived SCM support will act as a strong predictor of
OC in the Indian context. The role of the supervisor in the Indian context is similar to
that of the nurturant-task leader (Sinha, 1980), who is always ready to spend his or her
personal time and energy in mentoring subordinates and also offer greater organizational
66 opportunities for their career advancement. Subordinates, in turn, reciprocate the same by
exhibiting greater loyalty and commitment to the supervisor (Bhawuk, 2008; Golden and
Veiga, 2008). This strengthens the bond of their relationship as they move from being
strangers to acquaintances to a mature relationship (Graen and Wakabayashi, 1994).
Consequently, because of the proximity between the mentor and the protégé (Raabe and
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee At 00:22 28 January 2015 (PT)

Beehr, 2003), protégés with supervisory mentors enjoy greater career mentoring support.
Because the hierarchical mentors have direct supervisory responsibilities on them (Allen
and Eby, 2011; Fagenson-Eland et al., 1997; Haggard et al., 2011), they easily provide more
vocational support to their subordinates and also facilitate their socialization process,
thereby enhancing their professional development and career commitment (Mezias and
Scandura, 2005; Okurame, 2012). Thus, we hypothesize that:
H1. Perceived SCM will be strongly related to OC.
Joint effect of personality and SCM
Personality is considered a valid predictor of an individual’s behavior and performance
(Barrick and Mount, 1991). Personality also manages an individual’s sense of interpretation
of the environment and other situational factors surrounding him or her (Witt et al., 2002).
According to Judge and Kammeyer-Mueller (2007), interaction between personality and
situation may also change the relationship between situation and outcomes. The present
study attempted to explore this further by investigating the joint influence of SCM
and personality on OC. We assumed that the two Big Five traits of conscientiousness and
agreeableness will moderate the SCM and OC relationship. The Big Five-factor model
comprises the five major dimensions as emotional stability, extraversion, openness to
experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Ragins and Kram, 2007; Turban and
Lee, 2007). Although all five-factor model traits have implications for mentoring received in
varying degrees (Ramaswami, 2009), conscientiousness and agreeableness, in particular,
have implications for governing task and relational matters (Costa and McCrae, 1992).
The agreeableness personality trait is fundamentally about one’s behavior in social
relationships and has relevance for all the phases of the mentoring relationship (Turban
and Lee, 2007). For example, in the initiation phase of mentoring, protégés higher on
agreeableness are more sought out for initiating a mentoring relationship; during the
cultivation and dissolution phases of mentoring, high agreeableness creates positive
interactions and fosters long-term relationships. Similarly, conscientiousness is another
major personality trait that is most desired in a protégé for mentoring (Lee et al., 2000b).
During the initiation phase of mentoring, the conscientious behavior of protégés is seen
as competitive, and during the cultivation phase, high conscientiousness is counted as a
determinant of quality work and commitment (Ragins and Kram, 2007; Turban and
Lee, 2007). The succeeding paragraphs provide details on the anticipated moderating
influence of these two major personality traits on the SCM-OC relationship.
We first consider the Big Five personality factor of agreeableness that covers those
aspects that can enhance as well as suppress an individual’s interest in mentoring
(Niehoff, 2006). The one facet of agreeableness includes “altruism and building trust,”
while another facet encompasses “compliance” (Niehoff, 2006; p. 329). Also, highly
 agreeable individuals are known for their tender mindedness and caring nature Joint effects of
(Bozionelos and Bozionelos, 2010). These features of “candor and modesty” are well personality
appreciated by mentors, which further enhances protégés’ prospects in getting
instrumental support of their supervisory mentors (Bozionelos and Bozionelos, 2010).
and SCM
Being sensitive and expressive by nature, they reciprocate the positive actions of
mentors and are often seen as potential mentoring partners (Bozionelos et al., 2014).
As high agreeableness individuals communicate more frequently (Perrewé et al., 67
2010); they are effective in seeking advice from their supervisory mentors. In addition,
the affiliative motive of highly agreeable individuals also contributes to the success
of workplace developmental relationships (Niehoff, 2006; Perrewé et al., 2010). High
agreeableness reinforces the positive aspects of a mentoring relationship, whereas low
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee At 00:22 28 January 2015 (PT)

agreeableness results in problematic interactions, leading to resentment and conflicts in

the mentoring relationship (Bozionelos and Bozionelos, 2010; Ragins and Kram, 2007;
Turban and Lee, 2007). This is because low-agreeable individuals being antagonistic
and self-serving (Niehoff, 2006), are less likely to adjust to the advice of their supervisory
mentors. Further, because of their display of self-centered behaviors (Perrewé et al., 2010),
they may also fail to give respect for the mentor’s experience. As a consequence, this
may lead to dysfunctional mentoring outcomes as supervisory mentors may show
reluctance to extend their career support to such protégés who exhibit disloyal and less
accommodating behaviors. Therefore, we argue that the SCM-OC relationship will be
stronger for subordinates with a high level of agreeableness than for those with a low
level of agreeableness. Thus, we hypothesize:
H2. Subordinate’s agreeableness will moderate the relationship between SCM and OC
in such a way that the anticipated relationship will be stronger for employees who
are high on agreeableness than for those who are low on agreeableness.
Likewise, conscientiousness personality trait includes task-related behaviors such
as being responsible, thorough, planful, and perseverant (Wolff and Kim, 2012).
Conscientiousness also encompasses detail-oriented, achievement-striving, self-disciplined,
and sense of duty (Bozionelos and Bozionelos, 2010). Further, previous research has also
shown that conscientiousness is positively linked to organizational citizenship behaviors
(Organ and Ryan, 1995), job performance (Barrick and Mount, 1991), and career success
(Judge et al., 1999). Highly conscientiousness protégés therefore more strongly recognize
the need to be mentored as a means to improve their performance and career prospects
(Perrewé et al., 2010). Further their cooperative and willing nature also guides them to
“go the extra mile” (Organ and Ryan, 1995) to fully develop their relationship with mentors
(Perrewé et al., 2010). These characteristics in a protégé are strongly desired by mentors
(Bozionelos and Bozionelos, 2010; Perrewé et al., 2010). Less conscientious individuals on
the other hand, being low on achievement orientation may not give greater importance to
mentoring relationships (Perrewé et al., 2010) because of which they are less preferred over
highly conscientious individuals. Thus, we assume that highly conscientious individuals
being relationship focussed, ambitious, and high performers would be seen as
attractive to supervisory mentors. This would benefit them in gaining supervisory
instrumental support to remain committed toward their line of work in contrast to
low conscientious individuals. Therefore, we hypothesize that:
H3. Subordinate’s conscientiousness will moderate the relationship between SCM and
OC in such a way that the anticipated relationship will be stronger for employees
who are high on conscientiousness than for those who are low on conscientiousness.
 CDI Method
20,1 Participants
Of the 300 survey questionnaires obtained from mentored employees, 121 surveys were
of those who reported their immediate supervisors as their mentors. Hence, data of
these 121 respondents were subsequently processed for output analysis. Respondent
managers were basically from the power industry and held various occupational
68 titles such as “Senior Engineer,” “Marketing Manager,” “Senior Manager-Learning
and Development,” “Test Engineer,” “HR Manager,” “Deputy General Manager,” and
“Project Manager.” Participants comprised 86 percent men and 14 percent women, with
most of the respondents predominantly in the 26-30 years age group. About 40.5
percent were employed with private sector organizations and 59.5 percent with public
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee At 00:22 28 January 2015 (PT)

sector organizations. Participants were well educated, and the highest degree obtained
by most was either a postgraduate degree (48.8 percent) or a graduate degree (43.8
percent). In addition, the sample included employees from different levels: junior level
(31.4 percent), middle level (56.2 percent), and senior level (12.4 percent) positions.

Procedure
Data were collected through survey administration from public and private sector
organizations in North India. None of these organizations had a formal mentoring
scheme in place at the time of the study. Participants reported having been engaged in
informal mentoring relationships without any organizational intervention (Underhill, 2006).
Respondents participated in the survey on a voluntary basis. We used a combination of
both personal survey administration and online survey administration. In some cases,
interested participating organizations were also provided with feedback and survey results
for their own internal purpose. Respondents were also offered the option of getting feedback
on their responses. A cover letter that accompanied the survey explained the purpose of
the study to the participants. Participants were also assured of the confidentiality and
anonymity of their responses. In addition, participants were directed to respond to the
survey questions on the basis of their current mentoring relationship.

Measures
Conscientiousness and agreeableness. These personality traits were assessed using the
ten-item scale from Goldberg’s (1992) Big Five Markers, available for use freely from
the International Personality Item Pool Repository (see http://ipip.ori.org/). The scale
has been used among Indian samples in a previous study by Uppalet al. (2014).
Illustrative items include “I pay attention to details” (conscientiousness) and “I feel little
concern for others” (agreeableness). Participants responded to items on a five-point
Likert scale, with responses anchored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
The coefficient α values of the conscientiousness and agreeableness personality scales
for this sample were 0.73 and 0.79, respectively.
Having a mentor. This was assessed using a single item. An established definition of
mentor was also provided to the participants as follows:
A mentor is generally defined as a higher ranking, influential individual in your work
environment who has advanced experience and knowledge and who is committed to provide
upward mobility and support to your career. Your mentor may or may not be in your
organization and may or may not be your immediate supervisor (Ragins, 1989).
Following this, they were also asked to respond whether they currently had a mentor
coded No [1] and Yes [2] in line with previous studies (Bozionelos and Wang, 2006).
 SCM. This was assessed by adapting seven items of career mentoring from Noe’s Joint effects of
(1988) Mentoring Functions Scale, which possesses good psychometric properties personality
(Özkalp et al., 2008). Illustrative items are “My mentor gave me assignments that helped
me to prepare for leadership role” and “My mentor helped me to meet new colleagues.”
and SCM
Respondents responded to items on a five-point Likert scale, with responses anchored
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The coefficient α of the scale for this
sample was 0.85. High scores indicate high levels of SCM support, and low scores 69
indicate low levels of SCM support.
OC. We assessed OC using the 12-item Career Commitment Measure of Carson and
Bedeian (1994), which defines an individual’s motivation to work in a chosen profession
or vocation. Illustrative items are “My line of work/career field is an important part of
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee At 00:22 28 January 2015 (PT)

who am I” and “I have created a plan for my development in this line of work/career
field.” Responses to the items were recorded on a five-point Likert scale, with responses
anchored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). This scale showed good
reliability in this study, with coefficient α being 0.78. High scores indicate high levels of
OC, and low scores indicate low levels of OC.
Demographics data. We established controls for age, gender, educational level, and
hierarchical level to avoid their spurious effects on the dependent variable. Age (years)
was coded as 1 (21-25 years), 2 (26-30 years), 3 (31-35 years), 4 (36-40 years), 5 (41-45
years), and 6 (above 45 years); Gender was coded as 1 (male) and 2 (female); the
educational level of participants was coded as 1 (diploma holder), 2 (graduate),
3 (postgraduate), and 4 (higher than postgraduate); and hierarchical level was coded as
1 (junior level), 2 (middle level), and 3 (senior level). Besides this, participants’ responses
on a single-item question revealed who their mentor was – supervisor (coded 1), a peer
(coded 2), superior besides their supervisor (coded 3), or another (coded 4), as adapted
from Tepper (1995).

Results
Discriminant validity results
To evaluate the distinctiveness of constructs (conscientiousness, agreeableness, SCM,
and OC) in the Indian context, test of discriminant analyses was conducted using
confirmatory factor analyses. Given the large number of items of the constructs
(39 items) relative to the sample size, the procedure outlined by Mathieu and Farr (1991)
was followed and three to four composite indicators or item parcels were created to
improve the size-to-estimator ratio, as highlighted in previous studies (Bandalos, 2002;
Kishton and Widaman, 1994). Confirmatory factor analysis results showed that the
hypothesized four-factor model (conscientiousness, agreeableness, supervisor career
mentoring, and career commitment) demonstrated a good fit to the observed covariance
matrix, χ2 (df ¼ 148, N ¼ 121) ¼ 195.37, po0.05; χ2/df ¼ 1.32; comparative fit index ¼ 0.94;
Tucker Lewis index ¼ 0.92; incremental fit index ¼ 0.94; root mean square error of
approximation ¼ 0.052 with standardized factor loadings (0.35–0.83, po0.001). It is worth
noting that usually models with a root mean square error of approximation value below
0.06 and other fit indices having a cutoff score of above 0.90 are considered good-fitting
models (Hu and Bentler, 1999). Furthermore, we compared the fit of our hypothesized
four-factor model with the fit of a series of other competing models. Table I presents that
the hypothesized model, that is, model 1, represented better fit than did model 2 (one-factor
model) (Δχ2 ¼ 89.1, Δdf ¼ 9, po0.05), model 3 (two-factor model) (Δχ2 ¼ 67.65, Δdf ¼ 17,
po0.05), and model 4 (three-factor model) (Δχ2 ¼ 56.02, Δdf ¼ 16, po0.05). Because
 Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee At 00:22 28 January 2015 (PT)

70
CDI
20,1

Table I.

theoretically
Comparison of

plausible models
Models Description χ2 df χ2/df CFI TLI IFI RMSEA Δχ2 Δdf
Model 1 Hypothesized four-factor model 195.37 148 1.32 0.94 0.92 0.94 0.052
Model 2 One-factor model 284.47 157 1.81 0.83 0.79 0.84 0.082 89.1* 9
a
Model 3 Two-factor model 263.02 165 1.59 0.87 0.85 0.87 0.07 67.65* 17
Model 4 Three-factor modelb 251.39 164 1.53 0.88 0.87 0.89 0.067 56.02* 16
Notes: CFI, comparative fit index; TLI, Tucker Lewis Index; IFI, incremental fit index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; CON,
conscientiousness; AG, agreeableness; SCM, supervisor career mentoring; OC, occupational commitment. aTwo factors: combination of CON and AG as one
factor and SCM and OC as second factor; bthree factors: combination of CON and AG as one factor, SCM as second factor, and OC as third factor. *p o0.05
 model 1 (hypothesized study model) displayed the most parsimonious adequate fit among Joint effects of
all the plausible models, we retained model 1 to be used for the subsequent analysis. personality
Data adequacy results
and SCM
Because data for the present study were self-reported, it was necessary to check for
common method bias. We checked for this using Harman’s single-factor test (Podsakoff
et al., 2003). Test results indicated the emergence of a single factor that accounted for 71
19 percent of the variance. Thus, we confirmed that the existence of the common
method bias was not a major issue to our data.

Regression results
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee At 00:22 28 January 2015 (PT)

Mean, standard deviations, and intercorrelations between the study variables are
presented in Table II. Hierarchical moderated regression analysis (Cohen and Cohen,
1983) was used for the testing of hypotheses (see Table III) in alignment with
methodology adopted in recent studies (Kisamore et al., 2014). For evaluating H1,
control variables were entered in block 1 in the first step. The second step was
completed with the entry of main effects in block 2, which explained a significant
proportion of variance in OC (ΔR2 ¼ 0.074, p o 0.05). Specifically, the main effect of
SCM on OC was found to be significant (β ¼ 0.184, p o 0.05). This provided support to
H1. The remaining steps were then completed to evaluate H2 and H3. Therefore, after
the entry of control variables and main effects, the two interaction terms of
SCM×Conscientiousness and SCM×Agreeableness were entered in block 3, which
proportionately explained a significant variance of 23.7 percent in OC (ΔR2 ¼ 0.069,

M SD 1 2 3 4
1. Conscientiousness 3.68 0.56 [0.73]
2. Agreeableness 3.86 0.58 0.496** [0.79]
3. Supervisory career mentoring 3.50 0.53 0.535** 0.464** [0.85] Table II.
4. Occupational commitment 3.42 0.59 0.257** 0.272** 0.193* [0.78] Correlations and
Notes: N ¼ 121. Cronbach’s α is presented in brackets on the diagonal. *p o0.05; **p o0.01 descriptive statistics

Occupational commitment (β)

Independent variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Step 1 Age 0.231* 0.136 0.146
Gender −0.091 −0.085 −0.090
Educational level −0.113 −0.102 −0.087
Hierarchical level −0.022 0.008 −0.009
Step 2 CON 0.045 0.063
AG 0.133 0.191
SCM 0.184* 0.813
Step 3 SCM×CON −0.649
SCM×AG 0.313**
R2 0.094 0.168 0.237
2
ΔR 0.094 0.074* 0.069** Table III.
Notes: N ¼ 121. CON, conscientiousness; AG, agreeableness; SCM, supervisor career mentoring. Moderated
Tabled values are standardized β weights. *p o0.05; **p o0.01 regression results
 CDI p o 0.01) and revealed the interaction of SCM×Agreeableness as a significant
20,1 (β ¼ 0.313, p o 0.01) predictor of OC. This provided support to H2. However, results
indicated no support for H3 because the cross-product term of SCM×Conscientiousness
was not found to be significant (β ¼ −0.649, p ¼ ns) predictor of OC. We further
analyzed the interaction between SCM and agreeableness in line with previous studies
(Aiken and West, 1991; Cohen and Cohen, 1983). A plot was obtained through the
72 prediction of each outcome at high and low levels of agreeableness (+1.0 SD and −1.0
SD from the mean; Stone and Hollenbeck, 1989). Looking at the interaction between
SCM and agreeableness as depicted in Figure 1, it can be seen that the impact of SCM
on OC was stronger for those employees who were high on agreeableness in contrast to
their counterparts who were low on agreeableness. This was further confirmed by
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee At 00:22 28 January 2015 (PT)

slope tests, which displayed that among subordinates reporting high levels of
agreeableness, the simple slope of regression lines was significantly different from zero
(t ¼ 3.315, p o 0.01; Aiken and West, 1991). For subordinates reporting low levels of
agreeableness, the simple slope was not significantly different from zero (t ¼ −0.332,
p ¼ ns). Taken together, these results support the hypothesis that the relationship
between SCM and OC is stronger for only those employees who exhibit high levels of
agreeableness.

Discussion
In this study, we conceptualized a two-way interaction of personality dispositions and
SCM to influence OC within the frame of the supervisor-subordinate relationship.
In particular, we analyzed the role of SCM support as a predictor of OC given the
scarcity of research from the perspective of dyadic development relationships.
H1 stated that perceived SCM would be strongly related to OC. Results depicted
that perceived SCM support had a significant impact on OC among Indian employees.
Therefore, H1 was accepted. This highlights that in the Indian context, professional,
and emotional enhancement of subordinates is contingent on the immediate leader’s
support and guidance, which unleashes hidden potential and fosters a willingness
among subordinates to dedicate efforts to task accomplishment (Meijman and
Mulder, 1998).

4.5
Occupational Commitment

3.5

Figure 1. 2.5
Plot of two-way
interaction between 2
supervisor career Low Agreeableness
mentoring (SCM) and
1.5 High Agreeableness
agreeableness on
occupational
commitment 1
Low SCM High SCM
 H2 postulated that agreeableness would moderate the relationship between SCM and Joint effects of
OC in such a way that the relationship is stronger among highly agreeable employees personality
than among those who are low on agreeableness. As hypothesized, the joint effect of
agreeableness and SCM was found to be a significant predictor of OC. Hence, H2 was
and SCM
accepted. This implies that employees with a highly agreeable personality, being
trusting and considerate, easily derive mentorship benefits from their supervisory
mentors (Richard et al., 2009), which further boosts their confidence to remain motivated 73
in their occupation. However, subordinates with low levels of agreeableness, being
unfriendly, and suspicious, may not take interest in approaching their supervisor to
know about right career growth opportunities. Consequently, such employees are not
able to extract real benefits of SCM support and, therefore, are more likely to show low
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee At 00:22 28 January 2015 (PT)

levels of OC.
H3 asserted that conscientiousness would moderate the SCM-OC relationship in
such a way that the relationship is stronger for employees high on conscientiousness
than for those who are low on conscientiousness. Unexpectedly, the results depicted
that the joint effect of conscientiousness and SCM have no significant impact on OC
among Indian employees. Hence, H3 was not supported. Possibly, such finding could
be attributed to the beneficial effect of conscientiousness on mentoring support, which
may drop or rise for strong levels of the trait (Bozionelos et al., 2014). Undoubtedly, a
conscientiousness personality disposition indicates a tendency of being a perfectionist
(Egberink et al., 2010); however, such an orientation may result in excessive focus on
task accomplishment (Wolff and Kim, 2012) and disregard of all useful social interactions,
which, in turn, may also lessen the prospects of obtaining adequate mentorship support of
the supervisor (Bozionelos et al., 2014).

Limitations and future research directions

We acknowledge the limitations of this study and also offer directions for future
research. First, because our study adopted a cross-sectional survey-based research
design, causal inferences were not made. For instance, it may be argued that employees
who display higher OC probably seek out more for SCM support and vice versa.
We were not able to test such causal relationships. Future investigation is
recommended using longitudinal and quasi-experimental research designs.
Specifically, longitudinal research designs utilizing comparison groups could be
used for comparing the OC of protégés of supervisory mentors vs protégés of
non-supervisory mentors. Similarly, a quasi-experimental study could be conducted
using a pretest-posttest design for comparing a sample of mentored subordinates and
non-mentored subordinates with respect to OC.
Second, this study tested the interplay of personality and SCM on OC solely from the
subordinate’s perspective. One may question the generalizability of this study’s
findings to complete dyads. Thus, revisiting this study from the perspective of both
members of organizational dyads may be useful for making any further inferences.
Third, another concern is that this study did not have sectorwise analysis of the data,
which may have influenced the OC of the employees. Hence, we suggest that future
studies examine the moderating role of the organization sector in the SCM-OC linkage.
Besides this, researchers may seek to explore the impact of useful moderator variables
such as protégé-mentor gender composition and age diversity of the mentor and the
protégé on SCM-OC linkage by collecting additional data on supervisory mentors.
Fourth, although this study identified SCM support as a predictor of OC, it did
not aim to study the influence of alternative forms of mentoring (e.g. peer mentoring,
 CDI cross-functional mentoring, external mentoring, team mentoring, and e-mentoring) on
20,1 OC. Possibly, a more in-depth future study should examine whether different types of
mentoring have a different impact on OC. In addition, the study may be extended for
identifying the mediating mechanisms (processes) that link SCM and OC.
Finally, this study attempted to measure the construct of SCM at a broader level,
and no analysis was done for the specific functions of SCM (e.g. sponsorship, coaching,
74 exposure and visibility, and challenging work assignments). Also, there are only a
handful of studies that have investigated the impact of specific functions of SCM on
OC; therefore, more research is needed to provide evidence for the linkage of SCM
subfunctions and OC.
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee At 00:22 28 January 2015 (PT)

Implications
This study offers useful suggestions for managers and organizations. Our findings
demonstrated a strong effect of the interaction of agreeableness and SCM on OC, whereas
the interaction of conscientiousness and SCM was not seen as a significant predictor of OC
in the Indian context. Because individual characteristics and mentoring receipt serve as
catalysts for improved career outcomes (Underhill, 2006), an organizational intervention
such as training of trainers should be facilitated as an in-house activity to train and
empower potential mentors of the organization. In addition, the training of mentors should
focus on how to work with protégés of different personality traits. Mentors should be
encouraged to offer their vocational support to not only high-performing “rising stars”
(Ragins and Kram, 2007) but bottom performers as well. Alternatively, organizations
can opt for the creation of experiential settings (e.g. assessment centers) to enable
supervisors to practice and learn for better utilization of supportive work behaviors
(Agarwal et al., 2012).
Most of the earlier research studies have tested personality-mentoring relationships
using the five-factor model (Bozionelos and Bozionelos, 2010). In this regard, a further
enquiry using personality dispositions other than those covered by the Big Five
framework, such as self-monitoring, internal locus of control, perfectionism, self-reliance,
and others, should be emphasized more by researchers. Specifically, job-relevant
personality traits as provided by the RIASEC model (Holland, 1973) should be targeted to
measure the impact of occupational preferences on the OC of the employees.
The findings of this study have significant implications for cross-cultural applicability.
Doubtlessly, the Big Five factor model and the phenomenon of mentoring are universally
accepted (Bozionelos and Bozionelos, 2010; Ragins and Kram, 2007). However, one must
exercise caution while considering the generalizability of the research findings in different
business contexts and varying national cultures. Because mentoring is a context-specific
phenomenon relevant for all national cultures, the way it is perceived by employees from
different business contexts is likely to differ cross-culturally (Bozionelos and Bozionelos,
2010). Furthermore, there is a greater likelihood that the interplay of personality factors
and situational cues may show different connect with employees’ outcomes especially for
cultures (e.g. USA) that thrive on the core values of individualism and low power distance.
Thus, the finding that SCM acts as a significant predictor of OC may be applicable to
countries that stand similar to India on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions such as China,
Pakistan, and Turkey. Moreover, in such countries, the paternalistic style of management
is valued to a greater extent and is not connoted as “authoritarianism”; henceforth,
subordinates willingly reciprocate the care and protection of those in authority by
showing conformity. This totally differs from the western business context where
unfavorable perceptions about the paternalistic management style persist (Pellegrini
 et al., 2010) because of the societal norms based on low power distance and high Joint effects of
individualism. Besides this, the GLOBE project (House et al., 2004) also found that personality
Indian employees view “effective leaders as those who know the pulse of the people,
have intuitive understanding and care like a parent” (Chhokar, 2007). However, in
and SCM
individualistic societies such as the USA, “ties between individuals are loose and
everyone is expected to look after himself or herself” (Hofstede, 1994). Henceforth,
because of these cultural differences, the role of personality traits with reference to 75
workplace social exchange relationships is liable to differ across cultures (Bozionelos
and Bozionelos, 2010). This issue might interest management theorists for further
analyzing cross-cultural differences between western and non-western business
setting context. This will serve as a great contribution for further advancement in the
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee At 00:22 28 January 2015 (PT)

development of the international theory.

References
Agarwal, U.A., Datta, S., Blake-Beard, S. and Bhargava, S. (2012), “Linking LMX, innovative work
behavior and turnover intentions: the mediating role of work engagement”, Career
Development International, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 208-230.
Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
Allen, T.D. and Eby, L.T. (Eds) (2011), The Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring: A Multiple
Perspectives Approach, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Malden, MA.
Ballout, H.I. (2009), “Career commitment and career success: moderating role of self-efficacy”,
Career Development International, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 655-670.
Bandalos, D.L. (2002), “The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias
in structural equation modeling”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 78-102.
Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (1991), “The Big Five personality dimensions and performance:
a meta-analysis”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Bhawuk, D.P. (2008), “Towards an Indian organizational psychology”, in Rao, K.R.,
Paranjpe, A.C. and Dalal, A.K. (Eds), Handbook of Indian Psychology, Cambridge
University Press, New Delhi, pp. 471-491.
Blau, G. (2009), “Can a four-dimensional model of occupational commitment help to explain
intent to leave one’s occupation?”, Career Development International, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 116-132.
Blau, G.J. (1985), “The measurement and prediction of career commitment”, Journal of
Occupational Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 277-288.
Bowers, K.S. (1973), “Situationism in psychology: an analysis and a critique”, Psychological
Review, Vol. 80 No. 5, pp. 307-336.
Bozionelos, N. and Bozionelos, G. (2010), “Mentoring received by protégés: its relation to
personality and mental ability in the Anglo-Saxon organizational environment”, The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 509-529.
Bozionelos, N. and Wang, L. (2006), “The relationship of mentoring and network resources with
career success in the Chinese organizational environment”, The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 17 No. 9, pp. 1531-1546.
Bozionelos, N., Bozionelos, G., Polychroniou, P. and Kostopoulos, K. (2014), “Mentoring receipt
and personality: evidence for non-linear relationships”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 171-181.
 CDI Carson, K.D. and Bedeian, A.G. (1994), “Career commitment: construction of a measure and
examination of its psychometric properties”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 44 No. 3,
20,1 pp. 237-262.
Chhokar, J.S. (2007), “India: diversity and complexity in action”, in Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C.
and House, R.J. (Eds), Culture and Leadership Across the World, Lawrence Erlbaum,
New York, NY, pp. 971-1020
76 Cohen, A. (2003), Multiple Commitments in the Workplace: An Integrative Approach, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Inc, Publishers, Mahwah, NJ.
Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1983), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral
Sciences, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Colarelli, S.M. and Bishop, R.C. (1990), “Career commitment functions, correlates, and
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee At 00:22 28 January 2015 (PT)

management”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 158-176.

Costa, P.T. Jr and McCrae, R.R. (1992), “Four ways five factors are basic”, Personality and
Individual Differences, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 653-665.
Crocitto, M.M., Sullivan, S.E. and Carraher, S.M. (2005), “Global mentoring as a means of career
development and knowledge creation: a learning-based framework and agenda for future
research”, Career Development International, Vol. 10 Nos 6/7, pp. 522-535.
Dawley, D.D., Andrews, M.C. and Bucklew, N.S. (2010), “Enhancing the ties that bind: mentoring
as a moderator”, Career Development International, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 259-278.
Dobrow, S.R. and Higgins, M.C. (2005), “Developmental networks and professional identity:
a longitudinal study”, Career Development International, Vol. 10 Nos 6/7, pp. 567-583.
Egberink, I.J., Meijer, R.R. and Veldkamp, B.P. (2010), “Conscientiousness in the workplace:
applying mixture IRT to investigate scalability and predictive validity”, Journal of Research
in Personality, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 232-244.
Fagenson-Eland, E.A., Marks, M.A. and Amendola, K.L. (1997), “Perceptions of mentoring
relationships”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 29-42.
Gentry, W.A., Weber, T.J. and Sadri, G. (2008), “Examining career-related mentoring and
managerial performance across cultures: a multilevel analysis”, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 241-253.
Ghosh, R. (2014), “Antecedents of mentoring support: a meta-analysis of individual, relational,
and structural or organizational factors”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 83 No. 3,
pp. 367-384.
Goldberg, L.R. (1992), “The development of markers for the big-five factor structure”, Psychological
Assessment, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 26-42.
Golden, T.D. and Veiga, J.F. (2008), “The impact of superior-subordinate relationships on the
commitment, job satisfaction, and performance of virtual workers”, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 77-88.
Graen, G.B. and Wakabayashi, M. (1994), “Cross-cultural leadership making: bridging American
and Japanese diversity for team advantage”, in Triandis, H.C., Dunnette, M.D. and
Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd ed., Vol. 4,
Consulting Psychologists Press Inc, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 415-446.
Haggard, D.L., Dougherty, T.W., Turban, D.B. and Wilbanks, J.E. (2011), “Who is a mentor?
A review of evolving definitions and implications for research”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 280-304.
Hall, D.T. (1971), “A theoretical model of career sub-identity development in organizational
settings”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 50-76.
Hofstede, G. (1994), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, London.
 Holland, J.L. (1973), Making Vocational Choices: A theory of Careers, Vol. 37, Prentice-Hall, Joint effects of
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
personality
House, R., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (2004), Culture, Leadership and and SCM
Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling:
A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55. 77
Judge, T.A. and Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D. (2007), “Personality and career success”, in Gunz, H. and
Peiperl, M. (Eds), Handbook of Career Studies, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 57-78.
Judge, T.A., Higgins, C.A., Thoresen, C.J. and Barrick, M.R. (1999), “The big five personality traits,
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee At 00:22 28 January 2015 (PT)

general mental ability, and career success across the life span”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 621-652.
Kamdar, D., McAllister, D.J. and Turban, D.B. (2006), “All in a day’s work: how follower
individual differences and justice perceptions predict OCB role definitions and behavior”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 4, pp. 841-855.
Kidd, J.M. and Smewing, C. (2001), “The role of the supervisor in career and organizational
commitment”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 25-40.
Kisamore, J., Liguori, E.W., Muldoon, J. and Jawahar, J. (2014), “Keeping the peace: an investigation
of the interaction between personality, conflict and competence on organizational citizenship
behaviors”, Career Development International, Vol. 19 No. 2, p. 6.
Kishton, J.M. and Widaman, K.F. (1994), “Unidimensional versus domain representative parceling
of questionnaire items: an empirical example”, Educational and Psychological Measurement,
Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 757-765.
Lee, F.K., Dougherty, T.W. and Turban, D.B. (2000b), “The role of personality and work values in
mentoring programs”, Review of Business, Vol. 21 Nos 1/2, pp. 33-37.
Lee, K., Carswell, J. and Allen, N. (2000a), “A meta-analytic review of occupational commitment:
relations with person and work-related variables”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85
No. 5, pp. 799-811.
Liden, R.C., Sparrowe, R.T. and Wayne, S.J. (1997), “Leader member exchange theory: the past
and potential for the future”, in Ferris, G.R. (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human
Resource Management, Vol. 15, CT JAI Press, Greenwich, pp. 47-119.
London, M. (1983), “Toward a theory of career motivation”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 620-630.
Mathieu, J.E. and Farr, J.L. (1991), “Further evidence for the discriminant validity of measures of
organizational commitment, job involvement, and job satisfaction”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 1, p. 127.
Meijman, T.F. and Mulder, G. (1998), “Psychological aspects of workload”, in Drenth, P.J.,
Thierry, H. and de Wolff, C.J. (Eds), Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology:
Work Psychology, 2nd ed., Vol. 2, Psychology Press Ltd, Hove, pp. 5-33.
Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J. and Smith, C.A. (1993), “Commitment to organizations and occupations:
extension and test of a three-component conceptualization”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 538-551.
Mezias, J.M. and Scandura, T.A. (2005), “A needs-driven approach to expatriate adjustment and
career development: a multiple mentoring perspective”, Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 519-538.
Mischel, W. (1968), Personality and Assessment, Wiley, New York, NY.
 CDI Niehoff, B.P. (2006), “Personality predictors of participation as a mentor”, Career Development
International, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 321-333.
20,1
Noe, R.A. (1988), “An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring
relationships”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 457-479.
Okurame, D.E. (2012), “Linking work–family conflict to career commitment: the moderating
effects of gender and mentoring among Nigerian civil servants”, Journal of Career
78 Development, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 423-442.
Organ, D.W. and Ryan, K. (1995), “A meta‐analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional
predictors of organizational citizenship behavior”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 4,
pp. 775-802.
Özkalp, E., Kirel, C., Sungur, Z. and Ozdemir, A.A. (2008), “Mentoring relations in the aircraft
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee At 00:22 28 January 2015 (PT)

industry: a case study in Turkey”, International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and
Mentoring, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 67-77.
Packard, B.W.L. (2003), “Web-based mentoring: challenging traditional models to increase
women’s access”, Mentoring and Tutoring, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 53-65.
Payne, S.C. and Huffman, A.H. (2005), “A longitudinal examination of the influence of mentoring
on organizational commitment and turnover”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48
No. 1, pp. 158-168.
Pellegrini, E.K., Scandura, T.A. and Jayaraman, V. (2010), “Cross-cultural generalizability of
paternalistic leadership: an expansion of leader-member exchange theory”, Group &
Organization Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 391-420.
Perrewé, P.L., Zellars, K.L., Rogers, L.M., Breaux, D.M. and Young, A.M. (2010), “Mentors
gone wild!: when mentoring relationships become dysfunctional or abusive”, in Neider, L.L.
and Schriesheim, C. (Eds.), (2010), The“Dark” Side of Management, Information Age
Publishing Inc.
Pio, E. (2005), “The Guru-Shishya process for radiating knowledge in organizations”, Knowledge
and Process Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 278-287.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No 5, pp. 879-903.
Raabe, B. and Beehr, T.A. (2003), “Formal mentoring versus supervisor and coworker
relationships: differences in perceptions and impact”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 271-293.
Ragins, B.R. (1989), “Barriers to mentoring: the female manager’s dilemma”, Human Relations,
Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Ragins, B.R. and Kram, K.E. (2007), The Handbook of Mentoring at Work: Theory, Research, and
Practice, Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Ramaswami, A. (2009), “A cross-cultural examination of the relationship between mentor-protégé
similarity and mentor behavior in India and the US”, doctoral dissertation, Indiana
University, Bloomington, IN, available at: http://search.proquest.com/docview/304899407
(accessed January 22, 2013).
Richard, O.C., Ismail, K.M., Bhuian, S.N. and Taylor, E.C. (2009), “Mentoring in supervisor-subordinate
dyads: antecedents, consequences, and test of a mediation model of mentorship”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 11, pp. 1110-1118.
Russell, J.E. and Adams, D.M. (1997), “The changing nature of mentoring in organizations: an
introduction to the special issue on mentoring in organizations”, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
 Scandura, T.A. and Williams, E.A. (2004), “Mentoring and transformational leadership: the role Joint effects of
of supervisory career mentoring”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 65 No. 3,
pp. 448-468.
personality
and SCM
Shore, L.M., Bommer, W.H., Rao, A.N. and Seo, J. (2009), “Social and economic exchange in the
employee-organization relationship: the moderating role of reciprocation wariness”,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 701-721.
Shore, L.M., Coyle‐Shapiro, J.A.M., Chen, X.P. and Tetrick, L.E. (2009), “Social exchange in work 79
settings: content, process, and mixed models”, Management and Organization Review,
Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 289-302.
Sinha, J.B.P. (1980), The Nurturant Task Leader, Concept, New Delhi.
Sparrow, P.R. and Budhwar, P.S. (1997), “Competition and change: mapping the Indian
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee At 00:22 28 January 2015 (PT)

HRM recipe against worldwide patterns”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 32 No. 3,
pp. 224-242.
Stone, E.F. and Hollenbeck, J.R. (1989), “Clarifying some controversial issues surrounding
statistical procedures for detecting moderator variables: empirical evidence and related
evidence”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 3-10.
Tepper, B.J. (1995), “Upward maintenance tactics in supervisory mentoring and non-mentoring
relationships”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 1191-1205.
Turban, D.B. and Lee, F.K. (2007), “The role of personality in mentoring relationships”, in Ragins
and Kram (Eds), The Handbook of Mentoring at Work: Theory, Research, and Practice,
Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 21-50.
Tymon, W.G. Jr, Stumpf, S.A. and Smith, R.R. (2011), “Manager support predicts turnover of
professionals in India”, Career Development International, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 293-312.
Underhill, C.M. (2006), “The effectiveness of mentoring programs in corporate settings:
a meta-analytical review of the literature”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 68 No. 2,
pp. 292-307.
Uppal, N., Mishra, S.K. and Vohra, N. (2014), “Prior related work experience and job performance:
role of personality”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 39-51.
Van Der Heijden, B.I., Van Dam, K. and Hasselhorn, H.M. (2009), “Intention to leave nursing: the
importance of interpersonal work context, work-home interference, and job satisfaction
beyond the effect of occupational commitment”, Career Development International, Vol. 14
No. 7, pp. 616-635.
Varma, A., Srinivas, E.S. and Stroh, L.K. (2005), “A comparative study of the impact of leader-member
exchange in US and Indian samples”, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal,
Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 84-95.
Weng, Q. and McElroy, J.C. (2012), “Organizational career growth, affective occupational
commitment and turnover intentions”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 80 No. 2,
pp. 256-265.
Wickramasinghe, V. and Jayaweera, M. (2010), “Impact of career plateau and supervisory support
on career satisfaction: a study in offshore outsourced IT firms in Sri Lanka”, Career
Development International, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 544-561.
Witt, L.A., Kacmar, K.M., Carlson, D.S. and Zivnuska, S. (2002), “Interactive effects of personality
and organizational politics on contextual performance”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 911-926.
Wolff, H.G. and Kim, S. (2012), “The relationship between networking behaviors and the big five
personality dimensions”, Career Development International, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 43-66.
 CDI About the authors
20,1 Ridhi Arora is a Doctoral Research Candidate in the Department of Management Studies at the
Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee. Her current research interests focusses on understanding
the role of personality and mentoring relationships in employee’s career outcomes. Ridhi Arora is
the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Dr Santosh Rangnekar is an Associate Professor in the Department of Management Studies
at the Indian Institute of Technology-Roorkee. His research interests include leadership, personality
80 traits, executive development, and knowledge management (intellectual capital-human capital
creation).
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee At 00:22 28 January 2015 (PT)

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]