Journal of Vocational Behavior 63 (2003) 417–437

www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

Aiming for career success: The role of

learning goal orientation in
mentoring relationships
Veronica M. Godshalk* and John J. Sosik
Department of Management, Great Valley School of Graduate Professional Studies,
The Pennsylvania State University, 30 East Swedesford Road, Malvern, PA 19355, USA
Received 11 February 2002

Abstract

Learning goal orientation of mentors and proteges was investigated as it relates to protegesÕ
mentoring functions received and outcomes (i.e., managerial career aspirations and career sat-
isfaction). Data from 217 mentor–protege dyads comprised of working professionals from a
variety of industries were analyzed using multivariate analysis of covariance. Results indicated
that proteges who possessed high levels of learning goal orientation similar to their mentor
were associated with the highest levels of psychosocial support. These proteges also reported
higher levels of career development, idealized influence, enacted managerial aspirations, de-
sired managerial aspirations, and career satisfaction when compared to mentor–protege dyads
who possessed low levels of learning goal orientation or dyads with dissimilar levels of learning
goal orientation. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.
Ó 2002 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

Keywords: Learning goal orientation; Mentoring; Career success

1. Introduction

The person who makes a success of living is the one who sees his (or her) goal steadily and
aims for it unswervingly. That is dedication.
Cecil B. De Mille

*
Corresponding author. Fax: 1-610-725-5224.
E-mail address: vmg3@psu.edu (V.M. Godshalk).

0001-8791/$ - see front matter Ó 2002 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00038-6
418 V.M. Godshalk, J.J. Sosik / Journal of Vocational Behavior 63 (2003) 417–437

The setting and pursuit of goals for personal and professional development is an
important element in the transfer of new learning in mentor–protege relationships
(Kram, 1985). In fact, mentoring may be defined as ‘‘a deliberate pairing of a more
skilled or experienced person with a lesser skilled or experienced one, with the
agreed-upon goal of having the lesser skilled person grow and develop specific compe-
tencies’’ (Murray, 1991, p. xiv). Mentors impart wisdom about the norms, values, and
mores that are specific to the organization (Gibson & Cordova, 1999), provide advo-
cacy, counseling, support, and protection to proteges (Kram, 1985), and offer feed-
back and information to help the protege attain his or her goals (Douglas, 1997).
Mentoring relationships provide proteges with benefits such as higher levels of overall
compensation, promotions and career advancement, enhanced career mobility, and
career satisfaction (cf., Kram, 1985; Ragins, 1997). Yet, mentor–protege relationships
may not be beneficial because proteges may not learn important career enhancing tac-
tics for pursuing goals from their mentors (Mumford, 1995; Scandura, 1998) or may
receive limited developmental opportunities (Ragins, Cotton, & Miller, 2000).
One potential reason for an unsuccessful mentoring relationship may be different
learning goal orientations that the mentor and protege bring to the relationship.
‘‘When a task is approached from a learning goal orientation, individuals strive to
understand something new or to increase their level of competence in a given activ-
ity’’ (Button, Mathieu, & Zajac, 1996, p. 26). Learning goal orientation is a relatively
stable dispositional trait that individuals bring with them into relationships with oth-
ers (Button et al., 1996; Dweck, 1986). Dweck and her colleagues (e.g., Bempechat,
London, & Dweck, 1991; Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Leggett, 1988) pointed out that
learning goals pursued by individuals motivate behavior and influence the interpre-
tation and reaction to outcomes.
Learning-goal-oriented individuals are motivated by competence development
and choose challenging tasks that foster learning, even if their assessment of current
skills is low (Dweck, 1986). Learning goal orientation has been linked to increased
use of obstacles as learning cues that allow the individual to analyze and vary strat-
egies. Such learning cues result in higher levels of expectations for success in the face
of obstacles. Mentoring also focuses on competence development by offering chal-
lenging job assignments that help attain the protegeÕs career goals (Kram, 1985)
and providing strategies for achieving goals of recognition and success within the or-
ganization (Eby, 1997). Learning-goal-oriented mentors and proteges are likely to
focus on effort and intrinsic motivation, as a means of utilizing ability, and raising
expectations of accomplishments. In fact, such intellectually stimulating and intrin-
sically motivating behavior displayed by mentors has been linked to mentoring func-
tions received by proteges (Sosik & Godshalk, 2000). Thus, while mentoring has
been associated with protege socialization into organizations (Kram, 1985), mentor-
ing may also be described as a learning and competence development goal-driven
process. The study of mentor–protege relationships may be enhanced through an
understanding of the learning goal orientation associated with each party in the
relationship.
Prior research based on the similarity-attraction paradigm (e.g., Byrne, 1971;
Hunt & Michael, 1983; Thibodeaux & Lowe, 1996) suggests that similarity between
 V.M. Godshalk, J.J. Sosik / Journal of Vocational Behavior 63 (2003) 417–437 419

mentors and proteges on personal attributes (e.g., learning goal orientation) pro-
motes interpersonal attraction, and enhanced interactions and outcomes. Based on
this paradigm, we expected interpersonal attraction based on similar learning goal
orientations to foster mentor–protege compatibility, and result in rapport to encour-
age accurate perceptions of expectations and, consequently, enhanced protege out-
comes. However, no research to date has examined how mentor–protege similarity
(i.e., congruence) on learning goal orientation relates to mentoring processes and
outcomes.
To begin to address this gap in the literature, the present study draws upon the
social-learning (Bandura, 1977), goal setting (Locke & Latham, 1990), and similar-
ity-attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971) literatures to integrate learning goal orienta-
tion into the mentoring literature. Mentors act as role models and facilitate the
social learning and competence development of their proteges (Feldman, 1988). Sim-
ilarly, mentors provide specific and difficult career goals for proteges and build the
self-efficacy of proteges (Kram, 1985), both key elements of goal setting processes
(Locke & Latham, 1990). This study also examines how the similarity between a
mentorÕs and protegeÕs learning goal orientation is associated with mentoring func-
tions received and protege expectations regarding career outcomes. Because the goal
of many mentor–protege relationships is enhanced protege career outcomes (Kram,
1985), this study examines protegesÕ career aspirations and career satisfaction. Ac-
cordingly, this study can be positioned as an answer to calls by prior researchers
to study individual differences in mentoring relationships (e.g., Koberg, Boss, &
Goodman, 1998) and their outcomes by using a dyadic approach (e.g., Ragins,
1997; Sosik & Godshalk, 2000).

2. Theoretical framework and hypotheses

The present study is grounded in a theoretical framework developed by Koberg

et al. (1998). Briefly, this model proposes that antecedent conditions including
protege and mentor characteristics (e.g., individual differences, demographics), char-
acteristics of the mentoring dyad (e.g., gender composition), and organizational and
group characteristics (e.g., organizational rank) influence mentoring functions re-
ceived (i.e., career development, psychosocial support, role modeling). Career devel-
opment functions include sponsorship, protection, challenging assignments,
exposure, and visibility. Psychosocial support functions include acceptance, coaching,
and counseling (Kram, 1985; Noe, 1988). Scandura (1992) found role modeling to
represent a third distinct function, involving behaviors in which proteges identify
with and emulate mentors, who are trusted and respected, possess much referent
power, and hold high standards.
Although Koberg et al. (1998) investigated the demographic characteristics of ed-
ucation, tenure, sex, and ethnicity, their framework offers researchers the opportu-
nity to investigate other personal characteristics. The present study extends
Koberg and her colleaguesÕ framework to include the dispositional trait of learning
goal orientation. Alleman, Cochran, Doverspike, and Newman (1984) noted that
420 V.M. Godshalk, J.J. Sosik / Journal of Vocational Behavior 63 (2003) 417–437

mentor–protege relationships might be established based on learning styles rather

than other selection criteria. In the present study, we focus on examining how men-
tor–protege similarity on an antecedent learning characteristic (i.e., learning goal ori-
entation) relates to mentoring functions received by proteges (career development,
psychosocial support, role modeling), and protegesÕ managerial career aspirations
and career satisfaction.
Several studies have found that mentoring functions received are associated with
managerial promotions (e.g., Kirchmeyer, 1995; Turban & Dougherty, 1994). Yet,
while studies have investigated mentorsÕ career development support as a predictor
of advancement (Tharenou, 2001) and the effect of type of relationship (e.g., for-
mal/informal) and effectiveness of relationship on relationship and job satisfaction
(Ragins et al., 2000), few studies have examined the association between mentoring
functions received and protegesÕ attitudes regarding their managerial career aspira-
tions and career satisfaction. Managerial career aspirations describe the protegesÕ
preferences for positions of responsibility and influence. Career aspirations include
a subjective measure of desired aspirations or ambitions, and a behavioral measure
of enacted aspirations or demonstrated actions to achieve career goals (Tharenou &
Terry, 1998). Career satisfaction describes protegesÕ satisfaction with their present
jobs and advancement potential (Greenhaus, Parasuraman, & Wormley, 1990).
Because existing theory has predicted that effective mentoring should be associated
with protegesÕ positive career attitudes (e.g., Kram, 1985), we expected that mentor-
ing functions received would be related to managerial career aspirations and career
satisfaction.

2.1. Mentor–prot
eg
e similarity on learning goal orientation and mentoring functions
received

Koberg et al. (1998, p. 59) suggested that both mentors and proteges have differ-
ent sets of personal characteristics that each member brings with them to the men-
tor–protege relationship and that the ‘‘relationship is affected by [these]
characteristics.’’ Because learning goal orientation is considered a somewhat stable
individual difference variable (Dweck, 1986), it is likely to predispose mentors and
proteges to adopt a response pattern for learning that is consistent with their own
orientation. Regarding learning goal orientation, ‘‘the mastery-oriented response
pattern involves seeking challenging tasks and maintaining effective striving under
difficult conditions. When these individuals are faced with failure, they behave as
though they have received useful feedback’’ (Button et al., 1996, p. 26). Learning
goal orientation allows individuals to respond with ‘‘solution-oriented self-instruc-
tions, as well as sustained or increased positive affect and sustained or improved per-
formance’’ (Elliott & Dweck, 1988, p. 5).
Having a learning-goal-oriented predisposition may benefit mentoring dyads.
proteges learn from their mentors vicariously through role modeling (Bergem,
1986). During mentoring interactions, mentors may provide counseling which re-
quires teaching and coaching (Kram, 1985), and learning-goal-oriented proteges
may be highly receptive to counseling efforts. Offering challenging tasks, organiza-
 V.M. Godshalk, J.J. Sosik / Journal of Vocational Behavior 63 (2003) 417–437 421

tional exposure, and relevant feedback on specific jobs and/or career goals are im-
portant career development functions provided by mentors. Positive affect displayed
by mentors (i.e., psychosocial support) is necessary for counseling and friendship
and spurs proteges to greater achievement (Kram, 1985). Allinson, Armstrong,
and Hayes (2001) suggested that the greater the similarity between mentor and
protege cognitive learning styles, the more nurturing the relationship, and the more
dyad members will like and respect each other. Nurturing relationships are fostered
by psychosocial support functions, whereas liking and respect for the mentor are as-
sociated with the role modeling function (Kram, 1985; Scandura, 1992). Thus, learn-
ing goal orientation may enhance the relationship between mentor and protege
because mentoring involves accepting novel information, learning from it, and using
it towards career-related goals.
Based on this literature, we expected that mentors (proteges) with high learning
goal orientation strive to teach (understand) something new and increase their level
of competence in a given job or career-related activity. Learning goal orientation is
consistent with the concept of mentor (i.e., one who values learning and shares
knowledge and information with the protege in the role of a teacher). Bergem
(1986) reported that students who valued difficult lessons perceived teachers as role
models. Thus, proteges who identify with mentors based on a shared interest in
learning from the mentoring relationships may perceive role modeling functions.
Learning goal orientation also may promote increased intrinsic motivation to con-
tinue the mentoring relationship and appreciate the mentoring functions provided.
A learning-goal-oriented mentor may offer appropriate role modeling (e.g., a love
for learning), career development (e.g., protection), and psychosocial support func-
tions (e.g., counseling) to allow the protege to feel competent and accomplished with
personal and career goals. Learning-goal-oriented proteges may feel competent de-
spite failures and strive to gain more knowledge from the mentor in order to further
oneÕs career. Thus, proteges who share high levels of learning goal orientation with
their mentors are expected to report the highest levels of mentoring functions re-
ceived. These arguments suggest the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1. The greater the degree of similarity between mentor and protege
learning goal orientation, the higher the level of mentoring functions received by the
protege . Specifically, proteges who possess high levels of learning goal orientation
similar to their mentors will report more mentoring functions received than proteges
who possess low levels of learning goal orientation similar to their mentors, and
proteges with levels of learning goal orientation that are dissimilar to their mentors.

2.2. Mentor–prot
eg
e similarity on learning goal orientation and prot
eg
e career
outcomes

It has been well documented that proteges experience greater career outcomes as a
result of their mentoring experiences (e.g., Noe, 1988; Ragins, 1997; Ragins et al.,
2000; Tharenou, 2001). For example, Tharenou found that mentorÕs career develop-
ment support was positively related to both managerial promotions and aspirations.
422 V.M. Godshalk, J.J. Sosik / Journal of Vocational Behavior 63 (2003) 417–437

Ragins et al. reported that protegesÕ satisfaction with their mentoring relationship
was positively related to their career and organizational commitment, job satisfac-
tion, and perceived opportunities for promotion. Theories of goal setting (Locke
& Latham, 1990) and social learning (Bandura, 1977) also would suggest that such
instruction/feedback and positive affect received by a protege may heighten his/her
expectations for positive career outcomes. According to social learning theory,
teachers (e.g., mentors) raise the expectations of students (e.g., proteges) by fostering
challenge seeking and persistence. These efforts may also enhance protegesÕ career
outcomes through reexamining assumptions, seeking different perspectives, suggest-
ing new ways of performing jobs, and rethinking what has never been questioned be-
fore (Torrance, 1983). Because research has found that proteges experience positive
career outcomes as a result of their relationship with their mentors, we expected
proteges to report higher levels of managerial career aspirations and career satisfac-
tion as an outcome of mentoring functions received.
Research on leader–member exchange (LMX) theory (e.g., Gerstner & Day, 1997)
and its application to mentoring (e.g., Scandura & Schriesheim, 1994; Thibodeaux &
Lowe, 1996) suggests that mentor–protege similarity on cognitive learning styles will
be associated with high levels of protege career-related outcomes. Specifically, based
on individual differences between mentors and proteges, mentors develop high qual-
ity (in-group) relationships with similar proteges and lower quality (out-group) rela-
tionships with dissimilar proteges. Gerstner and DayÕs meta-analysis indicates
significant associations between LMX quality and outcomes such as dyad member
(e.g., protege) attitudes and outcomes (e.g., expectations for success, career satisfac-
tion). Therefore, mentor–protegesimilarity on learning goal orientation may facili-
tate career outcomes through mentoring functions received.
Based on empirical evidence noted above, we proposed that mentoring functions
promoted by similarly high levels of mentor and protege learning goal orientations
can raise protegesÕ expectations for career aspirations and satisfaction. Specifically,
career development functions that enhance career advancement potential (e.g.,
coaching, exposure, challenging assignments) can heighten a protegeÕs managerial
career aspirations via enacted mastery (Bandura, 1977). Psychosocial functions
and role modeling that enhance sense of competence, identity, and effectiveness in
a professional role (e.g., acceptance and confirmation) can also heighten a protegeÕs
career aspirations and satisfaction (Kram, 1985). These supportive functions may
help to overcome vulnerability sometimes associated with learning-goal-oriented
proteges who have ‘‘stumbled’’ in an attempt to learn new skills within the organi-
zation (Button et al., 1996). Role modeling by mentors who have attained organiza-
tional success and career satisfaction while raising a family or overcoming personal
crises can help raise protegeÕs career satisfaction via vicarious experience (Bandura,
1977). These arguments suggest the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2. The greater the degree of similarity between mentor and protege
learning goal orientation, the higher the level of positive career-related outcomes re-
ported by the protege . Specifically, proteges who possess high levels of learning goal
orientation similar to their mentors will report more positive career-related outcomes
 V.M. Godshalk, J.J. Sosik / Journal of Vocational Behavior 63 (2003) 417–437 423

(i.e., greater managerial career aspirations and career satisfaction) than proteges who
possess low levels of learning goal orientation similar to their mentors, and proteges
with levels of learning goal orientation that are dissimilar to their mentors.

3. Method

3.1. Sample and procedure

Two hundred and forty-five adult students enrolled in a masters of business admin-
istration program in a large public university in the Northeast were invited to partic-
ipate in the study for course credit. The final sample consisted of 217 participants on
account of 23 potential participants who did not participate because they were not
involved in a mentoring relationship, and 5 potential participants whose question-
naires were unusable as a result of missing data. Participants were full-time corporate
employees from various industries who may have been involved in either formal or
informal mentoring relationships. ProtegesÕ job levels were 59% non-supervisory,
18% first line managers, 15% middle managers, and 8% upper or executive manage-
ment positions. MentorsÕ job levels were 14% non-supervisory, 22% first line manag-
ers, 30% middle managers, and 34% upper or executive management positions.
The industries represented include: mining (1%), construction (4%), manufacturing
(22%), transportation/communications/public utilities (9%), wholesale trade (2%), re-
tail trade (5%), financial/insurance/real estate (22%), health and legal services (27%),
government (4%), and other unidentified industries (4%). Mentoring relationships
ranged in length from 1 year to 15 years, with the average being 2.6 years. Proteges
ranged in age from 21 to 56 years, with the average age being 31 years. Proteges
had worked, on average, 4.3 years with their companies and had a range of company
tenure from 3 months to 27 years. Mentors ranged in age from 22 years to 70 years,
with the average age being 39. Mentors had worked, on average, 8.3 years with their
companies and had a range of company tenure from 5 months to 42 years.
Seventy-one percent of proteges and 60% of mentors were male; 65% of dyads
were same-sex relationships. The vast majority (79%) of participants were Cauca-
sian. The remaining 21% of the sample consisted of African American (5%), His-
panic (2%), Asian (12%), and non-responding (2%) participants. Study variables
were not significantly different across the industry, job level or racial categories.
Data were collected through two questionnaires, which were distributed to partic-
ipants in class, completed outside of class, and returned directly to the researchers.
The first questionnaire was completed by the protege and included items measuring
learning goal orientation, mentoring functions received, career aspirations and satis-
faction, and demographic information. This questionnaire contained the following
instructions to define mentoring relationships for participants.
Please provide information regarding your experiences with mentoring relationships. Men-
toring relationships are characterized by a close, professional relationship between two in-
dividuals—one usually more senior in some regard. The mentor and protege may or may
not be with the same company.
424 V.M. Godshalk, J.J. Sosik / Journal of Vocational Behavior 63 (2003) 417–437

In addition, the following information was read to participants prior to distribution

of the questionnaires.
Mentoring is defined as a pairing of a more skilled or experienced person with a lesser skilled
or experienced one, with the goal [either implicitly or explicitly stated] of having the lesser
skilled person grow and develop specific career-related competencies. Your mentor may or
may not be your manager.

The second questionnaire included items measuring learning goal orientation and
demographic information and was completed by the protegeÕs mentor. The protege
gave the questionnaire to his/her mentor. This questionnaire was mailed by each
mentor directly to the researchers using a pre-addressed, stamped return envelope.
Data were collected regarding the type of mentor–protege relationship individuals
experienced. Specifically, proteges were asked who their mentor was and how formal
(institutionalized) their relationship was. Eighty-three percent (181 participants)
were in informal mentoring relationships while 17 percent (36 participants) were in
formal mentoring relationships as reported by the protege . Forty-four percent of
mentors were managers/supervisors of the proteges. Of the 56% that were not, 20%
were mentored by peers, 21% were mentored by another manager, and 15% were
mentored by individuals outside the protegeÕs company.
Bonferroni post hoc tests indicated that higher-level individuals from outside the
protegeÕs company (M ¼ 4:37, SD ¼ :61) provided higher (p < :02) levels of psycho-
social support than immediate supervisors (M ¼ 3:91, SD ¼ :68). Immediate supervi-
sors (M ¼ 3:64, SD ¼ :73) provided higher (p < :02) levels of career development
than same-level individuals from outside the protegeÕs company (M ¼ 2:64,
SD ¼ 1:38).

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. Learning goal orientation

MentorsÕ and protegesÕ learning goal orientation were measured using eight items
developed and validated by Button et al. (1996). A sample item reads, ‘‘The oppor-
tunity to learn new things is important to me.’’ Prior research suggests that learning
goal orientation may be a multi-dimensional construct (e.g., Elliot & McGregor,
2001). Results of principal components factor analysis with Varimax rotation gener-
ated a single factor for learning goal orientation items for mentors (a ¼ :86) and
proteges (a ¼ :86), accounting for 51% and 50% of the total variance explained, re-
spectively. These results supported using an eight-item scale to measure learning goal
orientation for mentors and proteges. Items assessing learning goal orientation were
measured on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree
strongly).

3.2.2. Mentoring functions received

To assess the degree of mentoring received by the protege, we used two scales de-
veloped and validated by Noe (1988): (a) career development measured with seven
items (e.g., ‘‘Mentor gave you assignments or tasks in your work that prepare you
 V.M. Godshalk, J.J. Sosik / Journal of Vocational Behavior 63 (2003) 417–437 425

for an advanced position,’’ a ¼ :87), and (b) psychosocial support measured with 10
items (e.g., ‘‘My mentor has conveyed empathy for the concerns and feelings I have
discussed with him/her,’’ a ¼ :86). Proteges were asked to indicate their extent of
agreement with each item using a five-point scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly)
to 5 (agree strongly).
Role modeling has been identified as a mentoring function, distinct from psycho-
social support (Scandura, 1992). Role modeling behavior is generally defined with
respect to protegesÕ reactions (i.e., attributions) to the mentor as well as to the men-
torÕs behavior (Ragins, 1997). Traditional role modeling scales (e.g., Noe, 1988;
Scandura, 1992) are limited to the measurement of mentor role modeling behaviors.
To measure both role modeling behaviors and attributions, we used behavioral and
attributional idealized influence items from the Multifactor Leadership Question-
naire (MLQ-Form 5X; Bass & Avolio, 1997). Specifically, we used the four-item ide-
alized influence-behavior (a ¼ :80) and idealized influence-attributes scales (a ¼ :81)
adapted from the MLQ-Form 5X, which has sound reliability and validity (cf., Avo-
lio, Bass, & Jung, 1999). Idealized influence represents exhibition of role modeling
behaviors through exemplary personal achievements, character and/or behaviors,
and has been used in prior research to measure the role modeling function of men-
toring (e.g., Sosik & Godshalk, 2000). A sample item reads, ‘‘My mentor considers
the moral and ethical consequences of decisions.’’ Each item was measured on a five-
point frequency scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently, if not always).

3.2.3. Proteg
e career outcomes
Outcomes for proteges were assessed in terms of their managerial career aspira-
tions and career satisfaction. Managerial career aspirations were measured by using
two scales developed and validated by Tharenou and Terry (1998). Desired manage-
rial aspirations were defined as future managerial career ambitions or goals proteges
possess and were measured using a 10-item scale (e.g., ‘‘I would like to be in a
position of greater influence in the department/organization,’’ a ¼ :74). Enacted
managerial aspirations were defined as behaviors proteges demonstrated to fulfill ca-
reer-related objectives or goals and were measured using a 12-item scale (e.g., ‘‘I have
discussed my career prospects with someone with more experience in the department/
organization,’’ a ¼ :91). Each managerial aspiration item was rated on a five-point
scale ranging from 1 (completely false) to 5 (completely true). Career satisfaction
was measured using Greenhaus et al.Õs (1990) five-item scale (e.g., ‘‘I am satisfied
with the success I have achieved in my career,’’ a ¼ :83), which has sound reliability
and validity (Aryee, Chay, & Tan, 1994). Each satisfaction item was rated on a five-
point scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly).

3.2.4. Control variables

Based on prior research (e.g., Button et al., 1996; Kram, 1985; Ragins, 1997), we
entered mentoring relationship type (formal vs. informal) and length, gender, age,
GMAT score, college GPA, and self-reported general knowledge of the mentor
and protege into the data analysis as covariates to control for their potential effects
on learning goal orientation and mentoring functions received. Self-reported general
426 V.M. Godshalk, J.J. Sosik / Journal of Vocational Behavior 63 (2003) 417–437

knowledge was measured with a single-item indicator developed by Bobko and Tej-
eda (2000). This item reads ‘‘If you were a Jeopardy game show contestant, and were
competing against five other people, how many of the five would you beat?’’ (1, few),
(3, half), (5, all).

3.3. Data analysis

Because of the importance of the notion of congruence between mentor and

protege learning goal orientation in the present study, we considered four methods
of measuring congruence: (1) calculating the difference between mentor and protege
learning goal orientation and using it in the data analysis, (2) using median splits of
the component variables to create groups based on the various combinations of high
and low scores in each, (3) using hierarchical multiple regression (Edwards, 1994),
and (4) using difference scores to place dyads into groups based on the degree of sim-
ilarity (congruence) between the mentor and the protege (Atwater & Yammarino,
1997).
We ruled out the first procedure based on criticisms of the reliability of a differ-
ence score (e.g., Edwards, 1994). The obvious drawback of the second procedure
is that it wastes information by transforming continuous variables into dichotomies
thus reducing the power of statistical tests and increasing the likelihood of type II
error (Allinson et al., 2001). In the present study, 37 dyads associated with mentors
or proteges with median values (4.50) of learning goal orientation would have been
wasted. The use of hierarchical regression analysis has been criticized for requiring
very large sample sizes due to the numbers of degrees of freedom needed, multicol-
linearity of cross-products and lower order terms, difficulty in interpreting significant
quadratic and cross-product contributions to explained variance, and debate over
whether the combination of first-and second-order variables is a valid surrogate
for difference scores (Allinson et al., 2001). Thus, this technique was rejected as a
method of analysis.
Instead, we adopted the procedures developed by Atwater and Yammarino (1997)
whereby mentoring dyads were categorized into one of four congruence groups
based on learning goal orientation of the dyadÕs mentor and protege . The difference
between the mentorÕs and protegeÕs ratings of learning goal orientation was com-
puted and then each dyadÕs difference score was compared to the mean difference
score. The difference scores were used to place dyads into categories and were not
used in the data analysis (Edwards, 1994). Specifically, 53 dyads whose difference
scores were one-half standard deviation or more above the mean difference were cat-
egorized as ‘‘mentor learning goal orientation greater than protege learning goal ori-
entation.’’ Fifty-six dyads whose difference scores were one-half standard deviation
or more below the mean difference were categorized as ‘‘protege learning goal orien-
tation greater than mentor learning goal orientation.’’ When the dyadsÕ difference
scores were within one-half standard deviation of the mean difference and their
protegeÕs ratings were below (above) the protege ratings grand mean, those dyads
were categorized as ‘‘congruent/low (high) learning goal orientation.’’ There were
68 congruent/low learning goal orientation dyads and 40 congruent/high learning
 V.M. Godshalk, J.J. Sosik / Journal of Vocational Behavior 63 (2003) 417–437 427

goal orientation dyads. The category means for the dependent variables were then
compared using multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA).

4. Results

Means, standard deviations, coefficient as, and intercorrelations for the study
variables for the overall sample are presented in Table 1. Results of multivariate
and univariate analysis of covariance are summarized in Table 2. Means and stan-
dard deviations for the study variables in learning goal orientation congruence cat-
egories and significant mean differences across these groups based on results of
planned comparisons are presented in Table 3.
A one-way MANCOVA was run with protege ratings of psychosocial support,
career development, idealized influence-behavior, idealized influence-attributes, en-
acted managerial aspirations, desired managerial aspirations, and career satisfaction
as dependent variables. The congruence category was entered as the independent
variable. The analysis was run with length and type of mentoring relationship, men-
torÕs and protegeÕs gender, age, GMAT score, college GPA, and self-reported general
knowledge as covariates. As shown in Table 2, significant multivariate effects were
found for Learning Goal Orientation Congruence Category. There were no signifi-
cant multivariate effects for the covariates.
As shown in Table 2, significant univariate effects of Learning Goal Orientation
Congruence Category were found for protege ratings of psychosocial support, ideal-
ized influence-behavior, idealized influence-attributes, enacted managerial aspira-
tions, and desired managerial aspirations. There were also significant univariate
covariate effects of length of mentoring relationship on psychosocial support
(F ð1; 201Þ ¼ 7:52, p < :01, r ¼ :19), idealized influence-behavior (F ð1; 201Þ ¼ 7:29,
p < :01, r ¼ :18) and idealized influence-attributes (F ð1; 201Þ ¼ 4:62, p < :05,
r ¼ :15); protege gender on idealized influence-attributes (F ð1; 201Þ ¼ 4:13,
p < :05, r ¼ :14) and desired managerial aspirations (F ð1; 201Þ ¼ 3:88, p < :05,
r ¼ :14); protege GPA on career satisfaction (F ð1; 201Þ ¼ 4:16, p < :05, r ¼ :14);
mentor gender on desired managerial aspirations (F ð1; 201Þ ¼ 4:80, p < :05,
r ¼ :15); mentor age on desired managerial aspirations (F ð1; 201Þ ¼ 4:14, p < :05,
r ¼ :14); and mentor GPA on career satisfaction (F ð1; 201Þ ¼ 6:81, p < :01, r ¼ :18).
Results of planned comparisons indicated that similarity between mentor and
protege learning goal orientation was associated with protege ratings of mentoring
functions received and protege outcomes. With respect to protegesÕ reports of men-
toring functions received displayed in Table 3, proteges who possessed high levels of
learning goal orientation similar to their mentors reported (1) the highest levels of
psychosocial support received, (2) higher levels of career development received than
proteges who possessed low levels of learning goal orientation similar to their men-
tors, (3) higher levels of idealized influence (behavior and attributes) than proteges
who possessed low levels of learning goal orientation similar to their mentorsand
proteges who possessed higher levels of learning goal orientation than their mentors,
and (4) similar levels of career development and idealized influence (behavior and
 428

Table 1
Means, standard deviations, alphas and intercorrelations (N ¼ 217 mentoring dyads)
Variable M SD 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Learning goal orientation (mentor) 4.43 .48 .86 –
2. Learning goal orientation (protege) 4.45 .44 .86 .22 –
3. Psychosocial support 4.03 .61 .86 .24 .24 –
4. Career development 3.44 .91 .87 .15 .15 .43 –
5. Idealized influence behavior 2.85 .76 .80 .26 .15 .65 .22 –
6. Idealized influence attributes 3.06 .72 .81 .33 .23 .69 .28 .73 –
7. Enacted aspirations 3.83 .68 .74 .15 .34 .30 .23 .27 .29 –
8. Desired aspirations 4.17 .68 .91 .14 .29 .11 .10 .12 .10 .29 –
9. Career satisfaction 3.58 .37 .83 .19 .18 .31 .17 .21 .24 .30 ).13 –
10. Relationship type 1.83 .37 n/a .01 .03 ).04 ).04 ).04 ).07 ).04 ).05 .09 –
11. Relationship length 2.59 2.32 n/a ).07 ).11 .06 .02 .16 .09 ).04 ).06 .03 .09
12. Mentor gender .71 .45 n/a ).11 ).09 ).13 .08 ).11 ).12 ).11 ).11 ).01 .04
13. Mentor age 39.06 9.66 n/a ).07 .10 ).10 ).01 .02 ).08 ).04 .09 ).05 .06
14. Mentor GMAT 637.3 213.3 n/a ).09 ).05 ).14 ).06 ).12 ).07 .01 ).05 ).04 .12
15. Mentor GPA 3.32 .44 n/a .04 .06 .03 ).03 .07 .06 .07 .09 ).15 .01
16. Mentor general knowledge 3.51 1.01 n/a .01 ).09 ).10 ).10 .07 ).07 ).09 .05 ).06 .08
17. Protege gender .60 .49 n/a ).03 ).09 ).22 ).06 ).13 ).20 ).02 .10 ).14 .01
18. Protege age 30.96 6.77 n/a ).08 ).08 ).13 ).06 ).17 .01 ).04 ).07 ).09 .11
19. Protege GMAT 585.5 98.22 n/a .05 ).03 ).03 ).02 .06 ).01 ).04 .02 ).06 ).04
20. Protege GPA 3.23 .40 n/a .07 .14 .02 .01 ).03 .09 .15 ).02 .14 ).01
21. Protege general knowledge 3.50 1.03 n/a .05 .12 ).12 ).10 ).06 ).06 .08 .14 ).01 ).03
V.M. Godshalk, J.J. Sosik / Journal of Vocational Behavior 63 (2003) 417–437
Table 1 (continued)
Variable 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
1. Learning goal orientation (mentor)
2. Learning goal orientation (protege)
3. Psychosocial support
4. Career development
5. Idealized influence behavior
6. Idealized influence attributes
7. Enacted aspirations
8. Desired aspirations
9. Career satisfaction
10. Relationship type
11. Relationship length –
12. Mentor gender ).01 –
13. Mentor age .34 .16 –
14. Mentor GMAT .04 .14 .01 –
15. Mentor GPA ).03 ).14 .08 ).10 –
16. Mentor general knowledge .07 .13 .13 .12 .07 –
17. Protege gender ).03 .24 .04 .13 .01 .06 –
18. Protege age .39 .02 .40 .00 .00 .10 .11 –
19. Protege GMAT ).02 ).05 ).02 .14 .03 .13 .05 ).09 –
20. Protege GPA .07 ).12 ).02 ).07 .23 ).14 ).18 ).04 .02 –
21. Protege general knowledge .10 ).03 .03 .03 .00 .19 .18 .09 .18 ).09
Note. n/a, not applicable. Absolute values of correlations greater than .18 are significant at p < :01 and greater than .14 are significant at p < :05.
Mentoring relationship type coded formal, 1; informal, 2. Relationship length is in years. Gender coded female, 0; male, 1.
V.M. Godshalk, J.J. Sosik / Journal of Vocational Behavior 63 (2003) 417–437
429
430 V.M. Godshalk, J.J. Sosik / Journal of Vocational Behavior 63 (2003) 417–437

Table 2
Results of analysis of covariance
Analysis and variables Learning goal orientation congruence
F df p O2
Multivariate analysis 1.86 (21, 201) <.02 .06

Univariate analysis
Psychosocial support 4.93 (3, 201) <.01 .07
Career development 2.01 (3, 201) <.12 .03
Idealized influence-behavior 2.98 (3, 201) <.04 .04
Idealized influence-attributes 7.05 (3, 201) <.001 .10
Enacted aspirations 3.07 (3, 201) <.03 .04
Desired aspirations 2.83 (3, 201) <.04 .04
Career satisfaction 1.60 (3, 201) <.19 .02
Note. Significant effects are bold. There were no significant multivariate effects for the control variables.

attributes) as proteges who possessed lower levels of learning goal orientation than
their mentors. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was fully supported in terms of psychosocial sup-
port and partially supported in terms of career development and idealized influence
(behavior and attributes).
With respect to protegesÕ reports of outcomes displayed in Table 3, proteges who
possessed high levels of learning goal orientation similar to their mentors reported (1)
higher levels of enacted managerial aspirations than proteges who possessed low lev-
els of learning goal orientation similar to their mentors and proteges who possessed
lower levels of learning goal orientation than their mentors, (2) higher levels of de-
sired managerial aspirations than proteges who possessed lower levels of learning
goal orientation than their mentors, and (3) higher levels of career satisfaction than
proteges who possessed low levels of learning goal orientation similar to their men-
tors. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in terms of enacted and desired
managerial aspirations and career satisfaction.

5. Discussion

Several interesting results emerged from the present study. These results were gen-
erally consistent with similarity-attraction paradigm-based explanations of mentor-
ing (Hunt & Michael, 1983; Kram, 1985; Ragins, 1997). First, mentor and protege
learning goal orientation was positively associated with mentoring functions received
by proteges. Mentoring functions received also were positively associated with en-
acted managerial aspirations and career satisfaction (see Table 1). Second, the degree
of mentoring dyad similarity on learning goal orientation was associated with men-
toring functions received and career outcomes. Specifically, when mentors and
proteges had high and similar levels of learning goal orientation, proteges reported
the highest levels of psychosocial support received, and higher levels of career devel-
opment and idealized influence (behavior and attitudes) than proteges who shared
Table 3
Means and standard deviations for learning goal orientation, mentoring functions, protege outcomes, and control variables by learning goal orientation con-
gruence categories
Variables Protege LGO Congruence/ Congruence/ Mentor LGO
> mentor LGO (n ¼ 56) low LGO (n ¼ 68) high LGO (n ¼ 40) > protege LGO (n ¼ 53)
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Learning goal orientation
Mentor 3.97c .47 4.13b .28 4.76a .19 4.71a .27
Protege 4.68a .31 4.09b .25 4.78a .16 4.03b .39
Mentoring functions
Psychosocial support 3.97a .66 3.82a .51 4.24b .61 3.99a .57
Career development 3.39a;b .94 3.28a .86 3.64b .93 3.35a;b .88
Idealized influence-behavior 2.76a .86 2.62a .61 3.03b .82 2.90a;b .62
Idealized influence-attributes 2.95a;c .84 2.68c .57 3.28b .68 3.17a;b .63
Protege outcomes
Enacted aspirations 3.88a;c .64 3.69b;c .60 4.03a .68 3.62b .73
Desired aspirations 4.25a .76 4.10a;b .61 4.33a .65 3.93b .62
Career satisfaction 3.50a;b .77 3.42a .66 3.74b .75 3.60b .76
Control variables
Relationship type 1.82 .39 1.85 .36 1.87 .34 1.79 .41
Relationship length 2.71 2.74 2.83 1.97 2.04a 1.77 2.97b 2.61
Mentor gender .70 .46 .75 .44 .66 .48 .75 .43
Mentor age 40.95 9.77 38.05 9.18 38.40 10.00 38.68 9.30
Mentor GMAT 646.48 100.30 633.85 81.72 627.63 86.01 642.69 97.73
Mentor GPA 3.32 .34 3.32 .32 3.38 .45 3.24 .37
Mentor general knowledge 3.50 .85 3.63 .87 3.34 1.19 3.66 .98
Protege gender .57 .50 .70 .46 .54 .50 .62 .49
Protege age 31.11 8.06 31.08 6.68 30.07 6.06 31.87 6.24
V.M. Godshalk, J.J. Sosik / Journal of Vocational Behavior 63 (2003) 417–437

Protege GMAT 574.51 52.51 591.95 77.22 588.54 42.45 588.49 61.92
Protege GPA 3.23 .45 3.16 .30 3.27 .35 3.22 .37
Protege general knowledge 3.57 1.14 3.41 1.03 3.62 1.01 3.32 .89
Note. LGO, Learning goal orientation. Means within a row that do not share subscripts are significantly different from one another at p < :05. Mentoring
431

relationship type coded formal, 1; informal, 2. Relationship length is in years. Gender coded female, 0; male, 1.
432 V.M. Godshalk, J.J. Sosik / Journal of Vocational Behavior 63 (2003) 417–437

low levels of learning goal orientation with their mentors, and proteges who pos-
sessed higher levels of learning goal orientation than their mentors.
These findings provide support for RaginsÕ (1997) theory regarding homogene-
ity of the dyad members, which proposes that the greater the similarity between
the mentor and protege, the greater the likelihood for provision of psychosocial
support, career development, and role modeling. However, in the present study,
mentors and proteges with high and similar levels of learning goal orientation re-
ported similar levels of career development and idealized influence (behavior and
attitudes) as proteges who possessed lower levels of learning goal orientation than
their mentors. Ragins argued that a mentorÕs behavior varies as a function of the
composition of the relationship and the needs of the protege . For proteges who
possessed a lower learning goal orientation than their mentors, their mentors may
have perceived that the proteges still needed challenging assignments and growth
goals similar to those agreed upon by the high-learning-goal-oriented dyads.
Therefore, it is possible that mentors with higher learning goal orientations than
their proteges were motivated to provide the necessary career development and
role modeling behavior in order for the protege to learn and achieve career
goals.
Regarding protege outcomes, proteges who shared high levels of learning goal ori-
entation with their mentors reported higher levels of enacted managerial aspirations
and career satisfaction than proteges who shared low levels of learning goal orienta-
tion with their mentors. These high learning goal orientation proteges also reported
higher levels of desired managerial aspirations than proteges who possessed lower
levels of learning goal orientation than their mentors. Consistent with TharenouÕs
(2001) findings, these results suggest that proteges who received support from their
mentors through similar and high learning goal orientation, also reported high levels
of managerial career aspirations (which in turn may predict managerial advance-
ment, based on TharenouÕs results). Our results are consistent with Aryee and ChayÕs
(1994) findings that when receiving career development functions from their mentor,
proteges reported higher levels of career satisfaction. RaginsÕ (1997) theory also is
supported because dyads that had similarly high levels of learning goal orientation
had mentors which attempted to meet the needs of the protege by offering career de-
velopment functions, and had proteges that reported higher levels of managerial ca-
reer aspirations and career satisfaction.
Proteges were motivated by their own and their mentorÕs high learning goal ori-
entation to have high levels of enacted and desired managerial aspirations, as well as
high levels of career satisfaction. It is possible that managerial aspirations are shaped
by mastery-oriented behavior (e.g., providing/seeking challenging assignments or
role modeling) displayed by mentors in the mentoring relationship. Mastery-oriented
behavior is directed toward developing abilities needed to overcome future chal-
lenges and may stem from learning goals to increase competence. Managerial aspi-
rations are important for advancement when difficulties exist for progression into
successively higher managerial positions (Tharenou, 2001). Measures of aspirations
are well aligned with social-cognitive explanations of goal-oriented mentoring activ-
ity, and goal orientations brought to the mentoring relationship by mentors and
 V.M. Godshalk, J.J. Sosik / Journal of Vocational Behavior 63 (2003) 417–437 433

proteges. Our results are noteworthy because we measured specific aspects of career
aspirations, including desired and enacted managerial aspirations.
Study results suggest that learning goal orientation represents an important indi-
vidual difference variable that can shape the nature of the behavioral roles demon-
strated by mentors, mentoring functions, and the career outcomes achieved by
proteges. Learning goals promote intrinsically motivated and mastery-oriented re-
sponse patterns and behaviors (Dweck, 1986). When motivated by similar learning
goal orientations, mentors provided necessary psychosocial, career development
and role modeling functions, while proteges were receptive to such behaviors, and
found these behaviors motivating towards career goals. According to Dweck, learn-
ing goal orientation motivates individuals to pursue challenging assignments, regard-
less of whether or not the individual believes he or she has the capabilities to be
successful in such an assignment. Such motivation on the part of both mentors
and proteges is required to maximize the amount of functions provided and received
over the phases of mentoring relationships (Kram, 1985).
Learning goal orientation may have at least two important implications for the
design of mentoring programs in organizations. First, in todayÕs turbulent business
environment, the development of mentoring relationships can be a key strategy for
enhancing individual learning, career growth, and managerial advancement (Thare-
nou, 2001). Furthermore, as the ability to grow, adapt, and develop becomes more
essential to organizational competitiveness, organizations are being called upon to
facilitate life-long employee learning (Allen & Poteet, 1999). Our results suggest that
mentoring is a process by which learning-goal-oriented mentors and proteges may
cooperate to promote positive career outcomes and managerial career aspirations
for proteges.
Second, study results suggest that learning goal orientation of both the mentor
and protege may affect the relationship between the mentor and the protege . There-
fore, individuals responsible for designing mentoring programs should consider us-
ing measures of learning goal orientations to properly select and match mentors
and proteges to maximize the amount of mentoring functions received by proteges.
For example, if a high-learning-goal-oriented mentor focuses on offering career de-
velopment and role modeling when mentoring the protege, a similar learning-goal-
oriented protegeÕs development may be greatly enhanced. Conversely, if both mentor
and protege have low learning goal orientations, the protegeÕs growth may be stifled
because the mentor may have difficulties providing career development opportunities
and psychosocial support, and the protege may be reluctant to find value in linking
these functions to the attainment of career goals, even if these mentoring functions
are offered. Proteges with low learning goal orientations may need to be matched
with high-learning-goal-oriented mentors so that mentoring becomes a competence
development goal-driven process. Mentors with low learning goal orientations
may need to be coached on desired organizational outcomes, or may be eliminated
from the program. Therefore, matching processes are critical to successful deploy-
ment of mentor–protege programs.
Several limitations of the present study can be addressed in future research. First,
we did not measure and control for mentorsÕ and protegesÕ confidence and self-
434 V.M. Godshalk, J.J. Sosik / Journal of Vocational Behavior 63 (2003) 417–437

efficacy, two additional individual difference variables relevant to theoretical consid-

erations of goal orientation (Button et al., 1996; Dweck, 1986). Associations between
these variables and mentoring functions and outcomes could be examined in future
work. Second, measures of proteges learning goal orientations, mentoring functions
received, and career outcome variables were obtained from a single source. There-
fore, the relationships between these variables may have been inflated due to com-
mon method variance. Future studies may consider gathering data from multiple
sources such as company records or other organizational sources to provide indepen-
dent and objective career outcome data to further strengthen confidence in study
results.
A third limitation of the present study was the use of a one-item measure of self-
reported general knowledge. When viewed in conjunction with GMAT scores, we be-
lieve that mentor and protege knowledge was adequately captured. However, being a
self-reported measure, the item is limited in its usefulness. Fourth, study participants
were pooled from a convenience sample consisting of graduate student participants.
While our sample collectively represented employees from a wide variety of ages,
backgrounds, and industries, it was not truly random in the sense that all possible
samples of fixed size n did not have the same possibility of being selected (Kerlinger,
1986). Subsequent studies could employ random samples from specific organizations
and industries.
Finally, given that 84% of our sample was involved in informal mentoring rela-
tionships, results of the present study are generalizable to informal mentoring rela-
tionships. Chao, Walz, and Gardner (1992) noted distinctions in process and
outcomes associated with formal and informal mentoring relationships. Also, many
mentoring relationships are ‘‘networked’’ (Eby, 1997), that is, proteges may have a
variety of mentors that provide a myriad of psychosocial and career development
functions. Future research should replicate the present study using a sample com-
prised of primarily formal or networked mentoring relationships. These future stud-
ies may allow for theory development by replicating these results across a variety of
mentoring relationship types.
Despite these limitations, the present study makes at least three noteworthy con-
tributions to the mentoring literature. First, the study examined the role of a relevant
individual difference variable (i.e., learning goal orientation) in mentorship consid-
ered from both the mentorÕs and protegeÕs perspective and the similarity between
these perspectives. Examining this variable is consistent with descriptions of mentor-
ship as a dyadic exchange process between the mentor and protege that is affected by
the characteristics each brings to the relationship (Koberg et al., 1998; Kram, 1985;
Mumford, 1995; Ragins, 1997). Second, it examined mentoring antecedent, function
and outcome variables in terms of a social-cognitive framework that helps to refine
the literature by highlighting the role of mentor and protege goal-oriented motiva-
tional processes in mentorship. Such an approach is consistent with perspectives that
describe mentorship as an inherently goal-oriented developmental activity (Douglas,
1997; Murray, 1991; Torrance, 1983).
This study also raises many interesting research questions regarding the effects of
interactions between mentorsÕ and protegesÕ learning goal orientation on mentoring
 V.M. Godshalk, J.J. Sosik / Journal of Vocational Behavior 63 (2003) 417–437 435

functions and outcomes in constructive and dysfunctional relationships (Scandura,

1998), homogenous versus diversified relationships (Ragins, 1997), and relationships
that change over time (Kram, 1985; Ragins & Scandura, 1997). For example, can
dissimilar learning goal orientations in mentoring dyads lead to dysfunctional men-
toring processes and outcomes? Can similarity in learning goal orientation promote
healthy and productive mentoring processes and outcomes? What types of power ba-
ses support learning goal orientations in diversified mentoring relationships where
shared identity, perceived similarity, and interpersonal comfort may be lower than
that experienced in homogeneous relationships? How do gender and race interact
with learning goal orientation to influence the quality of mentoring relationships?
Does learning goal orientation predict a mentorÕs and protegeÕs motivational level
and abilities over the phases of mentoring relationships? What role does length
and phase of the mentoring relationship play in influencing the perceived similarity
of a mentorÕs and his/her protegeÕs learning goal orientation? Future studies address-
ing these questions may help us to understand why mentor–protege relationships
vary in success, vary in level of comfort between dyad members, and vary in moti-
vation towards goal achievement. It is our hope that finding answers to these ques-
tions may help enhance organizational effectiveness in dynamic and complex work
contexts where developing human potential and aligning employee and organiza-
tional goals are becoming increasingly important.

References

Alleman, E., Cochran, J., Doverspike, J., & Newman, I. (1984). Enriching mentoring relationships.
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 62, 329–332.
Allen, T. D., & Poteet, M. L. (1999). Developing effective mentoring relationships: Strategies from the
mentorÕs viewpoint. The Career Development Quarterly, 48, 59–73.
Allinson, C. W., Armstrong, S. J., & Hayes, J. (2001). The effects of cognitive style on leader–member
exchange: A study of manager–subordinate dyads. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 74, 201–220.
Aryee, S., & Chay, Y. W. (1994). An examination of the impact of career-oriented mentoring on work
commitment attitudes and career satisfaction among professional and managerial employees. British
Journal of Management, 5, 241–250.
Aryee, S., Chay, Y. W., & Tan, H. H. (1994). An examination of the antecedents of subjective career
success among a managerial sample in Singapore. Human Relations, 47, 487–510.
Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (1997). Self-other rating agreement: A review and model. Research in
Personnel and Human Resource Management, 15, 121–174.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Reexamining the components of transformational and
transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 72, 441–462.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership development: Manual for the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.
Bempechat, J., London, P., & Dweck, C. S. (1991). ChildrenÕs conceptions of ability in major domains: An
interview and experimental study. Child Study Journal, 21, 11–36.
Bergem, T. (1986). TeachersÕ thinking and behavior: An empirical study of the role of social sensitivity and
moral reasoning in the teaching performance of student teachers. Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research, 30, 193–203.
436 V.M. Godshalk, J.J. Sosik / Journal of Vocational Behavior 63 (2003) 417–437

Bobko, P., & Tejeda, M. J. (2000). Liberal arts and management education: Re-emphasizing the link for
the 21st century. Journal of Business Education, 1, 1–10.
Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational research: A
conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 26–48.
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison on
mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentored counterparts. Personnel Psychology, 45, 619–636.
Douglas, C. A. (1997). Formal mentoring programs in organizations. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative
Leadership.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.
Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.
Eby, L. T. (1997). Alternative forms of mentoring in changing organizational environments: A conceptual
extension of the mentoring literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 125–144.
Edwards, J. R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavior: Critique and a proposed
alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 51–100.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2
2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 80, 501–519.
Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5–12.
Feldman, D. C. (1988). Managing careers in organizations. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates
and contruct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827–844.
Gibson, D. E., & Cordova, D. I. (1999). Women and menÕs role models: The importance of exemplars. In
A. J. Murrell, F. J. Crosby, & R. J. Ely (Eds.), Mentoring dilemmas: Developmental relationships within
multicultural organizations (pp. 121–142). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, E. M. (1990). Effects of race on organizational
experiences, job performance evaluations and career outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 33,
64–86.
Hunt, D. M., & Michael, C. (1983). Mentorship: A career training and development tool. Academy of
Management Review, 8, 475–485.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research (3rd ed). New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
Kirchmeyer, C. (1995). Demographic similarity to the work group. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16,
67–83.
Koberg, C. S., Boss, R. W., & Goodman, E. (1998). Factors and outcomes associated with mentoring
among health-care professionals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 58–72.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Mumford, A. (1995). Learning styles and mentoring. Industrial and Commercial Training, 27, 4–7.
Murray, M. (1991). Beyond the myths and magic of mentoring. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Noe, R. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships.
Personnel Psychology, 41, 457–479.
Ragins, B. R. (1997). Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations: A power perspective. Academy
of Management Review, 22, 482–521.
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.
Ragins, B. R., & Scandura, T. A. (1997). The way we were: Gender and the termination of mentoring
relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 945–953.
Scandura, T. (1992). Mentorship and career mobility: An empirical investigation. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 13, 169–174.
 V.M. Godshalk, J.J. Sosik / Journal of Vocational Behavior 63 (2003) 417–437 437

Scandura, T. (1998). Dysfunctional mentoring relationships and outcomes. Journal of Management, 24,
449–467.
Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1994). Leader–member exchange and supervisor career mentoring
as complementary constructs in leadership research. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1588–1602.
Sosik, J. J., & Godshalk, V. M. (2000). The role of gender in mentoring: Implications for diversified and
homogenous mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57, 102–122.
Tharenou, P. (2001). Going up. Do traits and informal social processes predict advancing in management?
Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1005–1017.
Tharenou, P., & Terry, D. J. (1998). Reliability and validity of scores on scales to measure managerial
aspirations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 475–493.
Thibodeaux, H. F., & Lowe, R. H. (1996). Convergence of leader–member exchange and mentoring: An
investigation of social influence patterns. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 97–114.
Torrance, E. P. (1983). Role of mentors in creative achievement. The Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 8,
8–18.
Turban, D. B., & Dougherty, T. W. (1994). Role of protege personality in receipt of mentoring and career
success. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 688–702.