Exploring the Role of Mentoring Structure and Culture between Mentoring Functions and Job Satisfaction: A Study of Indian Call Centre Employees

Abstract

The present study examines the impact of mentoring functions, namely, protection, coaching, counselling, role modelling, exposure, acceptance and friendship, on job satisfaction of Indian call centre employees. Furthermore, it also explores two variables which strengthen this relationship, namely, mentoring culture and mentoring structure. Employees working in call centres in India have been selected for data collection. Reliability and validity have been proved with the help of confirmatory factor analysis. Path analysis has been used for hypotheses testing. Results revealed that mentoring functions have direct impact on (except protection) job satisfaction of call centre employees. Furthermore, mentoring culture and mentoring structure act as moderators between mentoring functions and job satisfaction. The data collected is self-report in nature, and the study is limited to service sector only.

Keywords

Mentoring Culture Mentoring Structure Protection Coaching Exposure Sponsorship Role Modelling Counselling Friendship Acceptance Job Satisfaction

Introduction

Call centres are important part of today’s business world as these provide employment to millions of agents across the globe and serve as a primary customer-facing channel for many firms in different types of industries. Call centres are fertile area for various operations and management researchers in several domains, such as forecasting, capacity planning, queuing and personnel scheduling. However, with an increase in telecommunication and information technology, the operational challenges faced by call centre managers have become more complicated (Gans, Koole & Mandelbaum, 2003). Besides this, call centres have emerged as an organizational phenomenon within a relatively short space of time. Issues associated with human resources management, sales and marketing have also become increasingly relevant to their operations and associated academic research. Rapid development of call centres and their relative importance in organizational effectiveness have generated the need for investigation of processes related to human element in this work environment.

In call centres, there is a continuous demand for human resources. Firms can meet this demand by further investments in the human capital. Most young people (especially graduates and under graduates without any professional qualification) start their initial career in these call centres. Centerserve has published a report in 2008 entitled How to be Great Call Centre Manager Report, which highlighted five attributes of supervisors, namely, leader as a role model, coach, motivator, communicator and problem solver. Furthermore, the leaders/supervisors are also evaluated on the basis of their mentoring skills (Centerserve, 2008, p. 6). This report gave us the clue that mentoring is being practised widely in call centres. Therefore, to evaluate the outcomes of mentoring, call centres employees were selected as the respondents for the present study. Therefore, the present study focuses on evaluating the impact of the mentoring function on job satisfaction in call centres, and an attempt has been made to identify the role of mentoring culture and mentoring structure as moderators between mentoring functions and job satisfaction.

Mentoring Functions

The mentor provides a variety of functions that support, guide, protect, expose and counsel the young adults to get their work done efficiently (Akarak & Ussahawanitchakit, 2008; Rhay, Ching, Wen, Li-Yu, Lin & Mei, 2010). Kram (1985) identified different types of mentoring function, namely, career-oriented and psychosocial functions, which have been further cemented by various researchers (Davis, 2005; Erdem & Ozen, 2008; Jacobi, 1991; Johnson & Ridley, 2004; Luna & Cullen, 1998; Ragins & Cotton, 1999; Young & Perrewe, 2004). Career functions are those facets of the mentoring relationship that aid the protégés with their advancement in an organization. Through this function, the mentor helps the mentee to learn within the hierarchical structure of an organization. Career functions include protection, coaching and exposure. Protection means the amount and value of mentor behaviours, which show that mentor is willing to provide a safe place for the protégés to try out new ideas without fear of penalty and is prepared to defend the protégés when necessary (Alleman & Clarke, 2002). The mentoring function of coaching is dedicated to helping protégés accomplice their work objectives. When mentors coach protégés, they pass on wisdom, knowledge and their point of view. Kram (1985) defined exposure and visibility as providing opportunities and responsibilities that place the junior individuals in contact with key players in the organization. Psychosocial functions are those facets of the mentoring relationship that are more personal in nature (Kram, 1985). These functions may impact the mentees’ feelings of competence, uniqueness and success in their professional position within an organization. It involves counselling, friendship and role modelling. Counselling helps to develop the problem-solving and decision-making skills. Friendship is demonstrated through social interactions by the mentor and protégé. Role modelling is the senior individual’s attitudes, values and behaviour that provide a blueprint and structures for the junior individual to emulate (Kram, 1985; Scandura & Viator, 1994).

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is the effective orientation of individuals towards work roles that they are currently occupying. It refers to the extent that the job fulfils one’s dominant needs and values. Locke (1976) and Luthans (2005) described it as a pleasurable or positive emotional response resulting from appraisal of one’s job or job experience and is the result of the employee’s judgement of how well the job fulfils those aspects, which are considered important by him. Other authors have extended this view too (Collins, 1994; Fagan & Glen, 1982; Mobley, Griffeth, Hand & Megino, 1979). In essence, job satisfaction is an overall state that is derived from experiencing a work situation. It has been viewed as primary affective reactions of individuals to various facets of the job and job experiences (Igbaria & Guimares, 1993). Job satisfaction is, thus, conceptualized as an attitude that the employee have towards their job and is directly tied to individual needs, including challenging work, equitable rewards and a supportive work environment and colleagues (Ostroff, 1992; Sharma & Jyoti, 2004, 2006).

Mentoring Structure

Mentoring structure is a well-planned technique of designing all organizational activities from top to bottom and bottom to top in a flexible environment. It supports mentoring and provides records for evaluation and benchmarking. It also provides means for feedback, clarifies roles, goals and responsibilities, manages expectations and encourages accountability (Koberg, Boss & Goodman, 1998). Mentoring structure helps employees in career enhancement as well as HR reward processes. (Swart & Kinnie, 2003; Viator, 1999).

Mentoring Culture

Mentoring culture is a learning environment in which a person learns by watching others’ behaviours. Mentoring culture consists of an environment, which implements mentoring in a sound, complete and careful way (Johnson, 2012; Johnson & Cervero, 2004; MacArthur & Pilato, 1995). It empowers the mentor with communicating network, training and administrating facilities to promote mentoring relationships. Zachary (2005) highlighted four traits to successfully implement mentoring culture in an organization, namely, flexibility, ownership, clarity and feedback. Bally (2007) explains that for better implementing mentoring cultures, organizations should provide an element of a stable infrastructure like managerial and executive assistance, flexible environment, proper incentives and needed appreciation of the employees to get the required response.

Review of Literature

Kram’s (1985) work on mentoring in organizations cemented much of the existing research, documenting the benefits of mentoring. She identified two forms of support provided by mentors that embrace career-related and psychosocial support. Previous research indicates that gender plays an important role in the mentoring dyads, where men and women have equal access to mentoring and receive the assumed amount of mentoring reimbursement (Burke, 1984; Cox & Nkomo, 1991; Dreher & Ash, 1990; Fangenson, 1989; Greenhaus Parasuraman & Wormely, 1990; Ragins, 1989, 1997a; Ragins & Cotton, 1991; Ragins & Sundstrom, 1990; Steinberg & Foley, 1999; Whitely, Dougherty & Dreher, 1992). But there is some evidence that shows women receive more benefits then men (Burke & Mckeen, 1997; O’Neill, Horton & Crosby, 1999).

Mentoring functions benefit the junior person (Allen, Poteet & Russell, 1998; Chao, 1997; Corzine, Buntzman & Busch, 1994; Koberg et al., 1998; Scandure, 1992; Whitely, Dougherty & Dreher, 1991), the senior person (Allen, Poteet & Burroughs, 1997) and the organization (Koberg et al., 1998; Laband & Bernard, 1995; Seibert, 1999) in the form of more promotions, higher motivation, earn higher income and score higher on work satisfaction (Ragins, 2002). Mentoring results in positive outcomes including higher organizational commitment (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz & Lima, 2004; Lankau & Scandura, 2002; Lentz, 2004; Ragins, Cotton & Miller, 2000), increased job performance (Bowler & Brass, 2006; Feldman, Folks & Turnley, 1999; Lentz, 2004; Levenson, Vander & Cohen, 2006), career success (Turban & Dougherty, 1994), satisfaction with work and job (Busch & Bush, 1978; Gerestner & Day, 1997; Lankau & Scandura, 2002; Murphy & Ensher, 2001) and decreased intention to leave (Lentz, 2004; Lentz & Allen, 2009). Furthermore, mentoring helps the employees by correcting imbalance in the changing business environment (Basu, Pande, Kalia & Sharma, 2013).

Some of the researchers have examined the moderating role of mentoring (Jung & Tak, 2008; Lentz, 2004; Lentz & Allen, 2009). Shrivastava (2011) did an empiricial study on Indian managers and found that mentoring moderated the relationship between job burnout and job satisfaction. Another study conducted by Hegstad and Wentling (2005) examined the three variable feedback/communication, reward systems and selection/matching processes as moderators between mentoring and its outcomes. Furthermore, Dawley, Andrews and Bucklew (2010) also found that mentoring moderated the relationships between perceived organizational support, supervisor support and job fit on turnover intentions and suggested that mentoring becomes more effective in reducing turnover intentions as employees experience increasing levels of perceived organizational support, supervisor support and job fit. Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch and Rhoades (2001) and Rhoader, Eisenberger and Armeli (2001) revealed that the effects of perceived organizational support (as a mentoring function) on turnover are fully mediated through affective commitment. Similarly, Maertz, Griffeth, Campbell and Allen (2007) suggested that normative commitment may also serve as a mediator of the relationship between perceived organizational support and turnover intention. However, studies have also identified job satisfaction as yet another mediator of the relationship between perceived organizational support and turnover intention (Allen, Shore & Griffeth, 2003; Tekleab, Takeuchi & Taylor, 2005). Hypothetical and experimental verification suggests that most of the effects of perceived organizational support (mentoring function) on turnover will be mediated by mechanisms such as organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Ettington (1998) indicated that only a small number of studies have been conducted to examine the moderating variables between career expectations and outcomes. Some of the studies found that a challenging job, perceived support from supervisor and co-workers (Ettington, 1998), emotional intelligence, organizational support (Park & Yoo, 2005), career motivation (Jung & Tak, 2008) and mentoring others (Lentz & Allen, 2009) acted as moderators between the relationship of perceived career aspect and outcomes variables.

Figure 1.

Theoretical Framework

The empirical assessments revealed that numerous studies on mentoring have been conducted on hotels industries (Murrell, Beard, Poter & Williamson, 2008), schools (Emmerik, Baurh & Euwecma, 2005), banks (Young & Perrewe, 2000), colleges, etc. (Dobrow & Higgins, 2005; Ensher, Thomas & Murphy, 2001; Harriet, Faye & Gliner, 2001; Horvath, Wasko & Bradely, 2008; Ismail, Abdullah & Khian, 2011; Karcher, 2008; Liu, Jun & Weitz, 2011) and research has also been conducted in business organizations (Changya, Mkecia & Charles, 2008; Lankau & Scandura, 2002; Raabe & Beehr, 2003) but there is lack of research on call centres, where mentoring relationships play a very important role towards employee attitudes like job satisfaction. Furthermore, Noe, Greenberger and Wang (2002) indicated that only a small number of studies have examined the moderating variables and stressed the need to explore the variables, which strengthen this relationship. Therefore, the proposed study bridges this research gap by examining the role of mentoring culture and mentoring structure as moderating variables between mentoring functions and job satisfaction (see Figure 1).

Hypotheses Development

Mentoring Functions and Job Satisfaction

There is evidence that employees who are mentored have higher job satisfaction (Collins, 1994; Fagan & Glen, 1982). The mentoring functions such as protection, coaching, exposure and role modelling have been related to greater job satisfaction (Scandura & Viater, 1994). Ragin and Scandura (1999) found that mentoring relationship benefits protégés through increased job satisfaction. Protection involves the mentor exercising protective techniques and behaviours through which the protégé learns new skills and tactics in order to shield from untimely or damaging contact with key players, which leads to job satisfaction. The mentor as a coach instructs, listens, questions, praises, builds rapport, trusts, encourages, supports and focuses on the possible job opportunities, which enhance the mentee’s satisfaction. Mentors can make the protégés more visible by assigning and announcing important responsibilities with frequent complimentary progress report, which satisfies the mentees with their job. Mentors sponsor their mentees for challenging assignment, which ultimately increases the mentee’s satisfaction (Lee & Montiel, 2010). Counselling activity is intended to satisfy mentees by developing their client problem-solving and decision-making skills. Mentors’ friendly attitude and acting as role model also enhance job satisfaction. Further job satisfaction is also increased when a mentees perceives proper application of mentoring function like role modelling, acceptance and friendship etc. (Jung & Tak, 2008; Lentz, 2004; Lentz & Allen, 2009). The mentor as a role model plays a significant role in value and character building for protégés (Bhandarker & Singh, 1999), which creates a sense of satisfaction for them. Several studies revealed that mentoring increases mentee’s level of job satisfaction (Allen et al. 2004; Chao, Walz & Gardner, 1992; Ragins & Scandures, 1999). The above literature led to following hypothesis:

H1. Mentoring functions (protection, coaching, exposure, sponsorship, role modelling, counselling friendship and acceptance) significantly affect job satisfaction.

Mentoring Functions and Job Satisfaction: Role of Mentoring Structure and Culture

Mentoring structure has a significant impact on organizations as well as on individuals. Structured mentorship requires the mentor and protégé to set goals, objectives and meet to discuss routine issues and provide feedback, which enhances performance. Thus, a well-planned mentoring structure programme improves productivity and performance ratings, development as well mentor’s career and improve diversity. Developing a valuable mentoring structure programme requires adequate budget, time, facilities and a true commitment from business leaders. A mentor is assigned by virtue of structural position, power and status, which keep things on track and ensures efficient use of time. This structural process is very important to achieve employee’s job satisfaction (Purcell, 2004). Mentoring culture is actually a relationship that cultivates, disseminates and maintains organizational learning as a core part of the organizational culture. In the ideal mentoring culture, mentoring moves from being an isolated act of a few to manifest and vital part of the entire organization. Mentoring culture promotes growth, enhances learning, utilizes time effectively and emphasizes career advancement, which act as a tool for increasing job satisfaction of employees. Allen et al. (2004) examined the moderating role of culture which strengthens the relationship between mentors and protégés. The factors like structure and culture enhance mentoring relationship (Ragins & Cotton, 1991). From the aforementioned discussion, the hypothesis is framed.

H2. Mentoring structure and culture moderate the relationship between mentoring functions and job satisfaction.

Methodology

This research is evaluative in nature. It evaluates relationship between mentoring functions and job satisfaction and role of mentoring culture and structure in between this relationship. Following steps have been undertaken to make this research objective more accurate:

Sample Size and Design

Employees working in two call centres of telecommunication firms, namely, Airtel and Aircel, in J&K (India) have been selected as respondents for the sample. The research population comprised 1,157 employees. We contacted only those who had a tenure of more than 6 months in the call centre so that they can provide the information pertaining to mentoring functions being exercised in the call centre, which further reduced the population to 907. All of these employees were contacted to generate research information. Only 215 employees gave the required response. Questionnaire technique with a 5-point Likert-type scale has been used for data collection.

Generation of Scale Items

The data collection instrument consisted of two parts. The first part provided information about age, qualification and gender of the employees, which have been used as control variables (Bishay, 1996; Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson & Capwell, 1957) as these can affect the outcome variable, that is, job satisfaction. The second part included information about mentoring functions, mentoring structure, mentoring culture and job satisfaction. The items for mentoring functions, that is, career function (protection, coaching, exposure, sponsorship, challenging assignment) and psychosocial function (role modelling, friendship, counselling, acceptance) (sample items: ‘mentor is concerned with status and progress of the project’, ‘mentor encourages employees to prepare for advancement of my career’, ‘mentor helps employees to meet difficult task’, ‘mentor encourages employees to imitate his/her desired behaviour’, ‘mentor shares personal experience as an alternatives perspectives to employees problems’, ‘mentor understands mentees problem’), have been adapted from Kram (1985) and Fine and Pullins (1998). Mentoring structure (sample items: ‘The culture of our organization supports mentoring’, ‘It provides means for benchmarking’) and mentoring culture scale (sample items: ‘Periodic communication by mentor is to be done with regular meeting with mentee’, ‘Periodic follow-up by mentor is done to check the progress of mentee on his task’) have been adapted from Viator (1999) and Zachery (2007). The items used in job satisfaction scale have been generated from Warr, Cook and Wall (1979) and Fox (2000) (sample items: ‘On the whole, I am satisfied with my job’, ‘My job is interesting’).

Analysis

Demographic Profile

Sixty-eight per cent respondents are male. Most of the respondents (64.6 per cent) are between 21 and 25 years of age. Thirty-five respondents are under graduates, 61 per cent are graduates having bachelor degree and 4 per cent are postgraduate having masters’ degree. The detailed results are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic Information

Demographic Variables	Categories	Frequency	Percentage
Gender	Male	158	73.48
	Female	57	26.51
Age	16 year to 20 year	59	27.44
	21 year to 25 year	139	64.65
	26 year to 30 year	17	7.90
Qualifications	Metric	11	5.1
	High school	65	30.2
	Graduation	131	60.9
	Postgraduation	8	3.72

Source: Authors’ contribution.

Common Method Variance

The data were self-report in nature. In order to remove this problem, Harman’s (1967) 1-factor test was applied, where we added all dependent and independent variables together and conducted a principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation. The results revealed that no single factor was explaining majority of the variance, which provided evidence that no threat of common method bias exists (Liu et al., 2011). Further confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) also helps to remove this problem.

Reliability and Validity of Measurement Models

Factor analysis has been used to examine the interrelationships (correlations) among variables and reduction of variables into few manageable and meaningful sets. It was carried with principal component analysis along with orthogonal rotation procedure of varimax for summarizing the original information with minimum factors and optimal coverage (Hair, Anderson, Tatham & William, 2006, p. 133). Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to identify mentoring functions being exercised in call centres in India. Twenty-nine items of mentoring functions were reduced to 21, which converged under six factors, namely, protection, couching, exposure, role modelling counselling and friendship. Items of two mentoring functions, namely sponsorship and acceptance, got deleted so hypotheses pertaining to these two functions could not be tested. Factor analysis of three other scales used in the study resulted in one factor solution for each (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Summary of Exploratory Factor Analysis: Variance Explained (VE), KMO Value and Eigenvalue

Scales	VE (%)	KMO Values	Eigen Values
Coaching	15.19	.637	3.19
Role modelling	14.20		2.99
Exposure	13.80		2.90
Friendship	13.76		2.89
Counselling	11.90		2.50
Protection	10.00		2.10
Total VE by mentoring functions	78.85
Job satisfaction	60.50	.742	2.42
Mentoring culture	61.17	.585	1.83
Mentoring structure	66.95	.605	3.01

Source: Authors’ contribution.

CFA has been used to provide a confirmatory test to the measurement theory. All the measurement models (mentoring functions, job satisfaction, mentoring structure and mentoring culture) yielded appropriate goodness of fit (see Table 3). In the present study CFA was performed to assess reliability and validity of latent constructs. All the measurement models of mentoring functions, job satisfaction, mentoring structure and mentoring culture, proved their validity as all manifest variables are highly loaded on their latent constructs (SRW > 0.5). High-standardized estimates and average variance extracted proved convergent validity as suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). Results of the measurement models for latent constructs revealed that all standardized loadings are above 0.5 and significant, which provided support for convergent validity (see Table 4). Discriminant validity can be achieved when the squared correlations between the variables are less than the average variance (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), and our results satisfy this condition (see Table 5). For evaluation of internal consistency among the items, Cronbach’s α was analyzed. Scale reliability was also assessed using a composite reliability measure (Fornell & Larker, 1981) and the result revealed that composite reliability for all the constructs is above conventional cut-off of 0.7 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994) (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Goodness of Fit Indices of Measurement Model

Construct	CMIN/DF	RMR	GFI	AGFI	NFI	TLI	CFI	RMSEA
Protection	1.154	.020	.996	.997	.985	.998	.994	.028
Coaching	2.123	.018	.990	.948	.979	.988	.965	.075
Exposure	2.581	.050	.947	.979	.923	.966	.915	.080
Role modelling	.978	.014	.995	.976	.987	1.00	1.00	000
Counselling	2.371	.038	.999	.941	.984	.990	.942	.080
Friendship	2.123	.022	.992	.937	.988	.993	.967	.075
Mentoring structure	1.539	.024	.992	.962	.985	.983	.994	.052
Mentoring culture	2.487	.033	.987	.936	.965	.934	.978	.086
Job satisfaction	1.211	.025	.994	.970	.989	.998	.994	.033

Source: Authors’ contribution.

Table 4.

Reliability and Validity Analysis

Constructs	Items	Standardised Estimates (SRW)	AVE	Composite Reliability	Cronbach’s Alpha
Protection	P1	.645	.512	.817	.733
	P3	.787
	P5	.708
Coaching	Ch2	.764	.546	.971	.763
	Ch4	.748
	Ch6	.632
	Ch8	.625
Exposure	E2	.553	.504	.835	.790
	E4	.949
	E6	.554
Role modelling	Rm1	.721	.533	.951	.724
	Rm3	.731
	Rm5	.739
Counselling	Cu1	.751	.515	.866	.758
	Cu2	.610
	Cu3	.828
	Cu4	.665
Friendship	F1	.715	.528	.963	.738
	F2	.623
	F3	.726
	F4	.830
Job satisfaction	Js1	.666	.512	.974	.778
	Js3	.833
	Js5	.696
	Js7	.653
Mentoring culture	Mc2	.678	.503	.937	.667
	Mc4	.710
	Mc6	.739
Mentoring structure	Ms1	.639	.540	.965	.769
	Ms2	.835
	Ms3	.717
	Ms4	.650
	Ms5	.691
	Ms7	.819

Source: Authors’ contribution.

Impact of Mentoring Functions on Job Satisfaction: Role of Mentoring Structure and Mentoring Culture

In order to test the moderating effect, all the conditions described by Baron and Kenny (1986) were first satisfied. These are: (i) the moderator should not directly relate with dependent variable; (ii) the moderator hypothesis is supported if the interaction is significant; and (iii) another property of the moderator variable is that, unlike the mediator–predictor relation (where the predictor is causally antecedent to the mediator), moderators and predictors are at the same level in regard to their role as causal variables, antecedent or exogenous to criterion variable, that is, moderator variables always function as independent variable.

Table 5.

Correlation and Discriminant Analysis

	P	Ch	E	R m	Cu	F	Js	Mc	Ms
P	.512
Ch	.077(.279**)	.546
E	.251(.501**)	.381(.618**)	.504
Rm	.096(.311**)	..239(489**)	.194(.441**)	.533
Cu	.119(.345**)	.227(.477**)	.266(.516**)	.255(.505**)	.515
F	.210(.459**)	.394(.628**)	.471(.687**)	.215(.464**)	.237(.487**)	.528
Js	.109(.331**)	.293(.542**)	.176(.420**)	.211(.460**)	.212(.461**)	.306(.554**)	.512
Mc	.027(.166*)	.253(.503**)	.162.403**	.110(.332**)	.198(.445**)	.167(.409**)	.199(.447**)	.503
Ms	.060(.290**)	.171(.414**)	.151(.389**)	.123(.352**)	.255(.505**)	.166(.408**)	.206(.454**)	.300(.548**)	.540

Source: Authors’ contribution.

Notes: P = protection, Ch = coaching, E = exposure, Rm = role modelling, Cu = Counselling, F = friendship, Js = job satisfaction, Mc = mentoring culture, Ms = mentoring structure

The values on diagonal axis represent AVE and bellow the diagonal axis is squared correlation between the constructs. Values in parenthesis are correlation values. ** p < 0.01 and * p < 0 .05

The study examined the moderation effect of mentoring structure and mentoring culture with the help of a three-step procedure through structural equation modelling. We first assessed the impact of predictor variables, that is, protection, coaching, exposure, role modelling, counselling and friendship, on job satisfaction. The results revealed that all mentoring functions except protection are significantly influencing job satisfaction (p < 0.05). So hypothesis 1 stands accepted.

In the second step, we added the moderating variables as independent variables, that is, mentoring culture and mentoring structure, and the result revealed that mentoring culture and mentoring structure have insignificant (p > 0.05) impact on job satisfaction, which satisfies the first condition to test the moderation effect.

In the third step, we added the interaction effect, which shows that all the interaction effects are significant. Inspection of standardized weight of interaction effects revealed that the interaction effect exercised by mentoring structure×friendship is highest followed by mentoring structure×coaching, mentoring culture×protection and mentoring culture×friendship (see Figures 3 and 5). Thus, the results confirm that mentoring structure and mentoring culture moderate the relationships between mentoring functions and job satisfaction, so our hypothesis 2 is also accepted.

Lastly, the effect size of interaction has also been calculated with the help of the following formula (Chin, Marcolin & Newsted, 1996):

Effect size f ² = R²(interaction model) − R² (main effect)/R²(interaction model)

The resulting values, that is, 0.02, 0.15 and 0.35, are considered as small, medium and large effects size, respectively (Chin et al., 1996). In our case, the R² of main effect of mentoring functions and mentoring structure on job satisfaction is 0.441 (see Figure 2). And the interaction effect of mentoring functions and mentoring structure on job satisfaction is 0.517 (see Figure 3) and the effect size f²come out to be 0.147. As per Chin et al. (1996), the effect size f ² of 0.147 is nearer to the medium effect size. Similarly the R²of main effect of mentoring functions and mentoring culture on job satisfaction is 0.439 (see Figure 4) and R²of the interaction effect of mentoring function and mentoring culture on job satisfaction is 0.509 (see Figure 5). The effect size is 0.137, which is also nearer to medium effect size. The results reveal that mentoring structure and culture exercise significant effect on job satisfaction when coupled with mentoring functions.

Figure 2.

Main Effect Model 1

Figure 3.

Interaction Effect Model 1

Figure 4.

Main Effect Model 2

Figure 5.

Interaction Effect Model 2

Discussion

The present study contributed to the mentoring literature by highlighting the importance of mentoring culture and mentoring structure in an organization. As mentoring culture and mentoring structure inspire employees to give their best and perform to the highest standards. It constantly emphasizes on mentoring excellence for improving competence and raising skills mastery. Our study explored the following issues:

Impact of mentoring functions on job satisfaction.

The moderating effect of mentoring structure and mentoring culture in between mentoring functions and job satisfaction relationship.

The result revealed that protection is not significantly related with job satisfaction, which is similar to the findings of Lee and Montiel (2010). All other mentoring functions, that is, exposure, coaching, role modelling, counselling and friendship, are positively related with job satisfaction because during the mentoring process, mentors allocate challenging and learning tasks to mentees in order to improve their knowledge and skills, providing them career guidance, supporting in the advancement of job position, helping in resolving task-related problems and further promote their overall growth. In this way, mentees improve their knowledge and skills. The knowledge, experience exchange and learning opportunities in the mentorship increase the mentees’ sense of confidence towards their job, which create a high level of job satisfaction (Chao, Walz & Gardner, 1992; Raabe & Beehr, 2003). The second part supports the main theme, which is moderating role of mentoring culture and mentoring structure between the relationship of mentoring functions and job satisfaction. Mentoring culture and mentoring structure are required to execute mentoring in a rational, comprehensive and conscientious way. Mentor ensures a homely feeling, guarantees protection and provides proper communication, training, coaching, support and administration, which make employees personally satisfied with their job (Larry, 2011). Furthermore, the collegial and friendly environment along with proper mentoring structure and culture enhance intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction (Elc & Alpkan, 2009).

Furthermore, the effect size of mentoring structure as moderating variable is more than the mentoring culture because formal mentoring programmes are highly planned and therefore formally structured. Moreover, highly structured mentoring programmes follow an application or proper recruiting process, making mentor–mentee assignments more understandable, create a learning bond for the relationship and follow results (Hutcheson, 2006). Through proper mentoring structure, mentor generates more control over the mentees, influences mentees to meet organizational goals and gather proper information to calculate results of all mentoring facilities. Hence, a proper mentoring structure strengthens mentoring and job satisfaction relationship. Further, mentoring culture comes spontaneously wherever mentoring structure and mentoring functions are implemented. Organizations have the authority, responsibility and accountability to create, manage, coordinate, maintain and control mentoring structure, but mentoring culture is a long-term process so it takes time for employees to adjust themselves in the mentoring culture.

Theoretical Implications

This is a pioneer study on call centres regarding impact of mentoring functions on job satisfaction and moderating effect of mentoring culture and mentoring structure between mentoring functions and job satisfaction. This research explored the factor-wise impact of mentoring on job satisfaction. Path analysis has been used to find the influence of moderating variable on mentoring functions and job satisfaction, and the results suggest various theoretical implication.

This investigation is important to academicians and researchers as this investigation adds to prior mentoring research by evaluating impact of individual mentoring functions on job satisfaction of employees. We empirically tested the moderating role of mentoring culture and mentoring structure, and their interaction effects with mentoring functions proved significant. Lastly, this investigation shows that due to the introduction of proper structured mentoring programmes and mentoring culture, organizations can properly channelize the mentoring functions.

Managerial Implication

The results of this investigation revealed the positive impact of coaching, exposure, role modelling, counselling and friendship on employee’s job satisfaction. The result also found that protection did not affect job satisfaction because there is lack of job security in call centres, so in order to satisfy employees with their job, management should shield their employees with proper job protection, reducing their unnecessary risk and also protect the mentee by showing concern about their status and progress of the project, which increases theri job satisfaction level. Furthermore, mentoring function should be implemented through developing detailed instruction guidance for the mentor in order to protect the mentee in a particular situation.

Although these mentoring functions are significantly related with job satisfaction, the degree of significance is low. By adding mentoring culture and mentoring structure their relationship improves more. So it is also suggested that management should provide proper formal as well as informal mentoring structure and mentoring culture in order to build a strong relationship between mentoring functions and job satisfaction. Management should give proper feedback to develop individual action plan or development plan. These plans should include goals and objectives, learning activities to accomplish the set goals and objectives and desired outcomes. It supplies a means for providing feedback, evaluation and benchmarking. It also clarifies roles, goals and responsibilities of each and every employees and employers, which manage expectations and encourage accountability. When mentoring is aligned with proper mentoring culture and mentoring structure, it is perceived as add-on activities to accomplish desire goal. It also promotes growth. It enhances the learning, leverages energy, better utilizes time, effort, resources and enriches vibrancy and productivity. Management should also organize evaluation programmes in order to share experience for both the mentor and the protégé. It aids in capturing relevant information such as interaction, activity and satisfaction level. Management should expose their talented employees with suitable reward system. It should also match the gender of mentees and mentors in order to increase job satisfaction. This also avoids several potential problems and a successful pairing is likely to happen. And lastly in order to get the desired result, management in their formal mentoring structure and mentoring cultural programmes should keep their mentees updated with important organizational information through discussion, team-meeting and presentation. Management in their informal mentoring culture and structure programmes should also make their employees feel that they are part of a family, and the organization has a great deal of personal meaning for them and encourages them to have a strong sense of belonging to their organization. It should also provide a friendly atmosphere so that it would be very hard for employees to leave the organization when they want to. The skills of mentoring strengthen relationships as people feel more connected.

Mentoring culture and mentoring structure creates standards and best practices. Managers should make mentoring a cultural and structure-bound competence so that it smoothens the way business is conducted. A shared understanding and vocabulary of mentoring practice should be a natural fit with the values, missions and goals. The management of call centres should provide job security, proper guidance, challenging assignments and friendly atmosphere, which will help to enhance employees’ satisfaction level.

Limitations and Future Research of the Study

Although this study expands our knowledge of the role of mentoring structure and mentoring culture on mentoring function and job satisfaction of the employees, viable prospects for further research are still there. All precautionary efforts were made to ensure the objectivity, reliability and validity of the study, yet certain limitations were discovered. These limitations are discussed as under. The study is confined to call centres only; for future research, same study can be conducted in other sectors. The major drawback of the present study was that it only studied the relationship between mentoring functions and job satisfaction, although other variables like job performance, organizational commitment and career development, etc. may also be explored. The data collected is self-reporting in nature. Only employees were contacted for data pertaining to mentoring function, and team leaders were not contacted. Two of the mentoring functions, that is sponsorship and acceptance, got deleted during validation process, so more stress needs to be given in future on items generation for these mentoring functions.

References

Akarak

, & Ussahawanitchakit

(2008). Effects of mentoring on intention to leave in Thai public accounting firms: Mediators of job efficiency, commitment and performance. Review of Business Research, 8(2), 37–46.

Alleman

, & Clarke

D.L.

(2002). Manual for the mentoring questionnaire revised. Retrieved from https://www.villanova.edu (accessed on 30 January 2013 ).

Allen

T.D.

, Poteet

M.L.

, & Burroughs

S.M.

(1997). The mentor’s perspective: A qualitative inquiry and future research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 51(1), 70–89.

Allen

T.D.

, Poteet

M.L.

, & Russell

J.E.A.

(1998). Mentors picking protégés: Influences on protégé selection. Paper presented at the 13th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas. Retrieved from www-sciencedirect-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/...rticle/pii/s0001879103001623 (accessed on 19 March 2013 ).

Allen

, Shore

, & Griffeth

(2003). The role of perceived organizational support in the voluntary turnover process. Journal of Management, 29(1), 99–118.

Allen

T.D.

, Eby

, Poteet

M.L.

, Lentz

, & Lima

(2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 127–136.

Anderson

, & Gerbing

(1988). Structural equation modelling in practice: A review and recommended two step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.

Bally

J.M.G.

(2007). The role of nursing leadership in creating a mentoring culture in acute care environments. Nursing Economic, 25(3), 148–149.

Baron

R.M.

, & Kenny

D.A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

10.

Basu

, Pande

, Kalia

, & Sharma

(2013). Sales performance management in KPC. Vision: Then Journal of Business Perspective, 17(1), 73–81.

11.

Bhandarker

, & Singh

(1999). Parenting transformational leaders. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, 3(1), 1–13.

12.

Bishay

(1996). Teacher motivation and job satisfaction: A study employing the experience sampling method. Journal of Undergraduate Sciences, 3, 147–154.

13.

Burke

(1984). Mentors in organizations. Group and Organization Studies, 9(3), 353–372.

14.

Busch

, & Bush

R.F.

(1978). Women contrasted to men in the industrial sales force: Job satisfaction, values, role clarity, performance, and propensity to leave. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(3), 438–448.

15.

Centerserve Call Centre Best Practices Benchmarking Report. (2008). How to be great call centre manger report. Retrieved from http://www.call-center.net (accessed on 28 August 2012 ).

16.

Changya

, Mkecia

, & Charles

L.E.

(2008). Intention to initiate mentoring relationship: Understanding the impact of race, proactively, feeling of deprivation and relationship role. Journal of Social Psychology, 148(6), 727–744.

17.

Chao

G.T.

(1997). Mentoring phases and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 51(1), 15–28.

18.

Chao

G.T.

, Walz

P.M.

, & Gardner

P.D.

(1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison of mentoring functions and contrast with no mentored counterparts. Personnel Psychology, 45(3), 619–636.

19.

Chin

W.W.

, Marcolin

B.L.

, & Newsted

P.R.

(1996). A partial least squares latent variable modelling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and voicemail emotion/adoption study. Paper presented at the 17th international conference on information systems, Cleveland. Retrieved from disc-nt.cba.uh.edu/chin/plsref.htm

20.

Collins

P.M.

(1994). Does mentorship among social worker make difference? An empirical investigation of career outcomes. Social Work, 39(4), 413–419.

21.

Corzine

, Buntzman

, & Busch

(1994). Mentoring, downsizing, gender and career outcomes. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 9(3), 517–528.

22.

Cox

, & Nkomo

(1991). A race and gender group analysis of the early career experiences of MBAs. Work and Occupations, 18(3), 431–446.

23.

Davis

A.L.

(2005). An investigation of formal mentoring relationships and programs: A meta-analysis. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.olivet.edu

24.

Dawley

D.D.

, Andrews

M.C.

, & Bucklew

N.S.

(2010). Enhancing the ties that bind: Mentoring as a moderator. Career Development International, 15(3), 259–278.

25.

Dobrow

S.R.

, & Higgins

M.C.

(2005). Developmental networks and professional identity: A longitudinal study. Career Development International, 10(6–7), 567–583.

26.

Dreher

G.F.

, & Ash

R.A.

(1990). A comparative study among men and women in managerial, professional and technical positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 1–8.

27.

Eisenberger

, Armeli

, Rexwinkel

, Lynch

P.D.

, & Rhoades

(2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 42–51.

28.

Elç

, & Alpkan

(2009). The impact of perceived organizational ethical climate on work satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), 297–311.

29.

Emmerik

H.V.

, Baurh

G.S.

, & Euwecma

M.C.

(2005). Who wants to be a mentor? Career Development International, 10(4), 310–324.

30.

Ensher

E.A.

, Thomas

, & Murphy

S.E.

(2001). Comparison of traditional, step ahead, and peer mentoring on protégés, support, satisfaction and perceptions of career success: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(3), 419–437.

31.

Erdem

, & Ozen

A.J.

(2008). Mentoring a relationship based on trust: Qualitative research. Public Personnel Management, 37(1), 211–235.

32.

Ettington

D.R.

(1998). Successful career plateauing. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 52(1), 72–88.

33.

Fagan

M.M.

, & Glen

(1982). Mentoring among teachers. Journal of Education Research, 76(2), 113–118.

34.

Fangenson

E.A.

(1992). Mentoring who needs it? A comparison of protégés and non-protégés needs for power, achievement, affiliation, and autonomy. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 4(1), 48–60.

35.

Feldman

D.C.

, Folks

W.R.

, & Turnley

W.H.

(1999). Mentor-protégé diversity and its impact on international internship experiences. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 20(3), 597–611.

36.

Fine

M.L.

, & Pullins

E.B.

(1998). Peer mentoring in the industrial sales force: An exploratory investigation of men and women in developmental relationships. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 15(4), 89–103.

37.

Fornell

, & Larcker

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

38.

Fox

D.H.

(2000). Sense of coherence, affect, dysfunctional thoughts and mood: A study on personality and job satisfaction. Unpublished honours thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. Retrieved from wivedspace.wits.ac.zal…ream/handle/10539/1769/08 (accessed on 01 october 2013 ).

39.

Gans

, Koole

, & Mandelbaum

(2003). Telephone call centres: Tutorial, review and research prospects. Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, 5(2), 79–141.

40.

Gerestner

C.R.

, & Day

D.V.

(1997). Meta-analytic review on leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827–844.

41.

Greenhaus

, Parasuraman

, & Wormely

(1990). Effects of race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 64–86.

42.

Hair

J.F.

, Anderson

R.E.

, Tatham

R.L.

, & William

C.B.

(2006). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

43.

Harriet

T.R.

, Faye

C.J.

, & Gliner

M.D.

(2001). Mentoring relationship in graduate school. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 59(3), 326–341.

44.

Hegstad

C.D.

, & Wentling

R.M.

(2005). Organizational antecedents and moderators that impact on the effectiveness of exemplary formal mentoring programs in fortune 500 companies in the United States. Human Resource Development International, 8(4), 467–487.

45.

Herzberg

, Mausner

, Peterson

R.O.

, & Capwell

D.F.

(1957). Job attitudes: Review of research and opinion. Pittsburgh: Psychological Service of Pittsburgh. Retrieved from book.google.co.za/…ut/job_attitudes.htm/?id=6mu

46.

Horvath

, Wasko

L.E.

, & Bradely

S.L.

(2008). The effect of formal mentoring program characteristics on organizational attraction. Journal of Human Resource Development Quarterly, 19(4), 323–348.

47.

Hutcheson

P.G.

(2006). Creating a development culture through mentoring. Wiley periodicals, Inc. published online in Wiley Inters Science (www.interscience.wiley.com). Employment relations today.

48.

Igbaria

, & Guimaraes

(1993). Antecedents and consequences of job satisfaction among information centre employees. Journal of Management Information Systems, 9(4), 145–174.

49.

Jacobi

(1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: A literature review. Review of Educational Research, 61(4), 505–532.

50.

Johnson

B.O.

(2012). Business mentoring. Business People, 99–99. 1p.

51.

Johnson

, & Cervero

R.M.

(2004). Mentoring in black and white: The intricacies of cross-cultural mentoring. Mentoring and Tutoring, 12(1), 7–21.

52.

Johnson

W.B.

, & Ridley

C.R.

(2004). The elements of mentoring. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved from us.macmillan.com/…elementsofmentoringrevisededition (accessed on 12 october 2013 ).

53.

Jung

, & Tak

(2008). The effects of perceived career plateau on employees attitudes: Moderating effects of career motivation and perceived supervisor support with Korean employees. Journal of Career Development, 35(2), 187–201.

54.

Karcher

M.J.

(2008). The study of mentoring in the learning environment (SMILE). A randomised evaluation of the effectiveness of school based mentoring. Society for Prevention Research, 9(2), 99–113.

55.

Koberg

C.S.

, Boss

R.W.

, & Goodman

(1998). Factor and outcome associated with mentoring among health care professionals. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 53(1), 58–72.

56.

Kram

K.E.

(1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview: Scott, Foresman.

57.

Laband

D.N.

, & Bernard F.L. (1995). Workplace mentoring in the legal profession. Southern Economic Journal, 61(3), 783–802.

58.

Lagace

R.R.

, Jerry

R.G.

, & Jule

B.G.

(1993). A quasi-replicative assessment of a revised version of INDSALES. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 13(1), 65–72.

59.

Lankau

, & Scandura

(2002). An investigation of personal learning in mentoring relationships: Content, antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 779–790.

60.

Larry

B.F.

(2011). Coaching culture take four actions to create one. Annual Performance Review. Retrieved from www.leaderexcel.com (accessed on 12 June 2013 ).

61.

Lee

C.D.

, & Montiel

E.D.C.

(2010). The correlation of mentoring and job satisfaction: A pilot study of mental health professionals. Community Mental Health Journal, 47(4), 482–487.

62.

Lentz

(2004). The link between the career plateau and mentoring—Addressing the empirical gap. MA thesis, Department of Psychology, College of Arts and Sciences, University of South Florida. scholarcommons.usf.eduletd/1129

63.

Lentz

, & Allen

T.D.

(2009). The role of mentoring others in the career plateauing phenomenon. Group & Organization Management, 34(3), 358–384.

64.

Levenson

A.R.

, Vander

S.W.A.

, & Cohen

S.G.

(2006). Measuring the relationship between managerial competencies and performance. Journal of Management, 32(3), 360–380.

65.

Liu

, Jun

X.U.

, & Weitz

A.B.

(2011). The role of emotional expression and mentoring in internship learning. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10(1), 94–110.

66.

Locke

E.A.

(1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1343). Chicago: Rand McNally. Retrieved from ebookily.net/…n-locke-1976-the-natureandcauses

67.

Luna

, & Cullen

D.L.

(1998). Do graduate students need mentoring? College Student Journal, 32(3), 322–330.

68.

Luthans

(2005). Organizational behaviour (10th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

69.

MacArthur

C.A.

, & Pilato

(1995). Mentoring: An approach to technology education for teacher. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(1), 46–62.

70.

Maertz

C.J.

, Griffeth

, Campbell

, & Allen

(2007). The effects of perceived organizational support and perceived supervisor support on employee turnover. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 28(8), 1059–1075.

71.

Mobley

W.H.

, Griffeth

R.W.

, Hand

H.H.

, & Megino

B.M.

(1979). Review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 493–522.

72.

Murphy

S.E.

, & Ensher

E.A.

(2001). The role of mentoring support and self-management strategies on reported career outcomes. Journal of Career Development, 27(4), 229–246.

73.

Murrell

J.A.

, Beard

B.S.

, Poter

, & Williamson

P.A.

(2008). Inter organizational formal mentoring breaking the concrete ceiling some time requires support from the outside. Human Resource Management, 47(2), 275–294.

74.

Noe

R.A.

, Greenberger

D.B.

, & Wang

(2002). Mentoring: What we know and where we might go. New York Science. Retrieved from www.emeraldinsight.com/book.htm?chapterid=1781312 (accessed on 3 January 2013 ).

75.

Nunnally

, & Bernstein

(1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Retrieved from www.triciajoy.com/...download=psychometric=theory=1994 (accessed on 11 December 2013 ).

76.

O’Neill

, Horton

, & Crosby

F.J.

(1999). Gender issues in developmental relationships. In Murrell

A.J.

, Crosby

F.J.

& Ely

(Eds), Mentoring dilemmas: Developmental relationships within multicultural organizations. Mahwah: Erlbaum. Retrieved from link-springer-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/…rticle/10.1023/a%3A1014778017993 (accessed on 12 Septamber 2013 ).

77.

Ostroff

(1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An organizational level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(6), 963–974.

78.

Park

, & Yoo

(2005). The impact of career plateau on job and career attitudes and moderating effects of emotional intelligence and organizational support. Korean Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 18(3), 499–523.

79.

Purcell

(2004). Making e-mentoring more effective. American Journal of Health-Systems and Pharmacy, 61(3), 284–286.

80.

Raabe

, & Beebr

T.A.

(2003). Formal mentoring versus supervisor and co-worker relationships: Differences in perceptions and impact. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 24(3), 271–293.

81.

Ragins

B.R.

(1989). Barriers to mentoring: The female manager’s dilemma. Human Relations, 42(1), 1–22.

82.

Ragins

B.R.

(1997). Antecedents of diversified mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 51(1), 90–109.

83.

Ragins

B.R.

, & Cotton

J.L.

(1991). Easier said than done: Gender difference in perceived barriers to gaining a mentor. Academy of Management Journal, 34(4), 939–951.

84.

Ragins

B.R.

, & Cotton

J.L.

(1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 529–550.

85.

Ragins

B.R.

, & Scandura

T.A.

(1999). Burden or blessing: Expected costs and benefits of being a mentor. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 20(4), 493–509.

86.

Ragins

B.R.

, & Sundstrom

(1990). Gender and perceived power in manager-subordinate relations. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(4), 273–287.

87.

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(6), 1177–1194.

88.

Rhay

H.W.

, Ching

Y.H.

, Wen

C.T.

, Li-Yu

, Lin

S.E.

, & Mei

Y.L.

(2010). Exploring the impact of mentoring functions on job satisfaction and organizational commitment of new staff nurses. BMC Health Services Research, 10, 210–240. Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/10/240 (accessed on 23 July 2013 ).

89.

Rhoader

, Eisenberger

, & Armeli

(2001). Affective commitment in the organization: The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 825–836.

90.

Scandura

T.A.

(1992). Mentorship and career mobility: An empirical investigation. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 13(2), 169–174.

91.

Scandura

T.A.

, & Viator

R.E.

(1994). Mentoring in public accounting firms: An analysis of mentor-protégé relationship mentorship functions, and protégé turnover intention. Accounting Organizations and Society, 19(8), 717–734.

92.

Seibert

S.E.

(1999). The effectiveness of facilitated mentoring: A longitudinal quasi-experiment. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 54(1), 483–502.

93.

Sharma

R.D.

, & Jyoti

(2004). Does age really make job satisfaction ‘u’ shaped. The Business Vision, 2(1), 1–6.

94.

Sharma

R.D.

, & Jyoti

(2006). Does job satisfaction influence life satisfaction or is it other way round. Nice – The Journal of Business, 1(1), 27–39.

95.

Shrivastava

(2011). Analysing the impact of mentoring on job burnout–job satisfaction relation: An empirical study on Indian managers. Paradigm, 15(1), 48–57.

96.

Steinberg

A.G.

, & Foley

D.M.

(1999). Mentoring in the army: Form buzzword to practice. Military Psychology, 11(4), 365–379.

97.

Swart

, & Kinnie

(2003). Sharing knowledge in knowledge-intensive firms. Human Resource Management Journal, 13(2), 60–75.

98.

Tekleab

A.G.

, Takeuchi

, & Taylor

M.S.

(2005). Extending the chain of relationships among organizational justice, social exchange, and employee reactions: The role of contract violations. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 146–157.

99.

Viator

R.E.

(1999). An analysis of formal mentoring programs and perceived barriers to obtaining a mentor at large public accounting firms. Accounting Horizons, 13(1), 37–53.

100.

Warr

, Cook

, & Wall

(1979). Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and aspects of psychological well-being. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52(2), 129–148.

101.

Whitely

, Dougherty

T.W.

, & Dreher

G.F.

(1991). Relationship of career mentoring and socioeconomic origin to managers and professionals early career progress. Academy of Management Journal, 34(2), 331–351.

102.

Whitely

, Dougherty

T.W.

, & Dreher

G.F.

(1992). Correlates of career-oriented mentoring for early career managers and professionals. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 13(2), 41–154.

103.

Young

A.M.

, & Perrewe

P.L.

(2000). What did you expect? An examination of career related support and social support among mentors and protégés. Journal of Management, 26(4), 611–632.

104.

Young

A.M.

, & Perrewe

P.L.

(2004). The role of expectations in the mentoring exchange: An analysis of mentor and protégé expectations in relation to perceived support. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16(1), 103–126.

105.

Zachary

L. J.

(2005). Creating a mentoring culture: The organization’s guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.