Retaining the rookie – role clarification through mentorship

Abstract

This article looks at the statically-complicated and dynamically-complex relations among new-recruit behavior, mentorship, and organizational loyalty and role clarity. While emphasizing organizational circumstances, we explore the connection between organizational loyalty and role clarity through a sample of 314 people, the empitican data subjected to correlation, cluster and cross-tabulation analyses. The results undisclose significant relations among new-employee behavior, mentorship, and organizational loyalty and role clarity. Namely new hires, whose organizational integration is supported by a person capable of mentorship, seem to recognize and to adopt their organizational-role clearly and timely. Besides, rookies show an increased loyalty tendency to their employer. These results are pertinent to organizational-mentorship programs that both effectively and efficiently help integrate new recruits, notably in organizational situations wherein mentor selection is critical.

Keywords

Mentoring role clarification loyalty

Anita Kozák, PhD is a college associate professor at Eszterházy Károly University of Applied Sciences, Department of Economics, in Eger, Hungary. Her teaching activities primary focus on Human Management, Labor Market and Economics. She has 6 years of experience teaching at universities. Her research interests are the areas of workplace socialization and employee engagement. E-mail: kozak.anita@uni-eszterhazy.hu.

Zoltán Krajcsák, PhD is a college associate professor at Budapest Business School, Department of Entrepreneurship and Human Resources, in Budapest, Hungary. His teaching activities primary focus on Human Management, Quality Management, Organizational Behavior and Research Methodology. He has 10 years of experience teaching at universities. His research interests are the areas of employee commitment and the context of organizational culture and lean management. E-mail: krajcsak.zoltan@uni-bge.hu.

1 Introduction

Nowadays, organizational structures change more rapidly on more dynamic economic and social environment. This entails a frequent cessation and formation of entities, which clearly altered the Hungarian working culture. This materializes namely in higher level of fluctuation and more frequent job changes, which seems to be more natural than ever before. It generates a new challenge for personnel managers in the organization, as they should deal with more and more rookies, who greatly vary in age, work experience, education, social background and behavior.

As a consequence, the role of workplace integration became more important, its process changed, became more organized and efficient, partly led by the western organizational culture arriving with the inward foreign direct investments. Elements of mentorship - being one of the most important tools of integration - were modernized, with increasing expectations towards participating individuals.

This article would like to draw attention to the fact, that the qualities of the mentoring individual and his/her supporting activity has a significant effect on role clarification and progress of loyalty of new employees, therefore it is worthwhile for organizations to put more emphasis on selection of the mentor and process of the mentorship.

2 Character and tasks of the mentor

Mentorship is not a new integration tool within organizations, it was a past practice at workplaces to find an individual being a support, help, patron for the sake of easier and quicker adoption of knowledge needed by the rookies to carry out the task specified in his/her job. Mentorship is nothing more than a relationship formed between a new employee and an experienced individual with professional knowledge [1], with the aim of professional development of the new employee [2]. The mentor has two main functions: in one hand, it is acting as a career advisor (e.g. coaching, fostering visibility in the organization, providing protection, delegating task of challenge), in the other hand, it provides social-psychological support (e.g. acceptance, confirmation, guidance, friendship, etc.) The role of “career developer” is implemented by advisory activities, the social-psychological support is secured by being a role model, a friend, a consultant in personal matters [2, 3].

Duties for the two main functions are summarized by [4], their study is emphasizing three main tasks: assisting with integration into the organization, knowledge sharing, and career support. In terms of assisting with integration into the organization they define tasks related to recognition of organizational culture (e.g. explaining values, organizational customs, role models, etc.) and in-work relation (e.g. fostering the formation of in-work relation, protection from insults, etc.). Assisting with knowledge share not only means the transfer of essential information needed to carry out work related tasks professionally, but the feedback on performance and behavior of the new employee either. Finally, career support includes – according to the authors – communication of career opportunities, familiarization with skills needed and activating relation capital either. The tasks listed above can only be fulfilled through targeted and efficient communication, hence the success of the process is strongly determined by the character, by the interpersonal competencies of the mentor.

[5] also emphasize that it is worthwhile to also consider personal qualities beside demographic and experience related features in the course of mentor selection. According to research results of [6] the most important elements are the willingness to share knowledge and experience and the supporting behavior. A more recent study [7] emphasizes the importance of empathy, while [8] is citing extroversy as an important aspect, and [9] is complementing the list with the ability of “good listener”. In our view these personal features above along with sufficient communication skills and professional, organizational knowledge altogether make the mentor suitable to properly carry out these tasks.

The mentor needs to have adequate level of professional and organizational knowledge, which covers the tasks listed in the protégé’s job specification, the relation network and the whole organizational culture either. To simply possess over such knowledge is not sufficient, since he/she has to recognize and should be proud of being in a role of advocacy, and should not be involved in any competition with the new employee, but should have the willingness to share knowledge and experience as emphasized by [6]. Also by the same research group is mentioned, that not only the professional but also the human side of such supportive behavior is important, i.e. besides providing consultancy services in professional matters the mentor should be able to be a source of psychological support and encouragement.

For this, he/she needs to have empathy underlined in the research of [7], which is a foundation in the relation of two. Finally, ability to listen is also vital concluded by [9], which enables the mentor to precisely recognize the main points of questions and problems proposed by the new employee in order to give definite and professional aid. For integration it is necessary to detect the level of communication skills of the protégé for correct perception of the communication. In the selection process of the mentor the management should take these features into account in order to give efficient support.

3 Advantages of mentorship supporting integration

The process of mentorship can be formal or informal. In case of formal mentorship the mentor and his/her detailed tasks should be assigned by the management [10], therefore goals are pre-defined and detailed at the beginning of the relationship [3]. In case of informal mentorship the “pupil select the master” and decides whether or not to take instructions from the mentor [11], and goals of the process are created in the course of cooperation [3]. This article put emphasis on formal mentorship.

The good operation of formal mentorship can have several advantages for both the mentor, the new hire and the organization. For the protégé the system is advantageous, because through the program he/she can easier and quicker recognize the organizational culture, his/her role in the organization can get a clearer picture of career opportunities [12]. Besides, the character, presence and professional guidance of the mentor can prevent the new employee to feel pressured due to a prolonged need of adaptivity. For the mentor to carry out such tasks gives a reward, satisfaction and self-confidence, if the new hire successfully tackles professional challenges [12].

According to researches of [13] the tasks positively affects the future career path of the mentor, while [14] underlines the positive effect of the young, creative energy and lifestyle of the new employee on the mentoring person. Organizational advantages originate in fact from positive effects on the mentor and protégé. At organizational level the advantages materialize in higher level of satisfaction with work and salary, in higher level of productivity in case of employees participated in such a program [2 , 15–17]. The mentoring system can act as a motivation component, since it indicates the attention from the management. Due to the positive effects on the community it could be worthwhile to appoint a mentor, because it can contribute to quicker expansion of the relation network and to more efficient in-work communication. Finally, it makes a contribution to the development of loyalty [18], which can result in lower level of undesired fluctuation. Mentoring is not a general clue to support integration, as reserved and introvertial personalities are more difficult to be motivated. Furthermore it is not worthwhile to apply it for highly educated individuals and those with matured psyché, since they achieve best performance in case of delegation.

4 The indirect advantages of mentorship

An important research result of mentorship, that thanks to the application of mentorship programs the number of years in service is increasing in certain professions (e.g. nurses or teachers), which leads to increased level of professional commitment. In the United States the importance of mentorship not always originate from the need of integration: the long term shortage of nurses indicates that the level of such commitment can be increased through mentorship [19]. A link does not necessarily exist between organizational and professional commitment, because those with strong professional commitment can look for another job staying within the professional segment. Individuals with high level of professional commitment can leave the organization (on low organizational commitment), but this does not necessarily entail change in profession. This justifies our view, that professional commitment does not play a role in the development of loyalty, therefore in our research we analyze loyalty using items linked to dimensions of organizational commitment as of [20]. Mentorship can entail important advantages for both participants. Development of the protégé, career planning and psychological support are one the most frequently cited advantages. Mentors are also learning through mentorship interactions, additionally, growing relation capital, spiritual satisfaction and developing management skills through the mentorship are mentioned the most as proceedings of such programs [21]. Such relation also entails risks, which can be originated to different characters, scheduling challenges and geographical distance between the mentor and protégé. Obstacles for an efficient mentorship can also be of special nature, such as negligence of the protégé, unsatisfied needs and expectations of the protégé, and the perception of the mentor’s personal incapacity.

In the first chapter we demonstrated the complex relation between organizational commitment and mentorship, thus we justified the need for analytical research of links of the two dimensions in domestic working environment. General and special risks appearing in the course of mentorship listed above are negatively affecting role clarification of the protégé. Therefore, in our research using primary data we analyze the significance of this dimension either.

5 Aim, subject and methodology of the research

Considering the literature review, causality of the two dimensions in a sense of quality of mentorship and level of organizational commitment is not unequivocal, it can only be stated, that a relation exists. The literature review also draws an attention to the primary objective of the mentor, namely to help the protégé to clarify his/her position and role in the organization through career advice and social-psychological support. Accordingly, the research is aiming to explore the links between system of mentorship and role clarification and development of loyalty of the protégé.

Primary research activity was conducted in the units of four multinational enterprises located in Northern Great Plain Region. Enterprises can be deemed large which are not falling in the category of “micro, small and medium enterprises” based on Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Thus, large enterprises are those with total number of employees over 250 and a total (yearly) revenue exceeding 50 million euro and/or a balance sheet total exceeding 43 million euro. In the database of the Central Statistical Office a shortlist is created on total yearly revenue, they receive the data posteriorly however from National Tax and Customs Administration, thus the latest data available were two years old. The list received from Central Statistical Office had 32 records including indications for enterprises without even an accessible homepage, and not indicating several relevant enterprises operating for a few years in the Region. As a consequence of above total size of the population was unknown, making us unable to create a proper statistical representation. In the search for enterprises in the region we applied following criteria:

should be large international enterprise with

core activity demanding labor force qualified higher than average.

We set the first criterion, because after the system change in Hungary – partly as an effect of foreign direct investments – the economy went through a fundamental transition and modernization. As a result of this majority of domestic enterprises – mainly multinational or foreign owned organizations and large Hungarian enterprises – are being more and more integrated to the global economy, and this provides new kind of challenges for organizational practice of human resource management. Despite this fact there are only a relatively small number of quantitative researches focusing on the adaptation to new challenges, on the analysis of processes involving human resources of large enterprises in foreign ownership and on the domestic adaptation of international trends.

We set the second criterion based on pilot research results. Creation of the applied questionnaire was namely preceded by pilot research activity, in which 40 employees of a unit operating in Hajdú-Bihar County of a multinational enterprise were involved, who were having less than a three year organizational experience at this workplace. Taking the experiences of pilot research activity into account we set a pre-condition for potential individuals getting into the sample, namely having at least secondary education. Altogether we found seven enterprises fulfilling the criteria set, four of them gave consent to data provision.

Our research was primarily based on questionnaire-based interviews. Before data collection using the questionnaire we conducted half-structured interviews with personnel managers in order to reveal specialties of the mentoring system operating in the enterprise. Based on information received from personnel managers mentoring program is clearly operating in their organization, but the creation and operation of such system does not play a role of special importance as revealed by answers given for further questions. The measuring instrument applied by us is fine-tuned and finalized taking the experiences of half-structured interviews into account.

The interviewed ones were all of those employees who have been working less than three years in the organization. The questionnaire used in the research consisted of two parts: there was a page for identification (respondent, organization), and one for a professional questionnaire. The former gathered some key information of the company and data about the respondent, the latter extracted opinions on 13 professional topics. Questions in different topics were listed according to research work of corresponding authors: questions related to evaluation of the mentor were based on [22], ones for recognition of organizational culture was based on [23] and loyalty questions were based on [20]. Respondents evaluated each item on a 1 to 4 scale (with 1 being the lowest, 4 being the highest grade). The final form of the questionnaire preceded trial versions, taking the consequences of which a pre-condition was set getting into the sample (having at least secondary education). Sample size of the research was amounted to 314 individual research records, but processing the answers we faced the fact that only 164 of those did have an appointed mentor. As a consequence, answers of only those were used in the calculations regarding evaluation of the mentor (see Table 1, Fig. 1). In the course of data evaluation we applied correlation, cluster and cross-table analysis. Results of statistical test were deemed significant in case of p < 0.05.

Table 1
Values of correlation coefficients analyzing questions related to the mentor and role clarification

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12

Sz1 – – – – – – – 0.242 0.249 0.206 – –

Sz2 0.221 – 0.234 – – – 0.234 0.220 0.267 0.250 – –

Sz3 0.250 – 0.228 – – – 0.213 – – – 0.222 0.207

Sz4 – – 0.312 – – – – – – – – –

Sz5 0.216 0.267 – 0.259 – 0.218 0.279 0.321 – 0.218 0.228 0.212

Sz6 0.373 0.374 0.388 0.326 – 0.400 0.403 0.322 0.266 0.279 0.323 0.348

Sz7 0.256 0.336 0.284 0.255 – 0.244 0.251 – – – – 0.281

Sz8 0.213 0.277 0.246 0.209 – 0.214 0.221 0.246 – – – 0.226

Sz9 0.326 0.221 0.254 0.305 – 0.273 0.301 0.270 – 0.253 0.344 0.319

Sz10 0.289 0.227 0.227 0.326 0.219 0.281 0.268 0.252 0.293 0.335 0.310 0.284

Sz11 – – – – – – 0.316 0.228 – 0.219 0.231 0.310

Sz12 0.296 0.290 0.237 0.320 – 0.310 0.306 0.342 – 0.369 0.384 0.405

	M1	M2	M3	M4	M5	M6	M7	M8	M9	M10	M11	M12
Sz1	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	0.242	0.249	0.206	–	–
Sz2	0.221	–	0.234	–	–	–	0.234	0.220	0.267	0.250	–	–
Sz3	0.250	–	0.228	–	–	–	0.213	–	–	–	0.222	0.207
Sz4	–	–	0.312	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Sz5	0.216	0.267	–	0.259	–	0.218	0.279	0.321	–	0.218	0.228	0.212
Sz6	0.373	0.374	0.388	0.326	–	0.400	0.403	0.322	0.266	0.279	0.323	0.348
Sz7	0.256	0.336	0.284	0.255	–	0.244	0.251	–	–	–	–	0.281
Sz8	0.213	0.277	0.246	0.209	–	0.214	0.221	0.246	–	–	–	0.226
Sz9	0.326	0.221	0.254	0.305	–	0.273	0.301	0.270	–	0.253	0.344	0.319
Sz10	0.289	0.227	0.227	0.326	0.219	0.281	0.268	0.252	0.293	0.335	0.310	0.284
Sz11	–	–	–	–	–	–	0.316	0.228	–	0.219	0.231	0.310
Sz12	0.296	0.290	0.237	0.320	–	0.310	0.306	0.342	–	0.369	0.384	0.405

Note: M1, M3, M7, M8, M10, and M12 correlates with most variables of role clarification. Source: Own research data.

Fig.1

Priority order of mentor activities and features. Source: Own edition using own research data.

6 Research results and evaluation

Aim of the research was to reveal, whether there is a relation among answers regarding the evaluation of the supporting activity and character of the mentor and role clarification. In case of a significant result, we aimed to identify the mentor variables with the most connections to role clarification variables. Finally, we wanted to have an answer, whether there is a link among answers given for role clarification and level of loyalty.

In order to reveal, whether there is a relation among answers regarding the evaluation of the supporting activity and character of the mentor and role clarification, we applied the rank-correlation analysis as of Spearman in case of corresponding questions. In the analysis we only took the link of at least medium positive (0.2≤r < 0.7) into account. Values of correlation coefficients are shown in Table 1.

In the table above M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, M7, M8, M9, M10, M11 and M12 are mentor variables as follows (in order): possessing over adequate communication skills, always listened to my problems; giving advices in terms of work; giving advices in terms of behavior; suggested individuals to get closer to; explained things practically; tending to give opportunities to show skills; motivating; spending sufficient time together; extensive and precise control over work; role model in the profession; role model in life.

Sz1, Sz2, Sz3, Sz4, Sz5, Sz6, Sz7, Sz8, Sz8, Sz9, Sz10, Sz11 and Sz12 are role clarification questions as follows: awareness of scope of tasks and responsibilities; awareness of performance needed carrying out the tasks assigned; skill of prioritization among tasks and responsibilities; ability to use working tools and infrastructure; ability to seize resources needed for work; availability of helping hand; knowing the customers/clients; ability to satisfy customers/clients; awareness of regular reporting obligations; awareness of management expectations; ability to carry out work related administrative tasks; knowing the consequences to others’ work of not getting the job done or in the right manner.

According to research results, number of questions regarding the supporting activity and character of the mentor and role clarification are correlated as follows (in parentheses): communication skills (9); listening to problems (7); advices in terms of work (9); advices in terms of organizational behavior (7); suggested individuals to get closer to (1); practical advices/explanations (7); giving opportunity to show skills (10); motivating (9); spending sufficient time with the protégé (4); extensive and precise control of the work of the protégé (8); role model in the profession (7); role model in life (9); Based on research results mentor tasks can be classified as primary, secondary, tertiary upon being correlated with role clarification variables in case of certain number of questions. The result of the grouping is illustrated in Fig. 1.

From Fig. 1 it can be recognized that among the 12 mentor variables communication skills, advices in terms of work, giving opportunity to show skills, motivation, controlling activity and the human character of the mentor are in connection with the most role clarification questions. Good command of communication skills makes the advices unequivocal, precise and comprehensible for the protégé. Advices in terms of work help the individual to recognize his/her role in the organization, motivation improves working behavior, opportunities to show skills increase level of self-trust and confidence, and these altogether contribute to more efficient task performance. Preventive control motivates the new employee to learn new skills and to perform tasks more precisely. The judgment of the mentor as a human being is important in terms of role clarification, because most people take advices from people deemed to be role models.

The mentor should be able to listen to getting familiar with the problems of the protégé, because the most help and most efficient support can be given via giving advices to solve these. Besides, advices in terms of organizational behavior, practical explanations and his/her professional judgment are directly linked to organizational and professional knowledge share, therefore these can help the rookie to recognize his/her role in the organization and identify him/herself with it.

The mentor’s suggestions for individuals to get closer to and the time spent with the protégé are not elements directly affecting the development of role clarification of the new mployee. In our view however, spending sufficient time with the protégé is important because of two aspects. Each occasion of consultancy sufficient time should be spent to confirm that the protégé could effectively and unequivocally comprehend the guidance in order to be able to apply them at work and in his/her behavior. Total duration of the mentorship is also important, because an early leave can result in unsettlement of the new employee in terms of organizational role.

Further processing the data we made cluster analysis involving values of role clarification and loyalty in order to reveal any relation among answers for questions related to role clarification and loyalty received from respondents. Based on answers of all respondents we distinguished between two groups both including two clusters. Based on cluster constituent elements, i.e. average values of answers given for variables involved in the analysis, in the group created on role clarification we separated to clusters of “identified” and “searching” ones, in the other group made upon loyalty we created clusters of “rather loyal” and “less loyal”.

For cluster characterization we applied deviation analysis, as dependent variables being metric and independent variables being non-metric. Clusters therefore were characterized by average values of answers from the groups measured on a 1–4 scale. Results of deviation analysis are demonstrated in Table 2 analyzing role clarification.

Table 2
Clusters on analyzing role clarification

Identified Searching

Awareness of scope of tasks, projects and responsibilities 3.84 3.29

Awareness of performance needed carrying out the tasks assigned 3.85 3.27

Skill of prioritization between tasks and responsibilities 3.76 3.15

Ability to use working tools and infrastructure (e.g. software, programs, etc.) 3.60 3.15

Ability to seize resources needed for work (e.g. equipment, tools, information, etc.) 3.68 2.99

Availability of helping hand when necessary 3.80 3.10

Knowing the customers/clients 3.79 2.98

Ability to satisfy customers/clients 3.83 2.94

Awareness of regular reporting obligations to the management 3.84 2.74

Awareness of management expectations 3.85 3.07

Ability to carry out work related administrative tasks 3.89 3.12

Knowing the consequences to others’ work of not getting the job done or in the right manner 3.85 3.05

Total (number of people): 208 84

Share of respondents (%): 71 29

	Identified	Searching
Awareness of scope of tasks, projects and responsibilities	3.84	3.29
Awareness of performance needed carrying out the tasks assigned	3.85	3.27
Skill of prioritization between tasks and responsibilities	3.76	3.15
Ability to use working tools and infrastructure (e.g. software, programs, etc.)	3.60	3.15
Ability to seize resources needed for work (e.g. equipment, tools, information, etc.)	3.68	2.99
Availability of helping hand when necessary	3.80	3.10
Knowing the customers/clients	3.79	2.98
Ability to satisfy customers/clients	3.83	2.94
Awareness of regular reporting obligations to the management	3.84	2.74
Awareness of management expectations	3.85	3.07
Ability to carry out work related administrative tasks	3.89	3.12
Knowing the consequences to others’ work of not getting the job done or in the right manner	3.85	3.05
Total (number of people):	208	84
Share of respondents (%):	71	29

Source: Own research data.

The first cluster is the group of “identified”, which 71% of the respondents belong to. This group of respondents was giving relatively high grade to each item examined and even the lowest value (3.60) can be ranked rather good. The lowest value of the twelve variables graded by the group is higher than average value of answers of all respondents (3.45), which justifies, that majority of group members is clarified with organizational role and there have identified themselves with it.

“Searching” ones constitute the second cluster, which are making up 29% of the respondents. Average value of their answers is relatively low compared to the group of “identified”. This indicates being less identified with organizational role, they are mostly searching their position.

Analyzing loyalty we also applied deviation analysis to characterize clusters named “rather loyal ” and “less loyal”, results of this is demonstrated in Table 3.

Table 3

Clusters on analyzing loyalty

	Rather loyal	Less loyal
Referring to the organization as a good place to work in front of friends.	3.87	2.77
Feeling very loyal to the workplace.	3.75	2.69
Would readily take on almost every bonus task just to be able to stay with this organization.	3.42	2.29
Individual and organizational values are very similar.	3.50	2.46
Proudly telling others is being part of this organization.	3.79	2.60
Would feel worse in a similar position in another organization.	3.29	2.32
No problem to follow organizational policies in important questions.	3.58	2.85
Future of this organization is important.	3.77	2.74
Willing to make more efforts for more organizational success.	3.73	2.56
Best decision to be engaged with this organization.	3.72	2.64
Inspired by workplace getting the best out of me.	3.68	2.43
Minor chance to leave the organization at the moment.	3.76	2.80
Total (number of people):	209	94
Share of respondents (%):	69	31

Source: Own research data.

The first cluster in the table is the group of “rather loyal”, who are making up 69% of the respondents. Interviewees of this group were giving relatively grade to each twelve item examined. Relative high average values of answers clearly indicate that majority of this group feel loyal to the organization.

“Less loyals” constitute the second cluster, which are making up 31% of sample population. Average value of answers is low compared to the “rather loyal” group, and the difference was higher than one in case of nine variables.

We applied cross-table analysis to reveal any link among clusters created upon examination of role clarification and loyalty. The chi-squared test indicated a significant difference, result of the analysis is illustrated in Table 4.

Table 4

Cross-table among clusters of role clarification and loyalty

	Identified	Searching	Total
Rather loyal	167	29	196	p < 0.05
Less loyal	37	54	91
Total	204	83	287

Source: Own research data.

According to the result, 287 people answered questions related to both role clarification and loyalty either, being the ones with the chance of getting into clusters upon both items. Based on their answers 167 of 287 are belonging to both “rather loyal” and “identified” groups, while 29 are also “rather loyal” but “searching”. 91 altogether constitute the “less loyals”, 37 of them are identified, while 54 are “searching”. Consequently, 82% of “identified” are “rather loyal”, 18% are “less loyal”, while 65% of “searching” are “less loyal”, the remainder 35% are “rather loyal”. Based on all above we can come to the conclusion, that respondents being identified with his/her organizational role are more likely loyal to the organization, which means, that there is a relation between role clarification and loyalty.

7 Summary and conclusions

According to the results of rank correlation analysis as of Spearman there is a relation among respondents’ answers given for evaluation of supporting activity and character of the mentor and own role clarification. Additionally, research results allowed us to distinguish among primary, secondary and tertiary mentor activities and features upon being correlated with role clarification variables in case of certain number of questions. This can help the management, what kind of individual capabilities, knowledge, competencies and personal features should be considered in the selection process of the mentor. We split the respondents into two groups both including two clusters based on their answers for role clarification and loyalty, and applying cross-table analysis we came to the conclusion, that there is a relation between role clarification and loyalty. Namely, respondents with higher level of role clarification based on own perception consider themselves loyal by higher chance. High level of role clarification is dependent partly on working conditions and partly on own perception. In case of the latter being dominant, protégés tend to self-propose to engage themselves into mentorship. This underpins the finding of [24], according to whom protégés self-proposing mentorship are reaching higher position and salary at workplace. However, future career path is unaffected by the mentorship, albeit it can contribute to moments of early success.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Nicholas Georgantzas for his help with constructing, formatting and further technical edits of this piece.

References

Lary

M.S.

, Mentoring: A gift for professional growth, The Southeastern Librarian 47(4) (1998), 23–26.

Kram

K.E.

, Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in Organizational Life. Glenview: Scott Foresman; 1985, pp. 268.

Ragins

B.R.

and Cotton

J.L.

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

Nemeskéri

and Pataki

, A mentor feladatai – módszertani füzet. (2003) [cited 2017 April 22]. Available from: http://www.fejerkozig.hu/domain34/files/modules/module15/374402150E1471498.pdf

Allen

T.D.

, Poteet

M.L.

, Russell

J.E.A.

and Dobbins

G.H.

, Afield study of factors related to supervisors’ willingness to mentor others, Journal of Vocational Behavior 50(1) (1997), 1–22.

Cronan-Hillix

, Davidson

W.S.

, Cronan-Hillix

W.A.

and Gensheimer

L.K.

, Student’s views of mentors in psychology graduate training, Teaching of Psychology 13(3) (1986), 123–127.

Clark

R.A.

, Harden

S.L.

and Johnson

W.B.

, Mentor relationships in clinical psychology doctoral training: Results of a national survey, Teaching of Psychology 27(4) (2000), 262–268.

Niehoff

B.P.

, Personality predictors of participation as a mentor, Career Development International 11(4) (2006), 321–333.

Hoffmeister

, A perspective on effective mentoring in the construction industry, Leadership & Organization Development Journal 32(7) (2011), 673–688.

10.

Okurame

D.E.

, Linking work-family conflict to career commitment: The moderating effects of gender and mentoring among Nigerian civil servants, Journal of Career Development 39(5) (2011), 423–442.

11.

Chao

G.T.

, Walz

P.M.

and Gardiner

P.D.

, Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentored counterparts, Personnel Psychology 45(3) (1992), 619–636.

12.

Ensher

E.A.

, Thomas

and Murphy

S.E.

, Comparison of traditional, step-ahead, and peer mentoring on proteges’ support, satisfaction and perceptions of career success: A social exchange perspective, Journal of Business and Psychology 15(3) (2001), 419–438.

13.

Bozionelos

, Mentoring provided: Relation to mentors’ career success, personality, and mentoring received, Journal of Vocational Behavior 64(1) (2004), 24–46.

14.

Levinson

D.J.

, The Seasons of Man’s Life. New York: Ballantine Books; 1978, p. 384.

15.

Allen

T.D.

, Eby

L.T.

, Poteet

M.L.

, Lentz

and Lima

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

16.

Hunt

D.M.

and Michael

, Mentorship: A career training and development tool, Academy of Management Review 8(3) (1983), 475–485.

17.

Dawley

D.D.

, Andrews

M.C.

and Bucklew

N.S.

, Mentoring, supervisor support and perceived organizational support: What matters most? Leadership & Organisational Development Journal 29(3) (2008), 235–247.

18.

Donaldson

S.I.

, Ensher

E.A.

and Grant-Vallone

E.J.

, Longitudinal examination of mentoring relationships on organizational commitment and citizenship behavior, Journal of Career Development 26(4) (2000), 233–249.

19.

Gwyn

P.G.

, The quality of mentoring relationships’ impact on the occupational commitment of nursing faculty, Journal of Professional Nursing 27(5) (2011), 292–298.

20.

Robbins

S.P.

, Self-assessment Library 3.4: Insights Into Your Skills, Interests and Abilities. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall; 2008, pp. 131.

21.

Eby

L.T.

and Lockwood

, Protégés and mentors reactions to participating in formal mentoring programs: A qualitative investigation, Journal of Vocational Behavior 67(3) (2005), 441–458.

22.

Raabe

and Beehr

T.A.

, Formal mentoring versus supervisor and coworker relationships: Differences in perceptions and impact, Journal of Organizational Behavior 24(3) (2003), 274–293.

23.

Haueter

J.A.

, Macan

T.H.

and Winter

, Measurement of newcomer socialization: Construct validation of a multidimensional scale, Journal of Vocational Behavior 63(1) (2003), 20–39.

24.

Blickle

, Witzki

and Schneider

P.B.

, Self-initiated mentoring and career success: A predictive field study, Journal of Vocational Behavior 74(1) (2009), 94–101.