Journal of Vocational Behavior 78 (2011) 264-273

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

The impact of supervisory mentoring on personal learning and career outcomes: The dual
moderating effect of self-efficacy

Wen Pan a, Li-Yun Suna* Irene Hau Siu Chowb

Faculty of Management and Administration, Macau University of Science and Technology, Avenida Wai Long, Taipa, Macau b Department of Management, The Chinese University
of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong
a

A R T I C L E

I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history:

Using survey data from 226 employees and their supervisors in four manufacturing companies

Received 30 January 2010

in China, we found that employee self-efficacy has a dual moderating effect on the impact of

Available online 9 May 2010

supervisory mentoring on subordinate career outcomes. Path analytic tests of mediated

-----------------------------------------------------------------

moderation suggested that self-efficacy moderates the mediated effects of supervisory

Keywords:

mentoring on job performance and career satisfaction through personal learning such that

Supervisory mentoring

the mediated effect on job performance is stronger when employees have higher self-efficacy,

Personal learning

but the mediated effect on career satisfaction is stronger when they have lower self-efficacy.
2010 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Self-efficacy

Job performance
Career satisfaction

Introduction
Supervisory mentoring has been recognized as a key developmental resource in organizational settings (Noe, Greenberger &
Wang, 2002). Supervisors use their greater knowledge, experience and status to help develop their subordinates (Bass, 1990).
Specifically, supervisory mentoring serves primarily three functions: a career function, a psychosocial function, and role modeling
(Scandura & Ragins, 1993). These functions provide help for subordinates in sponsorship, coaching, protection, exposure-andvisibility, and challenging work assignments. Empirical studies suggest that the amount of supervisory mentoring provided predicts
subordinate-reported career outcomes, such as career satisfaction, career commitment, and low turnover intentions (e.g. Koberg, Boss,
& Goodman, 1998; Noe, 1988), and supervisor-rated career outcomes, such as promotion, compensation or salary increase (Dreher &
Ash, 1990), and job performance. In this study, we focus the career outcomes on subordinate job performance and career satisfaction.
While the question of whether supervisory mentoring leads to positive outcomes is the primary focus in the mentoring literature,
more research is called for to examine the intermediate process and boundary conditions through which supervisory mentoring
affects subordinate work outcomes. To date, paucity of research has attempted to explore the mechanisms and to uncover the
effectiveness of supervisory mentoring. The mentoring literature would benefit from a clearer delineation of factors that mediate or
moderate the effect of supervisory mentoring on subordinate career outcomes.
We suggest that personal learning and self-efficacy are particularly salient to mentoring relationship. One important function of
supervisory mentoring is to help subordinates to learn about organizational life and prepare them for advancement opportunities.
Desire to learn plays a key role in the process of mentoring (Kagan, 1994). However, not much research has explicitly examined the
mediating role of personal learning in the links between supervisory mentoring and subordinate career outcomes. More studies are
needed to explore the effect of subordinate characteristics in the process of supervisory mentoring. Knowledge of how subordinate
characteristics affect the impact of supervisory mentoring improves our understanding of the
* Corresponding author. Fax: +853 2888 0022.
E-mail addresses: pansunhan@hotmail.com (W. Pan), liyunsun@must.edu.mo (L.-Y. Sun), Irene@baf.msmail.cuhk.edu.hk (I.H.S. Chow).
0001-8791/$ - see front matter 2010 Published by Elsevier Inc.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.05.001

W. Pan et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 78 (20H) 264-273

265

development of supervisory-subordinate relationships (Aryee, Lo & Kang, 1999; Turban & Dougherty, 1994). Self-efficacy provides
explicit guidelines on how to develop and enhance the quality of human functioning such as human motivation and attainments
(Bandura, 1995). In spite of the critical role in affecting individual's ability and willingness to exercise control (Litt, 1988), paucity of
research has explored how subordinate self-efficacy affects their experiences in the receipt of supervisory mentoring. Taken together,
this study aims to integrate the intermediate role of subordinate personal learning and potential boundary effect of selfefficacy in the
relationship between supervisory mentoring and subordinate career outcomes.
Consistent with the current mentoring literature, supervisory mentoring will have a direct positive effect on proteges' job
performance and career success (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz & Lima, 2004; Underhill, 2006). Moreover, mentoring process can be viewed
as a mutual learning exchange relationship. This paper attempts to extend the current mentoring literature by incorporating research
from the learning and development approach (Maurer, 2002). Personal learning and self-efficacy have been identified as important
traits related to an individual's learning and development. Using a learning and developmental perspective, we developed and tested
an integrated framework and posited that self-efficacy moderates the mediated effects of supervisory mentoring on outcomes (job
performance and career satisfaction) through personal learning. The framework can be schematically represented in Fig. 1.
Theoretical background and hypotheses
Supervisory mentoring and career outcomes
Following Russell and Adams (1997), we define supervisory mentoring as an intense interpersonal exchange between the
supervisor (a senior experienced colleague) and a subordinate (a less experienced junior colleague) in which the supervisor provides
support, direction, and feedback regarding career plans and personal development. In her study of the difference between a
supervisory mentoring relationship and a typical employee/manager relationship, Booth (1996) found a manager is more structured
and task-oriented while a mentor is committed to the long-term development of the protege. A mentor has a deeper personal
relationship with the protege than does a manager. They may share with one another their personal values as well as on-and-off-thejob goals and experiences. Their connections go beyond those established in a formal reporting relationship which is dictated by the
individual's respective positions. Supervisory mentors are generally more accessible and have more opportunities to provide careerrelated benefits than non-supervisory mentors (Richard, Ismail, Bhuian & Taylor, 2009). Supervisors have personal knowledge oftheir
subordinates' needs and workplace environments and have responsibility for their subordinates' work-related development. Thus,
supervisors have a unique opportunity to coach and counsel their subordinates and advocate their subordinates' career progression
(Kram, 1985). The frequent daily interactions between the participants of a supervisory mentoring relationship might foster a closer
relationship and a higher degree of trust and commitment than between participants of a non-supervisory relationship (Tepper, 1995).
Thus, it should be reasonable that supervisors would, to some degree, mentor their subordinates.
Prior studies predominately support that supervisory mentoring enhances subordinate's subjective and objective outcomes (Allen
et al., 2004; Underhill, 2006). First, supervisors possess more job knowledge. By providing subordinates with that job knowledge,
subordinates are able to respond to problems that arise on the job (Hunter, 1986). Second, supervisors transfer new

Job Performance
Personal
Learning
Supervisory
Mentoring
Career
Satisfaction

Self-Efficacy

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the model.

266

W. Pan et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 78 (20H) 264-273

skills to their subordinates (Lankau & Scandura, 2002). This coaching process involves tactics and techniques that are required by high
levels of job performance. Third, receiving psychosocial mentoring tends to develop and refine his or her professional identity. Fourth,
the feedback and reinforcement provided by the supervisor likely enhance the subordinate's self confidence (Day & Allen, 2004) which
may lead to higher performance. Finally, subordinates collaborate with their mentors, so they regard their mentors as role models,
friends, and councilors. These mentors are more likely to bring knowledge, skills and abilities to the mentorship (Lankau & Scandura,
2002). It clearly shows that supervisory mentoring enhances a subordinate's performance.
The mentoring literature also suggests that mentoring relationships should be inherently linked to career satisfaction (Kram, 1985;
Levinson, Darrow, Klein, Levinson & McKee, 1978). On the one hand, supervisory mentoring not only serves as a mechanism for
knowledge acquisition but also provides access to social networks through which subordinates have opportunities to acquire
information which is unavailable through formal channels and to display their skills and talent within the organization (Dreher &
Ash, 1990). Thus, it helps subordinates for their career advancement. On the other hand, supervisors serve as veteran models of
behavior for their subordinates and provide subordinates with the rules that govern effective behaviors in the organization (Bolton,
1980, Dreher & Ash, 1990; Zagumny, 1993). While mentoring develops subordinate' professional competence and selfesteem,
subordinates who have been mentored will have more career satisfaction than those who have not. It follows that supervisory
mentoring is positively related to career satisfaction.
Mediating effect of personal learning
In addition to the direct relationship between mentoring and career outcomes, our model proposes that personal learning will
mediate these relationships. From the learning and development perspective, personal learning is likely to play a central role in the
mentoring relationship. Personal learning refers to knowledge acquisition, skills, or competence contributing to individual
development (Kram, 1996). It is a process of information seeking and socialization that must occur in order for personal development
in the behavior, attitudes and ability. Personal learning includes rational job learning and personal skill development. Rational job
learning involves learning about the context of work to see the self in relation to others (Kagan, 1994; Merriam & Heuer, 1996). This
learning process increases individual's sensitivity to the interdependence of his or her job with others. Personal skill development is
related to interpersonal skills (Kram, 1996) such as the ability to communicate effectively, listen attentively, solve problems, and
develop relationships with others in the organization.
Supervisors have been regarded as an important resource for personal learning. Individuals learn vicariously by observing the
behavior of others and the outcomes that result from this behavior (Bandura, 1977). Through intensive interaction, sharing and
exchanges, mentoring relationships provide a useful platform through which individuals can enhance personal learning (Kram, 1996).
Lankau and Scandura (2002) investigated personal learning in mentoring relationships. Their findings have shown support for the
impact of supervisory mentoring on subordinate personal learning. For instance, vocational support by supervisors enables
subordinates to acquire new skills through direct coaching and challenging project assignments; psychosocial support by supervisors
makes subordinates feel safe to ask questions, take risks, and discuss fears, anxieties, or disagreements (Kram, 1985); feedback and
active listening by supervisors help subordinates resolve problems rather than provide solutions (Kram, 1985); and role models by
supervisors make subordinates try to emulate the supervisor's attitudes, values and behaviors (Kram, 1985), particularly when models
are viewed as relevant, credible, and knowledgeable and their behavior results in the receipt of desired of outcomes (Noe, 2002). Thus,
supervisory mentoring impacts career outcomes through personal learning.
Supervisory mentoring shows a positive effect on subordinates' personal learning, which in turn enhances their job performance
and career satisfaction. Personal learning yields changes in behavior (Lankau & Scandura, 2002) and it is a necessary condition for
performance (Hunter, 1986). Personal learning promotes competence in approaching work-related problems (Gouillart & Kelly, 1995).
Subordinates who experience personal learning may do better in their work because they have more skills. Employees who have
developed communication and problem-solving skills may feel more competent (Lankau & Scandura, 2002). The skill and competence
developed through personal learning directly relate to their job performance. Similarly, personal learning yields a change in attitude,
and shapes how individuals in organizations respond to a work environment. Employees who experience personal learning may have
more positive reactions to their work because they have greater confidence and skill. Personal learning should thus be related to
attitudes. Employees who have developed communication and problem-solving skills may feel more competent and may receive
feedback about the value of their contributions. Kleinman, Siegel and Eckstein (2001) provide strong support that personal learning
mediates the relationship between the mentoring and attitudinal outcomes. We infer that personal learning may foster career
satisfaction. Taken together, it is hypothesized that personal learning mediates the relationship between supervisory mentoring and
subordinate's work outcomes in terms of job performance and career satisfaction.
Moderating effects of self-efficacy
The importance of general self-efficacy has received increased empirical attention in the mentoring process literature (Gist &
Mitchell, 1992). General self-efficacy is defined as one's belief in one's overall competence to effect requisite performance across a wide
variety of achievement situations (Eden, in press) or as individuals' perception of their ability to perform across a variety of situations
(Judge, Erez & Bono, 1998). It is conceived as a relatively stable, individually different construct, arising from the accumulation of an
individual's past experiences with success and failure (Sherer et al., 1982). According to Bandura (1986), selfefficacy influences an
individual's choice behavior, his effort to overcome obstacles, his feelings of stress and anxiety, and his performance and coping
behavior. Existing studies generally support that an effective mentoring relationship may enhance selfefficacy (Allen et al., 2004;
Kram, 1985). Day and Allen (2004) examined the role of self-efficacy in a protege's career success. Individuals with high self-efficacy
tend to be actively involved in development and learning activities, thus are more likely to engage in and benefit more from
mentoring relationships. We thus predict that the effect of supervisory mentoring may vary among subordinates with different levels

W. Pan et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 78 (20H) 264-273

267

of general self-efficacy.
In this study, we propose that subordinates' general self-efficacy moderates the mentoring processes. First, self-efficacy moderates
the relationship between supervisory mentoring and personal learning. Individuals with different levels of general selfefficacy vary in
their need of support and guidance. Subordinates with higher levels of general self-efficacy tend to feel less anxious and more
comfortable in mentoring relationships than those with lower levels of general self-efficacy because the former perceive themselves as
more competent and more confident than the latter. Therefore, subordinates with high levels of self-efficacy are likely to exert effort to
overcome difficulties or to take initiatives to work out problems in mentoring activities (Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Jerusalem & Schwarzer,
1992). When this happens, they actively involve themselves in personal learning. Conversely, subordinates with low levels of
self-efficacy tend to be ready to accept what is offered to them during supervisory mentoring (DiRenzo, Linnehan, Shao & Rosenberg,
2010). When this happens, they are not actively involved in personal learning. Therefore, self-efficacy will enhance the relationship
between supervisory mentoring and personal learning.
Second, self-efficacy moderates the relationship between personal learning and work outcomes. Personal learning involves stress,
especially, when the learning task is new and demanding. Subordinates who are confident of their competences in work- related
activities tend to regard difficult achievement tasks as more challenging than threatening. Their positive senses of general self-efficacy
serve as a resource factor that should buffer against stressor perceptions. In contrast, subordinates with low general self-efficacy are
likely to feel threatened, and perceive themselves as unable to cope when met with difficult work demands (Jerusalem & Schwarzer,
1992). We may anticipate that individuals high in self-efficacy will be better able to cope with the stress involved in personal learning
because they will assume to be able to influence things despite the obstacles met in the learning process, while low self-efficacious
people may give up quickly if the stress of personal learning is overwhelming. As such, it is reasonable to expect that subordinate
self-efficacy will moderate the relationship between personal learning and job performance by buffering the stressors that occur in
learning.
Finally, self-efficacy moderates the relationship between supervisory mentoring and work outcomes. Research findings from
DiRenzo et al. (2010) provide support for the moderating effect of self-efficacy on mentoring relations. According to goal-setting
theory, individuals with higher self-efficacy set more challenging goals than those with lower self-efficacy (McKee, Simmers & Licata,
2006). Thus, the high self-efficacious individuals have greater outcome expectations than their low self-efficacious counterparts.
Greater outcome expectation may lead to stronger effort and better performance. So we anticipate that supervisory mentoring is likely
to affect job performance stronger for subordinates with higher self-efficacy. However, attribution theory (Kelley, 1973) suggests that
people with high self-efficacy appear to be especially susceptible to the self-serving bias. Specifically, they view their higher job
performance as a result of their own effort. They seem to be less sensitive to the supervisory support given to them than less
self-efficacious individuals. Van Yperen (1998) found that high self-efficacious individuals are less sensitive to the amount of
information support than low self-efficacious individuals. In contrast, subordinates low in self-efficacy view the events in their careers
as being the result of uncontrollable forces (Boone & De Brabander, 1997), and they are more likely to wait to be pushed by their
supervisors before doing certain things (Blau, 1987). Therefore, they are more sensitive to mentoring support and feel stronger career
satisfaction whenever they indeed perceive supervisory support. Thus, it makes sense to posit that the perceived benefit gained from
supervisory mentoring is weaker for subordinates with higher self-efficacy than for those with lower self-efficacy. As a result, we may
anticipate that those lower in self-efficacy will perceive stronger support from supervisory mentoring, and develop stronger sense of
career satisfaction.
An integrated framework
Integrating the mediated and moderated relationships developed in the study, we propose a mediated moderation model in
mentoring process. In the model, self-efficacy moderates all the three paths in the mediated relationships.
Hypothesis 1. Self-efficacy moderates the mediated effect of supervisory mentoring on job performance through personal learning
such that the mediated effect is stronger for subordinates with high self-efficacy than for those with low self-efficacy.
Hypothesis 2. Self-efficacy moderates the mediated effect of supervisory mentoring on career satisfaction through personal learning
such that the mediated effect is stronger for subordinates with low self-efficacy than for those with high self-efficacy.
Method
Sample and procedure
We collected our data in early 2009 using survey questionnaires. Respondents were employees and their immediate supervisors
who came from four pharmaceutical companies located in Guangzhou, a major city in southern China. We obtained access to the
participating firms through personal contacts with HR managers of two organizations, and through their contact in the other two
organizations. These four managers acted as the coordinators of the survey. Separate questionnaires were administered to supervisors
and subordinates. Specifically, in each of the participating organizations these managers randomly selected supervisors and
distributed survey packages for them to fill in. Supervisors were also asked to provide the names of one of their subordinates. A
survey package was then sent to each of the subordinates through their mailbox. We administered 300 supervisor questionnaires and
300 subordinate questionnaires in total. Supervisors were requested to evaluate the selected subordinates' job performance, and the
subordinates were requested to report their perceptions of supervisory mentoring, personal learning, self-efficacy and career
satisfaction. In the cover letter to the subordinates, we explained that the purpose of the survey was to explore the quality of the
supervisor-subordinate relationship. In the cover letter to the supervisors, we indicated that the purpose was to investigate the

268

W. Pan et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 78 (20H) 264-273

implications of supervisor-subordinator relationship on employees' career performance. The letters further informed respondents of
the voluntary nature of participation in the survey, and assured them of the confidentiality of their responses. Completed
questionnaires were collected by each of these coordinators.
Of the 300 questionnaires distributed, 226 matched and usable questionnaires were returned, with a response rate of 75%.
Respondents reported an average age of 34 years (S.D. = 8.80). In terms of gender composition, 41% of the respondents were females.
Respondents were predominantly married (67%), reported an average organizational tenure of 11.17 years (S.D. = 7.93), had obtained
an average of 16 (S.D. = 5.71) years of education and worked an average of 39.93 h per week (S.D. = 5.83).
Measures
The questionnaires were administered in Chinese but were originally constructed in English. To ensure equivalence of the
measures in the Chinese- and English-language versions, a standard translation and back-translation procedure was performed
(Brislin, 1980). A bilingual management professor translated the English-language version into Chinese. Subsequently, a Chinese
English-language professor and one of the authors back-translated the Chinese version into English. In the few instances where their
translations did not converge, the differences were discussed with the management professor to ensure the accuracy of the translation.
Unless otherwise indicated, response options of all the measures in the survey ranged from (1) "strongly disagree to (5) "strongly
agree.
Supervisory mentoring
Following Tepper (1995), we measured supervisory mentoring using the 16-item scale from the study of Noe (1988). Each item
began with the statement "To what extent has your supervisor... and ended with a phrase reflecting psychosocial (8 items) or
career-related (8 items) mentoring. Examples of items are "conveyed feelings of respect for you as an individual (psychosocial) and
"assigned tasks that increased your contact with higher level managers (career-related). The response scale ranged from, 1, "not at
all. to 5, "to a very large extent. The scale's alpha reliability is .90. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated an acceptable fit ( X2 =
239.06, df = 97, RMSEA = .08, CFI = .96, IFI = .96).
Personal learning
We used Lankau and Scandura (2002) 12-item scale to measure personal learning. There were two subscales and sample items
include relational job learning (e.g., "I have increased my understanding of issues and problems outside my job), and personal skill
development (e.g., "I have gained new skills). The scale's alpha reliability is .79. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated an acceptable
fit (X2 = 128.08, df = 52, RMSEA = .08, CFI = .93, IFI = .93).
Self-efficacy
The three-item scale by Spreitzer (1995) was used to measure generalized self-efficacy. Sample item includes "I am confident about
my ability to do my jobs. The scale's alpha reliability is .72. There was a perfect fit for the scale.
Job performance
Job performance was measured with Farh and Cheng (1997) 4-item scale. Supervisors rated their subordinates' job performance.
Sample items are "This employee makes significant contribution to the overall performance of our work unit and "This employee
always completes job assignment on time. The scale's alpha reliability is .71.
Career satisfaction
We used the 5-item scale of career satisfaction developed by Greenhaus, Parasuraman and Wormley (1990). Sample item is "I am
satisfied with the progress I have made toward meeting my overall career goals. The scale's alpha reliability is .75. Confirmatory
factor analysis indicated a satisfactory fit (X2 = 11.57, df = 5, RMSEA = .07, CFI = .97, IFI = .97).
Results
We used LISREL 8.8 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 2006) to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the variables in our study.
Table 1 presents the CFA results. As shown, the hypothesized five-factor model fit the data well (X2 = 311.92, df=121, RMSEA=.08, CFI
= .95, IFI = .95). Further, comparisons of the baseline model with all the alternative models using chi-square difference tests revealed
that the baseline model fit the data best, supporting the discriminability of the measures.
Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations among variables are presented in Table 2. As shown, supervisory mentoring was
related to job performance (r =.26, p<.01), career satisfaction (r =.59, p<.01), and personal learning (r =.66, p<.01). Furthermore, personal
learning was related to job performance (r=.27, p<.01) and career satisfaction (r=.53, p<.01). It is

W. Pan et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 78 (20H) 264-273

269

Table 1
Comparison of measurement model.
Model
The hypothesized 5-factor model
4-factor model (combining SUPMEN and PERLEA)
4-factor model (combining PERLEA and SELEFF)
3-factor model (combining SUPMEN, PERLEA and SELEFF)
2-factor model (combining SUPMEN, PERLEA, SELEFF and CARSAT)

x2
311.92
321.85
326.65
331.18
378.13

1-factor model

383.82

df

RMSEA
.08

128
130

Ax2
9.93 1 2
14.73 3
19.26 **
66.21 4

131

71.9 ***

121
125
125

.08
.08
.08
.09

CFI
.95
.95
.95
.94
.93

IFI
.95
.95
.95
.94
.93

.09

.93

.93

Note: RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; IFI = incremental fit index. SUPMEN =
supervisory mentoring, PERLEA = personal learning, SELEFF = self-efficacy, CARSAT = career satisfaction. N=226.
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
*** p< .001.

Table 2
Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations.
Variable
M
Supervisory mentoring
Personal learning
Self-efficacy
Job performance
Career satisfaction

3.67
3.79
4.10
3.49
3.86

SD

.61
.50

(.90)
.66 **
.49 **
.26 **
.59 **

(.79)
.51 **
.27 **
.53 **

(.72)
.31 **
.51 **

(.71)
.24 **

.68
.94
.53

(.75)

N= 226.
** p<.01.

noteworthy that our moderator, self-efficacy, was related to personal learning (r =.51, p<.01), job performance (r =.31, p<.01) and career
satisfaction (r =.24,p<.01).
We tested the hypotheses through investigating total effect moderation model. In the model, self-efficacy moderates all the three
paths of the mediation model, where personal learning mediates the relationship between supervisory mentoring and work outcomes.
Specifically, we test the following equations:
M = flg + a^X + a2 Z + a3XZ + eY

(1)

Y = b0 + b1X + b2 M + b3Z + b4XZ + b5MZ + e

(2)

We examined the path estimates associated with the hypothesized model. The results were displayed in Table 3. Supervisory
mentoring and its interaction with self-efficacy were positively related to personal learning (b = .44; b = .16, both p<.001). Supervisory
mentoring was not significantly related to job performance, but was significantly related to career satisfaction (b = .19, ns; b = .32, p <
0.001). The interaction term between supervisory mentoring and self-efficacy was not related to either job performance or career
satisfaction (b = -.16, b = .04, both ns). The interaction term between supervisory mentoring and self-efficacy was positively related to
job performance (b = .80, p<.001), but was negatively related to career satisfaction (b = -.29, p<.001). We also provided standardized
coefficients (fi) in the table to demonstrate the comparative effects of these variables.
Table 3
Path analytic tests of hypothesized model.
Independent variables

Ml

M2

Personal learning

Job performance

B
Supervisory mentoring
Personal learning
Self-efficacy
Supervisory mentoring x self-efficacy
Personal learningx self-efficacy
R2

44

.25 ***
.16

fi
***

***

.51 ***

.53 ***
34

***

.20 ***

Career satisfaction

fi
.19
.02
.53 ***

-.16
.80 **
18 ***

.13
.01
.39 ***
-.08
.32 ***

fi
.32 ***
.19 *
.12 *

.04
-.29 **
45 ***

Note. Table values are path estimates from the estimated model. The model specifies moderation of the direct and indirect effects of supervisory mentoring.
2 p < .05.
3 p < .01.
4 p<.001.

37 ***
.19 *
.15 *
.04
-.20 **

Table 4
Direct and indirect effects of supervisory mentoring on task performance and career satisfaction at high and low levels of self-efficacy.
PMX
PYM
Path
Outcomes
Direct effects
Indirect effects
(PYMPMX)
(PYX)

270

Simple path for low self-efficacy

Simple path for high self-efficacy

W. Pan et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 78 (20H) 264-273

Job performance
Career satisfaction
Job performance

.33 **
.33 **
.55 **

-.53
.39 **
.57 *

Career satisfaction

.55 **

.00

.30
.25 **
.08
.34 **

Total effects
(PYX+ PYMPMX)

-.17
.13 **
.31 **

.13
.38 **
.39 **

.00

.34 **

Note. PMX = path from supervisory mentoring to personal learning; PYM = path from personal learning to job performance and career satisfaction. * p<.05.
** p <.01.

Following Edwards and Lambert (2007), we tested simple effects at low and high levels of self-efficacy. Since tests of indirect effect
and total effect involves a product term, and product terms have non-normal distributions (Shrout & Bolger, 2002), such tests thus
have a high Type I error rate. We therefore used bootstrapped analysis (Efron &Tibshirani, 1993) to produce estimates of confidence
intervals. Specifically we bootstrapped 10,000 samples and used the bootstrap estimates to construct bias-corrected confidence
intervals for all significance tests reported in this study (Mooney & Duval, 1993; Shrout & Bolger, 2002). The resulting estimates are
reported in Table 4.
As shown in Table 4, the indirect paths from personal learning to job performance and career satisfaction both varied at low and
high values of self-efficacy. At low levels of self-efficacy, supervisory mentoring had a direct effect on personal learning (P = .33, p<
.001). The path from personal learning to job performance was not significant (P = -.53, ns), nor were direct, indirect and total effects of
supervisory mentoring on task performance (P = .30, -.17, .13, all ns). Consequently, when employees had low selfefficacy, personal
learning did not mediate the relationship between supervisory mentoring and job performance. In contrast, at low levels of
self-efficacy, the path from personal learning to career satisfaction was significant (P =.39, p< .01), so were direct, indirect and total
effects of supervisory mentoring on career satisfaction (P =.25, p<.01; P =.13, p<.01, 99% bias-corrected CI: 0.02-0.38 and P =.38, p
<.01,99% bias-corrected CI: 0.19-0.64). Consequently, when employees had low self-efficacy, personal learning partially mediated the
relationship between supervisory mentoring and career satisfaction.
At high levels of self-efficacy, supervisory mentoring was positively related to personal learning (P = .55, p < .01). Personal
learning was positively related to job performance (P = .57, p<.05), so were indirect and total effects of supervisory mentoring on job
performance (P =.31, p<.01, 99% bias-corrected CI: 0.02-0.15; and .39, p<.01, 99% bias-corrected CI: 0.19-0.37). Supervisory mentoring
did not have a direct effect on job performance (P =.08, ns). Consequently, when employees had high self-efficacy, personal learning
fully mediated the relationship between supervisory mentoring and job performance. In contrast, personal learning was not related to
career satisfaction (P = .00, ns), nor was indirect effect of supervisory mentoring on career satisfaction (P = .00, ns). Supervisory
mentoring had direct and total effects on career satisfaction (P = .34 and .34, bothp < .01). Consequently, when employees had high
self-efficacy, personal learning did not mediate the relationship between supervisory mentoring and career satisfaction.
Fig. 2(a) shows the plot of the mediated effects of supervisory mentoring at 1 S.D. around the mean of the self-efficacy. When
employees
had
low
self-efficacy, there was no
Career Satisfaction
relationship
between
the
mediated effect of supervisory mentoring and job
High selt-efhcacy

Low self-efficacy

Fig. 2. Interaction between the indirect (mediated) effects of supervisory mentoring and employee self-efficacy on employee career outcomes.

| ^ | Mediated Effect of Supervisory Mentoring

(b)

Mediated Effect of Supervisory Mentoring

.Job Performance

W. Pan et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 78 (20H) 264-273

271

performance. However, when employees had high self-efficacy, job performance increased as the mediated effect of supervisory
mentoring increased. These results supported HI; personal learning would mediate the indirect effect of supervisory mentoring on job
performance when self-efficacy was high but not when it was low.
Fig. 2(b) shows the plot of the mediated effects of supervisory mentoring at 1 S.D. around the mean of the self-efficacy. When
employees had low self-efficacy, career satisfaction increased as the mediated effect of supervisory mentoring increased. However,
when employees had high self-efficacy, there was no relationship between the mediated effect of supervisory mentoring and career
satisfaction. These results supported H2; personal learning would mediate the indirect effect of supervisory mentoring on career
satisfaction when self-efficacy was low but not when it was high.
Reanalysis of the data suggested that the results were unchanged when we controlled for subordinates' age, gender, and tenure
with the organization.
Discussion
Previous literature on mentoring has found the relationships between mentoring and career or work-related outcomes such as job
performance and career satisfaction. But research has rarely considered the mechanism through which mentoring impacts these
outcomes. To fill this gap, we draw on personal learning perspective, and examined the process through which supervisory mentoring
influenced job performance and career satisfaction. The results of the study support the following hypotheses. Selfefficacy moderates
the mediated effects of supervisory mentoring on job performance and career satisfaction through personal learning such that the
mediated effects on job performance are stronger when subordinates have higher self-efficacy, but the mediated effect on career
satisfaction are stronger when subordinates have lower self-efficacy.
The findings have several important theoretical implications. First, the research found that supervisory mentoring influences both
subordinate-reported career satisfaction and subordinate job performance rated by their supervisors. This can be accounted for by the
fact that mentoring behaviors such as sponsorship, coaching and protection are related to enhancement of task-related aspects of work
that facilitate objective career success. Behaviors associated with psychosocial mentoring, such as role modeling, acceptance, and
confirmation, counseling, and friendship, were highly related to satisfaction with the supervisory mentoring. The informational and
instrumental social support provided by supervisory mentoring helps individuals feel more confident in their career decisions and
enhances their professional ability, which in turn lead to feelings of greater career satisfaction.
Second, the study indicates that personal learning explains the specific processes by which supervisory mentoring influences
career outcomes. It suggests that organizations should design the mentoring in a way that facilitates personal learning. Supervisory
mentoring should consider how assignments and projects can be organized to maximize the subordinate personal learning.
Supervisors need to look for opportunities to be role models that are important for their subordinate skill development. Provision of
challenging tasks for subordinates can also stimulate learning.
Third, the results show that an individual's general self-efficacy is an important moderating factor that may impact the
relationships between supervisory mentoring and career outcomes. The finding suggests that in the design of mentoring processes,
increasing subordinates' general self-efficacy is a worthwhile strategy for influencing personal learning and career outcomes. Because
one's general self-efficacy relates to his confidence in his ability to succeed in a task, people with low selfefficacy are more likely to
lessen or completely give up their effort in difficult situations. However, it should be noted that the impact of mentoring on job
performance is weaker for employees lower in self-efficacy. Nevertheless, these employees gain more career satisfaction from
supervisory mentoring than those higher in self-efficacy. One possible explanation is that employees with lower general self-efficacy
are likely to perceive more overall support from their supervisors. The finding suggests that supervisors' ability and competence
should be regarded as an important factor in effective mentoring. Supervisors low in ability may give useless or even confusing
guidance to subordinates, thus leading to their low career satisfaction.
This study offers some practical implications for the socialization and adjustment of employees. One important role of managers is
to shape positive employee attitude towards their careers and facilitate their performance. Our work suggests several ways by which
managers can strengthen employee career satisfaction and job performance. The first is to provide opportunities for employees to
enhance their personal learning. The way that managers can do is to increase career and psychological mentoring to their employees
as well as role modeling. The second is to clearly detect employee personality traits to ensure the maximum effects of these mentoring
provided to the employees. Generally, managers should pay attention to how they can enhance job performance of high self-efficacy
employees, and how they can improve career satisfaction of low self-efficacy employees through mentoring. To this end, it is
necessary for managers to possess the skill and credibility to mentor employees with different personality traits.
Despite these findings, this study is not without limitations. First, given our cross-sectional research design, it is impossible to
assert that supervisory mentoring caused subordinate career success because other variables such as earlier performance levels of that
subordinate could account for our results. Future research should incorporate longitudinal or experimental design to clearly establish
the linkages among the variables and understand how they change over time (Kearney, Gebert and Voelpel, 2009). Second, except job
performance, all other measures are self-reported by subordinates themselves, common method bias in the information obtained may
be a concern. However, common method bias has been considered to be less of an issue in the moderated regression (Pierce, Gardner,
Dunham & Cummings, 1993). Given that we tested a mediated moderation model, method bias could not have significantly affected
our findings. Third, the results of the study reflect data obtained from mentoring relationships and may not generalize to other types
of non-supervisory mentoring programs. Future research needs to explore potential non-supervisory mentoring relationships on
employee career outcomes. In addition to personal learning and selfefficacy, future studies should also explore other subordinate
characteristics in the mentoring relationships. It might be interesting to examine the quality of mentoring.
Supervisory mentoring and employee self-efficacy have an important role in promoting employee success. The present study
extends our understanding of the mechanism through which supervisory mentoring affects employee career satisfaction and job

272

W. Pan et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 78 (2011) 264-273

performance. Our study is interesting and significant because we find employee self-efficacy plays a dual role in moderating the
mediated effect of supervisory mentoring on employee work outcomes. Theoretically, the finding contributes to the mentoring and
self-efficacy literature by incorporating the mechanism through which mentoring impacts its outcomes, and practically, managers
may learn how to develop an effective mentoring relationship.
References
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring for proteges: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
89,127-136.
Aryee, S., Lo, S., & Kang, I. L. (1999). Antecedents of early career stage mentoring among Chinese employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 563-576.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changingsocieties (pp. 1 -45). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leaderships: Theory, research, and managerial applications, 3d Ed. NewYork: Free Press.
Blau, G. (1987). Locus of control as a potential moderator of the turnover process. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 21-29.
Bolton, E. B. (1980). A conceptual analysis of the mentor relationship in the career development of women. Adult Education, 30,195-207.
Boone, C., & De Brabander, B. (1997). Self-reports and CEO locus of control research: A note. Organization Studies, 18,949-971.
Booth, R. (1996). Mentor or manager: What is the difference? A case study in supervisory mentoring. Leadership & Organization Development Journal., 17,31 -36.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychologyMethodology, 2.
(pp. 137-164) Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Day, R., & Allen, T. D. (2004). The relationship between career motivation and self-efficacy with protege career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior., 64, 72-91.
DiRenzo, M., Linnehan, F., Shao, P., & Rosenberg, W. L. (2010). A moderated mediation model of e-mentoring. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 292-305.
Dreher, G., & Ash, R. (1990). A comparative study of mentoring among men and women in managerial, professional and technical positions. Joumai of Applied Psychology, 75,
525-535.
Eden, D. (in press). Self-fulfilling prophecy: The Pygmalion effect. In Steven G. Rogelberg (Ed.), The encyclopedia of industrial and organizational psychology. Sage.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods,
12,1-22.
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. NewYork: Chapman & Hall.
Farh,J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (1997). Modesty bias in self ratings in Taiwan: Impact of item wording, modesty value, and self-esteem. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 39, 103-118.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17,183-211.
Gouillart, F. J., & Kelly, J. N. (1995). Transforming the organization. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S.J., & Wormley, W. M. (1990). Effects of race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes. Academy of
Management Journal, 33, 64-86.
Hunter, J. E. (1986). Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge, and job performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29,340-362.
Jerusalem, M., & Schwarzer, R. (1992). Self-efficacy as a resource factor in stress appraisal processes. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control ofaction (pp. 195-213).
Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. A. (1998). The power of being positive: The relation between positive self-concept and job performance. Human Performance, 11, 167-187.
Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative Learning. San Clemente, California: Kagan Publishing.
Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. C. (2009). When and how diversity benefits teams: The importance of team members' need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal, 52,
581 -598.
Kelley, Harold H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 107-128.
Kleinman, G., Siegel, P. H., & Eckstein, C. (2001). Mentoring and learning: The case of CPA firms. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 22, 22-33.
Koberg, C. S., Boss, R. W., & Goodman, E. (1998). Factors and outcomes associated with mentoring among health-care professionals. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 53, 58 - 72.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman & Co.
Kram, K. E. (1996). A relational approach to career development. In D. Hall (Ed.), The career is dead, long live the career (pp. 132-157). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lankau, M., & Scandura (2002). An investigation of personal learning in mentoring relationships: Content, antecedents, and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 45,
779-790.
Levinson, D.J., Darrow, C. N., Klein, E. B., Levinson, M. H., & McKee, B. (1978). The seasons of a man's life. NewYork: Ballentine.
Litt, M. D. (1988). Cognitive mediators of stressful experience: Self-efficacy and perceived control. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 12, 241-260.
Maurer, T. J. (2002). Employee learning and development orientation: Toward an integrative model of involvement in continuous learning. Human Resource Development Review.,
1,9-44.
McKee, D., Simmers, C. S., & Licata, J. (2006). Customer self-efficacy and response to service. Journal ofService Research, 8, 207-220.
Merriam, S. B., & Heuer, B. (1996). Meaning-making, adult learning and development: A model with implications for practice. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 15(4),
243-255.
Mooney, C. Z., & Duval, R. D. (1993). Bootstrapping: A non-parameter approach to statistical interface. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Noe, R. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. Personnel Psychology, 41, 457-479.
Noe, R. A. (2002). Employee training and development. Boston, MA: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Noe, R. A., Greenberger, D. B., & Wang, S. (2002). In G. R. Ferris, &J.J. Martocchio (Eds.), Mentoring: What we know and where we might goResearch in personal and human
resources management, 21. (pp. 129-174) Oxford, England: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Dunham, R. B., & Cummings, L. L. (1993). Moderation by organization-based self-esteem of role condition-employee response relationships. Academy
of Management Journal, 36, 271-288.
Richard, O. C., Ismail, K. M., Bhuian, S. N., & Taylor, E. C. (2009). Mentoring in supervisor-subordinate dyads: Antecedents, consequences, and test of a mediation model of
mentorship. Journal of Business Research, 62,1110-1118.
Russell, J. E. A., & Adams, D. M. (1997). The changing nature of mentoring in organizations: An introduction to the special issue on mentoring in organizations. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 51,1-14.
Scandura, T. A., & Ragins, B. R. (1993). The effects of sex and gender role orientation on mentorship in male dominated occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43, 251 -265.
Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn's, Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The Self-Efficacy Scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Report,
51,663-671.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and non-experimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422-445.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465.
Tepper, B. J. (1995). Upward maintenance tactics in supervisory mentoring and nonmentoring relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 38,1101-1205. Turban, D. B., &
Dougherty, T. W. (1994). Roles of protege personality in receipt of mentoring and career success. Academy ofManagement Journal, 37,688-702. Underhill, C. M. (2006).The
effectiveness of mentoring programs in corporate settings: A meta-analytical review of the literature. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 68, 292-307.
Van Yperen, N. W. (1998). Informational support, equity and burnout: The moderating effect of self-efficacy. Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology., 71,29-33.
Zagumny, M. J. (1993). Mentoring as a tool for change: A social learning perspective. Organization Development Journey, 11,43-48.