See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/291185344

The role of perceived management support and trust in mentors on protégés’

organizational citizenship behavior

Article  in  Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources · February 2016

DOI: 10.1111/1744-7941.12103

CITATIONS READS

18 641

2 authors:

SuJin Son Do-Yeong Kim

Chosun University Ajou University
14 PUBLICATIONS   174 CITATIONS    35 PUBLICATIONS   894 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Future of Blended Learning in Corporate and Other Training Settings View project

Implicit Social Cognition View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Do-Yeong Kim on 12 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

bs_bs_banner

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources (2016) ••, •• doi:10.1111/1744-7941.12103

The role of perceived management support

and trust in mentors on protégés’
organizational citizenship behavior
SuJin Son University of Ulsan, South Korea
Do-Yeong Kim Ajou University, South Korea

Drawing from social information processing theory and social exchange theory, the current study
attempts to provide a more comprehensive explanation of the factors that lead to employees’ active
engagement in mentoring relationships and of the extra-role behaviors of protégés. Using survey
data from 183 protégés in formal mentoring relationships at two Korean companies, we found that
perceived management support for mentoring influenced protégés organizational citizenship behav-
ior directly and indirectly through mentoring functions received and trust in mentors. We conclude
by discussing the implications for mentoring researchers, practitioners, and future research.
Keywords: formal mentoring relationship, management support for mentoring, mentoring
functions received, protégés’ OCB, trust in mentors

Key points
1 Protégé perceptions of managerial support for mentoring are positively related to
extra-role behaviors of protégés.
2 Perceived managerial support for mentoring increases trust in mentors through
mentoring support received by protégés.
3 Mentoring support influences protégés’ trust in mentors, thereby influencing pro-
tégés’ extra-role behavior.

Introduction
A substantial volume of literature has underscored the essential role of mentoring rela-
tionships in the career development and career growth of protégés (Allen et al. 2004;
Kram 1985; Noe, Greenberger and Wang 2002; Underhill 2006; Wanberg, Welsh and
Hezlett 2003). A mentoring relationship is usually defined as a meaningful interpersonal
relationship where a senior, experienced, and knowledgeable person (i.e. mentor) provides

Correspondence: Professor Do-Yeong Kim, Graduate Department of Global Management,

School of Business, Ajou University, Worldcup Ro 206, Yeongtong-Gu, Suwon 16499, South Korea;
e-mail: kimd@ajou.ac.kr
Accepted for publication 5 December 2015.

© 2016 Australian Human Resources Institute

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources ••

career-related and psychosocial assistance to a less experienced person (i.e. protégé)

(Kram 1985). Researchers have classified the two different mentoring functions as career
functions and psychosocial functions (Kram 1985; Scandura and Ragins 1993). Career
functions refer to career-related assistance including sponsorship, exposure, protection,
challenging assignments, and visibility, while psychosocial functions are a mentor’s
support such as counseling, confirmation, friendship, acceptance and role modeling for
encouraging a protégé’s confidence and self-worth (Kram 1985; Scandura and Ragins
1993).
Due to the considerable benefits of mentoring relationships, a growing number of
companies are implementing formal mentoring programs for their employees (Wanberg,
Welsh and Hezlett 2003). This phenomenon is not limited to companies in western coun-
tries (Bozionelos and Wang 2006; Clutterbuck 2007); several companies in non-western
countries are also attempting to adopt formal mentoring systems for their employees
(Bozionelos and Wang 2006; Liu et al. 2009). In particular, an increasing number of
Korean companies are investigating the use of formal mentoring systems in order to
develop and retain talented employees (Kim, Kwan and Pyun 2008).
Previous research has emphasized that career, psychosocial, and role modeling support
from a formal mentor not only helps protégés perform their jobs better, but also encour-
ages them to display extra-role and discretionary behavior, namely, organizational citizen-
ship behavior (OCB) (Kwan, Liu and Yim 2011; Tepper and Taylor 2003; Wanberg, Welsh
and Hezlett 2003). Although an employee’s extra-role behavior is not explicitly recognized
by the formal reward system in the organization, it has been considered a critical work
outcome for career success as it is closely related to performance evaluations (see the
meta-analysis by Podsakoff et al. 2009) and reward recommendations (Allen and Rush
2001; Kiker and Motowidlo 1999).
Despite the close relationship between mentoring and a protégé’s OCB, surprisingly,
only a limited number of studies have investigated the intricacies between the two vari-
ables. Based on social information processing theory and social exchange theory, it is sug-
gested that perceived management support is an important cue in the construction of a
positive work environment, one that leads to protégés’ active engagement in their
mentoring relationships, and thereby induces career-enhancing behaviors such as OCB
(Eby, Lockwood and Butts 2006; Salancik and Pfeffer 1978).
In addition, we propose that trust in mentors, one of the relational factors between
mentor and protégé, is a key mediator between mentoring functions received and a pro-
tégé’s extra-role behavior. Trust is defined as ‘the extent to which a person is confident in,
and willing to act on the basis of, the words, actions, and decisions of another’ (McAllister
1995, 25). In social exchange theory, trust is regarded as an important indicator, identify-
ing the outcome of favorable social exchanges (Blau 1964; Holmes 1981; Molm 2000).
That is because trust is an essential condition for individuals to engage in the reciproca-
tion of the benefits that they have received (Blau 1964). While the role of trust in social
exchange has been highlighted, relatively little is known about the role that trust plays
between the mentoring relationship and protégé OCB. Therefore, the main purpose of this
2 © 2016 Australian Human Resources Institute
 SuJin Son and Do-Yeong Kim

study is to investigate the mediating processes between managerial support of mentoring

relationships and protégé OCB, and thereby provide a more comprehensive explanation of
the factors that lead to employees’ active engagement in mentoring relationships, and of
the extra-role behaviors of protégés.
The current study makes several theoretical contributions. First, it extends the avail-
able literature on mentoring by examining one of the organizational factors (i.e. manage-
ment support of mentoring relationships) in a formal mentoring relationship.
Increasingly, organizations are implementing formal mentoring programs for the career
development of junior employees. However, relatively little research has been done that
considers the role of organizational factors in formal mentoring relationships (Wanberg,
Welsh and Hezlett 2003). Although previous research on mentoring has shown a positive
relationship between protégés’ perceptions of support for mentoring and mentoring
behaviors and reactions (Allen, Poteet and Burroughs 1997; Eby, Lockwood and Butts
2006), studies so far have failed to include the work outcomes of protégés. This study
attempts a deeper understanding of how protégé perceptions of managerial support for
mentoring influence the mentoring relationship and encourage positive protégé work
behaviors in an organizational setting.
Moreover, our study makes a theoretical contribution by developing and testing a
model that explains the mechanism between protégé perceptions of organizational
support for mentoring and protégé work behavior. Through the examination of diverse
channels, our study presents a comprehensive picture of the role of management support
for mentoring on protégé OCB in formal mentoring relationships. In addition, by examin-
ing the role of trust in mentors in relation to protégé OCB, the current study provides
empirical evidence indicating the influential role of trust in encouraging extra-role
employee behaviors.
Finally, since the existing research on mentoring is predominantly based on the
western perspective, we conducted our study in a non-western country, answering the call
for mentoring research in different cultures as part of an effort to corroborate and gener-
alize the findings of existing research (Allen et al. 2008; Wang, Tomlinson and Noe 2010).
Surprisingly, few studies have investigated mentoring relationships in Korea. We believe
that investigating mentoring relationships in diverse countries will enrich mentoring
research and practices. Consequently, we anticipate that the present findings will provide
mentoring researchers with invaluable information on how mentoring is employed in
Korean organizations.

Perceived managerial support for mentoring and protégés’ OCB

In previous organizational studies, many scholars took into account the situational factors
related to people’s behaviors and their work attitudes (Christian et al. 2009). One prevail-
ing theory that underscores the importance of situational factors is social information
processing theory (Salancik and Pfeffer 1978). The fundamental premise of social infor-
mation processing theory is that ‘individuals, as adaptive organisms, adapt attitudes,
behavior, and beliefs to their social context and to the reality of their own past and present
© 2016 Australian Human Resources Institute 3
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources ••

behavior and situation’ (Salancik and Pfeffer 1978, 226). That is, the attitudes, beliefs, and
behavior of employees are strongly influenced by how they perceive their own social
context and information (Salancik and Pfeffer 1978).
In addition, based on social exchange theory (Blau 1964), when employees perceive a
positive organizational approach for their well-being, they tend to reciprocate the support
in the form of positive work attitudes and behaviors such as organizational commitment
and OCB. Since employees seek a balance in their exchange relationships with organiza-
tions, they are willing to return the employers’ care and consideration by engaging in posi-
tive work attitudes and behavior (Eisenberger et al. 1986). Several studies have provided
evidence linking perceived organizational support to employee’s positive work behavior
such as OCB (Kurtessis et al. 2015; Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002). In particular, a recent
meta-analysis conducted by Kurtessis et al. (2015) showed that perceived organizational
support is positively related to employees’ OCB. That is, employees who perceive that the
organizations care for their well-being are more likely to engage in extra-role behaviors
that contribute to the organization’s effectiveness. Accordingly, we believe that protégé
perceptions of managerial support (i.e. organizational actions), which show consideration
and care for employees’ career, enhance their willingness to do more extra-role work in
order to reciprocate the organization’s concern. Thus, we hypothesize as follows:
Hypothesis 1: A protégé’s perception of managerial support for mentoring is posi-
tively related to the protégé’s OCB.
Mentoring functions received as a mediator between perceived management support
for mentoring and trust in mentors
We suggest that mentoring support received by protégés will act as a mediator between the
perceived management support for mentoring and trust in mentors. Previous studies have
indicated that protégé perceptions of how organizations treat mentoring programs influ-
ence the benefits perceived by protégés in mentoring relationships (Eby, Lockwood and
Butts 2006; Wanberg, Welsh and Hezlett 2003). This is because a protégé’s perceptions
regarding management support of mentoring programs is closely related to the belief in
the value of mentoring. In other words, protégés are more likely to engage in mentoring
relationships when they believe that mentoring is a valuable endeavor. Recently, a meta-
analysis conducted by Ghosh (2014) has shown that perceived organizational support for
mentoring is positively associated with mentoring support received by protégés.
In addition, mentoring support received by protégés becomes the basis for trust-
building in mentors since mentors’ behavior provides significant evidence to form trust in
mentors (Bouquillon, Sosik and Lee 2005; Young and Perrewé 2000). For example, Young
and Perrewé (2000) have shown that when the psychosocial and career support provided
by a mentor met a protégé’s level of expectation, there was a positive influence in the pro-
tégé’s perceptions of the relationship effectiveness and trust in mentor. Several studies in
leadership indicate that the perceived behavior of supervisors is considered one of the fun-
damental determinants of the level of interpersonal trust in a work-group (Atkinson 2004;
Cook and Wall 1980; Mayer, Davis and Schoorman 1995).
4 © 2016 Australian Human Resources Institute
 SuJin Son and Do-Yeong Kim

Based on the social information processing theory, organizational treatment of

mentoring programs may also lead protégés to have high expectations regarding their
mentor’s trustworthiness and sincerity. When protégés have a positive outlook toward the
organization’s treatment of its employees, they will also have positive expectations from
their mentors, as they are appointed by the organization itself. Several empirical studies
have shown that the informational cue given by top management is influential in building
worker trust (Ambrose and Schminke 2003; Dirks and Ferrin 2002; Lau and Liden 2008).
Therefore, given the relationships among these variables, we hypothesize as follows:
Hypothesis 2: Mentoring functions received by protégés will mediate the relation-
ship between perceived management support for mentoring and trust in mentors.

Trust in mentors as a mediating influence between mentoring functions received and

protégés’ OCB
Further, we suggest that trust in mentors is a mediating influence between mentoring
functions received and protégés’ OCB. In other words, receiving mentoring functions
increases trust in mentors; this, in turn, helps protégés ensure a more active participation
in extra-role behavior for the organization. From a social exchange perspective, trust is
considered an important indicator of favorable social exchanges (Blau 1964; Holmes 1981;
Molm 2000). Blau emphasizes trust as ‘essential for stable social relations … since
exchange obligations promote trust, special mechanisms exist to perpetuate obligations
and thus strengthen bonds of indebtedness and trust’ (1964, 99). Thus, trust in mentors is
an important predictor for protégés to reciprocate the benefits they receive. Accordingly, as
protégés’ trust in their mentor grows, they are more willing to reciprocate care and consid-
eration in the form of positive work attitudes and behavior that benefit the organization.
Previous research has shown that employees’ trust in leaders is positively related to
employees’ extra-role behavior (Chen et al. 2011; Korsgaard, Brodt and Whitener 2002). A
recent study revealed that trust in leaders mediates the relationships between transforma-
tional leadership and employees’ work outcomes such as affective organizational commit-
ment, OCB, and job performance (Zhu et al. 2013). Our hypothesis is as follows:
Hypothesis 3: Trust in mentors will mediate the relationship between mentoring
functions received and protégés’ OCB.

Overview of the proposed model

We attempt to test the model shown in Figure 1, which details the direct effects of man-
agerial support of mentoring on protégés’ OCB, supplemented by the effects of mentoring
functions received by protégés and trust in mentors. Protégés’ perceptions of management
support of mentoring will lead them to engage in extra-role behaviors. In particular, we
suggest that management’s treatment of mentoring enables protégés to receive the appro-
priate mentor support, which will enhance their trust in mentors. Further, trust in
mentors is a critical mediator between mentoring functions received and protégés’ OCB;
trust in mentors encourages protégés to reciprocate support in the form of positive work
© 2016 Australian Human Resources Institute 5
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources ••

CF PF RF

.91 .91 CT
.86 .92

Trust
.90***
MF .93
AT
.57*** .05
.47***

.25**
MSM OCB

.78 .80 .88 .85 .76 .93 .89 .79 .80

MSM MSM MSM MSM MSM

Help In Indu Boost
1 2 3 4 5

Gender MD FC

Figure 1 Proposed model with standardized path coefficients

Parameter estimates were from the standardized solution and were significant at ** p ⬍ 0.05, *** p
⬍ 0.001. A rectangle represents an indicator (or measured variable) and an ellipse as a latent vari-
able. MSM = management support for mentoring program; MF = mentoring functions received;
OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; MD = mentoring duration; FC = frequency of commu-
nication. Dotted arrows represent the path for the alternative model.

behaviors such as OCB. Consequently, protégés’ perceptions regarding managerial support

of mentoring are both directly and indirectly related to trust in mentors, which motivates
protégés to perform extra-role behaviors.

Method
Participants
The participants were employees who took part in formal mentoring programs at two
South Korean construction companies. Both are leading construction companies in Korea;
one has over 5000 employees and the other has over 1000 employees. The formal
mentoring programs in both companies were designed to train and to retain newly hired
employees. The duration of the program was six months in both companies. Where
6 © 2016 Australian Human Resources Institute
 SuJin Son and Do-Yeong Kim

possible, those in mentoring relationships were allowed to continue beyond the six-month
period, if the individuals involved wished to do so. For both companies, HR managers
select mentors based on their competency and work experiences and match them with
protégés. HR managers prefer mentors who are in the same department as the protégé. In
both companies, before the mentoring program begins, the HR department conducts
mentor training sessions to build mentor skills. During the program, mentors are required
to write reports regarding the progress of the relationships. When the program ends, HR
managers evaluate the mentoring relationships based on mentors’ monthly reports and
conduct interviews with both mentors and protégés.
A total of 238 employees in the mentoring programs (183 from one organization and
55 from the other) were invited to complete an online survey. The final sample included
responses from 183 protégés (138 and 45). A majority of the respondents (82.5%,
N = 151) were male; 17.5% (N = 32) were female. The average age of the participants was
27.5 years (SD = 1.45). The average duration of mentoring participation was three months
(SD = 2.10).

Procedures
A web-based survey program was used for data collection. Participation was voluntary,
and every protégé who completed the online survey was enrolled in a raffle with a $100
gift card as a prize for one person from each company. The survey included demographic
information such as gender, age, education, mentoring duration, and frequency of com-
munication.

Measures
A majority of the questions used in this study were developed in English and translated
into Korean. In order to optimize the accuracy of the translated questions, a forward-
backward translation process was used, following the translation technique recommended
by Behling and Law (2002).

Management support for mentoring

The 5-item scale developed by Parise and Forret (2008) was used to measure management
support of mentoring. All items were measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 (‘strongly disagree’) to 5 (‘strongly agree’). For example, ‘My supervisor supports
my involvement in the mentoring program’. The reliability of management support for
mentoring was 0.91 in this study.

Mentoring functions received

We used 15 items developed by Scandura and Ragins (1993) to measure mentoring func-
tions received. For example, ‘My mentor gives me special coaching on the job’. The
Cronbach’s alpha figures for career support, psychosocial support, and role modeling in
this study were 0.87, 0.83, and 0.86, respectively. Each item was assessed on a 5-point
Likert-type scale going from 1 (‘strongly disagree’) to 5 (‘strongly agree’).
© 2016 Australian Human Resources Institute 7
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources ••

Trust in mentors1
An instrument developed and validated by McAllister (1995) was used to measure trust.
McAllister created 11 items, including 5 items for affect-based trust and 6 items for
cognition-based trust. We modified this scale slightly to reflect the mentoring relation-
ship, since the original instrument was developed for managers in an organization.
For example, ‘this person’ in the original items was changed to ‘my mentor.’ An example
for affect-based trust is: ‘We have a sharing relationship. We can both freely share our
ideas, feelings, and hopes’. An example for cognition-based trust is: ‘My mentor
approaches his/her job with professionalism and dedication’. The reliability
measure for both cognition-based trust and affect-based trust was 0.93. Each item was
assessed on a 7-point Likert-type scale going from 1 (‘strongly disagree’) to 7 (‘strongly
agree’).

OCB
OCB was measured using the 19-item scale developed by Moorman and Blakely (1995).
This includes four dimensions: interpersonal helping, individual initiative, loyal
boosterism, and personal industry. Five items under interpersonal helping focus on
helping co-workers when such help is needed, while five items for individual initiative
pertain to communication with others in the workplace to improve individual and
group performance. Five items under loyal boosterism highlight the importance of pro-
moting the organization’s image, while four items under personal industry focus on task
performance beyond normal role expectations. One of the interpersonal helping items
was ‘goes out of his/her way to help co-workers with work related problems’, and one of
the individual initiative items was ‘encourages hesitant or quiet co-workers to voice their
opinions when they otherwise might not speak-up’. The loyal boosterism items included
the following: ‘shows pride when representing the organization in public’, while the fol-
lowing is an example of the personal industry items: ‘never misses work even when
he/she has a legitimate reason for doing so’. The reliability figures for interpersonal
helping, individual initiative, loyal boosterism, and personal industry were 0.90, 0.90,
0.83, and 0.83 respectively. Responses were solicited on a 7-point scale 1 (‘strongly dis-
agree’) to 7 (‘strongly agree’).

Control variables
Several scholars have shown that the relationship length and frequency of communication
(measured as an hourly average per month) may affect trust (Becerra and Gupta 2003;
Chattopadhyay 1999) and mentoring functions received (Noe 1988). Therefore, we chose
mentorship duration and frequency of mentor–protégé communication as two control
variables for this study. Five items were used to measure how often mentors and protégés
communicated through different modes of communication on a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (‘very rarely’) to 5 (‘most days’). In addition, gender was also included as a
control variable.
8 © 2016 Australian Human Resources Institute
 SuJin Son and Do-Yeong Kim

Results
Descriptive statistics
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations for the measures used in
this study. As predicted, perceived management support for mentoring was positively cor-
related with protégés’ OCB (r = 0.48, p ⬍ 0.001), mentoring functions received (r = 0.65, p
⬍ 0.001), and trust in mentors (r = 0.59, p ⬍ 0.001). In addition, mentoring functions
received by protégés was positively associated with trust in mentors (r = 0.81, p ⬍ 0.001)
and protégés’ OCB (r = 0.53, p ⬍ 0.001). Further, trust in mentors was positively related to
protégés’ OCB (r = 0.56, p ⬍ 0.001).

Confirmatory factor analysis for testing

Before testing the proposed model, we conducted a series of dimension-level confirmatory
factor analyses to examine whether the four variables (management support for
mentoring, trust in mentors, mentoring functions received, and protégés’ OCB) of the
study capture distinct constructs by employing structural equation modeling (SEM) using
AMOS 18.0. Multiple fit indices, including the incremental fit index (IFI), Tucker-Lewis
index (TLI), comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA), were used to assess the model fit (Hu and Bentler 1998; Lance and Vandenberg
2001). The four-factor model fits the data well (χ2 (71) = 136.15; CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.96;
IFI = 0.97; RMSEA = 0.07). We tested the three-factor model against this baseline model,
where mentoring functions received and trust in mentors merge into a single factor. The
results show that the model fits the data satisfactorily (χ2 (74) = 183.64; CFI = 0.95; TLI =
0.94; IFI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.09); however, it is significantly poorer than the four-factor
model (Δχ2 (3) = 47.49, p ⬍ 0.001). Another three-factor model, in which management
support for mentoring and mentoring functions received merge into a single factor
was tested. It was found that the model does not fit the data satisfactorily (χ2 (74) =

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and correlations

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Age 27.45 1.45 1

2 Gender 1.83 .38 .58** 1
3 Duration 3.74 2.08 –.03 –.01 1
4 Frequency 3.37 1.01 –.01 .12 .08 1
5 MSM 3.97 .68 .02 .10 .06 .39** 1
6 MF 5.59 1.06 .12 .15* .13 .52** .65** 1
7 Trust 5.76 1.00 .17* .17* .03 .40** .59** .81** 1
8 OCB 5.68 .76 .10 .16* .09 .26** .48** .53** .56**
N = 183. Gender (1 = males, 0 = females); duration = mentoring duration (unit: month); frequency
= frequency of communication; MSM = management support for mentoring; MF = mentoring
functions received; OCB = organizational citizenship behavior. *p ⬍ 0.05 two-tailed, **p ⬍ 0.001
two-tailed.

© 2016 Australian Human Resources Institute 9

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources ••

386.86; CFI = 0.86; TLI = 0.82; IFI = 0.86; RMSEA = 0.15) and is significantly poorer than
a four-factor model (Δχ2 (3) = 250.71, p ⬍ 0.001). Then, a two-factor model was tested, in
which management support for mentoring, trust in mentors, and mentoring functions
received merge into a single factor. The model does not fit the data satisfactorily (χ2 (76) =
446.30; CFI = 0.83; TLI = 0.80; IFI = 0.83; RMSEA = 0.15) and is significantly poorer than
the four-factor model (Δχ2 (5) = 310.15, p ⬍ 0.001). Lastly, a single-factor model, in which
all variables merge into a single factor, was tested. It did not fit satisfactorily (χ2 (77) =
762.33; CFI = 0.69; TLI = 0.63; IFI = 0.69; RMSEA = 0.22) and was significantly poorer
than the four-factor model (Δχ2 (6) = 626.18, p ⬍ 0.001). These findings show that the
four factors are distinct constructs in this study.

Testing proposed model

The proposed model reveals relationships between perceived management support and
protégés’ OCB as mediated by mentoring functions received and trust in mentors. Control
variables such as gender, mentoring duration, and frequency of communication were
included in the model, with paths to the other variables. An SEM was conducted to test
the theoretical model. The results show that the proposed model fits the data well (χ2
(102) = 162.37, CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.96; IFI = 0.97; RMSEA = 0.06). In order to find the
best-fitting model we further tested an alternative one, which added a path from
mentoring functions received and protégés OCB based on previous studies (Tomarken
and Waller 2003). The alternative model was found to fit the data (χ2 (101) = 162.33, CFI
= 0.97; TLI = 0.96; IFI = 0.97; RMSEA = 0.06). However, the chi-square difference test
between these two models (Δχ (1) = 0.04, p ⬎ 0.05) indicated that the addition of the path
did not significantly improve the overall fit of the model; thus, the proposed model is
shown to be the best fit.
In the relationships between the variables, management support of mentoring rela-
tionships was positively related to OCB (β = 0.25, p ⬍ 0.05), supporting hypothesis 1. In
addition, perceived management support was positively associated with mentoring func-
tions received (β = 0.57, p ⬍ 0.001) and mentoring functions received were positively
related to trust in mentors (β = 0.90, ⬍ 0.001). Further, trust in mentors was positively
associated with OCB (β = 0.47, p ⬍ 0.001). However, management support of mentoring
was not significantly related to trust in mentors (β = 0.05, p ⬎ 0.05). Among the control
variables, frequency of communication was positively related to mentoring functions
received (β = 0.28, p ⬍ 0.001). Interestingly, mentoring duration was negatively associated
with trust in mentors (β = −0.09, p ⬍ 0.05) and gender was not associated with the other
variables.

The mediating effect of mentoring functions received between perceived management

support for mentoring and trust in mentors
In order to test the mediating effect of mentoring functions received between manage-
ment support for mentoring and trust in mentors, we used the bootstrapping approach to
test the significance of the indirect effect of management support for mentoring to trust in
10 © 2016 Australian Human Resources Institute
 SuJin Son and Do-Yeong Kim

mentors (Cheung and Lau 2008). After generating 1000 bootstraps, the output showed
that the indirect effect from management support for mentoring to trust in mentors was
0.85; and the 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals for the indirect effects were between
0.60 and 1.152 which did not overlap with zero, with a significant p-value (p = 0.003, two-
tailed). This suggests that mentoring functions received significantly mediated the rela-
tionship between management support for mentoring and trust in mentors. Therefore,
hypothesis 2 was supported.

The mediating effect of trust in mentors between mentoring functions received and
protégés’ OCB
Using the same process, we tested the mediating effect of trust in mentors between
mentoring functions received and protégés’ OCB. After generating 1000 bootstraps, the
output showed that the indirect effect from mentoring functions received to protégés’
OCB was 0.32; and the 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals for the indirect effects
were between 0.16 and 0.50 which did not overlap with zero, with a significant p-value (p
= 0.003, two-tailed). This showed that the indirect effect was significant, suggesting that
trust in mentors was a significant mediator between mentoring functions received and
protégés’ OCB. Therefore, hypothesis 3 was supported.

Discussion
Based on the social information processing theory and the social exchange theory, we built
and tested a model, linking perceived management support of mentoring to protégés’
OCB through several mediators such as mentoring functions received by protégés and
trust in mentors. The results were in line with our hypotheses and indicated that organiza-
tional factors (i.e. perceived management support for mentoring) play a significant role in
protégés’ willingness to engage in mentoring relationships, and in further positive out-
comes such as enhancing protégés’ OCB. In particular, the current study has emphasized
the role of trust in mentors as an enhancer of employees’ positive work behavior.
More specifically, the findings of the current study demonstrate that protégé percep-
tions about organizational support of mentoring are positively related to extra-role behav-
iors on their part. This is consistent with previous studies, which suggest that
organizational treatment of employees plays an important part in shaping how employees
perceive and interpret their work environment, and positive treatment motivates employ-
ees to engage in extra-role behaviors for organizations (Chen, Aryee and Lee 2005;
Kurtessis et al. 2015; Moorman, Blakely and Niehoff 1998; Rhoades and Eisenberger
2002). In particular, mentoring research lays stress on the impact of protégé beliefs about
support of mentoring on eventual mentoring outcomes (Allen, Poteet and Burroughs
1997; Eby, Lockwood and Butts 2006). The results of the current study have confirmed the
strong effect of protégé perceptions of the support of mentoring in terms not only of
engagement in mentoring relationships but also of positive work behaviors of protégés
such as OCB.
© 2016 Australian Human Resources Institute 11
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources ••

In addition, the current study has shown that protégé perceptions of managerial
support of mentoring increase trust in mentors through mentoring support received by
them. When protégés believe their organization treats a mentoring program as a valuable
intervention for employees they are more likely to be active participants in mentoring
relationships, thereby increasing their trust in mentors. Since mentoring support provides
significant cues for protégés to develop trust in mentors, protégés who are actively
engaged in mentoring relationships are more likely to increase their trust in mentors. The
results are consistent with past studies, emphasizing the importance of mentoring experi-
ences in relation to building trust in mentors (Bouquillon, Sosik and Lee 2005; Young and
Perrewé 2000).
Moreover, the findings of the study have shown that mentoring support strongly influ-
ences protégés’ trust in mentors, which increases positive protégé behavior toward the
organization. As social exchange theory emphasizes (Blau 1964) and previous research
indicates (Chen et al. 2011; Korsgaard, Brodt and Whitener 2002), the results of the study
highlight the critical role of trust in mentors in relation to employees’ extra-role behavior.
Furthermore, in line with previous research, the results of the current study also show
that frequency of communication was positively related to mentoring functions received
(Noe 1988). However, contrary to our expectations, mentoring duration was negatively
associated with trust in mentors and gender was not associated with other variables. This
shows that relationship length has a complex or curvilinear association with trust in
mentors as previous research has shown (Levin, Whitener and Cross 2006).
We derive some important practical implications from our findings. First,
organization-level support for mentoring relationships would undoubtedly be effective for
protégés participating in a formal mentoring relationship and further engaging in their
extra-role behaviors. Therefore, both top management and HR managers should pay
closer attention to displaying strong organizational commitment toward mentoring pro-
grams. Building support systems for mentors and protégés and showing organizational
recognition of the mentor–protégé relationship would be a good way to display such com-
mitment. Moreover, as trust in mentors has been shown to be an essential antecedent in
increasing positive work behavior, HR managers might want to develop a system that pro-
motes protégés’ active participation in communicating with mentors. Ways to improve
mentor–protégé interactions could include organizing regular formal/informal gatherings
to encourage mentors and protégés to interact frequently, and developing internal online
communities for mentors and protégés to communicate freely.
Despite meaningful contributions, this study has some limitations that need to be
addressed. First, we collected samples only from protégés and used self-reported measures.
There is widespread concern about the common method bias in self-reported measures
(Podsakoff et al. 2003). Nonetheless, self-reporting is an appropriate method since this
study depends on protégés’ awareness and subjective interpretation of the environment.
Some researchers have also pointed out that self-reporting is a theoretically relevant meas-
urement method for research that explicitly focuses on private events (Conway and Lance
2010).
12 © 2016 Australian Human Resources Institute
 SuJin Son and Do-Yeong Kim

Second, as the current study used a cross-sectional design, we found it difficult to

develop causal inferences among the variables. Accordingly, future studies should consider
a longitudinal research design to clarify the influence of management support for
mentoring on the success of mentoring programs. However, this study still contributes to
mentoring literature by providing information about protégés in formal mentoring rela-
tionships, an area in which it is relatively difficult to collect data (Wanberg, Welsh and
Hezlett 2003).
Further, since our sample included only South Korean employees, we strongly recom-
mend replicating this model in different cultural contexts. Employees in collectivist cul-
tures can easily become attached to mentors, as great value is placed on harmonious
interpersonal relationships in such cultures. However, this pattern may not hold in indi-
vidualistic cultures. In western cultures, the importance of trust in mentors may not be as
strong as in collectivist cultures. It would therefore be interesting to compare these find-
ings with those of similar studies conducted in western cultures.
The current study focused only on the effect of protégés’ perceptions of management
support for mentoring relationships on protégés’ positive behavior. Future studies may
explore the role of mentors’ perspectives on managerial support of mentoring relation-
ships. Although previous research has suggested several implications regarding the rela-
tionship between mentor perceptions of managerial support and mentoring outcomes
(Eby, Lockwood and Butts 2006), a more detailed explanation of such relational comple-
mentarity is necessary. Thus, it is important to examine how managerial support of
mentoring influences for mentor attitudes towards mentoring relationships and on their
attitudes and behavior towards organizations. Other organizational factors such as organ-
izational learning culture can be considered for future research. Lastly, although confirma-
tory factor analysis showed that the four factors are distinct constructs in this study, the
coefficients between mentoring functions received and trust in mentors was relatively high
(0.90); thus, the discriminant validity issue of those variables should be considered care-
fully in future studies.

Conclusion
As the importance of formal mentoring relationships in organizations has been broadly
acknowledged, scholars pay more attention to the determinants that affect and increase
the success of mentoring relationships (Allen, Eby and Lentz 2006; Allen et al. 2004;
Baranik, Roling and Eby 2010; Wanberg, Welsh and Hezlett 2003). In this study, we
have developed and tested a theoretical model integrating one organizational factor, per-
ceived management support, with receiving mentoring functions and trust in mentors as
other factors, with respect to protégé OCB in formal mentoring relationships. Our
results provide empirical evidence that protégé perception of the levels of management
support play a pivotal role in encouraging protégés to engage in mentoring relationships
and enhancing trust in mentors, thereby increasing extra-role behavior of protégés.
Drawing on these findings, we conclude that sustained efforts by organizations are
© 2016 Australian Human Resources Institute 13
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources ••

necessary to maximize the effectiveness and efficacious outcomes of mentoring

relationships.

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by
the Korean Government (NRF-2012014598, awarded to Do-Yeong Kim).

SuJin Son (PhD, Univ of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) is currently working as a research professor
at University of Ulsan in South Korea. Her research interests include mentoring relationships in
workplace, trust, employee creativity and cross-cultural management.

Do-Yeong Kim (PhD, Univ of Washington) is a professor at the School of Business, Ajou University,
South Korea. He is on the editorial board of a social psychology journal and has broad interests in
research from basic to applied sciences.

Note
1
The data for trust in mentors were derived from Son and Kim (2013).

References
Allen TD, LT Eby and E Lentz (2006) Mentorship behaviors and mentorship quality associated with
formal mentoring programs: Closing the gap between research and practice. Journal of Applied
Psychology 91(3), 567–578. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.567
Allen TD, LT Eby, KE O’Brien and E Lentz (2008) The state of mentoring research: A qualitative
review of current research methods and future research implications. Journal of Vocational
Behavior 73, 343–357.
Allen TD, LT Eby, ML Poteet, E Lentz and L Lima (2004) Career benefits associated with mentoring
for protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 89(1), 127–136.
Allen TD, ML Poteet and SM Burroughs (1997) The mentor’s perspective: A qualitative inquiry and
future research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior 51(1), 70–89.
Allen TD and MC Rush (2001) The influence of ratee gender on ratings of organizational citizen-
ship behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 31(12), 2561–2587.
Ambrose ML and M Schminke (2003) Organization structure as a moderator of the relationship
between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived organizational support, and super-
visory trust. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(2), 295–305.
Atkinson S (2004) Senior management relationships and trust: An exploratory study. Journal of
Managerial Psychology 19, 571–587.
Baranik LE, EA Roling and LT Eby (2010) Why does mentoring work? The role of perceived organ-
izational support. Journal of Vocational Behavior 76(2), 366–373.
Becerra M and AK Gupta (2003) Perceived trustworthiness within the organization: The moderating
impact of communication frequency on trustor and trustee effects. Organization Science 14,
32–44.

14 © 2016 Australian Human Resources Institute

 SuJin Son and Do-Yeong Kim

Behling O and KS Law (2002) Translating questionnaires and other research instruments: Problems and
solutions. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Blau PM (1964) Exchange and power in social life. Wiley, New York.
Bouquillon EA, JJ Sosik and DY Lee (2005) ‘It’s only a phase’: Examining trust, identification and
mentoring functions received across the mentoring phases. Mentoring and Tutoring 13, 239–258.
Bozionelos N and L Wang (2006) The relationship of mentoring and network resources with career
success in the Chinese organizational environment. International Journal of Human Resource
Management 17(9), 1531–1546.
Chattopadhyay P (1999) Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: The influence of demographic simi-
larity on organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal 42(3), 273–287.
Chen XP, MB Eberly, TJ Chiang, JL Farh and BS Cheng (2011) Affective trust in Chinese leaders:
Linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. Journal of Management 40(3), 796–
819.
Chen ZX, S Aryee and C Lee (2005) Test of a mediation model of perceived organizational support.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 66(3), 457–470.
Cheung GW and RS Lau (2008) Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent variables boot-
strapping with structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods 11(2), 296–325.
Christian MS, JC Bradley, JC Wallace and MJ Burke (2009) Workplace safety: A meta-analysis of the
roles of person and situation factors. Journal of Applied Psychology 94(5), 1103–1127.
Clutterbuck D (2007) An international perspective on mentoring. In BR Ragins and KE Kram (eds)
The handbook of mentoring at work: Research, theory and practice, 633–655. Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA.
Conway JM and CE Lance (2010) What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common
method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology 25(3), 325–334.
Cook J and T Wall (1980) New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and
personal need nonfulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology 53, 39–52.
Dirks KT and DL Ferrin (2002) Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for
research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(4), 611–628.
Eby LT, AL Lockwood and M Butts (2006) Perceived support for mentoring: A multiple perspectives
approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior 68(2), 267–291.
Eisenberger R, R Huntington, S Hutchison and D Sowa (1986) Perceived organizational support.
Journal of Applied Psychology 71, 500–507.
Ghosh R (2014) Antecedents of mentoring support: A meta-analysis of individual, relational, and
structural or organizational factors. Journal of Vocational Behavior 84(3), 367–384.
Holmes JG (1981) The exchange process in close relationship: Microbehavior and macromotives. In
MJ Learner and SC Lerner (eds) The justice motive in social behavior, 261–284. Plenum, New York.
Hu L and PM Bentler (1998) Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to
underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods 3(4), 424–453.
Kiker DS and SJ Motowidlo (1999) Main and interaction effects of task and contextual performance
on supervisory reward decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology 84(4), 602–609.
Kim H, D-B Kwan and C Pyun (2008) Korean corporate HRD in transition: Issues and challenge.
Human Resource Development International 11(1), 81–88.
Korsgaard MA, SE Brodt and EM Whitener (2002) Trust in the face of conflict: The role of manage-
rial trustworthy behavior and organizational context. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(2), 312–
319.

© 2016 Australian Human Resources Institute 15

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources ••

Kram KE (1985) Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Scott,

Foresman & Company, Glenview, IL.
Kurtessis JN, R Eisenberger, MT Ford, LC Buffardi, KA Stewart and CS Adis (2015) Perceived organ-
izational support a meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. Journal of
Management. doi:10.1177/0149206315575
Kwan HK, J Liu and FH Yim (2011) Effects of mentoring functions on receivers’ organizational citi-
zenship behavior in a Chinese context: A two-study investigation. Journal of Business Research
64(4), 363–370.
Lance CE and RJ Vandenberg (2001) Confirmatory factor analysis. In F Drasgow and N Schmit
(eds) Measuring and analyzing behavior in organizations: Advances in measurement and data analy-
sis, 221–256. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Lau DC and RC Liden (2008) Antecedents of coworker trust: Leaders’ blessings. Journal of Applied
Psychology 93(5), 1130–1138.
Levin DZ, EM Whitener and R Cross (2006) Perceived trustworthiness of knowledge sources: The
moderating impact of relationship length. Journal of Applied Psychology 91(5), 1163–1171.
Liu D, J Liu, HK Kwan and Y Mao (2009) What can I gain as a mentor? The effect of mentoring on
the job performance and social status of mentors in China. Journal of Occupational and Organiza-
tional Psychology 82(4), 871–895.
Mayer RC, JH Davis and FD Schoorman (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust.
Academy of Management Review 20(3), 709–734.
McAllister DJ (1995) Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation
in organizations. Academy of Management Journal 38(1), 24–59.
Molm LD (2000) Theories of social exchange and exchange networks. In G Ritzer and B Smart (eds)
Handbook of social theory, 260–272. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Moorman RH and GL Blakely (1995) Individualism–collectivism as an individual difference pre-
dictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of organizational behavior 16(2), 127–142.
Moorman RH, GL Blakely and BP Niehoff (1998) Does perceived organizational support mediate
the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior? Academy of
Management journal 41(3), 351–357.
Noe RA (1988) An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships.
Personnel Psychology 41(3), 457–479.
Noe RA, DB Greenberger and S Wang (2002) Mentoring: What we know and where we might go. In
GR Ferris (ed) Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 21, 129–174. Elsevier
Science Ltd, Oxford, England.
Parise MR and ML Forret (2008) Formal mentoring programs: The relationship of program design
and support to mentors’ perceptions of benefits and costs. Journal of Vocational Behavior 72(2),
225–240.
Podsakoff NP, SW Whiting, PM Podsakoff and BD Blume (2009) Individual-and organizational-
level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology 94(1), 122–141.
Podsakoff P, S MacKenzie, J Lee and N Podsakoff (2003) Common method biases in behavioral
research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology 88(5), 879–903.
Rhoades L and R Eisenberger (2002) Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature.
Journal of Applied Psychology 87(4), 698–714.

16 © 2016 Australian Human Resources Institute

 SuJin Son and Do-Yeong Kim

Salancik GR and J Pfeffer (1978) A social information processing approach to job attitudes and job
design. Administrative Science Quarterly 23(2), 224–254.
Scandura TA and BR Ragins (1993) The effects of sex and gender role orientation on mentorship in
male-dominated occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior 43(3), 251–265.
Son S and DY Kim (2013) What makes protégés take mentors’ advice in formal mentoring relation-
ships? Journal of Career Development 40(4), 311–328.
Tepper BJ and EC Taylor (2003) Relationships among supervisors’ and subordinates’ procedural
jusice perceptions and organizational citizenship behaviors. Academy of Management Journal
46(1), 97–105.
Tomarken AJ and NG Waller (2003) Potential problems with ‘well fitting’ models. Journal of Abnor-
mal Psychology 112(4), 578–598.
Underhill CM (2006) The effectiveness of mentoring programs in corporate settings: A meta-
analytical review of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior 68(2), 292–307.
Wanberg CR, ET Welsh and SA Hezlett (2003) Mentoring research: A review and dynamic process
model. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management 22, 39–124.
Wang S, EC Tomlinson and RA Noe (2010) The role of mentor trust and protégé internal locus of
control in formal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology 95(2), 358.
Young MY and PL Perrewé (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.
Zhu W, A Newman, Q Miao and A Hooke (2013) Revisiting the mediating role of trust in trans-
formational leadership effects: Do different types of trust make a difference? Leadership Quarterly
24(1), 94–105.

© 2016 Australian Human Resources Institute 17

View publication stats