Toward Improving the EFFECTIVENESS of FORMAL MENTORING PROGRAMS _ Matching by Personality Matters Ibcgoldenlistingforresellers20110906-110920104100-Phpapp02

Group & Organization Management 1 –32

© The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1059601115579567

gom.sagepub.com

Article

Toward Improving the Effectiveness of Formal Mentoring Programs: Matching by Personality Matters

Christine Menges1

AbstractOrganizations establish formal mentoring programs to advance personal and professional development, but not all relationships between mentors and protégés deliver these results. Based on the similarity-attraction paradigm, it is proposed that protégés receive more career and psychosocial support if mentors and protégés have similar personalities. A test of the model with data from a sample of 68 mentor–protégé dyads of a formal mentoring program showed, first, that career support is linked to mentor and protégé similarity in the personality trait openness to experience and, second, that psychosocial support for protégés is linked to mentor and protégé similarity in openness to experience and conscientiousness. It is concluded that matching mentors with protégés on two specific personality traits, openness to experience and conscientiousness, enhances the outcomes of mentoring relationships for protégés.

Keywordsmentoring, personality, human resource management

1Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK

Corresponding Author:Christine Menges, Anglia Ruskin University, East Road, Cambridge CB1 1PT, UK. Email: [email protected]

579567 GOMXXX10.1177/1059601115579567Group & Organization ManagementMengesresearch-article2015

at INDIAN INST MGMNT BANGALORE on April 14, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

mailto:[email protected]

http://gom.sagepub.com/

2 Group & Organization Management

Traditional mentoring refers to the provision of career and psychosocial sup-port by an experienced mentor to a relatively less experienced protégé. Research has consistently demonstrated that mentoring provides many ben-efits to protégés. In organizational settings, several reviews and meta-analy-ses have shown the positive effect of mentoring on both objective career outcomes (e.g., promotions and salary) and subjective career outcomes (e.g., career and job satisfaction; Allen, Eby, O’Brien, & Lentz, 2008; Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004; Kammeyer-Mueller & Judge, 2008; Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005; Underhill, 2006; Wanberg, Welsh, & Hezlett, 2003).

To reap the benefits of mentoring, formal mentoring programs have been initiated across a wide range of contexts, including corporate and educational settings (Allen, Eby, & Lentz, 2006). In formal mentoring relationships, organizations match less experienced protégés with more experienced and knowledgeable mentors who are expected to provide career support (e.g., sponsorship and challenging assignments) and psychosocial support (e.g., counseling and encouragement) to enhance the protégés’ career and personal development (Baugh & Fagenson-Eland, 2007; Finkelstein, Allen, Ritchie, Lynch, & Montei, 2012; Kram, 1985; Noe, Greenberger, & Wang, 2002; Wang, Tomlinson, & Noe, 2010; Weinberg & Lankau, 2011). Despite the prevalence and potential importance of formal mentoring programs, there is, however, relatively little empirical research on how those programs can effectively achieve the benefits inherent in mentoring. Although such research has been growing in recent years, our knowledge of informal mentoring still outweighs what we know about formal mentoring.

Formal mentoring relationships differ from informal mentoring in several ways: Formal mentoring relationships are initiated through an organizational program that assigns mentors to protégés and then facilitates and supports the relationship within the assigned dyad (Wanberg et al., 2003). Informal men-toring relationships, in contrast, develop spontaneously and without involve-ment from an organization (Chao, Walz, & Gardner, 1992), usually on the basis of mutual identification, interpersonal comfort, and sympathy (Kram, 1985; Ragins, 2002). Formal mentoring relationships, therefore, are initiated and controlled by a third party (i.e., the organization), whereas informal men-toring relationships are self-organized. Formal and informal mentoring also differ in duration and structure (Ragins & Cotton, 1999). Formal relation-ships are developed for a specific period of time and with prescribed goals for the protégés. In informal mentoring relationships, protégés and mentors decide themselves which goals they want to pursue and in which time frame (Allen & Eby, 2003).

The research that exists on formal mentoring programs suggests that such programs are not as effective as informal mentoring, because the naturally



Menges 3

occurring attraction that is typical of informal relationships is often lacking in formal relationships (Blake-Beard, O’Neill, & McGowan, 2007; Turban & Lee, 2007). One cannot “force” the natural attraction and desire to work together that are essential for successful mentoring relationships (Chao et al., 1992; Fagenson-Eland, Marks, & Amendola, 1997; Ragins & Cotton, 1999). For example, a qualitative study examining relational problems in formal organizational mentoring programs found that mismatches regarding person-ality, values, and working style were the most common mentoring problems for both protégés and mentors (Eby, McManus, Simon, & Russell, 2000). Notably, such problems lessen the benefits of mentoring; protégés experienc-ing mentoring problems report more stress, stronger intentions to leave the organization and the mentoring relationship, less relational learning and job satisfaction, more psychological job withdrawal, and more depressed mood than those who do not experience problems in mentoring (Eby & Allen, 2002; Eby & McManus, 2004).

To avoid these problems in formal mentoring relationships and to reap the benefits of informal mentoring relationship, it is of critical importance to match mentors and protégés in ways that resemble or at least facilitate some of the natural attraction that drives informal mentoring relationships. A key question for formal mentoring program managers is, therefore, what match-ing criteria they could effectively use. Extant research provides minimal guidance. Calls for research on the matching process in formal mentoring relationships have sounded, particularly in respect to matching criteria (Blake-Beard et al., 2007)—but the answers thus far have left many questions open. What adds to the challenge is that the information regarding the criteria that are utilized in the matching process needs to be available before the men-toring relationship can begin.

In an endeavor to identify useful criteria for the matching process in for-mal mentoring programs, this study examines whether mentor and protégé personality traits matter. The guiding hypothesis, based on the similarity-attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971), is that protégés will receive better men-toring support (both in terms of career and psychosocial support) in formal mentoring programs if their personality is similar, rather than dissimilar, to the personality of their mentor. The research thus examines how protégé and mentor personality characteristics interact with one another (Chandler, Kram, & Yip, 2011; Eby & Allen, 2002; Turban & Lee, 2007) and how dyadic char-acteristics (i.e., mentor–protégé personality similarity) affect the extent to which protégés receive career and psychosocial support from mentors. The findings obtained in a field study with 68 mentor–protégé matched pairs who participated in a formal mentoring program suggest a nuanced pattern of effects according to which, intriguingly, only a few distinct personality trait




similarities—and not personality similarity in general—matter for effective matching between protégés and mentors.

Matching in Formal Mentoring Programs

Common matching processes observed in organizations by which mentoring partners are put together to establish formal mentoring relationships are administrator-assigned matching (i.e., program coordinators match mentors and protégés based on their personal assessments of the likelihood that an interpersonal connection between the mentoring partners will form), choice-based matching (i.e., the mentoring partners choose each other during the matching process), and assessment-based matching (i.e., mentoring partners are assessed along specific dimensions and then matched based on the results of the assessments; Blake-Beard et al., 2007). Research shows that mentors’ and protégés’ input into the matching process in formal mentoring relation-ship relates to perceived program effectiveness, mentor commitment, and program understanding (Allen et al., 2006). However, it has remained an open question which particular criteria should be assessed and used to match formal mentoring pairs in ways that facilitate beneficial mentoring outcomes (Blake-Beard et al., 2007).

Matching criteria that have been considered include demographic character-istics, particularly gender and race. Pertinent research found that racial and gender similarities result in more fruitful mentoring relationships (Allen & Eby, 2004; Feldman, Folks, & Turnley, 1999; Lankau, Riordan, & Thomas, 2005; McKeen & Bujaki, 2007; Ragins, 1997a, 1997b; Scandura & Williams, 2001; Thomas, 1993). What has rarely been considered, however, is that there is a deeper psychological layer, beneath the surface characteristics of race and gender, that may, too, be of considerable importance for the matching process. Specifically, the idea that similarities in mentors’ and protégés’ personalities may matter for the mentoring support that the protégé receives has been neglected—despite pertinent calls from mentoring scholars to examine the per-sonality characteristics not just of each mentoring partner but also of the men-toring dyad (Chandler et al., 2011; Eby & Allen, 2002; Turban & Lee, 2007).

Personality and Mentoring

Researchers have lamented that relatively little is known about the importance of personality characteristics in formal mentoring relationships—both in gen-eral, as well as in respect specifically to the dyadic matching process that precedes the formation of such relationships (Turban & Lee, 2007). Personality is defined as the relatively stable dispositions of individuals that contribute to



Menges 5

consistency in their thoughts, behaviors, and emotions (Funder, 2001; Leary, 1999). Decades of research extracted five dimensions of personality (i.e., traits) along which individuals tend to systematically differ or converge. These Big Five dimensions are openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraver-sion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. These traits form the five-factor model (FFM) of personality that has been accepted by many scholars as a compre-hensive framework for organizing a wide range of personality dispositions (Digman, 1996; Goldberg, 1993; McCrae & Costa, 1996). Personality traits that fall outside of this framework include, for example, self-monitoring, locus of control, and Type A or Type B personality.

Mentoring researchers interested in personality have mainly focused on the effects of an individual’s (i.e., a protégé’s or mentor’s) personality character-istics on the involvement in and the quality of mentoring relationships. Relevant findings in informal mentoring settings include that individuals who engaged in mentoring relationships tended to be open to experience, conscien-tious, and extraverted (Niehoff, 2006) and that individuals with internal loci of control, high self-monitoring, and low neuroticism were more likely to initiate and receive mentoring (Turban & Dougherty, 1994). Further work concerning informal mentoring relationships identified that extraversion and Type A per-sonality relate positively to protégé-initiated informal mentoring relationships (Aryee, Lo, & Kang, 1999). The same study also found that protégés’ indi-vidual extraversion was positively related to mentoring received, suggesting that extraverted protégés with their gregarious and sociable disposition tended to engage more frequently in interactions with their mentors (Aryee et al., 1999). Waters (2004) found that informally established mentoring pairs in which mentors and protégés both had high levels of agreeableness, openness, and extraversion (and those in which protégés had high conscientiousness) hold a shared view of the relationship regarding, particularly, the provision of psychosocial support. Similarly, Bozionelos (2004) found that, in informal mentoring relationships, mentors’ individual openness to experience relates positively to the mentoring provided, showing that individuals with broad interests and receptivity to new experiences and ideas are more likely to pro-vide mentoring support. In a formal mentoring setting, however, Wanberg, Kammeyer-Mueller, and Marchese (2006) found no significant relationship of individual’s openness to experience and mentoring support received.

Similarity in Mentoring Relationships

The research on the individual personality characteristics of each mentoring partner in mentoring relationships notwithstanding, very little is known about the mentoring pair as an interactive dyad of personalities (Turban & Lee,




2007). Because each mentoring partner’s personality contributes in a syner-gistic way to the relationship, what results from the relationship is likely to constitute more than the sum of its parts. In a contribution to extant mentor-ing research on personality, this study advances the core idea that the similar-ity between the mentors’ and the protégés’ personalities matters for the mentoring support protégés receive.

This idea stems from the similarity-attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971; Newcomb, 1956), which suggests that people have more positive interactions with those who are similar to them than with those who are dissimilar. The rationale for this argument is that similarities invoke an attraction dynamic whereby individuals with similar attitudes and personalities accentuate each other’s positive attributes and derive positive social identity from viewing and treating each other favorably, whereas individuals with dissimilar atti-tudes and personalities tend to view and treat each other less favorably. A common counter-argument is that differences in attitudes and personalities create benefits through dissimilarity that could facilitate attraction, too (Dryer & Horowitz, 1997; Schimel, Pyszczinski, Greenberg, O’Mahen, & Arndt, 2000); yet research shows largely that similarity is more desired by the rela-tionship partners and more facilitative to beneficial outcomes than dissimilar-ity (Caspi & Herbener, 1990; Gattis, Berns, Simpson, & Christensen, 2004; Luo & Klohnen, 2005; Robins, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2000). For example, Dijkstra and Barelds (2008) showed that individuals desire romantic partners who resemble themselves in terms of personality. In support of the similarity-attraction hypothesis, correlational analyses revealed that individuals’ own personality scores related to those of their ideal romantic partner.

Researchers interested in similarities between (any) relationship partners have made a distinction between actual similarity (i.e., the degree to which one is actually similar to another individual) and perceived similarity (i.e., the degree to which one believes oneself similar to another). Although Byrne (1971) originally proposed that actual similarity produces attraction, others have more recently argued that it is perceived similarity that produces attrac-tion (e.g., Condon & Crano, 1988; Hoyle, 1993; Ptacek & Dodge, 1995). And yet, numerous studies suggest that actual similarity in personality affects not only how relationships develop but also how effective and fulfilling they are. For example, married and dating couples with actual similar personalities are more satisfied with their relationships than those with dissimilar personalities (Gattis et al., 2004; Luo & Klohnen, 2005; Robins et al., 2000). Also, actual personality similarities between supervisors and subordinates have been shown to advance the career progression of subordinates (Schaubroeck & Lam, 2002). Deluga (1998) found that subordinate–supervisor actual similarity in conscien-tiousness was positively associated with subordinate in-role behavior. The



Menges 7

underlying idea is that actual similarity in conscientiousness forms a mutually beneficial relationship, in which both understand each other’s responsibilities and can mutually anticipate the behavior of the other (Meglino, Ravlin, & Adkins, 1991). Similarly, Ashkanasy and O’Connor (1997) found that actual similarity in achievement values (a construct close to conscientiousness) was significantly related to higher leader–member exchange.

For mentoring relationships, both perceived similarity (i.e., one mentoring partner’s perception of the other mentoring partner’s personality) and actual personality similarity (i.e., both mentoring partners independently report simi-lar personality profiles) matter, but the majority of research concerns perceived similarity (Burke, McKeen, & McKenna, 1993; Madia & Lutz, 2004; Owen & Solomon, 2006). For example, Madia and Lutz (2004) found that perceived similarity in extraversion and conscientiousness had a positive impact on men-tors’ expressed intention to remain in a mentoring relationship. There are some exceptions that considered actual personality similarity. Godshalk and Sosik (2003) found that mentor’s and protégé’s actual similarity in learning-goal ori-entation (a trait that is related to, but narrower than openness to experience) resulted in more career support received in informal mentoring relationships—a finding that was replicated for formal relationships (Egan, 2005).

Although perceived similarity is reportedly more important than actual similarity in determining mentoring relationship outcomes (Montoya, Horton, & Kirchner, 2008; Turban & Jones, 1988), perceived similarity cannot be used for the matching process in formal mentoring programs, because match-ing has to occur prior to the participants actually meeting. What could be used, however, is actual similarity between mentoring partners, as actual per-sonality can be assessed with standard personality measures prior to the com-mencement of a formal mentoring relationship. A considerable limitation in our knowledge about formal mentoring relationships is that we know very little about whether the match in actual (rather than perceived) personality between protégés and mentors matters (beyond learning-goal orientation) for the mentoring support that protégés receive from mentors.

Here it is suggested that similarity in personality along all five major per-sonality dimensions—openness to experience, conscientiousness, extra-ver-sion, agreeableness, and neuroticism—will make it easier for mentors and protégés to establish relationships in a formal mentoring program and to yield the benefits associated with mentoring. Because both individuals—mentors and protégés—enter the relationship created by a formal program as strangers, interacting with someone with similar personality traits will make it easier to establish rapport, will enhance a sense of trust and confidence, and will rein-force the favorable self-image of both mentors and protégés. According to the similarity-attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971; Newcomb, 1956), similarity




facilitates these benefits regardless of the personality trait in question. The underlying rationale, according to reinforcement-affect accounts (Clore & Byrne, 1974), is that personality similarity bolsters the interaction partners’ opinions, beliefs, and feelings and thus evokes a subtle positive affective response that triggers attraction and facilitates interaction. According to uncertainty reduction accounts, personality similarity also increases predict-ability, thus allowing interaction partners to gain trust in one another and to communicate more smoothly and with less effort (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). Empirical research showed that even similarity on neuroticism—a personal-ity trait that could be seen as not particularly socially desirable—can carry relational benefits: Employees received higher peer-assessed performance ratings to the extent that employees’ level of neuroticism matched their super-visor’s level of neuroticism (Strauss, Barrick, & Connerley, 2001). Based on these theoretical and empirical considerations, the expectation in this research is that actual personality similarity in all five major personality traits will benefit the mentoring relationship.

Once a high-quality mentoring relationship is established, mentors are likely to provide valuable career and psychosocial support to protégés (Kram, 1985). Career support concerns the help mentors provide to facilitate their protégés’ career ambitions. Mentors can help protégés, for example, to find the right job, advance in the hierarchy of an organization, or prepare for a leadership role. Psychosocial support is provided when a relationship exists in which mentor and protégé experience acceptance and confirmation through interaction. Mentors can support protégés, for example, by listening empathically, by help-ing them through tough times, and by giving them self-confidence.

In summary, a similarity-attraction perspective is brought to bear upon the question as to what matching criteria could be effectively used in formal mentoring programs to enhance the career support and the psychosocial sup-port that protégés receive as part of the mentoring relationship. Taking the considerations above into account, the hypotheses are as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Protégés’ and mentors’ similarity in personality relates positively to the extent to which protégés receive career support.Hypothesis 2: Protégés’ and mentors’ similarity in personality relates positively to the extent to which protégés receive psychosocial support.

Method

Sample and Data Description

The present study was conducted in a formal mentoring program of a medium-sized Swiss business school. This program starts every fall semester,



Menges 9

lasts for 2 years, is voluntary, and is available for both undergraduate (i.e., bachelor) and graduate (i.e., master and PhD) students. The mentors are alumni of the business school who volunteer to take on students as protégés. The goal of the program is to enhance students’ personal and career develop-ment. A mentoring program manager administers the program, which involves coupling mentors and protégés at the beginning of the program, ensuring mentors and protégés meet once per semester or more, and resolv-ing any concerns raised by mentors or protégés. For the year in which this study was conducted, 241 mentoring pairs were formed according to stu-dents’ preferences. From a list of available mentors, the students ranked their preferences based on each mentor’s job title and company, and most students were paired with one of their top three choices.

The study consisted of two measurement points (Time 1 and Time 2). First, 6 months after the mentoring relationships were initiated, all 241 men-tor–protégé pairs were invited via email to complete a web-based question-naire that captured the independent variable (i.e., personality). Second, 6 months later (i.e., 12 months after the start of the mentoring program), all mentors and protégés were invited via email to complete a second web-based questionnaire that captured the dependent variables (i.e., psychosocial sup-port and career support). Only those mentoring tandems were retained in the sample in which both partners (i.e., mentor and corresponding protégé) com-pleted the survey at both time points. The participation was voluntary and for research purposes only; participants received no compensation for complet-ing the surveys. The final sample consisted of 68 mentoring pairs (response rate: 28%). The sample of the mentors included 44 (65%) men and 24 (35%) women averaging 43 years of age (SD = 10.13). Most mentors were Swiss (78%). The sample of the protégés included an equal number of men (34) and women (34) and averaged 24 years of age (SD = 3.77). Most protégés were Swiss (74%). Of the 68 protégés, 51 (75%) were undergraduates, 17 (25%) were graduates, and most (71%) had received one of their three mentors of choice. Race/ethnicity was not assessed.

Measures

Personality. The Big Five personality traits (openness to experience, consci-entiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) were assessed with Saucier’s (1994) Big Five measure. Each personality trait was assessed with eight adjectives; for example, openness for experience was assessed with adjectives including creative, intellectual, and imaginative. Both men-tors and protégés rated the extent to which each adjective described them-selves on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly




agree). The internal consistencies for protégés’ ratings were α = .77 (open-ness), α = .67 (conscientiousness), α = .64 (extraversion), α = .71 (agreeable-ness), and α = .84 (neuroticism). The internal consistencies for mentors’ ratings were α = .63 (openness), α = .75 (conscientiousness), α = .68 (extra-version), α = .69 (agreeableness), α = .76 (neuroticism). The alpha values were within the common range reported in recent work (e.g., Solomon & Jackson, 2014) utilizing Saucier’s (1994) Big Five measure.

Mentoring support. Mentoring support was assessed by the protégés at mea-surement point T2. Protégés provided responses to a four-items measure of career support (Cronbach’s α = .79) and an eight-items measure of psychoso-cial support (Cronbach’s α = .89) on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). All items are listed in the appendix.

The measure used to assess career support and psychosocial support that protégés received was developed specifically for the student sample of this study. Established mentoring support measures mainly focus on mentoring in corporate settings. Such measures assess career support as the extent to which, for example, sponsorship, exposure-and-visibility, coaching, protec-tion, and challenging work assignments are provided. These aspects of career support do not apply to a student-alumni mentoring program. Rather, career support in this context is more likely to include assistance in career planning, job search, and application processes. Therefore, the measure to assess career support in this study was adopted to capture these particular ways of support. Psychosocial support is assessed in established measures as role modeling, acceptance and confirmation, counseling, and friendship (Kram, 1985). In the context of an alumni-student mentoring program, psychosocial support also concerns the emotional help students at their young age need to deal with the demands of their studies.

The measure was established following pertinent recommendations (Hinkin, 1998). First, 23 items were generated based on informal interviews with mentors and protégés who had completed the program in the past, on literature about student mentoring (D’Abate, 2010), and on established men-toring function scales such as the Mentoring Function Items by Noe (1988) and the Career Support Scale by Riley and Wrench (1985). Next, a pre-test study was run with an independent sample of 212 protégés in the mentoring program cohort of the year prior to the one that was used for the main data collection. Participants were asked to rate the 23 items on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The response rate was 47.6%. Then, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to extract the relevant factors. A principal components analysis with oblique rotation identified a two-factor solution with items loading on psychosocial



Menges 11

support and career support. Only those items that clearly loaded on a single factor and had factor loadings of .60 and above were retained (Nunnally, 1976), resulting in 6 items for career support and 12 items for psychosocial support.

In the next step, these 18 items were administered to the 241 protégés invited to participate in the main study at measurement point T1. Of those invited, 102 protégés (42%) provided complete responses at measurement point T1, and the data of all those protégés were utilized (independent of whether these protégés also responded at measurement point T2) for the pur-pose of a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to quantify the goodness of fit of the factor structure (Long, 1983) and to determine which items to retain for the final measurement of mentoring support. Upon inspection of factor load-ings, only items with factor loadings above .60 were kept (Nunnally, 1976) and so 4 items were retained to measure career support and 8 items to assess psychosocial support. The results of the final CFA for the proposed two-fac-tor structure indicated a reasonable fit (χ2 = 87.06, df = 51, p < .001, compara-tive fit index [CFI] = .94, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .08, Tucker–Lewis index [TLI] = .91) and compared favorably with a one-factor structure (χ2 = 161.62, df = 52, p < .001, CFI = .82, RMSEA = .14, TLI = .73, Δχ2 = 74.56, p < .001). Thus, the remaining 4 items for career support and 8 items for psychosocial support listed in the appendix were used to assess the mentoring functions at measurement point T2.

Control variables. Previous studies on mentoring found demographic vari-ables to be significantly related to mentoring support (Fagenson-Eland, Marks, & Amendola, 1997); therefore, the genders, ages, and nationalities of mentors and protégés were included as control variables. To account for simi-larity effects on demographic variables, the analyses also controlled for whether the mentoring relationship consisted of a same gender dyad (i.e., man–man, woman–woman) or a cross-gender dyad (i.e., woman–man) and for whether mentor and protégé were either both Swiss or foreign, or had dif-ferent nationalities. In addition, it was controlled for whether protégés were at the undergraduate or graduate level and for whether protégés had or had not been assigned one of their three preferred mentors. It was also controlled for how frequently the mentoring dyad had met in person, by asking the pro-tégés at measurement point T2 for how often they had met their mentor in person. The answer options, on a 5-point scale, were 0, 1, 2, 3, and more than 3 times. Because the quality of the psychosocial and career support that pro-tégés received could depend on the mentor’s satisfaction with the mentoring relationship, this confounding variable was also included as a control vari-able. The mentor’s satisfaction with the protégé was measured using Ragins




and Cotton’s (1999) four-item scale (Cronbach’s α = .82). Sample items are “My protégé is someone I am satisfied with” and “My protégé has been effec-tive in his/her role.” Items were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Data Analysis

The hypotheses were tested by running a hierarchical regression analysis per personality trait (Aiken & West, 1991; Cohen & Cohen, 1983). In Step 1, the control variables were entered; in Step 2, mentors’ and protégés’ individual personality traits were entered; and in Step 3, the interaction term between mentors’ and protégés’ personality traits was entered. All variables were z-standardized prior to the analyses, as recommended by Dawson and Richter (2006).

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for mentors and protégés for all variables. The protégé sample consisted of undergraduate and graduate students. A check for differences between these students on the variables assessed showed no differences except for age, with the undergraduates (M = 23 years, SD = 3.46) being younger than the gradu-ates (M = 27 years, SD = 2.35), t(66) = −5.05, p < .001, and extraversion, with the undergraduates (M = 3.68, SD = .66) being more extraverted than the graduates (M = 3.32, SD = .56), t(66) = −2.01, p < .05.

Hypothesis Tests

The hypotheses suggested that similarities in the personality traits between mentor and protégé benefit two mentoring functions, career support and psy-chosocial support, as assessed by the protégé. There was partial support for the hypotheses, revealing that distinct similarities in personality traits matter. Specifically, similarities in openness to experience and conscientiousness significantly affected the mentoring support received by the protégés, whereas agreeableness, neuroticism, and extraversion had no effects.

Openness to experience and mentoring support. In support of Hypothesis 1, the results presented in Table 2 show that the dyadic interaction between mentor openness and protégé openness related significantly to the extent to which



13

Tab

le 1

. D

escr

iptiv

e St

atis

tics

for

Men

tors

and

Pro

tégé

s.

Var

iabl

esM

SD1

23

45

67

89

1011

12

Men

tors

1. G

ende

r0.

350.

48

2. A

ge43

.22

10.1

3.0

2

3. N

atio

nalit

y0.

780.

42.1

0.1

7

4. S

atis

fact

ion

with

rel

atio

nshi

p4.

170.

85.1

9.1

7.0

0

5. O

penn

ess

3.46

0.66

−.0

1.0

8−

.21

.12

6.

Con

scie

ntio

usne

ss4.

240.

67.1

1−

.19

.09

−.0

2−

.32*

*

7. E

xtra

vers

ion

4.03

0.65

.14

−.0

3.1

0.0

5.2

4.2

2

8. A

gree

able

ness

4.03

0.51

.13

−.2

0−

.14

.08

.33*

*.1

1.2

9*

9. N

euro

ticis

m4.

230.

55.1

1−

.10

.08

−.0

4−

.05

.37*

*.3

0*.2

5*

Prot

égés

1. G

ende

r0.

500.

50

2. A

ge24

.05

3.77

.01

3.

Nat

iona

lity

0.74

0.44

.00

−.3

6**

4.

Edu

catio

nal l

evel

0.25

0.44

.03

.53*

*−

.27*

5.

Pre

ferr

ed c

hoic

e0.

710.

46.0

6−

.13

−.0

2.0

7

6. M

eetin

g fr

eque

ncy

2.41

1.24

.19

.11

−.2

1.2

2.1

4

7. O

penn

ess

3.69

0.85

.05

−.0

4.0

0−

.06

−.1

1.0

9

8. C

onsc

ient

ious

ness

3.93

0.68

.19

−.2

3.1

1−

.10

−.0

5−

.10

−.0

8

9. E

xtra

vers

ion

3.59

0.65

.09

−.0

3−

.25*

−.2

4*.0

0.0

4.3

0*.0

6

10. A

gree

able

ness

3.93

0.58

.22

.10

−.0

1.0

1.0

1.2

4*.2

1−

.06

−.0

1

11. N

euro

ticis

m3.

810.

70.2

2.0

2.0

7−

.15

.01

.05

−.0

3.4

3**

.38*

*.0

0

12. C

aree

r su

ppor

t3.

151.

00−

.13

−.1

0−

.02

−.1

1.2

7*.3

4**

.17

−.2

4*.0

8.0

5.0

6

13. P

sych

osoc

ial s

uppo

rt3.

390.

92.1

6−

.11

.11

.00

.13

.37*

*−

.22

.04

−.1

3.0

1.0

4.4

4**

Not

e. n

= 6

8 m

ento

rs; n

= 6

8 pr

otég

és. D

umm

y-co

ded

vari

able

s: g

ende

r (0

= fe

mal

e, 1

= m

ale)

; nat

iona

lity

(0 =

fore

ign,

1 =

Sw

iss)

; edu

catio

n le

vel

(0 =

und

ergr

adua

te, 1

= g

radu

ate)

; pre

ferr

ed c

hoic

e (0

= n

o, 1

= y

es).

*p <

.05.

**p

< .0

1. *

**p

< .0

01.




career support was provided (β = .30, p < .05), even when the individual effects of mentor and protégé personality, as well as age, gender, gender-match, nationality, nationality-match, meeting frequency, mentor’s satisfac-tion with the protégé, and protégé’s educational level and mentor allocation were taken into account. To interpret the interaction effect of mentor open-ness and protégé openness on career support, the interaction graph was plot-ted in Figure 1. This graph shows that protégés low in openness received more career support from mentors who also scored low in openness than from mentors who scored high in openness. Similarly, protégés high in open-ness received more career support from mentors who also scored high in openness than from mentors who scored low in openness. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported in respect to openness to experience. The similarity between mentor and protégé explained an additional 7% of the variance in career sup-port as evidenced by a significant change in R2 (ΔR2 = .07, p < .05).

Table 2. Career and Psychosocial Support Regressed on Similarity in Openness.

Career support Psychosocial support

Variables entered Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Mentor age .06 .02 −.01 .06 .05 .03Protégé age −.01 −.04 −.02 −.08 −.06 −.05Mentor gender .08 .09 .00 −.07 −.05 −.13Protégé gender −.28† −.31* −.30* .08 .10 .10Paired gender .06 .07 .00 −.04 .01 −.06Mentor nationality .03 .13 .12 −.03 −.11 −.12Protégé nationality −.08 −.12 −.11 .13 .10 .11Paired nationality .05 .07 .03 −.01 .11 .08Mentor’s satisfaction .18 .17 .21† .25† .22† .26*Protégé educational level −.22 −.26† −.33* .00 −.01 −.07Protégé preferred choice .20 .22† .24* .01 −.01 .00Meeting frequency .34* .30* .34* .35* .39** .42**Mentor openness .30* .25* −.01 −.06Protégé openness .15 .13 −.28* −.30*Mentor openness × Protégé

openness.30* .27*

R2 .29 .40 .47 .26 .32 .38*ΔR2 .11* .07* .06† .06*

Note. n = 68 mentoring pairs. Standardized regression weights are shown.†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.



Menges 15

Hypothesis 2 predicted that similarity in personality would be positively related to psychosocial support. Table 2 shows, in support of Hypothesis 2, that the dyadic interaction between mentor openness and protégé openness explained the extent of psychosocial support protégés received (β = .27, p < .05) beyond the effects of control variables. Upon inspection of the interac-tion graph, however, the similarity in openness appears to matter only when the mentor is low in openness. Specifically, as Figure 2 shows, mentors who scored low in openness provided protégés scoring also low in openness with more psychosocial support than protégés scoring high in openness. When mentors were high in openness, however, protégés’ openness scores did not matter for psychosocial support. That is, protégés received the same amount of psychosocial support from mentors who scored high in openness regard-less of the protégé’s openness score. A significant change in R2 suggests that the similarity between mentor and protégé on openness adds 6% explained variance in psychosocial support (ΔR2 = .06, p < .05).

Conscientiousness and mentoring support. Hypothesis 1 suggested that similar-ity in conscientiousness would be positively related to career support. How-ever, analyses showed that the interaction between mentor conscientiousness and protégé conscientiousness did not significantly predict the extent of career support, and the R2 change at Step 3 was not significant. Thus, in respect to conscientiousness, Hypothesis 1 was not supported.

Figure 1. Career support as a function of mentor openness and protégé openness.




Figure 2. Psychosocial support as a function of mentor openness and protégé openness.

Hypothesis 2 suggested that similarity in conscientiousness would be pos-itively related to psychosocial support. The results presented in Table 3 sup-port Hypothesis 2 by showing that the interaction between mentor conscientiousness and protégé conscientiousness significantly predicted psy-chosocial support (β = .27, p < .05), even when control variables were accounted for. Figure 3 presents a graphical plot of the interaction between similarity in conscientiousness and psychosocial support. Protégés low in conscientiousness received more psychosocial support from mentors who also scored low in conscientiousness than from mentors who scored high in conscientiousness. Similarly, protégés high in conscientiousness received more psychosocial support from mentors who also scored high in conscien-tiousness than from mentors who scored low on conscientiousness. A signifi-cant R2 change indicated that similarity in conscientiousness contributed 6% to the variance explained in psychosocial support (ΔR2 = .06, p < .05).

Apart from these findings concerning the hypotheses, it is worth noting that two other variables had important effects on the mentoring relationship. First, meeting frequency affected both career support and psychosocial sup-port: The more often the mentoring pair met, the more protégés benefitted from the relationship, as evidenced in significant bivariate correlations (career support: r = .34, p < .01; psychosocial support: r = .37, p < .01), these relationships remained significant in the regression models. Second, pre-ferred choice of mentor related positively to career support (r = .27, p < .05);



Menges 17

this relationship too remained significant or marginally significant in the regression models.

Discussion

This study showed that similarities in specific personality characteristics between mentors and protégés have an effect on the support that protégés receive from mentors in a formal mentoring program. Specifically, this study found that similarity in openness to experience improved the career support that the protégés received from their mentors, and similarities in openness to experience and conscientiousness enhanced the psychosocial support that protégés received. But just as important as those significant findings are, is the insight that similarity in extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism had no effect. It seems, therefore, that the general effect for the benefits of

Table 3. Career and Psychosocial Support Regressed on Similarity in Conscientiousness.

Career support Psychosocial support

Variables entered Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Mentor age .06 .03 .03 .06 .07 .05Protégé age −.01 −.06 −.05 −.08 −.08 −.06Mentor gender .08 .17 .18 −.07 −.09 −.07Protégé gender −.28† −.29* −.29* .08 .09 .08Paired gender .06 .10 .11 −.04 −.04 .00Mentor nationality .03 .02 −.01 −.03 −.03 −.14Protégé nationality −.08 −.11 −.10 .13 .15 .20Paired nationality .05 .04 .03 −.01 −.02 −.06Mentor’s satisfaction .18 .18 .19 .25† .25† .28*Protégé educational level −.22 −.22 −.22 .00 .00 −.02Protégé preferred choice .20 .21† .22† .01 .00 .02Meeting frequency .34* .31* .30* .35* .35* .31*Mentor conscientiousness −.12 −.13 .06 .04Protégé conscientiousness −.24† −.25† .03 −.03Mentor conscientiousness × Protégé

conscientiousness.06 .27*

R2 .29 .35 .35 .26 .26 .32*ΔR2 .06 .00 .00 .06*

Note. n = 68 mentoring pairs. Standardized regression weights are shown.†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.




Figure 3. Psychosocial support as a function of mentor conscientiousness and protégé conscientiousness.

personality similarity that one would expect based on the attraction-similarity paradigm (Byrne, 1971) does not hold for formal mentoring relationships. Instead, in these specific relationships, distinctly, similarities in openness to experience and conscientiousness matter.

Theoretical and Practical Contributions

This research holds theoretical and practical contributions both to relational theories concerning similarity attraction and, more specifically, to mentoring theory and practice. First, in a challenge to relational theories advancing a generally beneficial effect of personality similarity on relationship outcomes (Byrne, 1971; Newcomb, 1956), the findings here suggest specific effects: Similarities on two personality traits—openness to experience and conscien-tiousness—matter for mentoring relationships, but similarities on other per-sonality traits—extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism—do not matter. These differentiated results corroborate other recent research that challenges the alleged general positive effect of personality similarity. For example, a study on initial interactions between strangers found that these interactions benefitted from similarity in levels of extraversion, but suffered if both inter-action partners were similarly low on agreeableness. Similarities concerning other personality traits had little effects on the interactions (Cuperman &



Menges 19

Ickes, 2009). In a study about friendship networks, it was discovered that people selected friends with similar levels of agreeableness, extraversion, and openness, but not necessarily with similar levels of conscientiousness and neuroticism (Selfhout et al., 2010). Apparently, the benefits that flow from similarity depend on whether similarity matters in a given context. Thus, this research, together with other recent findings, contributes to advanc-ing a more nuanced understanding of the attraction-similarity paradigm.

This research contributes to a better understanding of formal mentoring relationships and provides formal mentoring managers with guidance for the matching process by which protégés are assigned to mentors. It responds to calls for research to examine how protégé and mentor personality character-istics interact with one another (Chandler et al., 2011; Eby & Allen, 2002; Turban & Lee, 2007) and to calls for research on the matching criteria that could effectively be used in the matching process of formal mentoring pro-grams to facilitate beneficial mentoring outcomes (Blake-Beard et al., 2007). Of particular importance is the focus of this study on actual personality in the context of formal mentoring relationships. Whereas prior research estab-lished the importance of perceived personality similarity (Turban & Lee, 2007), this research demonstrated the importance of actual personality simi-larity. The distinction between actual and perceived similarity is essential in the context of formal mentoring programs as matching has to occur prior to the first meeting of the mentoring partners. Actual similarity can be assessed beforehand, so it can be used for the matching process, whereas perceived similarity cannot. Furthermore, the findings corroborate existing studies on perceived similarity in personality that found perceived similarity to have a positive effect on several mentoring outcome variables, such as time spent with protégés (Burke et al., 1993) and intention to remain in the mentoring relationship (Madia & Lutz, 2004). Thus, the current study both adds to and extends existing research highlighting the importance of similarity in personality.

This study also raises vital questions for mentoring research. Why is it that protégés receive more mentoring support in formal mentoring relationship if their mentor shares similar, rather than dissimilar, levels of openness to expe-rience and conscientiousness with them? And why is it that extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism had no effect? Although this research did not empirically examine the mechanisms that bring about the beneficial effects of similarity, some thoughts can be advanced to tentatively explain these intrigu-ing findings.

Why does similarity in openness to experience matter for career and psychosocial support? Openness to experience involves intellectual curiosity, creativity,




imagination, open-mindedness, and attentiveness to emotions (McCrae & Costa, 1996). If there are discrepancies at these levels, the mentoring dyad partner with greater openness to experience might be more curious, aim for more creativity, or push the other to convey more, particularly when it comes to emotions, whereas the less open partner may feel overwhelmed by the other partner’s intellect and creativity, or be less daring and more selective about shared information. These differences, in turn, could complicate the mentoring relationship and breed conflict, leading the mentor to withdraw career support from the protégé.

In contrast, if both mentoring dyad partners share the same levels of curi-osity and creativity and are comfortable about the amount of emotions con-veyed, then the mentoring partners are likely to establish a mutual understanding and feel at ease in each other’s presence. Indeed, a recent study of dyadic interactions between strangers showed that when both strangers scored similarly on openness (i.e., high/high or low/low), the strangers were better able to recognize that their counterpart was attempting to accommo-date their own behavior to fit in and facilitate the relationship. In contrast, strangers who scored differently on openness (i.e., high/low) attributed a lower amount of behavioral accommodation to partners (Cuperman & Ickes, 2009). Therefore, it seems that mentors and protégés who share similar levels of openness to experience are likely to better understand each other’s efforts to make the mentoring relationship work, particularly given that both mentor-ing partners usually enter the relationship within a formal mentoring program as strangers. As a result, mentors are likely to provide career support to the protégé.

Psychosocial support, too, benefits to the extent that mentors and protégés share similar levels of low openness to experience, but is unaffected in men-toring relationships in which the mentor has high openness to experience (as seen in Figure 2). Such mentors, it seems, can accommodate both protégés low in openness to experience and those high in openness. This finding is consistent with Wanberg et al.’s (2006) suggestion that “high openness to experience is expected to similarly predispose mentors to be more willing to mentor an individual that is not a mirror reflection of themselves” (pp. 412-413). However, Wanberg et al. did not find empirical support in their study of formal mentoring relationships even though Bozionelos (2004) had already reported a generally positive effect of mentors’ openness to experience on a number of mentoring outcomes in informal mentoring relationships. These inconsistencies may be due to the interaction effect revealed here. As the findings of the current study show, psychosocial support is not only linked to the mentor’s level of openness to experience, but it also depends on the pro-tégés level of openness. A low level of openness on the side of the mentor is



Menges 21

associated with decrements in psychosocial support anticipated by scholars in earlier work only when the protégé is high in openness, but not when the protégé is low in openness.

Why does similarity in conscientiousness matter for psychosocial support, but not career support? Conscientiousness refers to a tendency to show self-disci-pline, act dutifully, and be organized, task-focused, and persistent (McCrae & Costa, 1996). Mentors and protégés with a similar natural understanding of duties and disciplines are likely to get along better than those with dis-similar dispositions; thus, protégés benefit in terms of psychosocial support if they match their mentors’ level of conscientiousness. This finding is con-cordant with an earlier study showing that perceived similarity in conscien-tiousness had a positive impact on mentors’ expressed intention to remain in a mentoring relationship (Madia & Lutz, 2004). If both parties invest similar amounts of effort and persistence, the relationship is likely to be one of mutual understanding. Mentors and protégés with similar levels of con-scientiousness might thus reinforce and encourage each other. In such rela-tionships, mentors are likely to offer psychological nurturance and social support in ways that the protégé appreciates. Indeed, Waters (2004) found mentoring pairs in which both had high levels of actual conscientiousness were likely to hold a shared view of the mentorship. In contrast, if one of the mentoring partners has a stronger task focus and invests more effort than the other, the relationship will likely become burdened by feelings of inequity, thus deteriorating the felt relationship quality for the protégé. For example, if one partner is task-focused but the other is not, then this differ-ence dilutes the meaning of the relationship, causes controversy over the direction and purpose of mentoring meetings, and thus breeds psychosocial conflict.

The psychosocial benefits of similarity in conscientiousness do not extend to the domain of career support that is likely to benefit little if both parties are slacking. Better mentoring outcomes are likely to be achieved if at least one of the partners in the mentoring relationship is organized, persistent, and focused on the task. Research showed, for example, that protégés with an internal locus of control (a trait indicative of conscientiousness) were more likely to receive career support than others (Turban & Dougherty, 1994), apparently, independent of mentors’ level of conscientiousness. Perhaps, then the relational benefits of being similar that facilitate psychosocial support may be compromised by the instrumental benefits for career support that could be derived from the conscientiousness of even just one mentoring part-ner, leading overall to a null effect of conscientiousness similarity on career support.




Why do similarities in extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism not matter for mentoring support? The findings of this study suggest that similarities in extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism have no effect on mentoring support. These findings imply either that similarities on these personality traits simply do not matter or that the benefits of similarity were neutralized by the benefits of dissimilarity.

For extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism, there are arguments not only in support of benefits of similarity but also in support of benefits of dis-similarity. First, similarity in extraversion might create mutual attraction (Madia & Lutz, 2004), but the dynamics that unfold between similarly extra-verted individuals might also interfere with mentoring objectives (cf. Cain, 2012). In mentoring meetings, the combination of two extraverts may lead to a competition in air time and a spiral of overexcitement, and the combination of two introverts may lead to reserved and hesitant interactions. Second, sim-ilarity in agreeableness in mentoring relationships might carry relational ben-efits to the extent that both are high in agreeableness and thus concerned with harmony in their relationship, but such harmony may come at the expense of discussing controversial arguments and divergent worldviews that could be vital for the development and growth of the protégé. If both are low in agree-ableness, thus, high in similarity, it is difficult to envision that a working mentoring relationship could emerge. Two “disagreeables” tend to have par-ticularly poor interactions (Cuperman & Ickes, 2009). Third, combinations of similarly neurotic mentors and protégés might facilitate mutual understand-ing but might also limit some mentoring benefits. If mentor and protégé are both high on neuroticism, then their relationship might be steeped in concern, worry, and negativity—emotions unlikely to facilitate personal growth. And, for mentors and protégés with similarly low levels of neuroticism, there may be fewer opportunities to address and learn about emotion regulation tech-niques that may be vital for career success and well-being (cf. Côté, 2014).

Therefore, in mentoring relationships, benefits obtained from similarity in extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism may be offset by benefits obtained from dissimilarity, yielding an overall null effect for similarities on those personality traits.

Practical Implications

The findings of this study have several implications for practitioners, particu-larly for mentoring program managers faced with the challenge of matching mentors and protégés. The results of this study indicate that personality char-acteristics of mentors and protégés are indeed useful and valuable in the matching process; specifically, matching mentors and protégés based on



Menges 23

similarity in openness to experience will increase protégés’ career-related support. Matching mentors and protégés based on similarity in openness to experience and conscientiousness will increase the psychosocial support pro-tégés receive.

To translate these findings into implementable action, mentoring manag-ers should first use personality questionnaires to collect data on mentors’ and protégés’ personalities, and then seek to match mentors and protégés accord-ing to actual similarity in openness to experience and conscientiousness. Depending on the size of the mentoring program, managers could use this information in two ways. In small programs with less than 50 mentoring pairs, the mentoring manager could screen the personality match information together with other criteria considered important and then make the final matching decision autonomously or with protégés’ input. In larger programs, a computer algorithm incorporating specific weighting for each matching cri-teria may be useful to identify the best match.

But what if after the matching process some mentors and protégés are left over with mismatching personalities? In such situations, this research and per-tinent theory suggest that mentoring pairs with mismatching levels of openness to experience or conscientiousness should be made aware of the challenges that can arise from dissimilarity. To grasp the benefits of the mentoring relationship, both the mentor and the protégé could then be encouraged to make an effort to accommodate the other’s personality. Research suggests that people can act out of character and adopt a personality that is not their default (Little, 2014). Thus, mentors and protégés in mismatching relationships could be encouraged to adjust their levels of openness to experience or conscientiousness to bring those levels closer to the levels of their mentoring partner.

Finally, even if mentoring partners cannot be matched at all based on openness to experience and conscientiousness, this research holds important practical implications based on the findings concerning meeting frequency and mentor preferences. The more often protégés meet their mentor, the more protégés benefit from the relationship—both in terms of career support and psychosocial support. Thus mentoring program managers should impose a meeting schedule as part of the formal program and then monitor meeting frequencies. Furthermore, mentoring program managers should be aware that protégés receive more career support if they are matched with a mentor of their choice. This finding underpins the importance of soliciting input from protégés in the matching process.

Limitations and Future Research

Even though this study features several strengths, including multiple sources (i.e., mentor and protégé), multiple time points of assessment, and high levels




of external validity (i.e., the data were collected in a real-life setting with actual mentor–protégé pairs), the findings must be interpreted in light of some limitations. First, the sample consisted of student protégés and mentors from different industries, thus featuring a fairly specialist formal mentoring program that differs from mentoring programs in the workplace. This con-stellation may have led to some non-significant results of personality similar-ity on career support because the protégés were not members of the same organization as the mentors and therefore the mentors were limited in the actual career support they could provide. Furthermore, in corporate, rather than educational, settings, similarities in personalities may have greater effects when there is limited variety on other characteristics that are salient to full-time employees, such as work style and attitudes. The theory that explains the relational dynamics is not context specific; therefore, the results may gen-eralize to other settings. Still, future research should look at the relationship between actual personality and mentoring support in business organizations to examine whether similar effects will be found.

The dyadic research design required that both mentoring partners respond to both questionnaires. This reduced the number of participants. Maybe only those mentors and protégés replied who were most committed to the mentor-ing program. However, a comparison between the mentoring pairs in which both the protégé and the mentor responded (nprotégé-and-mentor = 68), with the pairs in which only the protégé but not the mentor responded (nprotégé-only = 10), yielded no significant differences in the mean values of career support (Mprotégé-and-mentor = 3.15 vs. Mprotégé-only = 3.35); t(76) = .59, ns, or psychosocial support (Mprotégé-and-mentor = 3.39 vs. Mprotégé-only = 2.99); t(76) = −1.29, ns. This suggests that among the responding protégés, there was no systematic differ-ence in the mentoring support provided by mentors who responded to the survey compared with those who did not respond.

The design of the study does not allow for inferences of causality, because it did not feature a randomized allocation of participants for a pre-test, treat-ment, and post-test procedure. Nonetheless, the design used two time points, assessing a stable trait at the first point and an evaluative outcome at the second point, with a time lag of 6 months. Given that trait similarity precedes the outcomes not only theoretically but also in the methodological operation-alization, it is likely that the results follow the flow of causality assumed throughout the study (i.e., that similarity leads to mentoring support, not vice versa). Future research could examine causality more closely through a three-step pre-test, treatment, post-test design. In Step 1, mentoring pairs are ran-domly formed. A few months later, career support and psychosocial support are assessed (first outcome measurement, or pre-test). In Step 2, mentoring pairs are rearranged such that in the treatment group, mentoring pairs are



Menges 25

intentionally matched on openness to experience and conscientiousness, whereas in the control group, pairs are intentionally mismatched. In Step 3, again a few months later, career support and psychosocial support are assessed (second outcome measurement, or post-test). If the second measurement showed a significant increase in career support and psychosocial support in the treatment group compared with the first measurement, but no such increase in the control group, then this would increase confidence in the causal effects of personality similarity on mentoring outcomes.

Future research could aim to explore the mechanisms through which simi-larities on openness to experience and conscientiousness bring about benefi-cial effects for protégés. Reinforcement affect (Clore & Byrne, 1974) and uncertainty reduction (Berger & Calabrese, 1975) are two potential mecha-nisms, but these mechanisms were not assessed in this research. Future research should include measures of these and other potential mechanisms to shed light on the question of why protégés receive better mentoring support if they are similar to their mentors in regard to openness to experience and conscientiousness.

It would also be interesting to tie mentor and protégé similarity to distal outcomes (e.g., job performance) of mentoring relationships for the protégé, perhaps mediated through career and psychosocial support. For example, if protégés have mentors of similar personality, will they be more confident and perform at higher levels in their professional lives after graduation? Furthermore, future research should embrace new developments in mentor-ing research to investigate relational outcomes; that is, outcomes beyond the career advancement of protégés that include, for example, life satisfaction, role integration and balance, relational competence, vitality, and resilience for both parties (i.e., protégés and mentors; Chandler et al., 2011; Ragins, 2012).

Finally, given the specific, rather than general, results of personality simi-larity on mentoring support, future research may examine more thoroughly the value of dissimilarity and how benefits in mentoring relationships can be achieved in dissimilar relationships. In this context, the exploration of men-toring networks may be interesting (Higgins & Kram, 2001). Perhaps such networks are effective to the extent that they include both similar and dissimi-lar mentoring partners, thus securing both the benefits of similarity and the potential benefits of dissimilarity.

Conclusion

As formal mentoring programs are becoming increasingly popular, special attention needs to be paid to the matching process. This study contributes to the understanding of the matching process. The results showed that mentors’ and




protégés’ similarity in openness to experience increased the extent to which protégés received career-related support. Moreover, similarity in openness to experience and conscientiousness increased the extent to which protégés received psychosocial support. These findings indicate that mentoring pairs should be matched based on similarity in these personality characteristics.

Appendix

Items for career support (four items):

1. My mentor supports me in my career planning2. My mentor supports me in my job application process3. My mentor supports me in finding an internship4. My mentor uses her or his influence to support my career

Items for psychosocial support (eight items):

1. My mentor is interested in me as a person2. My mentor supports me in stressful moments3. My mentor readily listens to my worries and feelings4. My mentor supports me in balancing my private and study-related

activities5. My mentor helps me to gain more self-confidence6. My mentor supports the development of my talents7. My mentor supports me in analyzing my strengths and weaknesses8. My mentor supports me in identifying my values

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-cation of this article.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Allen, T. D., & Eby, L. T. (2003). Relationship effectiveness for mentors: Factors associated with learning and quality. Journal of Management, 29, 469-486. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00021-7



Menges 27

Allen, T. D., & Eby, L. T. (2004). Factors related to mentor reports of mentoring functions provided: Gender and relational characteristics. Sex Roles, 50, 129-139. doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000011078.48570.25

Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., & Lentz, E. (2006). Mentorship behaviors and mentor-ship quality associated with formal mentoring programs: Closing the gap between research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 567-578. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.567

Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., O’Brien, K., & Lentz, E. (2008). The state of mentoring research: A qualitative review of current research methods and future research implications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 343-357. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.08.004

Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career ben-efits associated with mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 127-136. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.127

Aryee, S., Lo, S., & Kang, I. L. (1999). Antecedents of early career stage mentoring among Chinese employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 563-576. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199909)20:5<563::AID-JOB890>3.0.CO;2-#

Ashkanasy, N. M., & O’Connor, C. (1997). Value congruence in leader-member exchange. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 647-662. doi:10.1080/00224549709595486

Baugh, G. S., & Fagenson-Eland, E. A. (2007). Formal mentoring programs: A “poor cousin” to informal relationships? In B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work (pp. 249-272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99-112. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x

Blake-Beard, S. D., O’Neill, R. M., & McGowan, E. (2007). Blind dates? The impor-tance of matching in successful formal mentoring relationships. In B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work (pp. 617-632). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bozionelos, N. (2004). Mentoring provided: Relation to mentor’s career success, per-sonality, and mentoring received. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 24-46. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00033-2

Burke, R. J., McKeen, C. A., & McKenna, C. (1993). Correlates of mentoring in organizations: The mentor’s perspective. Psychological Reports, 72, 883-896. doi:10.2466/pr0.1993.72.3.883

Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academia Press.Cain, S. (2012). Quiet: The power of introverts in a world that can’t stop talking.

London, England: Penguin.Caspi, A., & Herbener, E. S. (1990). Continuity and change: Assortative marriage and

the consistency of personality in adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 250-258. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.2.250

Chandler, D. E., Kram, K. E., & Yip, J. (2011). An ecological systems perspective on mentoring at work: A review and future prospects. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 519-570. doi:10.1080/19416520.2011.576087




Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison on mentoring functions and contrasts with nonmentored coun-terparts. Personnel Psychology, 45, 619-636. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1992.tb00863.x

Clore, G. L., & Byrne, D. A. (1974). A reinforcement-affect model of attraction. In T. L. Huston (Ed.), Foundations of interpersonal attraction (pp. 143-165). New York: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-362950-0.50013-6

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Condon, J. W., & Crano, W. D. (1988). Inferred evaluation and the relation between attitude similarity and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 789-797. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.789

Côté, S. (2014). Emotional intelligence in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 459-488. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091233

Cuperman, R., & Ickes, W. (2009). Big Five predictors of behavior and perceptions in initial dyadic interactions: Personality similarity helps extraverts and intro-verts, but hurts “disagreeables.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 667-684. doi:10.1037/a0015741

D’Abate, C. (2010). Developmental interactions for business students: Do they make a difference? Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17, 143-155. doi:10.1177/1548051810370795

Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moder-ated multiple regression analysis: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 917-926. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.917

Deluga, R. J. (1998). Leader-member exchange quality and effectiveness ratings. Group & Organization Management, 23, 189-216. doi:10.1177/1059601198232006

Digman, J. M. (1996). The curious history of the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 1-20). New York: Guilford Press.

Dijkstra, P., & Barelds, D. (2008). Do people know what they want: A similar or complimentary partner? Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 545-602.

Dryer, D. C., & Horowitz, L. M. (1997). When do opposites attract? Interpersonal complementarity versus similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 592-603. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.3.592

Eby, L. T., & Allen, T. D. (2002). Further investigation of protégés’ negative mentoring experiences. Group & Organization Management, 27, 456-479. doi:10.1177/1059601102238357

Eby, L. T., & McManus, S. E. (2004). The protégé’s role in negative mentor-ing experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 255-275. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2003.07.001

Eby, L. T., McManus, S. E., Simon, S. A., & Russell, J. E. A. (2000). The protégé’s perspective regarding negative mentoring experiences: The development of a tax-onomy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57, 1-21. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1999.1726



Menges 29

Egan, T. M. (2005). The impact of learning goal orientation similarity on formal men-toring relationship outcomes. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7, 489-504. doi:10.1177/1523422305279679

Fagenson-Eland, E. A., Marks, M. A., & Amendola, K. L. (1997). Perceptions of mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 29-42. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1997.1592

Feldman, D. C., Folks, W. R., & Turnley, W. R. (1999). Mentor-protégé diversity and its impact on international internship experiences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 597-611. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199909)20:5<597::AID-JOB977>3.0.CO;2-#

Finkelstein, L., Allen, T., Ritchie, T., Lynch, J., & Montei, M. (2012). A dyadic examination of the role of relationship characteristics and age on relationship satisfaction in a formal mentoring programme. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 21, 803-827. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2011.594574

Funder, D. C. (2001). Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 197-221. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.197

Gattis, K. S., Berns, S., Simpson, L. E., & Christensen, A. (2004). Birds of a feather or strange birds? Ties between personality, similarity, and marital quality. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 564-574. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.18.4.564

Godshalk, V. M., & Sosik, J. J. (2003). Aiming for career success: The role of learn-ing goal orientation in mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 417-437. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00038-6

Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26-34. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.1.26

Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. E. (2001). Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A developmental network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 264-288. doi:10.5465/AMR.2001.4378023

Hinkin, T. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104-121. doi:10.1177/109442819800100106

Hoyle, R. H. (1993). Interpersonal attraction in the absence of explicit attitudinal information. Social Cognition, 11, 309-320. doi:10.1521/soco.1993.11.3.309

Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Judge, T. D. (2008). A quantitative review of mentor-ing: Test of a model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 269-283. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.09.006

Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organiza-tional life. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

Lankau, M. J., Riordan, C. M., & Thomas, C. H. (2005). The effects of similarity and liking in formal relationships between mentors and protégés. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 252-265. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2004.08.012

Leary, M. R. (1999). The scientific study of personality. In V. J. Derlega, B. A. Winsteady, & W. H. Jones (Eds.), Personality: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 3-26). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Little, B. R. (2014). Me, myself, and us: The science of personality and the art of well-being. New York: Public Affairs.




Long, J. S. (1983). Confirmatory factor analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Luo, S., & Klohnen, E. C. (2005). Assortative mating and marital quality in newly-

weds: A couple-centered approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 304-326. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.2.304

Madia, B. P., & Lutz, C. J. (2004). Perceived similarity, expectation-reality dis-crepancies, and mentors’ expressed intention to remain in Big Brothers/Big Sisters programs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 34, 598-623. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02562.x

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theo-ries: Theoretical contexts of the five-factor model. New York: Guilford.

McKeen, C., & Bujaki, M. (2007). Gender and mentoring: Issues, effects, and oppor-tunities. In B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work (pp. 197-222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & Adkins, C. L. (1991). Value congruence and satis-faction with a leader: An examination of the role of interaction. Human Relations, 44, 481-495. doi:10.1177/001872679104400504

Montoya, R. M., Horton, R., & Kirchner, J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 889-922. doi:10.1177/0265407508096700

Newcomb, T. M. (1956). The prediction of interpersonal attraction. American Psychologist, 11, 575-586. doi:10.1037/h0046141

Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 258, 367-408. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00515.x

Niehoff, B. P. (2006). Personality predictors of participation as a mentor. Career Development International, 11, 321-333. doi:10.1108/13620430610672531

Noe, R. A. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. Personnel Psychology, 41, 457-479. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00638.x

Noe, R. A., Greenberger, D. B., & Wang, S. (2002). Mentoring: What we know and where we might go. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 21, 129-173. doi:10.1016/S0742-7301(02)21003-8

Nunnally, J. (1976). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Owen, C. J., & Solomon, L. Z. (2006). The importance of interpersonal similarities

in the teacher mentor/protégé relationship. Social Psychology of Education, 9, 83-89. doi:10.1007/s11218-005-2671-0

Ptacek, J., & Dodge, K. (1995). Coping strategies and relationship satisfac-tion in couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 76-84. doi:10.1177/0146167295211008

Ragins, B. R. (1997a). Antecedents of diversified mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 90-109. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1997.1590

Ragins, B. R. (1997b). Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations: A power perspective. Academy of Management Review, 22, 482-521. doi:10.5465/AMR.1997.9707154067



Menges 31

Ragins, B. R. (2002). Understanding diversified mentoring relationships: Definitions, challenges, and strategies. In D. Clutterbuck & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Mentoring and diversity: An international perspective (pp. 23-53). Woburn, MA: Butterworth Heinemann.

Ragins, B. R. (2012). Relational mentoring: A positive approach to mentoring at work. In K. S. Cameron & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of posi-tive organizational scholarship (pp. 519-536). New York: Oxford University.

Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 529-550. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.529

Riley, S., & Wrench, D. (1985). Mentoring among women lawyers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 374-386. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1985.tb00913.x

Robins, R. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2000). Two personalities, one relationship: Both partners’ personality traits shape the quality of their relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 251-259. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.2.251

Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 506-516. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6303_8

Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2001). An investigation of the moderating effects of gender on the relationships between mentoring initiation and protégé per-ceptions of mentoring functions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 342-363. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1809

Schaubroeck, J., & Lam, S. S. K. (2002). How similarity to peers and supervisor influ-ences organizational advancement in different cultures. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1120-1136. doi:10.2307/3069428

Schimel, J., Pyszczinski, T., Greenberg, J., O’Mahen, H., & Arndt, J. (2000). Running from the shadow: Psychological distancing from others to deny characteristics people fear in themselves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 446-462. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.3.446

Selfhout, M., Burk, W., Branje, S., Denissen, J., van Aken, M., & Meeus, W. (2010). Emerging late adolescent friendship networks and Big Five personality traits: A social network approach. Journal of Personality, 78, 509-538. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00625.x

Solomon, B. C., & Jackson, J. J. (2014). Why do personality traits predict divorce? Multiple pathways through satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 978-996. doi:10.1037/a0036190

Strauss, J. P., Barrick, M. R., & Connerley, M. L. (2001). An investigation of personal-ity similarity effects (relational and perceived) on peer and supervisor ratings and the role of familiarity and liking. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 637-657. doi:10.1348/096317901167569

Thomas, D. A. (1993). Racial dynamics in cross-race developmental relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 169-194. doi:10.2307/2393410

Turban, D. B., & Dougherty, T. W. (1994). Role of protégé personality in receipt of mentoring and career success. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 688-702. doi:10.2307/256706




Turban, D. B., & Jones, A. P. (1988). Supervisor–subordinate similarity: Types, effects, and mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 228-234. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.73.2.228

Turban, D. B., & Lee, F. K. (2007). The role of personality in mentoring relationships: Formation, dynamics, and outcomes. In B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work (pp. 21-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Underhill, C. M. (2006). The effectiveness of mentoring programs in corporate set-tings: A meta-analytical review of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 292-307. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2005.05.003

Wanberg, C. R., Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Marchese, M. (2006). Mentor and protégé predictors and outcomes of mentoring in a formal mentoring program. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 410-423. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2006.05.010

Wanberg, C. R., Welsh, E. T., & Hezlett, S. A. (2003). Mentoring research: A review and dynamic process model. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 22, 39-124. doi:10.1016/S0742-7301(03)22002-8

Wang, S., Tomlinson, E. C., & Noe, R. A. (2010). The role of mentor trust and protégé internal locus of control in formal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 358-367. doi:10.1037/a0017663

Waters, L. (2004). Protégé-mentor agreement about the provision of psychosocial support: The mentoring relationship, personality, and workload. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 519-532. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2003.10.004

Weinberg, F. J., & Lankau, M. (2011). Formal mentoring programs: A mentor-centric and longitudinal analysis. Journal of Management, 37, 1527-1557. doi:10.1177/0149206309349310

Author Biography

Christine Menges is Senior Lecturer and Head of Department of Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior at the Lord Ashcroft International Business School at Anglia Ruskin University. She received her PhD from the University of St. Gallen. Her main research interests are talent management and career development.



Documents

Toward Improving the EFFECTIVENESS of FORMAL MENTORING PROGRAMS _ Matching by Personality Matters Ibcgoldenlistingforresellers20110906-110920104100-Phpapp02