Emerald Article: Mentoring, supervisor support, and perceived
organizational support: what matters most? David D. Dawley, Martha C. Andrews, Neil S. Bucklew Article information: To cite this document: David D. Dawley, Martha C. Andrews, Neil S. Bucklew, (2008),"Mentoring, supervisor support, and perceived organizational support: what matters most?", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 29 Iss: 3 pp. 235 - 247 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730810861290 Downloaded on: 13-05-2012 References: This document contains references to 44 other documents To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com This document has been downloaded 3640 times. Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITI PENDIDIKAN SULTAN IDRIS For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help for authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download. Mentoring, supervisor support, and perceived organizational support: what matters most? David D. Dawley College of Business and Economics, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA Martha C. Andrews Cameron School of Business, University of North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, North Carolina, USA, and Neil S. Bucklew College of Business and Economics, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA Abstract Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide an examination of the relative impact of mentoring, supervisor support, and perceived organizational support on organizational commitment and job search behavior. Design/methodology/approach In total, 346 employees of a US manufacturing facility were surveyed. Findings Ordinary least squared regression model revealed that perceived organizational support was a stronger predictor of organizational commitment and job search behavior than was mentoring and supervisor support. Research limitations/implications The main implication of this study for leadership theorists is that while mentors and supervisors can be effective in endearing the employee to the organization, the perception of organizational support might be more important. The main limitation of this study is that the ndings are derived from a single manufacturing organization. Practical implications The results from this study suggest that organizational leaders must adequately address organizational-supported programs including fair operating procedures, rewards, and job conditions. These programs underlie perceived organizational support. Originality/ value of paper This paper contributes to the literature by providing a concurrent and comparative examination of the effects of mentoring, supervisor support, and perceived organizational support on organizational commitment and job search behavior. Keywords Supervisory training, Mentoring, Perception, Employee attitudes, United States of America Paper type Research paper Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) has often been applied to the study of organizations in an effort to better understand the reciprocal relationships that develop between employees and the organization (e.g. Wayne et al., 2002). This view suggests The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm The research upon which this paper is based was partially funded by the Kennedy-Vanscoy Fund for Faculty Development in the College of Business and Economics, West Virginia University. Mentoring and POS 235 Received June 2007 Revised October 2007 Accepted November 2007 Leadership & Organization Development Journal Vol. 29 No. 3, 2008 pp. 235-247 qEmerald Group Publishing Limited 0143-7739 DOI 10.1108/01437730810861290 that when the employer provides employees with fair treatment, and values their contributions and well-being, employees perceive high levels of support and thus feel obligated to reciprocate. These feelings of obligation develop in response to actions by both the organization as well as it agents and can be demonstrated through increased organizational commitment, performance, and extra-role behaviors (Aryee et al., 2002). At the broadest level, perceived organizational support (POS) has been linked with higher job performance (Erdogan and Enders, 2007; Witt and Carlson, 2006), organizational citizenship behaviors (Piercy et al., 2006), commitment and reduced turnover (Loi et al., 2006). Similarly, employees satisfaction with their immediate supervisor has been shown to reduce voluntary turnover and improve commitment (Eisenberger et al., 2002). In addition to the organization and supervisors, mentors can also serve as a source of support. Mentors are more experienced, senior individuals who offer advice and developmental support to junior employees (Raabe and Beehr, 2003). Mentors play a signicant role in socializing both subordinates and proteges, and also affect employee commitment to the organization (Rowden, 2000). For example, mentoring has been positively associated with organizational commitment and inversely linked to intentions to quit (Payne and Huffman, 2005). Thus, a variety of support mechanisms exist at multiple levels within organizations that can affect numerous employee outcomes. While the organization, supervisors, and mentors, all represent valuable but different forms of support to employees, no study to date has included all three variables in a single study in an effort to investigate the relative importance of each in predicting outcomes. Given the growth in the literature concerning these three variables, a reasonable question to ask is which form of support is the most effective in building organizational commitment and reducing job search behaviors? Human resource departments have limited resources and understanding the relative impact of POS, supervisor support, and mentoring should assist managers in making improved resource allocation decisions as well as policy decisions. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare the impact of POS, supervisor support, and mentoring in an effort to examine the relative importance of each. In other words, which is more powerful in engendering organizational commitment and reducing job search behavior? This study is organized as follows. First, a brief reviewof the dependent variables organizational commitment and job search behavior is offered. Next, a review is provided of the extant literature regarding the predictor variables in this study POS, supervisor support, and mentoring. Following this review, a formal research question is offered regarding the relative importance of the predictor variables on the dependent variables. Next, an empirical study and results are presented to answer the research question. Finally, a discussion of these ndings is offered. Organizational commitment and job search behavior Organizational commitment occurs for a variety of reasons, and the majority of those reasons are based on an exchange relationship with the employer. A purely economic exchange is one in which the organization promises a days work for a days pay. Alternatively, a social exchange approach captures the unspecied expectations each party holds for the other (Eisenberger et al., 1986). This approach is often used as a theoretical basis for the study of organizational commitment. The most commonly LODJ 29,3 236 researched components of organizational commitment are affective and normative commitment. Affective commitment refers to the employees state of emotional attachment to the organization. This emotional response has also been described as a linking of the identity of the individual with the identity of the organization and as an attachment to the organization for its own sake, apart from its purely instrumental worth (Buchanan, 1974). Affective commitment results in a situation where the employee wants to continue his or her association with the organization (Meyer and Allen, 1997; Mowday et al., 1982). Normative commitment revolves around an employees feelings of obligation and loyalty to the organization (Allen and Meyer, 1990; Meyer and Allen, 1991, 1997). These feelings may be the result of normative pressures internalized by the employee through familial or cultural socialization prior to organizational membership, from organizational socialization processes following entry into the organization, or from a combination of both prior experience and organizational socialization (Hackett et al., 1994; Meyer et al., 1993). Aperson having a high degree of normative commitment feels that he or she ought to continue the association with the organization (Meyer and Allen, 1991). Social exchange theory suggests that when employees feel supported by the organization, employees reciprocate through feeling of commitment to the organization and are less likely to seek out new job opportunities. However, when employees experience low organizational support through high levels of role stress and/or job dissatisfaction, they may initiate a job search process (Firth et al., 2004). Thus, employee job search behaviors have been associated with various job attitudes including job dissatisfaction, low POS (Allen et al., 2003), and organizational commitment (Meyer and Allen, 1997). Perceived organizational support Perceived organizational support (POS) has received a great deal of attention in the recent literature. POS describes employees beliefs that the organization values their contributions and well-being. There is a great deal of empirical evidence that suggests POS is associated with many desirable outcomes, and turnover intention is the most widely reported outcome variable. POS is based on organizational support theory which involves the organizations propensity to meet employees socioemotional needs (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Participation in decision making, fairness of rewards (Allen et al., 2003), developmental experiences and promotions (Wayne et al., 1997), autonomy (Eisenberger et al., 1999), and job security (Rhoades and Eisenerger, 2002) have also been empirically linked to POS. POS assures employees that the organization stands behind themas they perform their jobs and handle stressful conditions (George et al., 1993). Organizational support theory also adds that POS invokes the normof reciprocity in that supported employees, value and respect their organization and will therefore contribute to the organizations goals. Further, positive feelings rendered to the employee through POS will fulll socio-emotional needs and endear the employee to the organization. Social exchange theory also aids our understanding of POS. This theory suggests that employees value job rewards to a greater extent if the rewards are based on the discretion of the organization rather than inuenced by external inuences such as Mentoring and POS 237 unions or health and safety regulations. Voluntary rewards that come directly from the organization are perceived as an indication that the organization values the employees well-being. As Rhoades and Eisenerger, 2002 note, voluntary job rewards such as job enrichment, promotions, and compensation contribute more to POS if they are viewed as purely voluntary organizational actions. Supervisor support Supervisor support is dened as the degree to which employees form impressions that their superiors care about their well-being, value their contributions, and are generally supportive (Eisenberger et al., 2002). Supervisors who are deemed to be supportive have been found to be effective in managing subordinate emotions. Managing subordinate emotions is a critical component in managing organizational commitment. Hutchison, 1997 research showed that caring and supportive treatment by supervisors was positively associated with affective commitment. Because supervisors act as agents of the organization, they have direct responsibility for directing, evaluating and supporting their subordinates. Accordingly, subordinates view supervisor support as a personal extension of the organization (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Levinson, 1965). Organizational support theory suggests that the actions of its agents are indicators of the organizations intent (Levinson, 1965). Agents help personify the organization to the employee. Immediate supervisors are typically the closest organizational link to the employee and have the ability to communicate the organizations intentions directly to their subordinates. Strong (and weak) supervisor support has been shown to affect employees in several ways. For example, Kalliiath and Beck (2001) found that strong supervisor support helped reduce burnout and intentions to quit. Munn et al. (1996) found that supervisor support was the best predictor of job satisfaction and intention to quit. Similarly, Hatton and Emerson (1998) found that low levels of supervisor support were associated with increased turnover. A nal note about supervisor support is that it has also been considered to be both an antecedent to and outcome of POS. Recent work by Eisenberger and colleagues (2002) offers evidence that there is a causal link from supervisory support to POS. However, work by Yoon and Thye (2000) suggests that this causality occurs in the reverse direction and increased POS will increase employees perceptions of supervisor support, thus leading employees to believe that POS is the force driving supervisor support. Mentoring Mentoring has been described as an interpersonal exchange between an experienced employee (mentor) and a less experienced peer (protege) (Russell and Adams, 1997). There is substantial empirical evidence to suggest that mentoring, through initiation and socialization, has a number of positive affects on protege work performance (Allen et al., 2004). A recent meta-analysis found that mentoring is positively associated with compensation, number of promotions, career satisfaction, expectations for advancement, career commitment, job satisfaction, and intention to stay (Allen et al. 2004). Mentoring is believed to be especially important in the context of protege socialization. Protege socialization can be viewed as the process where employees LODJ 29,3 238 acquire behaviors, knowledge and attitudes necessary to function as an organizational member (Van Maanen and Schien, 1979). More recent research suggests that a more comprehensive assessment of the mentorship experience should include the proteges perception of the quality and satisfaction with the mentor (Allen et al., 2006; Ragins et al., 2000). These authors made this assertion based on the work of Kram (1985) who forwarded that liking, attraction, and identication are key impersonal processes that lead to the socialization necessary to make mentoring relationships work. Ragins et al. (2000) used the term marginal mentoring to describe degrees of mentoring effectiveness and reported that highly satisfying mentor-protege relationships were more effective than marginally or dissatisfying mentor-protege relationships. Socialization is also important in that it affords the protege the opportunity to buy into corporate culture. This buy-in is critically important for an employee to become committed to an organization. Mentoring has been empirically linked to organization commitment, the degree of an employees identication and involvement with an organization, and organizational commitment has also been empirically (and inversely) linked to job search behavior (Mowday et al., 1982). A number of researchers have documented the association between mentoring and the proteges level of organizational commitment (e.g. Ayree and Chay, 1994; Payne and Huffman, 2005). Such researchers agree that mentoring effects protege commitment by fostering positive psychological feelings about their career. Viator and Scandura (1991) add that mentoring promotes protege identication with the organization. Moreover Scandura (1997) suggests that mentoring nurtures positive attitudes in proteges through providing a role model and by increasing coping and stress management skills. The aforementioned benets explain the positive association between mentoring and protege organizational commitment. Although many researchers have established a clear link between mentoring and commitment, others have examined the link between mentoring and turnover intentions (e.g. Lankau and Sandura, 2002; Payne and Huffman, 2005). These researchers suggest that mentoring is inversely related to job search behaviors. Lankau and Sandura (2002) offered some insight into this association through documenting that mentoring promotes protege learning. The authors concluded that protege learning leads to greater job satisfaction, reduced job ambiguity, and therefore decreased job search behaviors. From the above review, it seems obvious that POS, supervisor support, and mentoring are all effective ways to improve organizational commitment and reduce job search behaviors. The research question becomes one of relativity. In other words, which form of support matters most? Therefore, the formally stated research question is offered below. RQ Which has a greater effect on organizational commitment and job search intentions mentoring, supervisor support, or perceived organizational support? Method Sample The population for this study involves employees at a medium-sized manufacturing facility located in the Mid-Atlantic region of the USA. This manufacturing facility is a privately owned organization that manufactures parts for the heavy construction Mentoring and POS 239 machinery industry. The organization operates three shifts a day to ensure a constant supply of parts to the industry it serves. The culture of the manufacturing facility could be described as one of high stress due to the need for the rapid lling of orders with a minimally-staffed production crew. This organization must staff itself such that labor costs are as low as possible. The efcient use of labor is critical for competing in this price-sensitive market. This organization was selected because its management promised the researchers full cooperation in maximizing the survey response rate. Accordingly, the authors were allowed to attend all quarterly (and mandatory) in-house training sessions for this company, and were given the rst 20 minutes of each meeting to administer their survey (described below). Of the 350 participants, one declined to participate and three returned incomplete or non-usable surveys. Therefore 346 usable surveys were obtained a usable response rate of 99 percent. Most of the participants 89.9 percent were male. Of the respondents, 59 percent reported having a mentor. Most (30.3 percent) of the participants were between the ages of 35-44; 22.5 percent were between 45 and 54; 21.9 percent were between 25 and 34; 16.2 percent were between 55 and 65; 8.5 percent were between 18 and 24; and 0.3 percent were over 65. Survey variables All survey variables were measured on a Likert-type scale (1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree), unless otherwise indicated. Supervisor support. Supervisor support was measured with a three-item scale similar to that used by Eisenberger et al. (2002). A sample item is My supervisor cares about my well-being. The a reliability of this scale was 0.94. Mentoring. Following the lead of Payne and Huffman (2005), a multiplicative term was used to assess the existence and quality of a mentoring relationship. The existence of mentorship was assessed using a dichotomous (yes/no) response to the question Have you been helped by a mentor (someone who actively assists and helps you in some signicant and on-going way) in this organization? The quality of this relationship was assessed by the Likert scaled item (1 very unsatised to 5 very satised), How satised are you with this relationship? Both items were multiplied to capture the existence and quality of a mentoring relationship, if it existed. Perceived organizational support. POS was measured with an abbreviated eight-item scale that follows the recommendation of Rhoades and Eisenerger (2002), p. 699) who note because the original scale is unidimensional and has high internal reliability, the use of shorter versions does not appear problematic. A sample item is The organization values my contribution to its well-being. The a reliability of this scale was 0.89. Job search intention. Job search intention was measured with two items. The items used were I will likely look for another job in the next twelve months, and I will likely look for another job in the next three years. The a reliability of this two item scale was 0.93. Affective commitment. Affective commitment was measured using an eight-item scale developed by Meyer and Allen (1997). A sample item is I would be very happy to spend the rest of my life with this organization. The a reliability of this scale was 0.87. LODJ 29,3 240 Normative commitment. Normative commitment was measured using an six-item scale developed by Meyer and Allen (1997). A sample item is This organization deserves my loyalty. The a reliability of this scale was 0.89. Descriptive statistics Table I shows the zero order correlations, means, and standard deviations of all scales. As expected, supervisor support, mentorship, and POS are strongly correlated with affective and normative commitment. Further, the same predictor variables are all negatively correlated with job search intentions. Dimensionality Aconrmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using all three scales to afrmthe contention that the three support variables represent three distinct constructs mentoring, supervisor support, and POS. In general, a CFA model with a p value greater that 0.05, RMSEA less than 0.05, and t indices greater than 0.950 indicate a good t of the data to the specied model. In specifying a three factor model, the CFA t statistics were x 2 59:30 df 62, p 0:26, RMSEA 0:04, normed t index NFI 0:977, comparative ft index CFI 0:989, goodness of t index GFI 0:958, adjusted goodness of t index AGFI 0:930, and incremental t index IFI 0:989. Thus, the three factor model offers a good t to the data. An alternative one factor model (combining all three constructs) and a two factor model (combining POS and supervisor support as one factor and mentoring as the second factor) were also tested. Neither alternative model showed acceptable model t. The three models and t indices are provided in Table II. The CFA supports the contention that supervisor support, mentoring, and POS are distinct constructs. Results The effects of mentoring, supervisor support, and POS were tested in three ordinary least squared (OLS) regression models, one each for affective commitment, normative commitment, and job search intentions. The beta coefcients, standard errors and adjusted R 2 s are shown in Tables III-V. Results from the rst regression model shows that mentoring, supervisor support, and POS are all signicant predictors of affective commitment, albeit to different degrees. The beta coefcient for mentoring activity was signicant at the p , 0:10 level b mentoring 0:096. The beta coefcient for supervisor support was signicant at the p , 0:001 level b supervisorsupport 0:125. The beta coefcient for POS was more than four times greater than that for supervisor support b POS 0:518, p , 0:001). The ndings were very similar in the second model where normative commitment was the dependent variable. The beta coefcient for mentoring activity was signicant at the p , 0:10 level b mentoring 0:096. The beta coefcient for supervisor support was signicant at the p , 0:01 level b supervisorsupport 0:112. For affective commitment, the beta coefcient for POS was more than ve times greater than that for supervisor support b POS 0:575, p , 0:001). In the third model where job search behavior is the dependent variable, the beta coefcient for mentoring activity was not signicant b mentoring 20:105). The beta coefcient for supervisor support was signicant at the p , 0:05 level b supervisorsupport 20:117. The beta coefcient for POS was almost ve times Mentoring and POS 241 M e a n S D 1 2 3 4 5 1 . S u p e r v i s o r s u p p o r t 3 . 6 9 1 1 . 0 8 2 2 . M e n t o r s h i p 0 . 5 9 0 0 . 4 9 3 0 . 2 4 2 * * * 3 . P O S 2 . 8 1 4 0 . 8 5 4 0 . 3 7 3 * * * 0 . 2 3 5 * * * 4 . A f f e c t i v e C o m m i t m e n t 2 . 8 6 2 0 . 7 6 3 0 . 4 0 4 * * * 0 . 2 2 3 * * * 0 . 6 6 2 * * * 5 . N o r m a t i v e C o m m i t m e n t 2 . 7 2 6 0 . 8 6 9 0 . 3 6 2 * * * 0 . 1 8 4 * * 0 . 6 2 5 * * * 0 . 7 3 0 * * * 6 . J o b s e a r c h i n t e n t i o n 2 . 8 9 6 1 . 2 3 2 2 0 . 2 2 7 * * * 2 0 . 1 3 9 * 2 0 . 4 1 2 * * * 2 0 . 5 5 5 * * * 2 0 . 5 3 5 * * * N o t e s : * p , 0 : 0 5 ; * * p , 0 : 0 1 ; * * * p , 0 : 0 0 1 ; T w o - t a i l e d b i - v a r i a t e c o r r e l a t i o n s Table I. Intercorrelation matrix LODJ 29,3 242 greater than that for supervisor support b POS 20:498, p , 0:001). Thus, the answer to the research question is that POS has greater effect on employee organizational commitment and job search intentions than either mentoring or supervisor support. Discussion and implications of the study The purpose of this study was to examine the relative effects of POS, supervisor support, and mentorship, on organizational commitment (affective and normative) and Model x 2 df RMSEA NFI CFI GFI AGFI IFI One-factor (a one-dimensional model) 1,355.23 65 0.24 0.626 0.634 0.624 0.474 0.635 Two-factor (combining POS and supervisor support) 1,060.36 64 0.21 0.761 0.771 0.680 0.544 0.772 Three-factor 59.30 62 0.04 .977 0.989 0.958 0.930 0.987 Table II. Conrmatory factor analysis of one, two and three-factor models of POS, mentoring, and supervisor support Predictor b se Intercept 4.820 * * 0.249 Supervisor support 20.105 * 0.059 Mentorship 20.117 0.124 POS 20.498 * * 0.076 Adjusted R 2 0.162 Notes: * p , 0:05; * * p , 0:001 Table V. Regression analysis job search intention Predictor b se Intercept 0.633 * * * 0.154 Supervisor support 0.112 * * 0.037 Mentorship 0.096 * 0.055 POS 0.575 * * * 0.047 Adjusted R 2 0.406 Notes: * p , 0:10; * * p , 0:01; * * * p , 0:001 Table IV. Regression analysis normative commitment Predictor b se Intercept 0.883 * * 0.128 Supervisor support 0.125 * * 0.031 Mentorship 0.096 * 0.064 POS 0.518 * * 0.039 Adjusted R 2 0.460 Notes: * p , 0:10; * * p , 0:001 Table III. Regression analysis affective commitment Mentoring and POS 243 job search intentions. The main nding is that POS has the most signicant effect on organizational commitment and employee job search intentions. While supervisor support and mentorship generally show signicant associations with organizational commitment and job search intention, POS is a much more powerful predictor variable. The intent of this study is not to diminish the importance of the roles of supervisors and mentors in employees commitment and intentions to remain with the organization. Instead, by introducing POS into the analysis of supervisor support and mentorship a more comprehensive model is forwarded and one that has important implications for organizational leaders. Frequently, organizations spend a great deal of time on nurturing mentor-protege and supervisor-subordinate relationships. This is generally accomplished through formal mentoring programs and extensive managerial training. However, the focus of generating and maintaining POS cannot be understated. The results from this study suggest that organizational leaders must adequately address organizational-supported programs including fair operating procedures, rewards, and job conditions (Rhoades and Eisenerger, 2002). Research indicates a variety of organizational practices that more tightly bind an employee to an employer. For example, participation in decision making (Allen et al., 2003), fairness of rewards (Allen et al. 2003), developmental experiences and promotions (Wayne et al., 1997), autonomy (Eisenberger et al., 1999), and job security (Rhoades and Eisenerger, 2002) have been empirically linked to POS and organizational commitment. These actions are more likely viewed as organizational actions as opposed to individual (e.g. supervisor) actions. As suggested by Eisenberger et al. (1986), employees form exchange relationships with organizations and these relationships may be stronger than those formed with individuals (i.e. supervisors and mentors). Employees may indeed recognize the difference in the power and inuence of the broad organizations relative to single individuals. As with most studies, this study has certain limitations, and the generalizability of the ndings should be viewed while considering these limitations. The main limitation is that this sample was limited to a single manufacturing organization and the applicability to other organizations should be cautioned. POS has been assessed in ways by many authors, and it should be noted that the eight-item POS scale used in this study was limited in scope. While parsimony was of great concern in designing a user-friendly survey, future research could use more POS items especially those outlined in the 36 item scale proposed by Eisenberger et al. (1986). Similarly, more items could be developed to describe the nature of supervisor and mentoring relationships. Richer studies, using more in-depth items described above would be helpful in validating (or refuting) the ndings presented in this study. In a review of the literature, Rhoades and Eisenerger (2002) concluded that supervisor support is a strong indicator of organizational support, but this relationship varies widely across studies. Eisenberger et al. (2002) found that a likely explanation for this variance is due to the perceptions of how the supervisor is valued in an organization. Supervisor status, tenure, and upward (or outward) mobility, all contribute to how they are perceived by their subordinates. It is plausible that in organizations in which supervisors are perceived as powerful, there may be a stronger effect on employee commitment and job search intentions. Finally, the extent to which employees identify with their organizations as well as the reputation of the LODJ 29,3 244 organization may also affect employee perceptions of organizational support. Working for the local employer of choice may be so highly valued by employees that the employer-employee relationship transcends any individual level relationships formed. This may be particularly true in areas where the organization is the primary employer. Future research conducted in other organizations is needed to address these issues. References Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990), The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 1-18. Allen, D., Shore, L. and Griffeth, R. (2003), The role of POS in the voluntary turnover process, Journal of Management, Vol. 29, pp. 99-118. Allen, T.D., Eby, L.T. and Lentz, E. (2006), Mentorship behaviors and mentorship quality associated with formal mentoring programs: closing the gap between research and practice, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 567-78. Allen, T., Eby, L., Poteet, M., Lentz, L. and Lima, L. (2004), Career benets associated with mentoring for proteges: a meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89, pp. 127-36. Ayree, S. and Chay, Y.W. (1994), An examination of the impact of career-oriented mentoring on work commitment attitudes and career satisfaction among professional and managerial employees, British Journal of Management, Vol. 5, pp. 241-9. Aryee, S., Budhwar, P.S. and Chen, Z.X. (2002), Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: test of a social exchange model, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 267-85. Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY. Buchanan, B. (1974), Building organizational commitment: the socialization of managers in work organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 19, pp. 533-46. Eisenberger, R., Rhoades, L. and Cameron, J. (1999), Does pay for performance increase or decrease perceived self-determination and intrinsic motivation?, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 1026-140. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), Perceived organizational support, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 500-7. Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. and Rhoades, L. (2002), Perceived supervisor support: contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention, Journal of Applied Psychology,, Vol. 87, pp. 565-73. Erdogan, B. and Enders, J. (2007), Support from the top: supervisors perceived organizational support as a moderator of leader-member exchange to satisfaction and performance relationships, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 321-30. Firth, L., Mellor, D.J., Moore, K.A. and Loquet, C. (2004), How can managers reduce employee intention to quit?, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 170-87. George, J., Reed, T., Ballard, K., Colin, J. and Fielding, J. (1993), Contact with AIDS patients as a source of work-related distress: effects of organizational and social support, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 157-71. Hackett, R.D., Bycio, P. and Hausdorf, P.A. (1994), Further assessments of Meyer and Allens (1991) three-component model of organizational commitment, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79, pp. 15-23. Mentoring and POS 245 Hatton, C. and Emerson, E. (1998), Brief report: organisational predictors of actual staff turnover in a service for people with multiple disabilities, Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, Vol. 11, pp. 166-71. Hutchison, S. (1997), A path model of perceived organizational support, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 12, pp. 159-74. Kalliah, T.J. and Beck, A. (2001), Is the path to burnout and turnover paved by the lack of supervisory support: a structural equations test, New Zealand Journal of Psychology, Vol. 30, pp. 72-8. Kram, K.E. (1985), Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in Organizational Life, Scott Foresman, Glenview, IL. Lankau, M. and Scandura, T. (2002), An investigation of personal learning in mentoring relationships: content, antecedents, and consequences, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45, pp. 779-90. Levinson, H. (1965), Reciprocation: the relationship between man and organization, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 9, pp. 370-90. Loi, R., Hang-yue, N. and Foley, S. (2006), Linking employees justice perceptions to organizational commitment and intention to leave: the mediating role of perceived organizational support, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 101-20. Meyer, J. and Allen, N. (1991), A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1, pp. 61-89. Meyer, J. and Allen, N. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace. Theory, Research, and Application, Sage, London. Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J. and Smith, C.A. (1993), Commitment to organizations: extension and test of a three-component conceptualization, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 538-51. Mowday, R., Porter, L. and Steers, R. (1982), Employee-organizational Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover, Academic Press, New York, NY. Munn, E.K., Barber, C.E. and Fritz, J.J. (1996), Factors affecting the professional well-being of child life specialists, Childrens Health Care, Vol. 25, pp. 71-91. Payne, S. and Huffman, A. (2005), A longitudinal examination of the inuence of mentoring on organizational commitment and turnover, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48, pp. 158-68. Piercy, N.F., Cravens, D.W., Lane, N. and Vorhies, D.W. (2006), Driving organizational citizenship behaviors and salesperson in-role behavior performance: the role of management control and perceived organizational support, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 242-62. Raabe, B. and Beehr, T.A. (2003), Formal mentoring, versus supervisor and coworker relationships: differences in perceptions and impact, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 271-93. Ragins, B.R., Cotton, J.L. and Miller, J.S. (2000), Marginal mentoring: the effects of type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and vareer attitudes, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, pp. 1177-94. Rhoades, L. and Eisenerger, R. (2002), Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 698-714. Rowden, R.W. (2000), The relationship between charismatic leadership behaviors and organizational commitment, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 21, pp. 30-5. LODJ 29,3 246 Russell, J. and Adams, D. (1997), The changing nature of mentoring in organizations: an introduction to the special issue on mentoring in organizations, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 51, pp. 1-14. Scandura, T.A. (1997), Mentoring and organizational justice: an empirical investigation, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 58-69. Van Maanen, J. and Schein, E. (1979), Toward a theory of organizational socialization, in Staw, M. (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 209-64. Viator, R.E. and Scandura, T.A. (1991), A study of mentor-protege relationships in large accounting rms, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 5, pp. 20-30. Wayne, S., Shore, L. and Linden, R. (1997), Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: a social exchange perspective, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40, pp. 82-111. Wayne, S., Shore, L., Bommer, W.H. and Tetrick, L.E. (2002), The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-member exchange, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 590-8. Witt, L.A. and Carlson, D.S. (2006), The work-family interface and job performance: moderating effects of conscientiousness and perceived organizational support, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 343-57. Yoon, J. and Thye, S.R. (2002), A dual process model of organizational commitment, Work and Occupations, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 97-124. Further reading Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R. and Armeli, S. (2001), Affective commitment in the organization: the contribution of perceived organizational support, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 825-36. Rousseau, D. and Parks, J. (1992), The contracts of individuals in organizations, in Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 1-47. Shanock, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2006), When supervisors feel supported: relationships with subordinates perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91, pp. 689-95. About the authors David D. Dawley is an Associate Professor of Management at West Virginia University. His current research interests include organizational commitment and turnaround strategies. David D. Dawley is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: david.dawley@mail.wvu.edu Martha C. Andrews is an Associate Professor of Management at the University of North Carolina Wilmington. She teaches in the human resource management area. Her current research interests include organizational justice, ethics, commitment and stress. Neil S. Bucklew is Professor of Management and Industrial Relations at West Virginia University. His current research interest involve alternate dispute resolution and organizational commitment. Mentoring and POS 247 To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints