Leadership & Organization Development Journal

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