The positive psychology of mentoring: A longitudinal analysis of psychological capital development and performance in a formal mentoring program

• Author: Justin W. Carter,Carolyn M. Youssef‐Morgan
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21348
• Date: 01 September 2019
• Published date: 01 September 2019

QUANTITATIVE STUDY

The positive psychology of mentoring: A

longitudinal analysis of psychological capital

development and performance in a formal

mentoring program

Justin W. Carter

1

| Carolyn M. Youssef-Morgan

2

1

College of Business, University of North

Alabama, Florence, Alabama

2

College of Business, Bellevue University,

Bellevue, Nebraska

Correspondence

Justin W. Carter, College of Business,

University of North Alabama, 1 Harrison Plaza,

Florence, AL 35632.

Email: jwcarter@una.edu

Although there is substantial support for the relationship between

mentoring and workperformance, empirical research has yet to fully

explore the plausible positive psychological explanatory mechanisms

of this relationship. This four-year study examines the effects of

mentoring on protégés' psychological capital (PsyCap; a higher-order

psychological resource that includes hope, efficacy, resilience, and

optimism) and performance outcomes (formal performance

appraisals) over time, in the context of an existing formal organiza-

tional mentoring program. PsyCap is examined as a mediator in the

relationshipbetween mentoringand performance. Utilizing115 men-

tor-protégé pairs, results support the effectiveness of the mentoring

program in developing PsyCap and enhancing performance 1 year

later in three cohorts of protégés, even after controlling for pre-

program performance. Furthermore, PsyCap is supported as a full

mediator between mentoring and performance. This is the first

empirical studyto explore this relationship, and oneof the few men-

toring studiesto collect data over multiple time periods.

KEYWORDS

mentoring, organizational performance, performance

management, psychological capital, talent development

1|INTRODUCTION

Chalofsky (2007) argued that the field of human resource development (HRD) is based in practice and focuses on improving

activities that lead to higher performance. Mentoring is an important form of HRD (Thurston, D'Abate, & Eddy, 2012) that

involves a dyadic relationship in which a more knowledgeable or experienced mentor shares and disseminates this wisdom

to a less knowledgeable or experienced protégé (Bozeman & Feeney, 2007). Many researchers argue that the primary pur-

pose of mentoring is success in the workplace (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004; Godshalk & Sosik, 2003; Kram, 1988;

DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.21348

© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Human Resource Development Quarterly. 2019;30:383–405. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrdq 383

Ragins, 1989; Tepper, 1995; Zey, 1984), and there is a growing body of support, in theory and practice, for the positive rela-

tionship between mentoring and performance (Dreher & Ash, 1990; Scandura, 1992; Scandura & Hamilton, 2002;

Srivastava & Jomon, 2013). As the field of mentoring continues to mature, there is a need for more research on formal men-

toring through the lens of HRD (Hezlett & Gibson, 2005), with an emphasis on understanding the mechanisms that ac count

for the benefits and effectiveness of mentoring (Egan & Song, 2008).

Without a clear understanding of how mentoring operates and why the benefits take place, it is unclear how mentoring

can be improved so that these positive outcomes can be consistently realized and replicated. However, most empirical

research on mentoring examines the career benefits protégés experience (Allen et al., 2004), and primarily compares mentored

to nonmentored groups (Eby et al., 2013). A smaller portion of this research examines the quality of mentoring received

(Aryee, Wyatt, & Stone, 1996; Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001; Turban& Dougherty, 1994). Additionally, the majority of stud-

ies use cross-sectional designs to explore the relationship (Allen et al., 2008), limiting the causal inferences that can be made.

Longitudinal and experimental research is needed to fully understand the dynamic nature of mentoring an d performance, as

well as the causal mechanisms through which mentoring influences performance over time.

In addition, mentoring is often examined for its career and psychosocial functions (Kram, 1988), with very little

focus on the psychological resources developed. While these career and psychosocial functions are valuable and

important, the emphasis of research and practice tends to be on the social (e.g., socialization, relationships, expanding

networks, see Higgins & Kram, 2001) and professional benefits of mentoring (Allen et al., 2004; Godshalk & Sosik,

2003; Scandura, 1992; Thurston et al., 2012). However, exploration of the mechanisms through which mentoring

develops personal psychological resources and promotes intentional individual actions that can lead to protégés' per-

formance improvement is limited (for notable exceptions, see Hegstad & Wentling, 2005; Pan, Sun, & Chow, 2011).

Positive organizational behavior (POB) offers a new perspective for organizational research (Cameron, Dutton,

Quinn, & Wrzesniewski, 2003; Luthans & Avolio, 2009). POB is defined as “the study and application of positively

oriented human resource strengths and psychological capacities that can be measured, developed, and effectively

managed for performance improvement”(Luthans, 2002a, p. 59). Luthans (2002b) identified four psychological

resources that met the POB inclusion criteria of being theory-based, measurable, developmental, and related to per-

formance. These resources are hope, self-efficacy, optimism, and resilience. Although each of the four resources has

been independently shown to impact performance, Luthans, Avolio, Avey, and Norman (2007) showed that together

they form the higher-order construct psychological capital (PsyCap) that is a stronger predictor of performance than

any of its four constituent psychological resources individually. Although work performance is the most researched

outcome of PsyCap (Avey, Reichard, Luthans, & Mhatre, 2011), PsyCap remains under-represented in HRD research

(Luthans, 2012), and has yet to be introduced to the mentoring literature.

To address these gaps in the literature, this study examines PsyCap, a multidimensional positive psychological

resource that includes hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism, as a mediator of the relationship between the quality

of mentoring received in a real organizational formal mentoring program, and employee performance. Utilizing a lon-

gitudinal, experimental, pre-post group design, and drawing from social exchange theory and resource theories, this

is the first study to apply a positive psychological perspective to the relationship between mentoring and perfor-

mance. It is also one of the few mentoring studies to collect data over multiple protégé cohorts and time periods. As

more HRD professionals integrate mentoring into their development strategy, more could be known about how and

why mentoring impacts employee performance.

2|MENTORING

Mentoring is defined as

“a process for the informal transmission of knowledge, social capital, and psycho-social support per-

ceived by the recipient as relevant to work, career or professional development; mentoring entails

384 CARTER AND YOUSSEF-MORGAN