Mentoring needed and mentoring received incongruence: Effects on formal organizational mentoring relationships AbstractWhile formal mentoring programs in organizations have increased in popularity, there is still need to further study what makes a mentoring relationship successful. The organization, mentor, and mentee are involved in these formal mentoring relationships and will often have different perspectives on what is needed for a successful mentoring relationship. This study attempts to provide theoretical insights into two interrelated questions involving mentoring needed and mentoring received in a formal mentoring relationship: (a) what are the effects of congruence and incongruence in mentoring needed and mentoring the protégé receives in a formal mentoring relationship and (b) What role does identification between the mentor and protégé play in the relationship between the congruence in the mentoring relationship and job performance, self-efficacy, and organizational commitment? This study developed propositions through three organizational theories and discusses both implications and possibilities for future research.Introduction“Mentor” is a term that dates back to Greek mythology when the relationship was intended to be between a young adult and more experienced, older adult charged with navigating the adult world and working world (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz & Lima, 2004). The term has since evolved to be defined as a specific type of relationship between a person with more experience (a mentor) and a person with less experience (a protégé), with age not being considered in the relationship (Haggard, Dougherty, Turban & Wilbanks, 2011). Mentoring is considered essential to career development (Humberd & Rouse, 2016), as it can influence career-related and psychosocial outcomes including the development of self-esteem and work identity (Allen et al., 2004). Three basic functions mentors can provide are vocational mentoring, role modeling, and social support (Lankau et al., 2005; Lapointe & Vandenberghe, 2017). A mentoring relationship can be formal or informal. Formal mentorship was chosen as the primary focus of this paper because they are assigned and between members of an organization and often have distinct characteristics from informal mentorships (Allen et al.,2004) and differ in both structure and initiation (Humbard & Rouse, 2016). Formal relationships are often short-term and assigned by a third party, while informal relationship develop naturally between two parties and are likely driven by the needs of both parties. Identification and mutual liking are often primary drivers of informal relationships. Informal relationships are unbounded and not based only on professional development, but often personal development.Individuals forming an informal mentoring relationship may be more likely to be motivated and therefore also higher performers, so proving causality is difficult in informal mentoring. On the other hand, these formal relationships may lack identification between the mentor and mentee. This lack of identification may result in greater levels of incongruencies than when two members are involved in an informal mentoring relationship:  (1) the purpose of the mentoring relationship and what is needed from the relationship may differ from the perspective of the organization, mentor, and mentee; and (2) the mentoring provided by the mentor may not be equal to the mentoring received by the mentee.This paper has three primary goals related to formal mentoring relationship. First, the research discusses different perspective of mentoring needed, which includes the purpose desired outcome of the formal mentoring relationships in the eyes of the organization, the mentor, and the mentee. Mentoring received and mentoring provided are also considered and included. Second, the research looks to explore where incongruencies occur and implications of the incongruencies through the lens of key organizational theories in the areas described: mentoring needed from the perspectives of the organization, the mentor and the mentee along with mentoring provided and mentoring received. Third, it provides implications and possibilities further research based on the theories discussed.Mentoring Needed, mentoring received, & mentoring provided         Mentoring needed“Mentoring needed” is difficult to measure and can be perceived differently by the three entities involved in a formal mentorship: the organization, the mentor, and the mentee. This could create an initial incongruence because where the organization may be focused on organizational benefits of mentoring, the mentor and mentee will likely have a more personalized approach that may form before meeting the other party in the relationship or after meeting and assessing the relationship. This section discusses ways in which these initial incongruencies can occur in the perception of mentoring needs between the organization and mentor, organization and mentee, and the mentor and mentee.If leaders in the organization assign the mentorships and are also mentees, the incongruence between the two may be much smaller than if some mentees are not included in the decision-making for assigning mentors to mentees. To be effective for the organization, it may be appropriate for those with the organizational benefits in mind to discuss the purpose of the mentorship with the mentor. Training could likely be a good guidepost as it can help pass along information through a formal channel so that newcomers stay informed and have someone to ask questions to. While mentees may see the need for the mentorship, they may see it as a burden, since it takes away from some of their time. Organizations can provide incentives, have a system in place to keep track of the relationships and perceived benefits, and reassess the formal program so it can be improved. Mentors should also be encouraged to discuss what they have found most helpful.The organization and the mentees may have very different views on what is needed in the mentoring relationship. While the organization may be focused on productivity, improving processes, or providing the mentee with someone to help integrate the newcomer and assist with problems, the mentee may be most focused on how the mentor can help them advance in their career. There is likely some overlap, as both the organization and mentee want the formal mentorship to help the mentee become more integrated in the organization and have someone that will guide them through processes.1.2 Mentoring provided and mentoring receivedFor the purpose of this research, mentoring provided is what the mentor actually provides, while mentoring received is a subset of mentoring provided. This creates a funnel effect as a mentor may have input more into the relationship, but the mentee may not be receptive of all the mentor has offered. Mentoring provided and mentoring received can differ for a number of reasons. They could not trust the mentor or may not see the mentor as fit for mentoring or as a good leader. A formal mentoring relationship may seem forced and could create some resistance. This creates incongruencies in what is being provided by the mentor and what is being received by the mentee.Aside from the reasons a mentoring relationship could create incongruencies in what is needed and received, an assigned formal relationship could create additional incongruencies. Since formal relationships are formed by a third party instead of by the mentee and mentor themselves, it may be difficult for the mentor and mentee to identify with one another and may take time for the relationship to be seen as beneficial.Organizational theories and mentoring incongruencies This study views formal mentorships through the lens of social exchange theory, broaden-and-build theory (may omit), social capital theory, and relational mentoring theory to deepen our understanding of formal mentoring relationships as an interpersonal resource within an organization and the effects of the congruencies and incongruencies between the mentoring needed and mentoring received in a formal mentoring relationship.  By combining these three theories, formal mentorship is recognized as an interpersonal resource that can have effects on both job performance and self-efficacy (have not addressed). Relationships that form a sense of belongingness can strengthen this relationship as mentees feel as if they are able to ask questions and can be more likely to become embedded within the organizations. Mentoring relationships that do not promote a sense of belongingness can weaken the relationship, causing mentees to feel as if they are in a “forced relationship” and the mentor is only working with them as a requirement.Mentors may not be willing to put forth the effort to meet the needs of the relationship or because they are not aware of what is needed to have a successful mentoring relationship with their mentee, they may not care, or may feel as if they have other more important things to do. When they have tasks to be completed at work, acting as a mentor may not be seen as a priority. If a mentee can sense that the mentoring relationship is not a priority to the mentor, they may be less inclined to ask questions and may feel like they are a burden. This lack of support could lead to negative effects in organizational commitment and confidence levels.Mentors may not be aware of the needs of the mentee. If the mentor cannot empathize with the mentee and remember what it feels like to be in the mentees place, they may not know what would help the mentee the most. Changing work environments could require adjustment to mentoring processes, as well as new generations entering the workplace.2.1.            Social exchange theorySocial exchange involves a series of interactions that are interdependent and contingent on the actions of another person and generate obligations (Emerson, 1976). When supervisors provide mentoring, the relationship is associated with more positive work attitudes and greater support than nonsupervisory mentoring (Eby et al., 2015). Supervisory mentoring signals organizational concern for the employee’s development, so employees should reciprocate the benefits associated with the organization. Effective social exchange relationships are based on mutually rewarding exchanges and evolve toward mutual commitment (Lapointe & Vandenberghe, 2017).Employees who have diminished personal resources may be more likely to forgo optional OCBs (Cooper, Kong & Crossley, 2018) and could also feel additional stress and burnout.Proposition 1:Lower levels of incongruence in the mentee’s perspective of mentoring needed and mentoring provided will lead to higher levels of job performance. 2.2.            Broaden and build theory Positive emotions that can be generated from an effective mentoring relationship not only help individuals build high-quality relationships with others but also help them engage in adaptive coping and adjust to stress (Cooper, Kong & Crossley, 2018). According to the broaden and build theory, positive emotion can set subordinates on a trajectory growth and upward spiral to enable them to build additional personal resources (Cooper, Kong & Crossley, 2018). With these additional resources, the mentee may also gain a greater sense of confidence and self-efficacy in their organization.2.3.            Social CapitalAccording to social capital theory, cognitive capital consists of resources providing parties with shared representation, interpretations and systems of meaning (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998) and within a firm, is embodied in a shared vision (Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998). Hobfoll considers resources to be “those entities that either are centrally valued in their own right… or act as a means to obtain centrally valued ends” (2002). There is not necessarily a monetary value attached to organizational resources.To create a shared vision, mentors and mentees should also have an open line of communication so that mentors know what the mentee is looking to attain from the relationship and can evaluate where their time has been used wisely or unwisely. These discussions can also help mentees become successful mentors in the future as they assess where they have gained the most from the relationship.By discussing expectations and needs of the formal mentorships within the organizations, leaders can help to first create a congruence in mentorship needed as perceived by the organization, mentor, and mentee. There should be recognizable benefits for both the mentor and mentee. The goals for the formal mentoring program should be clear.Proposition 2:Lower levels of incongruencies in mentoring needed (as perceived by the organization, mentor, and mentee) will lead to higher levels of job performance. 2.4.            Relational mentoring theory 2.4.1.      The role of identification in mentoring newcomers  While organization often implement some sort of training, social aspects within an organization can be beneficial. During initial trainings, large amounts of information are shared with the new employee, sometimes overwhelming the employee, leaving them feeling like they have to learn it all. While a mentor can be used as a resource for questions, a mentor that provides too much help could lead the mentee to lean too much on the mentor without attempting to learn independently. When mentorships provided align with the mentorship needed, they will likely lead to increased job performance and organizational commitment. The mentor will feel like they are learning and acclimating to their new position, while the mentee may feel a sense of fulfillment in watching the mentee succeed. If there is a sense of identification between the mentor and mentee, it can strengthen the relationship, so mentors will be more receptive of the mentoring provided. While coworker support can operate as a substitute for mentoring in some cases, mentoring at early stages in the career can help the socialization process so that newcomers within an organization create a greater sense of belongingness than if these connections were to develop without the help of a formal mentorship.Newcomers need a resource to learn social norms within the organization to move from an “outsider” to “insider” (Korte, 2010). When high-quality mentoring relationships are formed with experienced working, the newcomer can learn what to do on a job, how to do it, and why it is done that way (Korte, 2010). By knowing the purpose of what they are doing at work, new employees can gain a clear understanding of their role within their organization. While LaPointe & Vandenberghe (2017) have recently studied job scope and career and developmental opportunities as moderators of the relationship between supervisory mentoring and turnover, it does not study the congruencies and incongruencies between mentoring needed and mentoring received in the formal mentoring relationship.Mentorships range in quality and are not always effective. Identification is critical in sustaining mentor relationships and relates to the quality of the relationship (Chandler et al., 2011). In mentoring relationship, when one party can identify with the other party and their present selves, this creates a mutual vulnerability and higher quality interactions. In the beginning of a relationship, it might be common for the mentor to relate to the mentee with their past selves and the mentee to relate to the mentor with their future selves. As the relationship evolves and the two parties find common ground, the relationship may evolve into one in which they can identify with the other party and their present selves. Disclosing current interests or struggles and working through mutual challenges are all enabled through identification based on present selves. This promotes the development of relational behaviors such as mutual growth, learning and trust (Humberd & Rouse, 2016).Since a formal relationship is assigned and does not develop naturally, this type of identification may not occur as it would if one had chosen the other in an informal relationship. Informal relationships are often formed by one party choosing the other, which could be on the basis of identification. The mentee may see the mentor as someone with characteristics that they would like to develop, or the mentor might see the mentee as a less experienced version of themselves with potential.While the presence of identification between the two parties is likely to lead to more organizational commitment and someone the mentee can learn from, the lack of identification that may result from assigning these relationships may have negative effects.Proposition 3a:Formal mentoring relationships with higher levels of identification between the mentor and mentee will lead to lower levels of incongruency between mentoring provided and mentoring received.  Proposition 3b:Formal mentoring relationships with higher levels of identification between the mentor and mentee will lead to higher levels of mentee job performance.  Proposition 3c:Formal mentoring relationships with higher levels of identification between the mentor and mentee will lead to higher levels of mentee sense of belongingness.   Table ISummary of Organizational Theories RelevantTheoretical PerspectiveKey PremisePropositionsImplicationsSocial Exchange TheorySocial exchange involves a series of interactions that are interdependent and contingent on the actions of another person and generate obligations (Emerson, 1976).Proposition 1:Lower levels of incongruence in the mentee’s perspective of mentoring needed and mentoring provided will lead to higher levels of job performance.Mentees receiving a level of mentoring that is greater than or equal to the mentee’s perspective of mentoring needed are more likely to reciprocate and feel a sense of obligation to perform well for the organization. Job performance may increase if more mentoring is provided than the needed (as perceived by mentee) with higher levels of identification between the mentor and mentee.Social capital theorySocial capital is a valuable asset that stems from access to resources made available through social relationships (Granovetter, 1992). Shared meanings, such as shared values and goals, develop through ongoing and self-reinforcing process of participation in sense making processes as parties construct a shared understanding (Weick, 1995).Proposition 2:Lower levels of incongruencies in mentoring needed (as perceived by the organization, mentor, and mentee) will lead to higher levels of job performance.By communicating goals/needs of the formal mentoring program (as perceived by the organization, mentor, and mentee), the incongruence of mentoring needed as perceived by the three entities can be diminishedRelational Mentoring TheoryProposition 3a:Formal mentoring relationships with higher levels of identification between the mentor and mentee will lead to lower levels of incongruency between mentoring provided and mentoring received.Proposition 3b:Formal mentoring relationships with higher levels of identification between the mentor and mentee will lead to higher levels of mentee job performance.Proposition 3c:Formal mentoring relationships with higher levels of identification between the mentor and mentee will lead to higher levels of mentee sense of belongingness. By developing a key relation for the mentee with identification between the mentor and mentee, the mentee will have a greater sense of belongingness, embeddedness, and have access to additional resources as a result of a positive relationship.If this is not fostered, this can lead the mentee to feel additional distance. An example is if the mentee communicates more with a different newcomer, this may have a negative impact on the relationship.Mentees will be more receptive of what mentor is providing (closing gap between mentoring provided and mentoring received). While other relationships within an organization mayConclusions (or Research Implications/Practical Implications)The conceptual framework in this research enhances our understanding of the incongruencies in mentoring needed, provided, and received by viewing the phenomenon through the lens of three organizational theories.May add model as part of propositions – not yet developedReferencesAllen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 89(1), 127.Baranik, L. E., Roling, E. A., & Eby, L. T. (2010). Why does mentoring work? The role of perceived organizational support. Journal of vocational behavior, 76(3), 366-373.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.Cooper, C. D., Kong, D. T., & Crossley, C. D. (2018). Leader humor as an interpersonal resource: Integrating Three Theoretical Perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 61(2), 769-796Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual review of sociology, 2(1), 335-362.Haggard, D. L., Dougherty, T. W., Turban, D. B., & Wilbanks, J. E. (2011). Who is a mentor? A review of evolving definitions and implications for research. Journal of management, 37(1), 280-304.Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of general psychology, 6(4), 307.Humberd, B. K., & Rouse, E. D. (2016). Seeing you in me and me in you: Personal identification in the phases of mentoring relationships. Academy of Management Review, 41(3), 435-455.Janssen, S., van Vuuren, M., & de Jong, M. D. (2016). Informal mentoring at work: A review and suggestions for future research. International journal of management reviews, 18(4), 498-517.Korte, R. F. (2009). How newcomers learn the social norms of an organization: A case study of the socialization of newly hired engineers. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20(3), 285-306.Kram, K. E., & Isabella, L. A. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer relationships in career development. Academy of management Journal, 28(1), 110-132.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(2), 252-265.Lapointe, É., & Vandenberghe, C. (2017). Supervisory mentoring and employee affective commitment and turnover: The critical role of contextual factors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 98, 98-107.Nahapiet, J, & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social Capital, Intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266.Ragins, B. R. (1989). Barriers to mentoring: The female manager’s dilemma. Human relations, 42(1), 1-22.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(4), 529.Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of management Journal, 41(4), 464-476. Get Help With Your EssayIf you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!Find out more