Facilitating employee
socialization through
mentoring relationships
SuJin Son
The Institute for Asian Studies,
University of Ulsan, Ulsan, Republic of Korea
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to advance understanding of the mentor factors that promotes
mentoring outcomes. This was done by investigating the role of mentors’ learning goal orientation
(LGO), their learning activity such as reflection, the perceived relationship quality in relation to the
mentoring functions received by protégés, and the furtherance of their socialization in a formal
mentoring relationship.
Design/methodology/approach – In total, 131 matched mentor-protégé dyads were recruited from
three different organizations in Korea, for the final analysis. Structural equation modeling and Hayes's
PROCESS macro were used to test the proposed model and the moderating effect of perceived
relationship quality.
Findings – Results show that mentors’ LGO was positively related to their reflection. Additionally,
mentors’ reflection was positively associated with mentoring functions received by protégés. Further,
mentoring functions received by protégés were positively related to protégés’ socialization.
In particular, mentors’ reflection mediates the relationship between mentors’ LGO and mentoring
functions received by protégés. Moreover, perceived relationship quality moderates the relationship
between mentors’ LGO and their reflection.
Originality/value – Even though mentoring research is well advanced, not many researches have yet
investigated mentors’ LGO and their learning activity such as reflection, in relation to mentoring
functions received by protégés and their socialization.
Keywords Reflection, Mentor learning goal orientation, Mentoring functions received,
Perceived relationship quality, Protégé socialization
Paper type Research paper
Organizational socialization refers to a learning process through which newcomers
move from being outsiders, to becoming effective insiders, by acquiring the
organizational values, norms, knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors required in a
new work role (Bauer et al., 1998). Since organizational socialization is positively
associated with important organizational outcomes, including job performance and
employee turnover, many organizations are interested in learning how to help
newcomers become insiders of the organization more quickly and easily (Bauer et al.,
2007; Saks et al., 2007). One widely known intervention for newcomers’ organizational
socialization is formal mentoring relationships, which facilitate interactions between
newcomers and others in workgroups (Chao, 2007; Slaughter and Zickar, 2006).
Since mentors serve as a guiding and learning resource to help protégés acquire the
skills, knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors required of their protégés, it is important to
investigate the factors that influence mentors to be more facilitative and effective in
relation to their protégés. Previous research has re ...
1. Facilitating employee
socialization through
mentoring relationships
SuJin Son
The Institute for Asian Studies,
University of Ulsan, Ulsan, Republic of Korea
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to advance understanding
of the mentor factors that promotes
mentoring outcomes. This was done by investigating the role of
mentors’ learning goal orientation
(LGO), their learning activity such as reflection, the perceived
relationship quality in relation to the
mentoring functions received by protégés, and the furtherance
of their socialization in a formal
mentoring relationship.
Design/methodology/approach – In total, 131 matched mentor-
protégé dyads were recruited from
three different organizations in Korea, for the final analysis.
Structural equation modeling and Hayes's
PROCESS macro were used to test the proposed model and the
moderating effect of perceived
relationship quality.
Findings – Results show that mentors’ LGO was positively
related to their reflection. Additionally,
mentors’ reflection was positively associated with mentoring
functions received by protégés. Further,
mentoring functions received by protégés were positively
related to protégés’ socialization.
2. In particular, mentors’ reflection mediates the relationship
between mentors’ LGO and mentoring
functions received by protégés. Moreover, perceived
relationship quality moderates the relationship
between mentors’ LGO and their reflection.
Originality/value – Even though mentoring research is well
advanced, not many researches have yet
investigated mentors’ LGO and their learning activity such as
reflection, in relation to mentoring
functions received by protégés and their socialization.
Keywords Reflection, Mentor learning goal orientation,
Mentoring functions received,
Perceived relationship quality, Protégé socialization
Paper type Research paper
Organizational socialization refers to a learning process through
which newcomers
move from being outsiders, to becoming effective insiders, by
acquiring the
organizational values, norms, knowledge, skills, attitudes, and
behaviors required in a
new work role (Bauer et al., 1998). Since organizational
socialization is positively
associated with important organizational outcomes, including
job performance and
employee turnover, many organizations are interested in
learning how to help
newcomers become insiders of the organization more quickly
and easily (Bauer et al.,
2007; Saks et al., 2007). One widely known intervention for
newcomers’ organizational
socialization is formal mentoring relationships, which facilitate
interactions between
newcomers and others in workgroups (Chao, 2007; Slaughter
and Zickar, 2006).
4. on the factors affecting mentors’ behavior has been conducted
(Eby et al., 2014).
Particularly, far less research has examined the antecedents and
outcomes of mentors’
learning in mentoring relationships (Eby et al., 2014).
The current study attempts to advance understanding of the
factor that promotes
effective mentoring outcomes, by investigating the role of
mentors’ learning goal
orientation (LGO), learning activity such as reflection,
perceived relationship quality in
relation to mentoring functions received by protégés, and how
they further their
socialization in a formal mentoring relationship. First, it is
suggested that mentors’
LGO, which is one of the mentors’ characteristics, is an
antecedent of the mentors’
reflection. As many researchers have emphasized, individual
differences are an
influential factor for engaging in learning activities (Colquitt et
al., 2000). In mentoring
literature, Lankau and Scandura (2007) have called for further
research that explores
the role of the LGO of mentors and protégés in relation to
mentoring and personal
learning. Building on previous research that indicates LGO is
one of the critical
dispositions for pursuing learning activities (Phan, 2009;
Runhaar et al., 2010), it is
insisted that LGO is a predictor for engaging in reflection. Even
though mentoring
researchers have speculated that LGO is an important
personality characteristic in
mentoring relationships (Ghosh, 2014), not many researches
5. have yet investigated
mentors’ LGO in relation to their learning activity such as
reflection. Consequently, the
present study explores the role of mentors’ LGO in relation to
their learning activity,
namely, reflection.
Reflection refers to an intentional cognitive process that enables
the person to
increase his or her awareness of personal experiences, and
thereby develop his or her
ability to learn from them (Hullfish and Smith, 1961).
Numerous educational scholars
have emphasized that reflection on one’s experience is a key
component of the learning
process (Clayton and Ash, 2005). Even though several scholars
have mentioned the
fundamental role of reflection in facilitating learning in
mentoring relationships
(Lankau and Scandura, 2007), there has been little effort to
describe the role of mentors’
reflection in relation to mentoring outcomes. Thus, it is
imperative to examine the role
of mentors’ reflection as a learning activity that influences
mentoring functions
received by protégés. Moreover, the current study proposes that
the perceived quality
of relationships by mentors is a critical boundary in the
relationship between mentors’
LGO and their reflection. Based on social cognitive learning
theory (Bandura, 1986),
which emphasizes that person variables, situation variables, and
behaviors
continuously impact on and interact with one another, perceived
high-quality
relationships with protégés can be considered to be an important
6. situational factor for
mentors’ self-reflection. Thus, the current study is intended to
broaden knowledge
regarding the boundary conditions that maximize mentors’
learning behavior in formal
mentoring relationships.
Theoretical background and hypothesis development
Mentors’ LGO and reflection
Researchers have long argued that reflection is an important
component in individual
learning processes (Gray, 2007). Although there are different
concepts regarding
reflection, reflection is concerned with the purposeful cognitive
process by which
individuals make sense and reconstruct the meaning of what has
been planned,
observed, or achieved in practice, in order to achieve deeper
meaning and
understanding of the experience (Kember et al., 2000). In the
present study, it is
555
Facilitating
employee
socialization
theorized that mentors who have high LGO are more likely to
engage in reflection in the
workplace. LGO refers to the motivation to improve one’s
competencies through
learning and training in new skills, as well as through learning
7. to complete new and
more complex tasks (Dweck and Leggett, 1988). According to
goal orientation theory,
people with strong LGO focus more on building their
competence and self-development,
and therefore, they tend to view challenging situations as
opportunities to learn
(Dweck and Leggett, 1988).
Since reflection helps mentors to increase their understanding
of personal
experiences that may have been overlooked in practice, and
therefore their ability to
learn from them, learning-goal oriented mentors may engage in
learning activities such
as reflection to enhance their competencies, in comparison to
mentors with low LGO.
In other words, reflection would be perceived as a useful
cognitive process for
advancing their competencies for mentors with strong LGO,
while those who have low
LGO would not perceive it this way. Empirical evidence has
shown that individuals’
LGO is positively related to their reflective practice (Phan,
2009; Runhaar et al., 2010).
In line with these empirical findings, the following is
hypothesized:
H1. Mentors’ LGO will be positively related to mentors’
reflection.
Mentors’ reflection and mentoring functions received
It is also suggested that mentors’ reflection would influence the
mentoring functions
received by protégés. In a seminal research work, Kram (1985)
classified two different
8. supports mentors provide as career functions and psychosocial
functions. Career
functions are work-related supports that include sponsorship,
exposure, and visibility,
providing opportunities to develop job-related knowledge and
skills, and the coaching
and protection of protégés; psychosocial functions include
mentors’ provision of role
modeling, counseling, friendship, acceptance, and confirmation.
Role modeling was
later considered to be a separate function (Scandura and Ragins,
1993). This is
explained by role modeling support being passive in nature, in
contrast to other
psychosocial functions such as counseling, friendship,
acceptance, and confirmation
that need mentors to take a more active role. Several empirical
studies have supported
the three-factor treatment of mentoring functions (Scandura,
1992; Scandura and
Ragins, 1993).
Reflection helps individuals reconstruct existing knowledge,
recognize areas in need
of improvement, and change routine behaviors (Parsons and
Stephenson, 2005). Since
reflection enables mentors to examine and explore an issue of
concern deeply and
thoroughly, it is possible for them to critique their taken-for-
granted assumptions, and
become more receptive to alternative ways of reasoning and
behaving (Cunliffe, 2009;
Gray, 2007), thereby providing more appropriate mentoring
functions to their protégés.
In particular, mentors develop self-awareness as learners
through reflective practice
9. (Geber and Nyanjom, 2009), so that they can make better use of
their experiences when
they provide mentoring support for their protégés. More
specifically, reflective practice
helps mentors to enhance their mentoring capacity by improving
their feedback,
listening, and communication skills, which are the key skills of
mentors (Geber and
Nyanjom, 2009). Further, reflection enables mentors to
reappraise values and behaviors
that are needed for their protégés (Geber and Nyanjom, 2009).
Consequently, it is
proposed that protégés would receive a greater amount of
mentoring support from
mentors who are engaged in reflection, than from mentors who
are less engaged in
reflection. Some research in counseling has shown that self-
reflection by the counselor
556
CDI
21,6
is a crucial component for increasing counselor self-awareness,
and improving
counseling practice (Rosin, 2015). Thus, the following is
suggested:
H2. Mentors’ reflection is positively related to the mentoring
functions received by
protégés.
The mediating role of reflection between mentors’ LGO and
10. mentoring functions
The present study also sought to further investigate the
mediating role of mentors’
reflection in the relationship between mentors’ LGO and
mentoring functions received
by protégés. In mentoring literature, LGO was emphasized as a
prominent personal
characteristic of protégés and mentors for receiving mentoring
support from mentoring
relationships (Ghosh, 2014). Since mentors with LGO usually
view mentoring
experiences as a learning opportunity for increasing their
competence, they are more
likely to engage in providing appropriate mentoring support for
protégés. Recently, a
meta-analysis conducted by Ghosh (2014) has shown that both
protégés LGO and
mentors’ LGO are positively associated with mentoring support.
Given the previous
link between mentors’ LGO, their reflection, and the mentoring
functions received by
protégés, it is proposed that the mentors’ reflection mediates the
relationship between
mentors’ LGO and the mentoring functions received by
protégés. In other words,
mentors with LGO would provide a great extent of mentoring
support by engaging in
reflection. Based on this logic and previous research, the
following is hypothesized:
H3. Mentors’ reflection partially mediates the relationship
between mentors’ LGO
and the mentoring functions received by protégés.
Mentoring functions received and protégés’ socialization
In addition, it is also suggested that receiving mentoring
11. support from mentors may
facilitate the socialization of protégés in their workplace.
Researchers have emphasized
that a key component of organizational socialization is the act
of adopting an
organizational role (Haueter et al., 2003; Van Vianen, 2000).
Through receiving career
support and psychosocial assistance, protégés would be enabled
to adopt an
organizational role more effectively (Chao, 2007). More
specifically, protégés easily
learn the new skills required to complete their task roles
through direct coaching and
challenging project assignments from mentors (Lankau and
Scandura, 2007).
In addition, protégés who receive a great amount of
psychosocial support will feel
confident and encouraged thereby, and are able to be more
proactive in seeking
information regarding task/role learning, and this may
consequently result in facilitating
their socialization (Lankau and Scandura, 2007). Some studies
have supported the positive
relationships between mentoring support received and employee
socialization in diverse
contexts (Cawyer and Friedrich, 1998; Thomas and Lankau,
2009). Thus, the following
is proposed:
H4. Mentoring functions received by protégés are positively
related to their
socialization.
A moderating role of perceived relationship quality in the
relationship between
mentors’ LGO and their reflection
12. Furthermore, it is proposed that the relationship quality
perceived by mentors
moderates the relationship between mentors’ LGO and their
reflection. Perceived
557
Facilitating
employee
socialization
relationship quality refers to a mentor’s overall assessment of
mutual benefits,
relational depth, and satisfaction with the protégé, and
satisfaction with the mentoring
relationship as a whole (Allen and Eby, 2003). Several
researchers have emphasized the
importance of the perceived relationship quality between
mentors and protégés for the
effectiveness of mentoring relationships (Allen and Eby, 2003;
Ragins and Verbos,
2007). In particular, Eby et al. (2014) have argued that mentor
learning would be
maximized in relationships characterized by great mentoring
support behavior and
higher relationship quality.
According to social cognitive learning theory (Bandura, 1986),
a variety of
experiences influence an individual’s learning. In particular,
since individual learning is
socially constructed and situated within a social context
(Elkjaer, 2003; Gherardi et al.,
13. 1998), interaction with other people, therefore, plays a pivotal
role in motivating people
to learn. Consequently, the nature of their relationships could
either facilitate or hinder
an individual’s learning behaviors. More specifically, high-
quality relationships
characterized by a sense of “deep contact” with others (Quinn
and Quinn, 2002) could
help individuals to engage in learning processes more actively
in order to contribute to
one another’s development.
In a similar vein, mentors’ perceptions of high-quality
relationships with their
protégés can generate situational cues that promote mutual
growth and learning
through mentor-protégé relationships, thereby stimulating
learning-goal oriented
mentors to engage in more learning activities such as reflection.
That is, when mentors
perceive high-quality relationships with their protégés, mentors
perceive that they have
reciprocal learning relationships that encourage mutual growth,
and thus are strongly
motivated to use their previous experiences and existing
knowledge by engaging in
reflection. However, the relationship between mentors’ LGO
and reflection would be
weaker under conditions of having low-quality relationships
with their protégés.
In mentoring literature, Ragins and Verbos (2007) suggested
that high-quality
relational mentoring is associated with LGO. In addition, past
research in leader-
member relationships has indicated that high-quality
relationships between the leader
14. and employees foster the psychological safety of employees on
the basis of emotional
closeness, which, in turn, enables employees to engage in the
learning process (Carmeli
et al., 2009; Carmeli and Gittell, 2009). Thus, the following is
hypothesized:
H5. Perceived relationship quality moderates the relationship
between mentors’
LGO and their reflection, such that the relationship is stronger
for mentors with
high-quality relationships with protégés, than for mentors with
low-quality
relationships with their protégés.
Methods
Samples
The sample for this study included 131 matched mentor-protégé
dyads recruited from
three different organizations – energy, construction and trading,
and an insurance
company – all of which have a formal mentoring process for
newly hired employees.
Most of the mentors from the three companies are selected by
HR managers based on
their work experiences. The average length of the program is
nine months across the
three companies. Participation in a mentoring program is
mandatory for newly hired
employees in all three companies. In general, the mentor’s role
is to help their protégé
to adjust to the organization as quickly as possible. A total of
251 mentor-protégé
dyads from three different organization (comprising 165 in an
energy company, 54 in
15. 558
CDI
21,6
a construction and trading company, and 32 in an insurance
company) were asked to
participate in the study. After excluding returned surveys with
either missing data or
an incomplete dyad, the number of dyads for analyses totaled
131 (comprising 83 in
an energy company, 28 in a construction and trading company,
and 20 in an
insurance company).
The protégé sample consisted of 92 males (70.2 percent) and 39
females
(29.8 percent). The mentor sample consisted of 116 males (88.5
percent) and 15 females
(11.5 percent). The majority of mentors had completed a
bachelor’s degree (n ¼ 92,
70.2 percent), and the majority of protégés also had completed a
bachelor’s degree
(n ¼ 103, 78.6 percent). The average age of mentors was 37.85
years (SD ¼ 7.53) while
the average age of protégés was 26.76 (SD ¼ 4.25). The average
tenure of protégés in
their current organization was 8.6 months (SD ¼ 4.74); the
average length of the
working relationship with their mentor was 2.87 months (SD ¼
3.33).
Procedures
Two different survey packages, one containing a mentor
16. questionnaire set and
the other a protégé questionnaire set, were distributed to each
organization. For the
mentors’ survey, LGO, reflection, relationship quality, and
demographic information
such as gender, age, years of education, length of employment,
and mentoring duration
were included. For the protégés’ survey, mentoring functions
received by protégés,
their socialization and demographic information, such as
gender, age, years of education,
length of employment, and the mentoring duration were
included.
Measures
Both of the questionnaires used in this study were originally
developed in English;
thus, a forward-backward translation process with support from
bilingual assistants
was used (Behling and Law, 2000).
Mentor’s LGO. Mentor’s LGO was assessed with a four-item
instrument developed
by VandeWalle (1997). A seven-point Likert-type scale, from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree), was used. A sample item is “I enjoy
challenging and difficult tasks
where I’ll learn new skills.” The Cronbach’s α for this scale was
0.81.
Reflection. A five-item instrument developed by Peltier et al.
(2006) was used to
measure a mentor’s reflection. Reflection is originally
developed as the subscale of the
reflective learning continuum (Peltier et al., 2006). A sample
item is “I often reflect on
17. my actions to see whether I could improve them.” Each item
was evaluated using a five-
point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). The Cronbach’s
α for reflection was 0.79 for this study.
Relationship quality. Mentoring relationship quality as
perceived by mentors was
measured using five items developed by Allen and Eby (2003).
A sample item on the
questionnaire was “The mentoring relationship between my
protégé and I was very
effective.” Responses were scored on a five-point scale ranging
from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s α was 0.89 for
this study.
Mentoring functions received. Mentoring Functions
Questionnaire (MFQ-9), the
most recent version of the MFQ, was used for measuring
mentoring functions (Castro
and Scandura, 2004). The MFQ-9 has three items for each
dimension of the mentoring
function: career support, psychosocial support, and role
modeling. One of the items
for career support was “My mentor takes a personal interest in
my career.” For
psychosocial support, one of the items was “I share personal
problems with my
559
Facilitating
employee
socialization
18. mentor,” and for role modeling it was “I try to model my
behavior after my mentor.”
All the items were measured using a five-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s α was 0.89
for mentoring
functions received.
Organizational socialization. The 12 items for organization
socialization from the
newcomer socialization questionnaire developed by Haueter et
al. (2003) were used to
measure the degree of protégé socialization. The items were
rated on a five-point Likert
scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample
item was “I know the
specific names of the products/services produced/provided by
this organization.” For
the current study, the Cronbach’s α was 0.88.
Control variables. Since several studies have shown that some
demographic
variables – such as protégé gender, protégé age, mentoring
duration, and protégé
tenure – may be associated with mentoring support and
socialization (Chao et al., 1994;
Fagenson-Eland et al., 1997; Ragins and McFarlin, 1990), these
variables were,
therefore, employed as potential control variables. Additionally,
organizational
differences were controlled in analyses because data were
collected across three
different organizations.
19. Results
Descriptive statistics and correlations are presented in Table I.
As seen in Table I,
mentors’ LGO was positively related to their reflection (r ¼
0.47, po0.01). Mentors’
reflection was also positively associated with mentoring
functions received by protégés
(r ¼ 0.21, po0.05). Additionally, mentoring functions received
by protégés were
positively related to protégé socialization (r ¼ 0.34, po0.01).
Furthermore, relationship
quality perceptions by mentors were positively related to
mentors’ LGO (r ¼ 0.32,
po0.01).
Measurement model testing
A two-step modeling approach (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988)
was applied using
structural equation modeling (SEM) with the Amos 19.0
software package. First, using
SEM, a measurement model was conducted in order to examine
the factor structure of the
five-factor model, which has five latent variables including
mentors’ LGO, reflection,
relationship quality, mentoring functions received by
protégés[1], and socialization.
Multiple fit indices, including the incremental fit index (IFI),
Tucker-Lewis index (TLI),
comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA), were
used to determine the goodness-of-fit of the hypothesized
structural model (Lance and
Vandenberg, 2001). Four parcels for the measure of
socialization were used in order to
maintain a favorable indicator-to-sample-size ratio (Bagozzi
20. and Edwards, 1998). The
five-factor model fits the data reasonably well ( χ2 (180) ¼
252.82, CFI ¼ 0.93, TLI ¼ 0.92,
IFI ¼ 0.94, RMSEA ¼ 0.06). Then, the four-factor model, in
which mentors’ LGO and
reflection merge into a single factor, was tested against this
baseline model. The results
show that the model does not fit the data satisfactorily ( χ2
(184) ¼ 333.14, CFI ¼ 0.86,
TLI ¼ 0.84, IFI ¼ 0.87, RMSEA ¼ 0.08), and is significantly
poorer than the five-factor
model (Δχ2(4) ¼ 80.32, po0.001). Further, the single-factor
model, in which all variables
merge into a single factor, was tested. However, it does not fit
satisfactorily
( χ2 (189) ¼ 776.72, CFI ¼ 0.46, TLI ¼ 0.40, IFI ¼ 0.47,
RMSEA ¼ 0.16), and is significantly
poorer than the five-factor model (Δχ2(9) ¼ 523.9, po0.001).
These findings confirm that
the five factors are distinct constructs in this study.
560
CDI
21,6
V
ar
ia
bl
es
M
SD
39. 0.
05
;*
*p
o
0.
01
Table I.
Means, standard
deviations, and
correlations
561
Facilitating
employee
socialization
Proposed model testing
Next, the proposed model was tested. The proposed model
shows the association between
mentors’ LGO and mentoring functions received by protégés as
mediated by mentors’
reflection. Further, this association, in turn, affects the
protégés’ socialization. Control
variables (e.g. gender, age, mentoring duration, protégés’
tenure, and organizational
differences) were included in the model, with paths to the other
variables. The proposed
model fits the data well ( χ2(160) ¼ 216.67, CFI ¼ 0.93, TLI ¼
40. 0.91, IFI ¼ 0.94,
RMSEA ¼ 0.05). Following Tomarken and Waller’s (2003)
suggestion, the proposed
model was compared with alternative models in order to
confirm that the proposed model
is the best one. First, the proposed model was compared an
alternative model, which
added a path from mentors’ LGO to protégés’ socialization. The
alternative model was
found to fit the data satisfactorily ( χ2(159) ¼ 215.52, CFI ¼
0.93, TLI¼ 0.91, IFI¼ 0.94,
RMSEA ¼ 0.05). However, the χ2 difference test between these
two models (Δχ(1) ¼ 1.15,
pW0.05) indicated that the addition of the path did not
significantly improve the overall
fit of the model. Additionally, the proposed model was
compared with another alternative
model that removed the direct path from LGO to mentoring
functions received (the full
mediation model). This alternative model was found to fit the
data well ( χ2(161)¼ 216.71,
CFI ¼ 0.93, TLI ¼ 0.91, IFI ¼ 0.94, RMSEA ¼ 0.05). The χ2
difference test between the
proposed model and alternative model (Δχ(1) ¼ 0.04, pW0.05)
showed that the alternative
model (the full mediation model) is the best fitting model.
As seen in Figure 1, mentors’ LGO was positively related to
their reflection
( β ¼ 0.51, po0.001), thus supporting H1. In addition, mentors’
reflection was
positively associated with mentoring functions received by
protégés ( β ¼ 0.32,
po0.05), thus supporting H2. Furthermore, mentoring functions
received by protégés
were positively related to protégé socialization ( β ¼ 0.53,
41. po0.001), supporting H4.
The mediating effect of mentors’ reflection on mentors’ LGO
and mentoring functions
received by protégés
The bootstrapping approach suggested by Cheung and Lau
(2008) was used in order to
test the significance of the mediating effect of mentors’
reflection on the relationship
LG1
RF1
S1
CF PF
MFMLGO
0.51** 0.32* 0.53**
Socialization
Mentor’s
reflection
Role
S2
S3
S4
RF2 RF3 RF4 RF5
LG2
42. LG3
LG4
Notes: MLGO, mentor’s learning goal orientation; MF,
mentoring functions received; CF,
career function; PF, psychosocial function; and role, role
modeling function. A rectangle
represents an indicator (or measured variable), and an ellipse a
latent variable. Control
variables (e.g. protégé gender, protégé age, mentoring duration,
protégés’ tenure, and
organizational differences) are not shown here to preserve
simplicity in the presentation of
the model. Parameter estimates were from the completely
standardized solution and were
significant at *p< 0.05; **p< 0.001
Figure 1.
The final model with
standardized path
coefficients
562
CDI
21,6
between mentors’ LGO and mentoring functions received by
protégés. According to
Cheung and Lau (2008), the mediations are statistically
significant if the bias-corrected
(BC) confidence intervals for these indirect effects do not
43. overlap with zero. After
creating 1,000 bootstraps, it was shown that the indirect effect
of mentors’ LGO on
mentoring functions received by protégés as mediated by
mentors’ reflection was 0.19;
and the 95 percent BC confidence intervals for the indirect
effects were between 0.09
and 0.35, which did not overlap with zero ( p ¼ 0.03). This
suggested that mentors’
reflection significantly mediated the relationship between
mentors’ LGO and mentoring
functions received by protégés. Thus, H3, which posited that the
mentor’s reflection
partially mediates the relationship between the mentors’ LGO
and the mentoring
functions received, was partially supported, since the fully
mediated model was found
to be the best fitting model.
The moderating effect of relationship quality on the relationship
between mentors’
LGO and reflection
To investigate the moderation effect of relationship quality on
the relationship between
the mentors’ LGO and reflection, Hayes’s (2013) PROCESS
macro version 2.15 (model 1)
for SPSS was used. With the mean-centered continuous
predictor variables,
heteroskedasticity consistent standard errors and BC confidence
intervals using
1,000 bootstrap draws were used. As shown in Table II, the
interaction between the
mentors’ LGO and relationship quality was significant (B(SE) ¼
0.19(0.09), po0.05).
In addition, using values of 1 SD below the mean and 1 SD
above the mean on
44. relationship quality, the interactions were plotted graphically in
Figure 2. As presented,
the relationship between the mentors’ LGO and reflection was
stronger for
mentors who perceive a high-quality relationship with their
protégés, therefore
supporting H5.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to advance understanding of the
mentor factors that
promote mentoring outcomes, by investigating the role of
mentors’ LGO, learning
activity such as reflection, and perceived relationship quality in
relation to mentoring
functions received by protégés, and their further socialization in
a formal mentoring
relationship. The findings of the current study make several
contributions to the
mentoring literature.
First, the current study answered the call for further study of the
role of LGO in
relation to learning activity in a mentoring relationship (Lankau
and Scandura, 2007),
by exploring the relationship between mentors’ LGO and their
reflection. Even though
previous research has shown that LGO is an important predictor
of learning activity
Reflection
Predictor B SE
RQ 0.16** 0.06
Mentors’ LGO 0.28** 0.07
Mentors’ LGO × RQ 0.19* 0.09
45. R2 0.30***
Notes: n ¼ 131. LGO, learning goal orientation; RQ, relation
quality. *po0.05; **po0.01;
***po0.001
Table II.
Regression
results of the
moderating effects
563
Facilitating
employee
socialization
such as reflection (Phan, 2009; Runhaar et al., 2010), the role of
mentors’ LGO in relation
to their reflection in mentoring relationships has not been
investigated so far.
Consistent with previous studies (Phan, 2009; Runhaar et al.,
2010), the results of the
present study provide empirical evidence that LGO is a critical
individual characteristic
that is closely related to learning activity such as reflection.
In addition, the current study adds meaningful knowledge of
effective mentoring
behavior in relation to mentoring outcomes in the literature, by
indicating the role of
mentors’ reflection in relation to mentoring support received by
protégés. Even though
46. mentors’ learning activity such as reflection was emphasized as
a fundamental
behavior that facilitates personal learning (Lankau and
Scandura, 2007), not many
studies examine the relationship between mentors’ reflection
and the outcomes of
mentoring relationships. The findings of the current study
highlighted that engaging in
a learning activity such as reflection is closely related to
mentoring functions provided
to their protégés and further protégé socialization. In particular,
the current study
advanced the comprehensive understanding of mentor factors by
examining the
mechanism that associates the relationship between mentors’
LGO and mentoring
functions received by protégés.
Finally, the findings of the current study contribute to the
mentoring literature by
investigating the moderating role of relationship quality to the
relationship
between mentors’ LGO and their reflection. Based on social
cognitive learning theory
4.50
4.25
4.00
3.75
3.50
Low High
47. MLGO
R
F
RQ
Low
High
Notes: n= 131. MLGO, mentors’ LGO; RF, reflection; RQ,
relationship
quality
Figure 2.
The moderating
effect of relationship
quality on
the mentors’
LGO-reflection
relationship
564
CDI
21,6
(Bandura, 1986), the current study confirmed the critical role of
perceived
relationship quality in the process of learning (Carmeli et al.,
2009; Carmeli and
Gittell, 2009). That is, in the presence of a high-quality
48. relationship with protégés,
mentors with a high LGO are more likely engaged in learning
activities such as
reflection than those having a low-relationship quality with
their protégés. These
findings are in line with research that emphasizes the
importance of relationship
quality for effective mentoring (Allen and Eby, 2003; Kram,
1985; Ragins and Verbos,
2007). Consequently, the present study extends previous
research by adding
knowledge of relationship quality as a boundary condition that
stimulates mentors to
engage in reflection.
The findings also have implications for managers. Given the
central role of mentors’
learning activity such as reflection in providing mentoring
support for protégés and to
further their socialization, mentors should be encouraged to
have enough time to reflect
on their performance by having regular meetings with other
mentors or colleagues.
In particular, providing training sessions using reflective
practices for mentors would
be useful, since not all mentors use reflection when they are
engaged in mentoring
relationships. In addition, as the findings suggest that mentors’
LGO is an important
personality characteristic that has a strong impact on their
learning activities, HR
managers should carefully consider shaping the organizational
culture in such a way
that it activates the LGO of mentors. Furthermore, given the
importance of relationship
quality as a boundary condition that activates learning-goal
49. oriented individuals to
engage in learning activities, HR managers should help protégés
and mentors build
open and trusting relationships, particularly in formal mentoring
relationships. For
example, as interaction frequency is essential for building
trusting relationships
(Becerra and Gupta, 2003), providing guidelines for meeting
frequency might be helpful
for both mentors and protégés. Scholars have recommended that
meeting once a week
is appropriate for mentors and protégés (Noe, 1988). In
addition, setting clear
expectations, goals, and responsibilities is beneficial for
developing successful
mentoring relationships (Finkelstein and Poteet, 2007); thus, it
is helpful to create a
mentoring action plan, including activities, resources, and
criteria for success based on
the mentor-protégé agreements.
Limitations and future research direction
Aside from this study’s findings, several limitations of the
current research should be
noted. First, since the current study implies a cross-sectional
design, causal inferences
should be made with caution. Applying a longitudinal research
design for future
research would help to clarify the direction of causality in these
associations. Second,
although data were collected from matched mentors and
protégés, using such data
from protégés as mentoring support received by protégés and
protégés’ socialization,
would cause common method bias. Third, since the current
study only has a relatively
50. small sample size (paired N ¼ 131), additional research with a
larger sample size is
warranted. Furthermore, a large portion of the study
respondents were males (N ¼ 116),
there is a potential limitation regarding the generalizability of
these results. In addition,
although there are some organizations, such as hospitals that
have intensive (three-
month) mentoring programs (Masny et al., 2008), the average
length of the mentoring
relationship in this study (2.87 months) is a limited timeframe
for assessing protégés’
socialization. A potential bias is further limitation of the study.
Participants’
recollection of the mentoring functions received may not reflect
the actuality of the
565
Facilitating
employee
socialization
mentoring functions received, because it is difficult to assess
the exact length of time
since each protégé participated in the mentoring program.
The findings of this study also indicate several future research
directions. First,
the present study highlighted the mentors’ reflection in relation
to mentoring
functions received by protégés; therefore, it would be
interesting to examine the
51. protégés’ learning activity, such as their reflection, on receiving
mentoring support
and further mentoring outcomes, in future studies. In particular,
protégés’ reflection
may play an important role when they apply their learning from
mentors to their
performance. In addition, in future research, the role of the
learning organization’s
culture in relation to mentors’ learning activity should be
carefully considered, since
previous research stressed the central role of organizational
culture increasing
employees’ learning behavior.
Conclusion
Mentoring is considered as an important learning process for
both mentors and
protégés. The results of the current study indicated that
mentors’ LGO is a predictor for
mentors’ learning activity such as reflection. In addition,
mentors’ reflection is closely
associated with the mentoring functions received, and further
protégé socialization.
In particular, it is important to note that how mentors perceive
the relationship quality
with their protégés represents a critical boundary condition in
that learning-goal
oriented mentors engage in reflection. Therefore, in order to
maximize the effectiveness
of mentoring relationships in workplaces, mentor factors such
as their individual
characteristics, learning behavior, and perceived relationship
quality should be taken
into account in arranging mentoring relationships.
Note
52. 1. A separate CFA for mentoring functions received was also
conducted. The three-factor model
( χ2(24) ¼ 45.78, CFI ¼ 0.97, TLI ¼ 0.95, IFI ¼ 0.97, RMSEA
¼ 0.08) was compared with
one-factor model where all items were set to load onto a single
factor ( χ2(27) ¼ 143.61,
CFI ¼ 0.83, TLI ¼ 0.77, IFI ¼ 0.83, RMSEA ¼ 0.18). Results
of the fit indices and χ2 differences
showed that the three-factor model fitted the data significantly
better than the one-factor
model (Δχ2(3) ¼ 97.89, po0.001).
References
Allen, T.D. and Eby, L.T. (2003), “Relationship effectiveness
for mentors: factors associated with
learning and quality”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 469-486, doi: 10.1016/
S0149-2063_03_00021-7.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation
modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol.
103 No. 3, pp. 411-423,
doi: org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Edwards, J.R. (1998), “A general approach
for representing constructs in
organizational research”, Organizational Research Methods,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 45-87,
doi: 10.1177/109442819800100104.
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action:
A Social Cognitive Theory,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
53. 566
CDI
21,6
Bauer, T.N., Morrison, E.W. and Callister, R.R. (1998),
“Organizational socialization: a review and
directions for future research”, in Ferris, G.M. (Ed.), Research
in Personnel and Human
Resource Management, Vol. 16, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp.
149-214.
Bauer, T.N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D.M. and
Tucker, J.S. (2007), “Newcomer
adjustment during organizational socialization: a meta-analytic
review of antecedents,
outcomes, and methods”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.
92 No. 3, pp. 707-721, doi: org/
10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.707.
Becerra, M. and Gupta, A.K. (2003), “Perceived trustworthiness
within the organization: the
moderating impact of communication frequency on trustor and
trustee effects”,
Organization Science, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 32-44, doi:
10.1287/orsc.14.1.32.12815.
Behling, O. and Law, K.S. (2000), Translating Questionnaires
and Other Research Instruments:
Problems and
54. Solution
s, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Carmeli, A. and Gittell, J.H. (2009), “High‐quality
relationships, psychological safety, and learning
from failures in work organizations”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 6,
pp. 709-729, doi: 10.1002/job.565.
Carmeli, A., Brueller, D. and Dutton, J.E. (2009), “Learning
behaviours in the workplace: the role of
high‐quality interpersonal relationships and psychological
safety”, Systems Research and
Behavioral Science, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 81-98, doi:
10.1002/sres.932.
Castro, S.L. and Scandura, T.A. (2004), “The tale of two
measures: evaluation and comparison
of Scandura’s (1992) and Ragins and McFarlin’s (1990)
mentoring measures”,
paper presented at the Southern Management Association
Meeting, San Antonio, TX,
55. November 3-6, pp. 3-6.
Cawyer, C.S. and Friedrich, G.W. (1998), “Organizational
socialization: processes for new
communication faculty”, Communication Education, Vol. 47
No. 3, pp. 234-245, doi: 10.1080/
03634529809379128.
Chao, G.T. (2007), “Mentoring and organizational
socialization”, in Ragins, B.R. and Kram, K.E. (Eds),
The Handbook of Mentoring at Work: Theory, Research, and
Practice, Sage,
Los Angeles, CA, pp. 179-196.
Chao, G.T., O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., Wolf, S., Klein, H.J. and
Gardner, P.D. (1994), “Organizational
socialization: its content and consequences”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 5,
pp. 730-743, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.79.5.730.
Cheung, G.W. and Lau, R.S. (2008), “Testing mediation and
suppression effects of latent
variables: bootstrapping with structural equation models”,
Organizational Research
Methods, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 296-325, doi:
56. 10.1177/1094428107300343.
Colquitt, J.A., LePine, J.A. and Noe, R.A. (2000), “Toward an
integrative theory of training
motivation: a meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of
research”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 5, pp. 678-707, doi: org/10.1037/0021-
9010.85.5.678.
Clayton, P. and Ash, S. (2005), “Reflection as a key component
in faculty development”, On the
Horizon, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 161-169, doi:
org/10.1108/10748120510618187.
Cunliffe, A.L. (2009), “The philosopher leader: on
relationalism, ethics and reflexivity – a critical
perspective to teaching leadership”, Management Learning, Vol.
40 No. 1, pp. 87-101,
doi: 10.1177/1350507608099315.
Dweck, C.S. and Leggett, E.L. (1988), “A social-cognitive
approach to motivation and
personality”, Psychological Review, Vol. 95 No. 2, pp. 256-273,
doi: org/10.1037/0033-
295X.95.2.256.
57. Eby, L.T. and Allen, T.D. (2002), “Further investigation of
protégés’ negative mentoring
experiences patterns and outcomes”, Group and Organization
Management, Vol. 27 No. 4,
pp. 456-479, doi: 10.1177/1059601102238357.
567
Facilitating
employee
socialization
Eby, L.T., Brown, B.L. and George, K. (2014), “Mentoring as a
strategy for facilitating learning:
protégé and mentor perspectives”, in Billett, S., Harteis, C. and
Gruber, H. (Eds),
International Handbook of Research in Professional and
Practice-based Learning, Springer,
Heidelberg, pp. 1071-1097.
Elkjaer, B. (2003), “Social learning theory: learning as
58. participation in social processes”, in Mark, E.-S.
and Marjorie, L. (Eds), The Blackwell Handbook of
Organizational Learning and Knowledge
Management, Blackwell, Malden, MA and Oxford, pp. 38-53.
Fagenson-Eland, E.A., Marks, M.A. and Amendola, K.L.
(1997), “Perceptions of mentoring
relationships”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 51 No. 1,
pp. 29-42, doi: 10.1006/
jvbe.1997.1592.
Finklestein, L.M. and Poteet, M. L. (2007), “Best practices in
workplace formal mentoring
programs”, in Allen, T.D. and Eby, L.T. (Eds), The Blackwell
Handbook of Mentoring: A
Multiple Perspectives Approach, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 345-
367.
Geber, H. and Nyanjom, J.A. (2009), “Mentor development in
higher education in Botswana: how
important is reflective practice?”, South African Journal of
Higher Education, Vol. 23 No. 5,
pp. 894-911, doi: org/10.4314/sajhe.v23i5.48807.
Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D. and Odella, F. (1998), “Toward a
59. social understanding of how people
learn in organizations: the notion of situated curriculum”,
Management Learning, Vol. 29
No. 3, pp. 273-298, doi: 10.1177/1350507698293002.
Ghosh, R. (2014), “Antecedents of mentoring support: a meta-
analysis of individual, relational,
and structural or organizational factors”, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 84 No. 3,
pp. 367-384, doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2014.02.009.
Gray, D.E. (2007), “Facilitating management learning:
developing critical reflection through
reflective tools”, Management Learning, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 495-
517, doi: 10.1177/
1350507607083204.
Haueter, J.A., Macan, T.H. and Winter, J. (2003),
“Measurement of newcomer socialization:
construct validation of a multidimensional scale”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 63
No. 1, pp. 20-39, doi: 10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00017-9.
Hayes, A. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and
Conditional Process Analysis.
60. A Regression-Based Approach, Guilford, New York, NY.
Hullfish, H.G. and Smith, P.G. (1961), Reflective Thinking: The
Method of Education, Dodd, Mead
and Company, New York, NY.
Kember, D., Leung, D.Y., Jones, A., Loke, A.Y., McKay, J.,
Sinclair, K. and Yeung, E. (2000),
“Development of a questionnaire to measure the level of
reflective thinking”,
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 381-395, doi: 10.1080/
713611442.
Kram, K.E. (1985), Mentoring at Work: Developmental
Relationships in Organizational Life, Scott
Foresman & Company, Glenview, IL.
Lance, C. and Vandenberg, R. (2001), “Confirmatory factor
analysis”, in Drascow, F. and Schmitt, N.
(Eds), Measuring and Analyzing Behavior in Organizations:
Advances in Measurement and
Data Analysis, Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer, New York, NY, pp. 221-
224.
61. Lankau, M.J. and Scandura, T.A. (2007), “Mentoring as a forum
for personal learning in
organizations”, in Ragins, B.R. and Kram, K.E. (Eds), The
Handbook of Mentoring at Work:
Theory, Research, and Practice, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp.
95-122.
Masny, A., Ropka, M.E., Peterson, C., Fetzer, D. and Daly,
M.B. (2008), “Mentoring nurses in
familial cancer risk assessment and counseling: lessons learned
from a formative
evaluation”, Journal of Genetic Counseling, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp.
196-207, doi: 10.1007/s10897-
007-9140-1.
568
CDI
21,6
Noe, R.A. (1988), “An investigation of the determinants of
successful assigned mentoring
relationships”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 457-
62. 479, doi: 10.1111/j.1744-
6570.1988.tb00638.x.
Parsons, M. and Stephenson, M. (2005), “Developing reflective
practice in student teachers:
collaboration and critical partnerships”, Teachers and Teaching,
Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 95-116,
doi: 10.1080/1354060042000337110.
Peltier, M., Hay, A. and Drago, W. (2006), “Reflecting on
reflection: scale extension and a
comparison of undergraduate business students in the United
States and the United
Kingdom”, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp.
250-263, doi: 10.1177/
0273475305279658.
Phan, H.P. (2009), “Exploring students’ reflective thinking
practice, deep processing strategies,
effort, and achievement goal orientations”, Educational
Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 297-313,
doi: 10.1080/01443410902877988.
Quinn, R.E. and Quinn, G.T. (2002), Letters to Garrett: Stories
of Change, Power and Possibility,
63. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Ragins, B.R. and McFarlin, D.B. (1990), “Perceptions of mentor
roles in cross-gender mentoring
relationships”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 37 No. 3,
pp. 321-339, doi: 10.1016/0001-
8791(90)90048-7.
Ragins, B.R. and Verbos, A.K. (2007), “Positive relationships
in action: relational mentoring and
mentoring schemas in the workplace”, in Dutton, J.E. and
Ragins, B.R.E. (Eds), Exploring
Positive Relationships at Work: Building a Theoretical and
Research Foundation, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 91-116.
Rosin, J. (2015), “The necessity of counselor individuation for
fostering reflective practice”,
Journal of Counseling and Development, Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 88-
95, doi: 10.1002/j.1556-
6676.2015.00184.x.
Runhaar, P., Sanders, K. and Yang, H. (2010), “Stimulating
teachers’ reflection and feedback
asking: an interplay of self-efficacy, learning goal orientation,
64. and transformational
leadership”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 26 No. 5,
pp. 1154-1161, doi: 10.1016/j.
tate.2010.02.011.
Saks, A.M., Uggerslev, K.L. and Fassina, N.E. (2007),
“Socialization tactics and newcomer
adjustment: a meta-analytic review and test of a model”, Journal
of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 413-446, doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2006.12.004.
Scandura, T.A. (1992), “Mentorship and career mobility: an
empirical investigation”, Journal
of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 169-174, doi:
10.1002/job.4030130206.
Scandura, T.A. and Ragins, B.R. (1993), “The effects of sex and
gender role orientation on
mentorship in male-dominated occupations”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 43 No. 3,
pp. 251-265, doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1993.1046.
Slaughter, J.E. and Zickar, M.J. (2006), “A new look at the role
of insiders in the newcomer
socialization process”, Group and Organization Management,
65. Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 264-290,
doi: 10.1177/1059601104273065.
Thomas, C.H. and Lankau, M.J. (2009), “Preventing burnout:
the effects of LMX and mentoring
on socialization, role stress, and burnout”, Human Resource
Management, Vol. 48 No. 3,
pp. 417-432, doi: 10.1002/hrm.20288.
Tomarken, A.J. and Waller, N.G. (2003), “Potential problems
with ‘well fitting’ models”, Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 112 No. 4, pp. 578-598, doi:
10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.578.
Van Vianen, A.E.M. (2000), “Person-organization fit: the match
between newcomers’ and
recruiters’ preferences for organizational cultures”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 1,
pp. 113-149, doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00196.x.
569
Facilitating
employee
66. socialization
VandeWalle, D. (1997), “Development and validation of a work
domain goal orientation
instrument”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol.
57 No. 6, pp. 995-1015,
doi: 10.1177/0013164497057006009.
Further reading
Dutton, J.E. and Heaphy, E.D. (2003), “The power of high
quality relationships at work”,
in Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.E. and Quinn, R.E. (Eds), Positive
Organizational Scholarship,
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA, pp. 263-278.
Wanberg, C.R., Welsh, E.T. and Hezlett, S.A. (2003),
“Mentoring research: a review and dynamic
process model”, in Ferris, G.R. and Martocchio, J.J. (Eds),
Research in Personnel and Human
Resources Management, Vol. 22, Elsevier Science, Greenwich,
CT, pp. 39-124.
67. Corresponding author
SuJin Son can be contacted at: [email protected]
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please
visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]
570
CDI
21,6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without
permission.
Click the link above to submit your assignment.
Students, please view the "Submit a Clickable Rubric
Assignment" in the Student Center.
Instructors, training on how to grade is within the Instructor
Center.
68. Project Deliverable 6: Project Plan
Due Week 10 and worth 250 points
This assignment consists of three (4) sections: a written project
plan, revised business requirements document, project plan
PowerPoint presentation, and a finalized project plan. You must
submit the four (4) sections as separate files for the completion
of this assignment. Label each file name according to the
section of the assignment it is written for. Additionally, you
may create and / or assume all necessary assumptions needed
for the completion of this assignment.
While taking all business and project parameters into
consideration, make quality assumptions to support the
following requirements.
Section 1: Written Project Plan
You are now in the final stage of the project plan development.
All previous documentation should be combined into one
document that will serve as the statement of work for the
project. Your goal is to have the project approved by the
executive team. The project plan should be very detailed, which
is designed to accomplish the monumental task of
implementation; however, the executive team is only interested
69. in a 30-minute summation. Therefore, you also must create a
compelling executive summary that is supported by your detail
that convinces the executive team that they should move
forward with your solution.
1. Develop a thirty to forty (30-40) page project plan in which
you:
· Write a five to ten (5-10) page executive summary that
provides a high-level technical overview of your project in
which you:
. Describe the scope of the project and control measures.
. Describe the goals and objectives of the project.
. Include a high-level overview of all project deliverables.
. Give a detailed, realistically estimated cost analysis of the
entire project, including human capital.
. Relate the value of the project plan solution to the competitive
advantage that information technology will afford your
organization.
. Recommend solution providers who can assist with
development and implementation.
· Combine all previous documentation for Project Deliverables
1-5 in which you:
. Provide all aspects of the information technology
implementation into the project plan.
. Revise the documentation based on feedback from the earlier
evaluation of your deliverable.
70. · Use at least five (5) quality resources in this assignment.
Note: Wikipedia and similar Websites do not qualify as quality
resources.
Section 1 of this assignment must follow these formatting
requirements:
· Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size
12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references
must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your
professor for any additional instructions.
· Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the
student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the
date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in
the required assignment page length.
· Include charts or diagrams created in MS Visio or Dia as an
appendix of the project plan. All references to these diagrams
must be included in the body of the project
plan.
Section 2: Revised Business Requirements Document
2. Document all revisions made to the written project plan in
the Document Control section of the business requirements
document from Project Deliverable 2: Business Requirement.
Note: This documentation must outline the revisions made to
the previous deliverables required in Section 1: Written Project
Plan.
Section 3: Project Plan PowerPoint Presentation
71. Additional to your detailed executive summary you must present
your findings to the executive team and the venture capital
group that along with the executive summary will convince the
group that your solution is optimal.
3. Create a ten to fifteen (10-15) slide PowerPoint presentation
in which you:
· Illustrate the concepts from your executive summary in
Section 1 of this assignment.
· Create bulleted speaking notes for your presentation to the
executive board in the Notes section of the PowerPoint. Note:
You may create or assume any fictitious names, data, or
scenarios that have not been established in this assignment for a
realistic flow of communication.
· Use a professional technically written style to graphically
convey the information.
Section 4: Finalized Project Plan
Use Microsoft project to:
4. Finalize your project plan from Project Deliverable 5:
Infrastructure and Security to include all necessary changes in
assumptions, tasks, and / or subtasks.
The specific course learning outcomes associated with this
assignment are:
· Develop information systems-related activities to maximize
72. the business value within and outside the organization.
· Demonstrate an understanding of existing and emerging
information technologies, the functions of IS, and its impact on
the organizational operations.
· Evaluate the issues and challenges associated with information
systems integration.
· Use technology and information resources to research issues in
information systems.
· Write clearly and concisely about strategic issues and
practices in the information systems domain using proper
writing mechanics and technical style conventions.
