Capitalizing On Proactivity For Informal Mentoring

Research Article
Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

Published online 21 December 2012 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.1849
Capitalizing on proactivity for informal mentoring

received during early career: The moderating role
of core self-evaluations
JIAN LIANG1* AND YAPING GONG2
1
2
Summary
Antai College of Economics and Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
Department of Management of Organizations, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China
This paper examines the role of proactive personality in the receipt of informal mentoring received
(i.e., psychosocial and career-related mentoring) among a sample of 174 early career employees in China.
The regression results indicated that networking behavior mediated the relationship between proactive
personality and career-related mentoring, whereas voice behavior mediated the relationship between proactive
personality and psychosocial mentoring. Furthermore, core self-evaluations moderated the aforementioned
two indirect relationships such that they were stronger at higher levels of core self-evaluations. Our analyses
also showed that the moderating effects occurred at the rst stage of the indirect relationships. We discuss
the theoretical and practical implications of these ndings. Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Keywords: proactive personality; informal mentoring received; networking behavior; voice behavior; core
self-evaluations; China
To ensure the supply of employees capable of meeting future business objectives, organizations periodically recruit
junior employees from the external labor market. Among these junior employees, only a minority eventually
achieve senior positions. Who the fast trackers will be among these junior employees is an interesting question both
theoretically and practically. Researchers suggest that those young employees who receive mentoring from senior
members are likely to become fast trackers within the organization (Ragins, 1999; Singh, Ragins, & Tharenou,
2009). The question is: What characteristics do those young people have and how do they attract the attention of
senior members and win their mentoring assistance?
Mentoring refers to the relationship between an experienced senior employee (i.e., the mentor) and a less
experienced junior one (i.e., the protg) in which the mentor provides support, direction, and feedback regarding
the protgs career plans and personal development (Kram, 1985). Previous research has documented the benets
of mentoring for protgs and mentors (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004; Chun, Sosik, & Yun, 2012;
Kammeyer-Mueller & Judge, 2008). Both formal and informal mentoring may exist in organizations. Informal
mentoring develops naturally and is maintained on a voluntary basis, whereas formal mentoring develops with
organizational intervention (Ragins & Cotton, 1999). It has been shown that informal mentoring is less likely to
lead to negative mentoring experiences and that protgs with informal mentors reap greater benets than those
with formal mentors (Eby, Rhodes, & Allen, 2007). Informal mentoring is therefore more likely to signicantly
affect career outcomes and bring long-term advantages to organizations than formal mentoring (Singh, Bains, &
Vinnicombe, 2002; Underhill, 2006).
Informal mentoring develops on the basis of perceived competence and interpersonal comfort (Eby et al., 2007).
Mentors tend to select high-potential protgs who are considered to be rising stars or even diamonds in the rough
*Correspondence to: Jian Liang, Antai College of Economics and Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. E-mail:
jianliang@sjtu.edu.cn
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 09 June 2011

Revised 04 November 2012, Accepted 07 November 2012
PROACTIVITY AND CAREER MENTORING
1183
(Kram, 1985). The aptly named rising star hypothesis suggests that because of their proactivity, highly visible,
well-motivated young employees are likely to be selected as protgs and to subsequently become fast trackers
within their respective organizations (Ragins, 1999; Singh et al., 2009). The rising star hypothesis assumes a
proactive approach to building mentoring relationships. Researchers have argued that proactive behaviors are
helpful in forming informal mentoring relationships because such behaviors lead to interactions with others in
ones environment (Aryee, Lo, & Kang, 1999; Turban & Dougherty, 1994). Surprisingly, little research has been
undertaken to examine the effect of proactive personality, a narrowly dened dispositional tendency to effect
constructive changes (Bateman & Crant, 1993), on the informal mentoring received from experienced or senior
members. We intend to ll this gap by examining whether and how proactive individuals may obtain informal
mentoring at work.
We extend prior research on informal mentoring in three ways. First, we take a proactive perspective and propose
that proactive individuals are more likely to be seen as rising stars and to receive informal mentoring than those who
are not proactive. By doing so, we respond to the recent call for more research on the role of protg personality,
in particular, narrow personality traits, in informal mentoring relationships (Dougerty, Turban, & Haggard,
2007; Wu, Foo, & Turban, 2008). Second, we reveal that networking and voice behavior are the behavioral
mechanisms underlying the relationship between proactive personality and informal mentoring received. Although
researchers conceptualize proactive personality as a singular disposition, it may be manifested in different forms
of proactive behaviors such as networking and voice (Bindl & Parker, 2011; Fuller, Marler, & Hester, 2012; Grant
& Ashford, 2008). Networking refers to behaviors for developing and maintaining relationships with others who
can potentially positively impact ones work and/or career (Forret & Dougherty, 2001). Voice refers to verbal
expressions of work-related ideas, opinions, and information that can potentially improve the organization for
which one works (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Third, we further examine core self-evaluations, individuals core
beliefs about themselves and their capabilities (Judge, Locke, & Durham, 1997), as a moderator for the indirect
relationship that proactive personality has with informal mentoring received via networking and voice. Previous
studies have suggested that proactive personality only represents a behavioral tendency, and individuals may or
may not capitalize on their proactivity (e.g., Chan, 2006). We therefore not only identify the underlying processes
through which proactivity manifests itself into meaningful informal mentoring outcomes but also reveal a dispositional
moderator for the processes (Bindl & Parker, 2011; Grant & Ashford, 2008). The inclusion of core self-evaluations
provides us an opportunity to cluster the personality variables within individuals, rather than focus on an individual
personality trait. Such a person-centered approach is expected to increase the validity of proactive personality in
predicting informal mentoring received (Judge, Van Vianen, & De Pater, 2004).
We conducted the study in China. Because of the high power distance tradition in China, there is a large
social barrier between employees and managers. This tradition may hinder the effectiveness of formal mentoring
programs, and thus most mentoring relationships in China are informal in nature (Yang et al., 2011). Deeply rooted
in Confucian values, Chinese culture emphasizes informal guidance and advice from an experienced or senior
person to a junior person (Bozionelos & Wang, 2006). Although workplace mentoring in China has attracted the
attention of researchers, most of them have mainly focused on formal mentoring relationships (e.g., Liu, Liu,
Kwan, & Mao, 2009; Wang, Noe, Wang, & Greenberger, 2009; Wang, Tomlinson, & Noe, 2010). More effort is
needed to understand informal mentoring relationships in China.
Research suggests that employees in more collectivistic cultures (such as China) engage in fewer career-related
proactive behaviors than their more individualistic counterparts (Claes & Ruiz-Quintanilla, 1998). Research
also suggests that Asian-American employees tend to progress more slowly through the ranks than their more
individualistic European-American colleagues (Xin, 2004), presumably because they engage in fewer proactive
behaviors. On the one hand, being proactive may help career progression. On the other hand, proactive behaviors
such as voice could be interpreted negatively because of the emphasis on maintaining order in a high power
distance culture. Thus, whether individual proactivity and proactive behaviors actually enhance the informal
mentoring received in a higher power distance culture is an interesting question to examine, and China provides
an appropriate context to examine the question.
J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/job
1184
J. LIANG AND Y. GONG
Theory and Hypotheses

In this study, we take a dispositional, proactive perspective to informal mentoring received and view protgs more
as sculptors than sculptures when forming their mentoring relationships (Grant & Ashford, 2008). According
to the situational strength perspective (Mischel, 1977), individual differences, such as proactive personality, should
play an important role in the formation of workplace mentoring relationships when these relationships develop
voluntarily or spontaneously rather than being ofcially sanctioned. We expect that proactive employees are likely
to receive informal mentoring in their initiatives to leverage interpersonal resources and to showcase their talents
to experienced or senior members.
Proactive personality and informal mentoring received

Proactive personality describes a behavioral tendency to identify opportunities to change things at work and to act
on those impulses (Crant, 2000). A recent meta-analytic review indicated that proactive personality is related to a
variety of desirable individual and organizational outcomes (Fuller & Marler, 2009). Despite this accumulation of
knowledge, our understanding of how individuals utilize their proactivity to obtain informal mentoring is still very
limited, if not nonexistent.
Proactive employees are more likely to actively shape and manipulate their work environments in order to
accomplish their goals (Crant, 2000). At the workplace, experienced or senior employees are a valuable source
of work-related information, knowledge, and experience for junior employees development. Informal mentoring
from experienced or senior employees can be thought of as a type of social capital and can help early career
individuals fulll goals such as gaining promotion and receiving social support. These resources may, in turn,
impact employees affective bonds with their organizations and coworkers (Allen et al., 2004).
A recent study suggests that early career employees who actively seek out opportunities to be mentored and to
interact with experienced or senior colleagues are more likely to have a higher income and a more senior position
two years later than those who do not (Blickle, Witzki, & Schneider, 2009). This effect is particularly likely in a
relationship-oriented society such as China. Compared to Westerners, the Chinese have a stronger tendency to
put people into categories and to treat them differently (Hwang, 1987; Tsui & Farh, 1997). When young employees
are perceived to be loyal and capable, senior employees are obligated to offer them special consideration and guidance
(Farh & Cheng, 2000). Thus, early career employees with proactive personalities are more likely to take initiatives
and seek informal mentoring relationships with senior employees to better deal with organizational issues and to
take advantage of career opportunities. Indeed, proactive personality has been found to enhance both job-search
outcomes and individual career outcomes (Brown, Cober, Kane, Levy, & Shalhoop, 2006; Seibert, Kraimer, &
Crant, 2001).
Partners of mentoring relationships tend to select partners they have a high level of trust in and often report a
mutual attraction that led to the development of a relationship (Kram, 1985; Wang et al., 2010). Mentors also
usually consider ability and potential when selecting protgs (Allen, 2004; Dougerty et al., 2007). Thus, proactive
employees who use social interaction to build trust and self-presentation to reveal their potential should be
more likely to be selected as protgs and receive valuable informal mentoring. Taken together, we hypothesize
the following:
Hypothesis 1: Proactive personality is positively related to the amount of informal mentoring received.
The mediating roles of networking and voice behavior

There are usually more protgs available than mentors. Thus, it is important for protgs to take the initiative in
order to gain informal mentoring from experienced or senior employees. Rather than passively waiting, proactive
J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/job
1185
employees may use a number of specic behaviors to reach their goals (Seibert, et al., 2001). Consistent with the
suggestions for building informal mentoring relationship made by Chandler, Hall, and Kram (2010), we propose
two behavioral mechanisms linking proactive personality and informal mentoring received in this study: networking
and voice behavior. These two variables represent proactive behaviors because they are self-initiated, future-oriented
behaviors aimed at improving current circumstances and/or creating favorable conditions (Bindl & Parker, 2011;
Grant & Ashford, 2008).
Networking behavior
Networking behavior refers to the specic and observable behaviors individuals engage in to build and maintain their
social networks and relationships (Michael & Yukl, 1993). Networking behavior is conceptually different from
social networks, which are primarily about the structure and pattern of actors positions in network relationships
(Kilduff & Tsai, 2003). In this study, we view networking behavior as a necessary step in building individuals network
ties and accumulating social capital (i.e., relationships with informal mentors). Examining networking behavior enables
us to better understand what junior employees do to win informal mentoring and thereby benet their careers.
Individuals with a prototypical proactive personality excel at identifying growth opportunities and taking initiatives
to make meaningful changes (Crant, 2000). Networking behavior is important for these individuals because greater
interpersonal connections provide valuable opportunities to make meaningful changes as well as the resources for
doing so. In Chinese societies, the tendency to treat people differently highlights the importance of interpersonal
relationships (i.e., guanxi in Chinese). Chinese employees often cultivate, maintain, and improve their relationships
with experienced or senior employees through networking behaviors (Law, Wong, Wang, & Wang, 2000; Yang,
1993). Having relationships with these senior employees has at least three potential benets: access to valuable
information, access to resources, and career sponsorship (Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001). Therefore, we expect
that proactive employees will actively construct their social networks so that they can identify and access people
with job-related information, political knowledge, and power (Ferris et al., 2007; Gong, Cheung, Wang, & Huang,
2012; Thompson, 2005). Fostering a strong network of relationships will help proactive employees obtain and
leverage the support of experienced or senior employees in their pursuit of advancement. In addition to providing
friendship and social support (i.e., psychosocial mentoring), these experienced or senior employees can provide
career-related information and benets (i.e., career-related mentoring) (Seidel, Polzer, & Stewart, 2000; Blickle et al.,
2009). In this way, networking behavior serves as a conduit through which proactive employees seek and obtain both
psychosocial and career-related mentoring within the organization. To summarize, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 2a: Networking behavior mediates the positive relationship between proactive personality and informal
mentoring received.
Voice behavior
Voice behavior involves constructive change-oriented communication intended to improve ones work environment
(Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Proactive employees are likely to take initiative in a broad range of activities and
situations, and are therefore likely to raise suggestions to initiate constructive changes at work. Previous research
has accumulated support for this effect. For example, Bateman and Crant (1993) found that MBA applicants high
in proactive personality were more likely to list involvement in constructive changes as their greatest personal
achievements compared with their less proactive counterparts. Similarly, Parker (1998) found that proactive
personality was positively associated with individuals participation in organizational improvement initiatives.
Detert and Burris (2007) reported signicant correlations between proactive personality and voice behavior across
two samples.
By contributing innovative ideas and addressing important issues, voice behavior allows protgs to present
their crucial and unique perspectives to their group. As a communicative and innovative form of personal initiative,
voice behavior usually entails considerable effort on the part of the protgs because they need to put their
thoughts together into comprehensible ideas that can be publicly articulated to experienced or senior members
J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/job
1186
(Farh, Tangirala, & Liang, 2010). Successfully selling a solution to a work-related issue may open up an opportunity to
interact and communicate with potential mentors in the organization (Dutton & Ashford, 1993). Consequently,
voice behavior may represent a way for early career employees to reveal their talents, and gain visibility and
interpersonal inuence. The constructive ideas they present may not only reveal their potential to others but also
demonstrate their strong commitment to work-related issues. For example, an employee may raise an idea for making
a work procedure more efcient. This suggestion-making behavior may attract the attention of potential mentors. They
may interpret the behavior as a sign of potential talent and evidence of commitment to the organization.
Despite its constructive nature, voice behavior may bring adversity to the focal employee because of its challenging
nature (Detert & Burris, 2007; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Because of the information asymmetry and social distance
in a high power distance culture, employees may not know how senior employees view their competence. Therefore,
junior employees who want to move up may have to engage in such potentially benecial but costly signaling activity
(i.e., voice) to reveal their competence and value (Spence, 1973). To advance the interests of the organization or unit,
experienced or senior employees often have the motivation to discover competent employees. Offering guidance and
support to a protg is considered part of the social obligations of experienced or senior employees in China (Farh &
Cheng, 2000). Consistent with the rising star hypothesis, we expect that constructive efforts from junior employees will
attract attention from senior members and enable these junior employees to gain career guidance and social support from
them. To summarize, we expect that self-presentation behaviors such as voice are likely to be recognized by experienced
or senior members in the form of informal mentoring. Thus, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 2b: Voice behavior mediates the positive relationship between proactive personality and informal
mentoring received.
The moderating effect of core self-evaluations

Proactive personality represents a behavioral tendency (to effect change) only. An individual may not fully
materialize its proactive potential into actual proactive behaviors. This is because being proactive often entails
potential risks to the individuals, and there are many obstacles along the way (Bindl & Parker, 2011; Frese &
Fay, 2001; Grant & Ashford, 2008). For example, one risks being rejected when one tries to establish social relationships with experienced or senior people. Voice behavior involves personal risk in that one may receive criticism
or even attack as a result of speaking up. Therefore, the process perspective to individual proactivity advances that
before individuals engage in actual proactive behaviors, they would think ahead to assess the likely outcomes of
these behaviors and anticipate possible futures (Bindl & Parker, 2011; Grant & Ashford, 2008). During this anticipation/deliberation process, individuals self-beliefs about how well they will function in response to specic
situations will elicit different regulatory processes regarding their choices of proactive behaviors. A construct that
captures comprehensive self-beliefs is core self-evaluations, the fundamental premises that individuals hold about
themselves and their functioning in the world (Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998, p. 61).
Core self-evaluations capture a latent construct that causes employees to view themselves as having higher
self-esteem, higher generalized self-efcacy, lower neuroticism, and an internal locus of control (Judge et al., 1998).
Because core self-evaluations describe an individuals level of positive self-regard (or the degree to which he or
she judges his or her identity favorably), it may alleviate an individuals concerns about potential risks and obstacles
involving proactive behaviors. Because of the buffering function of high core self-evaluations, we examine it as a
moderator for the effect of proactive personality on networking and voice behaviors. We expect that the relationship
between proactive personality and networking or voice behavior is stronger when core self-evaluations are higher.
More specically, when proactive employees have favorable evaluations about themselves, they tend to see
themselves as capable, worthy, and in control of their lives. As such, they anticipate few risks or obstacles and
thus are likely to turn their proactive tendency into actual proactive behaviors. When seeking the opportunity for
mentoring assistance, they are likely to consider promotion-focused proactive behaviors (e.g., networking
and voice behavior) because their high core self-evaluations alleviate their worries and thus help unleash the
J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/job
1187
potential of proactivity for such behaviors. Even when they anticipate difculties in the proactive process (e.g., their
networking behaviors receive negative feedback or their constructive suggestions encounter criticisms), they may still
decide to engage in proactive behaviors (to reach their career goals) because they believe that they have the knowledge,
skills, and abilities to exert control and exercise interpersonal inuence (Bono & Colbert, 2005; Erez &
Judge, 2001). To sum up, we expect that high core self-evaluations help an individual to capitalize on the proactive
personality and to bring out its potential for proactive behaviors, thus strengthening the relationship between
proactive personality and proactive behaviors.
In contrast, when proactive employees have low core self-evaluations, they tend to interpret their interpersonal
environments as containing more threats than opportunities for their development and feel less capable of handling
challenges and risks (Best, Stapleton, & Downey, 2005). Even though they identify the valuable opportunity to gain
mentoring assistance for their career, they may still anticipate more obstacles and greater psychological strain
during the proactive process (Kammeyer-Mueller, Judge, & Scott, 2009). Compared with their counterparts, these
individuals are sensitive to interpersonal threats, risks, punishment, and other negative feedback before engaging
actual proactive behaviors (Judge et al., 2004). Facing the possibility to receive mentoring assistance, they are
likely to adopt a prevention-focused approach and assign more weight to the personal risks of their behaviors rather
than to their potential career benets. Consequently, they are less likely to turn their proactive potentials into actual
behaviors. To sum up, we expect that low core self-evaluations and associated deliberation processes constrain or
inhibit proactive tendency from manifesting itself into actual proactive behaviors, thus weakening the relationship
between proactive personality and networking or voice behaviors. Taken together, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 3a: Core self-evaluations positively moderate the relationship between proactive personality and
networking behavior such that this relationship is stronger when core self-evaluations are higher.
Hypothesis 3b: Core self-evaluations positively moderate the relationship between proactive personality and
voice behavior such that this relationship is stronger when core self-evaluations are higher.
Thus far, we have hypothesized that proactive personality is positively related to informal mentoring received
(Hypothesis 1) and that proactive behaviors (i.e., networking and voice) mediate this relationship (Hypotheses
2a and 2b). We further propose that core self-evaluations positively moderate the associations between proactive
personality and proactive behaviors (e.g., networking and voice) (Hypothesis 3a and 3b). Combining both the
mediation and moderation hypotheses, we provide integrative hypotheses that summarize our research model.
Specically, we propose that the positive indirect relationship (via networking and voice) between proactive personality
and informal mentoring received varies as a function of core self-evaluations such that the indirect relationship is
stronger when core self-evaluations are higher. Those with positive core self-evaluations are condent in their
knowledge, skills, and abilities and are thus likely to take advantage of their proactivity to seek interpersonal
opportunities to be mentored. On the other hand, those with unfavorable core self-evaluations are less likely to turn
their proactivity into actual behaviors that increase the chance of being mentored. Consistent with our arguments,
Judge and Hurst (2007) found that core self-evaluations strengthen the positive effects of family advantage and
educational attainment on personal income. The authors concluded that those who have more positive core selfevaluations are better able to achieve their career goals by better leveraging their social resources. Thus, we expect
that those with positive core self-evaluations will be more likely to benet from their proactivity than their counterparts. To summarize, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 4a: The positive indirect (mediated) effect of proactive personality on informal mentoring received
(via networking behavior) is stronger when core self-evaluations are higher.
Hypothesis 4b: The positive indirect (mediated) effect of proactive personality on informal mentoring received
(via voice behavior) is stronger when core self-evaluations are higher.
J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/job
1188
Methods
Participants and procedures
We collected survey data from a high-technology rm located in Shenzhen. The high-technology company
we studied traditionally encouraged personal initiative among its employees but did not have a formal mentoring system in place. With the help of the HR manager, we surveyed 200 employees from the companys
production department in Shenzhen. These respondents included all of the rst-level (junior) employees
from the department; these employees held a variety of different technology-intensive jobs (e.g., technicians).
They were in need of support and assistance from experienced or senior coworkers to compensate for
their inexperience.
We administered two surveys at two different points in time to alleviate the threat of common method bias
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). In the rst survey, we asked the participants to answer questions
related to demographics, proactive personality, and core self-evaluations. Three months later, we asked about
their proactive behaviors and the informal mentoring they had received. In the second round of data collection,
we inserted a section in the survey with a different reporting format in order to separate the items for
networking and voice from those for informal mentoring received to alleviate the effect of common scale
format. During the data collection, we ensured the condentiality of individual responses in order to increase
participants candidness. The participants completed the surveys on the spot and returned them directly to a
research team member.
A total of 174 matched surveys were received, representing a response attrition rate of 13 percent
across 3 months. The participants were mostly male (73.8 percent), relatively young (90.1 percent were between
21 and 30 years), and reasonably well educated (83.7 percent had completed vocational/technical training). Their
working experience was generally less than 3 years (79.3 percent); thus, our participants were at the early stage
of their careers.
Measures
A 5-point Likert-type scale was used for all of the substantive variables. The English items were translated into Chinese
by using translation and back-translation procedures (Brislin, 1986). All of the materials were presented in Chinese.
Proactive personality
Participants completed Seibert, Crant, and Kraimers (1999) 10-item version of Bateman and Crants (1993)
Proactive Personality Scale. A sample item is I am constantly on the lookout for new ways to improve my life.
Principal axis factoring of these items generated a one-factor solution that accounted for a total of 33.91 percent
of the common variance among the items. The common factor had an eigenvalue of 3.39. The Cronbach
alpha for the scale was .78.
Informal mentoring received
Traditionally, there are two approaches to measuring mentoring received: (i) to ask a single question about
whether respondents have such a relationship and (ii) to employ continuous indices to measure the extent to which
protgs receive mentoring (Kammeyer-Mueller & Judge, 2008). Both of the approaches assume that one receives
mentoring assistance from a specic mentor only. The focus of this study was on informal mentoring relationships;
in such relationships, a junior employee may receive assistance from more than one mentor and these mentors
may change (Yang et al., 2011). Therefore, we took a third approach and measured informal mentoring received
as development networks in which an individual may receive developmental supports from multiple mentors
J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/job
1189
(Higgins & Kram, 2001). We adapted the 18-item scale developed by Dreher and Ash (1990). Respondents were
instructed to consider their actual experience within the current company and to rate the extent to which they
had individuals (ti xie zhe1) who provided career-related and psychosocial mentoring to them (1 = never to 5 = always).
The literature has shown that the domain of mentoring assistance is generalizable to the Chinese context with a high
power distance and collectivism (Yang et al., 2011).
In order to conduct ne-grained analyses on mentoring, we created two broad dimensions of mentoring
assistance (i.e., career-related and psychosocial assistance). Consistent with Turban and Dougherty (1994) and
Metz (2009), we conducted the principal axis-factoring procedure and retained two factors with item loadings
greater than 0.40 for each factor. The two factors accounted for 44.70 percent of the common variance among
the items. The factor of psychosocial mentoring consisted of nine items (a = .84) and reected counseling the
protg on anxieties and uncertainty, and providing friendship and acceptance. A sample item is (the mentor)
conveys empathy for the concerns and feelings I have discussed with him/her. The factor of career-related
mentoring included specic supportive behaviors to the protg such as providing human capital enhancement
opportunities and links to powerful individuals in the organizations. It had six items (a = .80). A sample item is
(the mentor) gives (or recommends) challenging assignments to me that present opportunities to learn new skills.
Three of the 18 items were deleted because of heavy cross-loadings or low factor loadings.
Networking behavior
We adapted six items from previous studies (Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998; Youndt, Subramaniam, & Snell, 2004) to
measure the extent to which individuals actively build job-related relationships at work. A sample item is I spend
lots of time with other people at social occasions. Principal axis factoring of these items generated a one-factor
solution that accounted for a total of 50.63 percent of the common variance among the items. The common factor
had an eigenvalue of 3.04. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was .79.
Voice behavior
We measured voice behavior using the six-item scale developed by Van Dyne and LePine (1998). A sample item is
I develop and make recommendations concerning issues that affect this work group. Principal axis factoring of
these items generated a one-factor solution that accounted for a total of 46.12 percent of the common variance
among the items. The common factor had an eigenvalue of 2.77. The Cronbach alpha was .76.
Core self-evaluations
We used the 12-item Core Self-Evaluations Scale from Judge, Erez, Bono, and Thoresen (2003). This scale was
designed in a holistic and integrated manner to directly measure the components of self-esteem, generalized
self-efcacy, internal locus of control, and emotional stability. Principal axis factoring of these items generated
a one-factor solution that accounted for a total of 32.24 percent of the common variance among the items. The
common factor had an eigenvalue of 2.72. Two negatively worded items were deleted from the analyses because
of low factor loadings. A sample item is I am condent I get the success I deserve in life. The 10 items had a
Cronbach alpha of .70.
As there are several ways to represent informal mentor in Chinese, in the questionnaire, we used the Chinese word ti xie zhe, which refers to
experienced or senior persons who provide career-related advice and support to and look after the junior persons. In Chinese organizations, ti
xie zhe may not necessarily be the direct supervisor and is often not formally assigned to junior persons by the organization. Any experienced
or senior members can be the ti xie zhe for early career employees. This is highly consistent with the denition of an informal mentor in the mainstream literature (Dougerty et al., 2007).
J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/job
1190
Control variables
We controlled for ve variables thought to inuence informal mentoring received (Kammeyer-Mueller & Judge,
2008).2 Age was measured as a categorical variable (e.g., 20 years or younger, 2125, 2630, and 3135 years).
Education was also measured as a categorical variable: middle school, high school, vocational/technical school,
and university. Relevant work experience was measured using four categories: less than 1 year, 13 years, 35 years,
and over 5 years. Gender was dummy-coded (1 = male and 0 = female). Finally, considering the effects of some
individuals general negative tendency toward their life and work situation, we controlled for negative affectivity3
by using the 10-item scale developed by Watson, Clark, and Tellegen (1988). The Cronbach alpha was .78.
Results
Conrmatory factor analyses
Six main variables were employed in this study: proactive personality, networking behavior, voice behavior,
two forms of informal mentoring received, and core self-evaluations. Before testing the relationships among the
constructs, we assessed their distinctiveness through a series of conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) procedures.
We formed three parcels as indicators for each latent construct by averaging the items with the highest and lowest
loadings, respectively. Against the baseline model of six factors (Model 1), we examined three alternative models
(Models 24). As shown in Table 1, the nested models exhibited signicantly worse t than the baseline model, as
seen from the signicant chi-square difference tests and model t indices. The baseline model of six factors tted
the data well (w2 = 183.44, df = 120, RMSEA = 0.057, CFI = 0.96, IFI = 0.96, NNFI = 0.95). The standardized loadings of all indicators on their specied constructs were signicant at the 0.01 level. We also examined the average
shared variance of each construct. In most of the cases, variance-extracted estimates from any two measures were
greater than their squared inter-construct correlations, thus providing clear evidence of the distinctiveness of our
key variables (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
In order to examine the potential inuence of common method variance, we further included two measurement
models following the suggestions of Podsakoff et al. (2003). Model 5 was a one-factor model with all of the
measures combined together. Model 6 was a seven-factor model with all of the six factors and one uncorrelated
method factor. We allowed all of the 18 indicators to load on this method factor. The chi-square difference
test between the one-factor model and the baseline model was signicant (w2 = 790.70 for 15 df, p < .01), and
the baseline model had a better t to the data. The chi-square difference test between the baseline model and the
seven-factor model was not signicant (w2 = 23.79 for 18 df ), suggesting that the baseline model was not
signicantly improved by the addition of an uncorrelated method factor. We concluded that common method
variance was not a serious threat to our study.
Individuals may differ in their motives to receive mentoring assistance, and job performance may capture such motives. We did not include job
performance as a control variable because the relationship between job performance and informal mentoring received is ambiguous conceptually.
For example, we may argue that low performers would receive more informal mentoring because of a greater need for such mentoring; however,
they may receive less informal mentoring because of their low visibility and potential. Moreover, the causal direction for the relationship is unclear: Job performance could be an antecedent or a consequence of informal mentoring received. Nevertheless, we included self-related job performance in a supplementary analysis to check the robustness of our results. We found that self-rated job performance was not signicantly related
to informal mentoring received. All key results hold with the control of self-rated job performance.
3
Because the potential overlap between negative affectivity and neuroticism may partial out some of the variance in outcomes explained by core
self-evaluations, we re-analyzed our data without negative affectivity. The results remained unchanged. We elected to retain negative affectivity as
a control variable because all our data were from the same source. Even though we collected them at two different time points, negative affectivity
may be an important source for inating the correlations among our study variables (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/job
1191
Table 1. Comparison of measurement models for study variables.

Descriptions
df
Six factors: Proactive personality, networking, voice,

two forms of mentoring, core self-evaluations
Five factors: Networking and voice were combined
into one factor
Five factors: The two forms of mentoring were
combined into one factor
Five factors: proactive personality and core selfevaluations were combined into one factor
One factor: All factors were combined into one
factor
Seven factors: the baseline six factor and a method
factor
183.44
120
303.10
125
301.84
Models
1
2
3
4
5
6
w2 over
Model 1
RMSEA
CFI
IFI
NNFI
0.057
0.96
0.96
0.95
119.66**
0.093
0.91
0.91
0.89
125
118.40**
0.093
0.91
0.91
0.89
251.60
125
68.16**
0.078
0.93
0.93
0.91
974.14
135
790.70**
0.194
0.62
0.62
0.56
159.65
102
23.79
0.49
0.97
0.97
0.96
Note: Two-tailed tests.

**p < .01.
Descriptive statistics
Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations among the variables. The zero-order correlation
between proactive personality and informal mentoring received was .15 (p < .05) for psychosocial mentoring
and .24 (p < .01) for career-related mentoring. The correlation was .41 (p < .01) between proactive personality
and core self-evaluations, and .47 (p < .01) between networking and voice behavior. The correlations among the
two mediators and informal mentoring received ranged from .17 (p < .05, psychosocial mentoring and networking
behavior) to .25 (p < .01, career-related mentoring and networking behavior). Consistent with our CFA tests, these
measures appeared to be conceptually and empirically distinguishable.
Hypotheses testing
A series of multiple regression analyses was conducted to examine the hypotheses. In all of the analyses, we examined
the proposed relationships while controlling for age, gender, education, tenure, and negative affectivity. We centered
proactive personality and core self-evaluations to avoid multicollinearity with their product terms in the moderation
regressions (Aiken & West, 1991).
The main effect of proactive personality (Hypothesis 1)
Table 3 presents the results for our hypothesized main effect of proactive personality. As shown in Model 1, proactive
personality had a positive effect on psychosocial mentoring (b = .20, p < .05). Meanwhile, the effect of proactive
personality on career-related mentoring was also positive and signicant (b = .22, p < .01, see Model 3). Thus,
Hypothesis 1 received support. In addition, as shown in Models 5 and 8, proactive personality had positive effects
on both networking behavior (b = .29, p < .01) and voice behavior (b = .31, p < .01).
The mediating role of proactive behaviors (Hypothesis 2)
In order to test Hypothesis 2, we examined the necessary conditions for mediation prescribed by Baron and
Kenny (1986). The analyses for Hypothesis 1 provided support for the rst two conditions in examining a mediating
relationship: the independent variable (i.e., proactive personality) related to the mediating variables (i.e., networking
and voice behavior); the independent variable related to the dependent variables (i.e., psychosocial and career-related
J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/job
3.25
2.86
3.44
3.83
3.12
3.52
2.20
0.74
3.16
1.69
1.73
0.61
0.71
0.56
0.50
0.55
0.44
0.94
0.44
0.61
0.95
0.52
SD
.84
.50**
.15*
.17*
.21**
.16*
.20**
.06
.08
.06
.03
1
.80
.24**
.25**
.20**
.16*
.05
.14
.13
.04
.07
.78
.31**
.34**
.41**
.15*
.11
.17*
.10
.15*
.79
.47**
.23**
.11
.07
.16*
.04
.01
.76
.20**
.18*
.17*
.15
.21**
.05
.70
.24**
.07
.11
.16 *
.43**
.38**
.16*
.45**
.26**
Note: Two-tailed tests.

*p < .05;
**p < .01.
Age
Gender
Education
Tenure
Negative affectivity
Proactive personality (PP)
Networking behavior
Voice behavior
Core self-evaluation (CSV)
PP CSV
R2
R2
F value
.08
2.25*
.05**
.13
3.01**
.23**
.00
.11
.01
.06
.11
.07
.21*
.22*
.01
.09
.02
.05
.20*
.08
2.42*
.04
.13
.09
.04
.04
.22**
Model 3
Model 2
Model 1
.04*
.12
2.61*
.06
.13
.07
.04
.05
.15
.17*
.05
Model 4
Career-related mentoring
Psychosocial mentoring
Table 3. Regression results for mediation analysis.
.114
3.49**
.08
.01
.10
.02
.08
.29**
Model 5
.20*
.23**
.05**
.18
4.45**
.17
.13
3.54**
.06
.04
.06
.01
.12
.26**
Model 7
.06
.02
.10
.03
.14
.23**
Model 6
Networking behavior
.16
5.13**
.05
.06
.06
.14
.06
.31**
Model 8
.15*
.35**
.07
Note: N = 169; for gender, 0 = female, 1 = male. Cronbach alpha coefcients for multi-item scales are listed in the diagonal. Two-tailed tests.
p < .10;
*p < .05;
**p < .01.
1. Psychosocial mentoring
2. Career-related mentoring
3. Proactive personality
4. Networking behavior
5. Voice behavior
6. Core self-evaluations
7. Age
8. Gender
9. Education
10. Tenure
11. Negative affectivity
Mean
Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations among variables.
.23**
10
.16
4.49**
.07
.04
.06
.06
.13
.08
.29**
Model 9
.78
11
.10
.17*
.03*
.19
4.66**
.04
.08
.02
.15
.07
.30**
Model 10
Voice behavior
.18*
.08
1192
J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/job
1193
mentoring). In Step 3, both proactive personality and proactive behaviors were included in the analyses. As shown in
Model 2 (Table 3), voice behavior was signicantly related to psychosocial mentoring (b = .21, p < .05), and proactive
personality became nonsignicant. Model 4 showed that networking behavior was signicantly related to career-related
mentoring (b = .17, p < .05), whereas proactive personality became nonsignicant. The preceding results suggest
that voice behavior mediated the relationship between proactive personality and psychosocial mentoring, whereas
networking behavior mediated the relationship between proactive personality and career-related mentoring.
Hypothesis 2 therefore received partial support.
The moderating role of core self-evaluations (Hypotheses 3 and 4)
Hypothesis 3 is about the moderating roles of core self-evaluations in the relationship between proactive personality
and proactive behaviors. We tested this hypothesis using two separate moderated regression models (Model 7 for
networking and Model 10 for voice). In support of Hypothesis 3, Table 3 shows a signicant moderating effect of core
self-evaluations. Specically, the beta coefcient for the interaction term (proactive personality core self-evaluations)
was signicant for both networking behavior (b = .23, p < .01) and voice behavior (b = .17, p < .05).
To visualize this interaction effect, separate simple slopes depicting the relationships between proactive personality
and proactive behaviors were examined. Plots were drawn for individuals whose scores on the moderator were one
standard deviation below and above the mean (Aiken & West, 1991). Figure 1 suggests that the relationship between
proactive personality and networking behavior was positive and signicant for the higher core self-evaluations
group (b = .42, p < .01) but nonsignicant for the lower core self-evaluations group (b = .05, ns). Figure 2 shows that
the relationship between proactive personality and voice behavior was positive and signicant for the higher core
self-evaluations group (b = .45, p < .01) and that this effect was marginal for the lower core self-evaluations group
(b = .18, p < .06). Thus, Hypothesis 3 received support.
Hypothesis 4 further proposed that the indirect effect of proactive personality on informal mentoring received,
via networking and voice behavior, differs in strength across lower and higher levels of core self-evaluations.
We operationalized the higher and lower levels of core self-evaluations as one standard deviation above and below
the mean score. The moderated path analysis approach proposed by Edwards and Lambert (2007) was followed
4.20
Networking behavior
4.10
High core self-evaluations
4.00
3.90
3.80
Low core self-evaluations
3.70
3.60
2.88
3.99
Figure 1. Core self-evaluations as a moderator for the relationship between proactive personality and networking behavior
J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/job
1194
3.40
Voice behavior
3.30
High core self-evaluations
3.20
3.10
Low core self-evaluations
3.00
2.90
2.80
2.88
3.99
Figure 2. Core self-evaluations as a moderator for the relationship between proactive personality and voice behavior
to test this hypothesis. The results in Table 4 support the rst-stage moderation effects, revealing signicant
moderating effects of core self-evaluations because the paths from proactive personality to networking and voice
differed signicantly across different levels of core self-evaluations (b = .42, p < .01 for networking behavior,
b = .34, p < .01 for voice behavior). This provided additional support for Hypotheses 3a and 3b.
Table 4. Moderated mediated results for proactive personality across levels of core self-evaluations.
Stage
First
Effect
Second
Proactive personality (X) ! Networking (M) ! Psychosocial mentoring (Y)

Low core self-evaluations (1 SD)
.05
.09
High core self-evaluations (+1 SD)
.47**
.23
Difference between low and high
.42**
.15
Proactive personality (X) ! Networking (M) ! Career-related mentoring (Y)
.05
.12
.47**
.38
.42**
.26
Proactive personality (X) ! Voice (M) ! Psychosocial mentoring (Y)
.14
.16
.48**
.22
.34**
.06
Proactive personality (X) ! Voice (M) ! Career-related mentoring (Y)
.14
.06
.48**
.30*
.34**
.36
Direct effect
Indirect effect
.12
.02
.10
.01
.11
.10
.05
.39*
.34
.01
.18*
.17*
.15*
.08
.07
.02
.11*
.09*
.05
.43*
.39*
.01
.14*
.15
Note: Two-tailed tests. Unstandardized regression coefcients are reported. Bootstrap sample size = 1000.
p < .10;
*p < .05;
**p < .01.
J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/job
1195
The results in Table 4 indicate that the indirect relationship between proactive personality and career-related
mentoring via networking behavior was signicant (b = .18, p < .05) under high core self-evaluations but nonsignicant
(b = .01, ns) under low core self-evaluations. The difference between the indirect relationships was signicant (b = .17,
p < .05). Meanwhile, for both the high and low core self-evaluations groups, the indirect relationship between
proactive personality and psychosocial mentoring via networking behavior was not signicant. Thus, Hypothesis 4a
was partially supported.
Regarding Hypothesis 4b, as shown in Table 4, the indirect relationship between proactive personality and
psychosocial mentoring via voice behavior was signicant (b = .11, p < .05) when core self-evaluations were
high but nonsignicant (b = .02, ns) when core self-evaluations were low. The difference between the indirect
relationships was signicant (b = .09, p < .05). Meanwhile, the indirect relationship between proactive personality and career-related mentoring via voice behavior was signicant (b = .14, p < .05) when core self-evaluations
were high but nonsignicant (b = .01, ns) when core self-evaluations were low. The difference between the indirect relationships was marginally signicant (b = .15, p < .10). Thus, Hypothesis 4b was partially supported.
Discussion
In this study, we developed and tested a moderated mediation model of informal mentoring received. On the basis
of a sample of 174 Chinese participants, we found that networking behavior mediated the relationship between
proactive personality and career-related mentoring, whereas voice behavior mediated the relationship between
proactive personality and psychosocial mentoring. Furthermore, we found that core self-evaluations moderated
the aforementioned two indirect relationships. Our analyses showed that this moderation largely occurred at the rst
stage of the indirect relationship: Core self-evaluations positively moderated the relationship between proactive
personality and the two proactive behaviors (i.e., networking and voice). These results advance the current
understanding of the mechanisms by which proactive personality relates to informal mentoring received and reveal
a dispositional moderator surrounding this relationship.
Theoretical implications
Our study contributes to the mentoring literature by linking proactive personality and informal mentoring received
as well as by examining how proactive employees develop informal mentoring relationships. Researchers have
previously argued that protgs with certain personality traitsthose indicative of proactive behaviors toward
othersmight initiate relationships and receive mentoring assistance (Aryee et al., 1999; Turban & Dougherty,
1994). However, researchers have generally not paid specic attention to the role of proactive personality in this
process. To the best of our knowledge, two studies have included individual proactivity in mentoring research.
Wanberg, Kammeyer-Mueller, and Marchese (2006) examined the relationship between proactive personality
and mentoring received in formal mentoring programs. Byrne, Dik, and Chiaburu (2008) examined proactive
personality as a moderator in the relationship between mentoring assistance and career success. Building on
and extending those works, we examined the dispositional and proactive approach to the formation of informal
mentoring relationships. We showed that proactivity helps early career employees to gain psychosocial and
career-related assistance from experienced or senior members through voice and networking behaviors. This study
also contributes to prior research on proactive personality, which has shown that proactive personality leads to
career success (e.g., promotion and increased salary) through proactive behaviors (Seibert, et al., 2001). Our ndings
extend this line of research by showing that proactivity enhances informal mentoring received, a social resource
supporting the career development of employees.
J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/job
1196
Second, in response to the call to investigate how protgs personality traits inuence informal mentoring
relationships (Dougerty et al., 2007), we examined networking and voice behavior as two different mechanisms
linking proactive personality and informal mentoring received. The mainstream literature on mentoring suggests
that mentors deliberately seek out capable individuals as protgs on the basis of their expected productivity
(Kammeyer-Mueller & Judge, 2008). Thus, early career employees who proactively build their career-related
relationships and demonstrate their potential are more likely to attract attention from potential mentors (Chandler
et al., 2010). Interestingly, our results revealed the differential mediating roles of networking and voice behavior:
Networking behavior mediated the relationship between proactive personality and career-related mentoring,
whereas voice behavior mediated the relationship between proactive personality and psychosocial mentoring.
There are two plausible explanations for our ndings. The rst is related to the context of Chinese society,
a strongly relationship-centered society (Yang, 1993). Because of the tendency to treat people differentially, people
are usually motivated to make social investments to cultivate positive guanxi with experienced or senior employees
at work. Therefore, networking behavior in China has instrumental value for securing personal favors related to
fullling individual career objectives. Meanwhile, voice behavior has different implications for early career
employees looking to receive mentoring assistance. As we argued, voice behavior may increase personal visibility
and perceived competence. In China, company employees are encouraged to be responsible citizens. However,
such behaviors may also result in personal vulnerability for the focal employee. It can be misinterpreted as a type
of personal criticism or complaint even though it is intended to target organizational improvement (Van Dyne
& LePine, 1998). Thus, those who choose to be mentors are expected to take an advisory role and to provide
psychosocial support and guidance to early career employees when they anticipate or actually see problems
resulting from their protgs voice behaviors. In Eastern Asia, a mentoring relationship is usually viewed not only
as task accomplishment but also as a chain of particularistic ties, which involve social obligations from both sides in
the relationship (Bright, 2005; Yang et al., 2011). For example, as a type of particularistic tie in China, mentoring
relationship may demand the loyalty from the protgs side. The mentor, on the other hand, needs to provide their
protections to the protg (Farh & Cheng, 2000; Tsui & Farh, 1997). Future research could examine how cultural
difference inuences the behavioral mechanisms of informal mentoring received.
A second plausible explanation is that the measure of networking behavior was strictly restricted to work
domains and did not look at nonwork domains. We did not cover nonwork exchange behaviors that Chinese
respondents usually engage in, including giving birthday gifts, offering interpersonal help for family issues, and
having dinner together after work (Law et al., 2000). Mentors are more likely to provide psychosocial assistance
to their protgs during such occasions. Our results therefore may not exhaustively capture the relationship that
networking behaviors has with psychosocial mentoring assistance. Future research may develop a more contextualized
measure of networking behavior and examine whether it relates to psychosocial mentoring in China.
Third, this study also contributes to the literature on proactivity. As a highly relevant antecedent to proactive
behavior, proactive personality drives a range of specic behaviors, such as network building (Lambert, Eby,
& Reeves, 2006; Thompson, 2005), proactive socialization into the organization (Kammeyer-Mueller &
Wanberg, 2003), taking charge, individual innovation, voice, and problem prevention (Parker & Collins, 2010).
The aforementioned evidence suggests that even though proactive personality was conceptualized as a unitary
disposition, it is actually manifested as different forms of proactive behavior (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010). In
this study, in order to explain the relationship between proactive personality and informal mentoring received,
we proposed networking and voice as two interpersonal-oriented proactive behaviors that aim at creating a
favorable environment for career development. Because individual proactivity may manifest itself in varying
degrees, we further proposed and tested core self-evaluations as a moderating variable. Our results suggest that core
self-evaluations positively moderate the relationship between proactive personality and the two proactive behaviors
and thus its indirect relationships with career-related mentoring (via networking behavior) and psychosocial
mentoring (via voice behavior). The signicant interaction between proactive personality and core self-evaluations
suggests that clustering the personality variables within individuals, rather than focusing on proactive personality
only, would add to its predictive validity in organizational research (Judge et al., 2004).
J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/job
1197
Meanwhile, our results provide support for the idea that individuals go through a deliberate decision process
before engaging in proactive behaviors (Bindl & Parker, 2011; Grant & Ashford, 2008). Considering the possible
risks involved in proactive behaviors, individuals may not fully turn their proactivity into actual behaviors. High
core self-evaluations can alleviate the concerns in the deliberation process and thus bring out more the potential
of proactivity for proactive behaviors. Researcher may further examine other dispositional moderators (e.g., situational
judgment ability; Chan, 2006) and contextual variables (e.g., justice climate; Li, Liang, & Crant, 2010) in explaining
how individual proactivity manifests itself into specic proactive behaviors.
Limitations and directions for future research

This study has several limitations. First, we collected all of the data from junior employees themselves. In this
study, we examined the extent to which junior employees received informal mentoring. Some junior employees
may not have a mentor, and when they do, these mentors may change because of the informal nature of the relationships.
We therefore did not collect data from mentors. Future research should collect data on how potential mentors
perceive the junior employee and whether their perception further mediates the relationship between proactive
behaviors and informal mentoring received by the junior employee.
Second, while we collected data at two time points, proactive behaviors and informal mentoring received were measured
at the same time. As a result, we cannot empirically rule out the possibility of a reverse relationship between proactive
behaviors and informal mentoring received. Our theory is that proactive personality drives proactive behaviors, which,
in turn, help junior employees gain informal mentoring. Conceptually, it is possible that those who already receive mentoring may engage in more proactive behaviors. However, it is also possible that they engage in less proactive behaviors (e.g.,
networking) because they have already established relationships with experienced or senior employees (i.e., mentors) and
thus see less need to do so. The reverse relationships therefore seem less clear conceptually. Nevertheless, future research
should collect data from multiple sources (e.g., both the mentor and the protg) at multiple time points to provide the most
rigorous examination of the relationship between proactive behaviors and informal mentoring received.
Third, the data used for hypothesis testing were collected from junior employees in a single organizationa hightechnology company in China. Although this sample is appropriate for examining the relationship between proactive
personality and informal mentoring received, future studies should systematically examine the effects of research
context on our model and determine whether the pattern of our ndings is generalizable to other contexts.
Finally, we took a proactive approach and conceptualized junior employees as active agents in shaping their work situations. Most of our study variables were selected from this approach. However, early career employees are subject to the
inuence of people from various social spheres. Future research could explore this question from an ecological system
perspective and examine informal mentoring received as an activity embedded in complex interactions between social
systems (Chandler, Kram, & Yip, 2011). For example, the congruence between the protg and his or her mentors levels
of proactive personality (Zhang, Wang, & Shi, 2012) may be a powerful predictor for informal mentoring outcomes. When
examining the contingent factors of the proactive approach, future research may consider the roles of organizational
structure and culture (Noe, Greenberger, & Wang, 2002) and examine how those contextual variables, in addition to
dispositional variables, inuence the extent to which individuals can utilize their proactivity for career development.
Practical implications
In order to become fast-tracked among early career employees, an individual needs to take the initiative in
building informal mentoring relationships. Harris and Field (1992) described fast-tracked employees in a U.S. corporation as follows: They itch to . . . get involved . . . they want visibility that comes from engaging in responsible activities and the personal satisfaction of taking on a challenge (p. 64). Our inclusion of networking and voice
behavior is highly consistent with this observation.
J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/job
1198
There may be differences between Western and Chinese junior employees in terms of managing their careers.
However, our results suggest that the benets of individual proactivity for procuring mentoring assistance can be
generalized to a Chinese context as well. In order to align the career development of young employees with the
interest of the company, managers need to take into account two important traits (e.g., proactive personality and
core self-evaluations) in selecting candidates from the labor market. Meanwhile, it is necessary for rms to take
action to encourage personal initiative among their employees. Such actions may entail changing the structure
and culture of an organization to encourage proactive behaviors (e.g., voice and networking) and providing positive
feedback to activate employees positive self-evaluations; these measures would allow individuals to have more
opportunities to be proactive and to build high-quality informal mentoring relationships in their workplaces.
Finally, with the increasing competition in the labor market, Chinese employees have gradually recognized the
importance of professional competence and qualications for career development (Liu, 2003). Therefore, rms
need to provide them with formal or informal mentoring assistances, particularly for those at their early career.
Acknowledgement
The work in this paper was jointly supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project No.
70902046 and 71032003), and Doctoral Fund of Ministry of Education of China (Project No. 20090073120035).
Author biographies
Jian Liang is an associate professor at Antai College of Economics and Management at Shanghai Jiao Tong
University. He obtained his PhD in Management from The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
His research interests include employee proactive behaviors, cultural values, leadership, and business ethics.
Yaping Gong is an associate professor of management at School of Business and Management, The Hong Kong
University of Science and Technology. He obtained his PhD in Management from the Fisher College of Business,
The Ohio State University. His research interests include strategic human resource management, international
human resource management, goal orientation theory, and employee creativity.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Allen, T. D. (2004). Protg selection by mentors: Contributing individual and organizational factors. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 65, 469483.
Allen, T. D., Eby, L., Poteet, M., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benets associated with mentoring for protgs: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 127136.
Aryee, S., Lo, S., & Kang, I.-L. (1999). Antecedents of early career stage mentoring among Chinese employees. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 20, 563576.
Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51, 11731182.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of
Belschak, F. D., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2010). Pro-self, prosocial, and pro-organizational foci of proactive behaviour: Differential
antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 475498.
Best, R. G., Stapleton, L. M., & Downey, R. G. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job burnout: The test of alternative models.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 441451.
J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/job
1199
Bindl, U., & Parker, S. K. (2011). Proactive work behavior: Forward thinking and change-oriented action in organizations. In
S. Zedeck (Eds.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 567598). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Blickle, G., Witzki, A., & Schneider, P. B. (2009). Self-initiated mentoring and career success: A predictive eld study. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 74, 94101.
Bono, J. E., & Colbert, A. E. (2005). Understanding responses to multi-source feedback: The role of core self-evaluations. Personnel
Psychology, 58, 171203.
Bozionelos, N., & Wang, L. (2006). The relationship of mentoring and network resources with career success in the Chinese
organizational environment. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17, 15311546.
Bright, M. I. (2005). Can Japanese mentoring enhance understanding of western mentoring? Employee Relations, 27, 325339.
Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instrument. In W. Lonner, & J. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in
cross-cultural research (pp. 137164). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Brown, D. J., Cober, R. T., Kane, K., Levy, P. E., & Shalhoop, J. (2006). Proactive personality and the successful job search:
A eld investigation with college graduates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 717726.
Byrne, Z. S., Dik, B. J., & Chiaburu, D. S. (2008). Alternatives to traditional mentoring in fostering career success. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 72, 429442.
Chan, D. (2006). Interactive effects of situational judgment effectiveness and proactive personality on work perceptions and work
outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 475481.
Chandler, D. E., Hall, D. T., & Kram, K. E. (2010). A developmental network and relational savvy approach to talent development: A
low-cost alternative. Organizational Dynamics, 39, 485.
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, 519570.
Chun, J. U., Sosik, J. J., & Yun, N. Y. (2012). A longitudinal study of mentor and protg outcomes in formal mentoring relationships.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 10711094.
Claes, R., & Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A. (1998). Inuences of early career experiences, occupational group, and national culture on
proactive career behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 357378.
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435462.
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership inuences on employee voice behavior: Is the door really open? Academy of
Management Journal, 50, 869884.
Dougerty, T. W., Turban, D. B., & Haggard, D. L. (2007). Naturally occurring mentoring relationships involving workplace
employees. In T. D. Allen, & L. Eby (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspective approach
(pp. 139158). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Dreher, G. F., & Ash, R. A. (1990). A comparative study of mentoring among men and women in managerial, professional, and
technical positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 539546.
Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. (1993). Selling issues to top management. Academy of Management Review, 18, 397428.
Eby, L. T., Rhodes, J. E., & Allen, T. D. (2007). Denition and evolution of mentoring. In T. D. Allen, & L. Eby (Eds.),
The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspective approach (pp. 720). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework
using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 122.
Erez, A., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86, 12701279.
Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2000). A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In J. T. Li, A. S. Tsui,
& E. Weldon (Eds.), Management and organizations in the Chinese context (pp. 94127). London: Macmillan.
Farh, C. I. C., Tangirala, S., & Liang, J. (2010). Thinking before speaking: Employee cognitive engagement in change as a
precursor to voice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Academy of Management, Montreal Canada.
Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Perrew, P. L., Brouer, R. L., Douglas, C., & Lux, S. (2007). Political skills in organizations.
Journal of Management, 33, 290320.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error.
Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 3950.
Forret, M. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (2001). Correlates of networking behavior for managerial and professional employees. Group
& Organization Management, 26, 283311.
Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research in
Fuller, J. B., & Marler, L. E. (2009). Change driven by nature: A meta-analytic review of the proactive personality literature.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 329345
Fuller, J. B., Marler, L. E., Hester, K. (2012). Bridge building within the province of proactivity. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 33, 10531070.
J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/job
1200
Gong, Y., Cheung, S. Y., Wang, M., & Huang, J. C. (2012). Unfolding the proactive process for creativity: Integration of the
employee proactivity, information exchange, and psychological safety perspectives. Journal of Management, 38, 16111633.
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 334.
Harris, S. G., & Field, H. S. (1992). High-potential management development programs. Journal of Management Development, 11,
6170.
Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. E. (2001). Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A developmental network perspective. Academy of
Management Review, 26, 264288.
Hwang, K. K. (1987). Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 94474.
Judge, T. A., & Hurst, C. (2007). Capitalizing on ones advantages: Role of core self-evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92, 12121227.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. E. (1998). The power of being positive: The relation between positive self-concept and job
performance. Human Performance, 11, 167188.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The Core Self-Evaluations Scale (CSES): Development of a measure.
Personnel Psychology, 56, 303331.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151188.
Judge, T. A., Van Vianen, A. E. M., & De Pater, I. E. (2004). Emotional stability, core self-evaluations, and job outcomes:
A review of the evidence and an agenda for future research. Human Performance, 7, 325346.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Judge, T. A. (2008). A quantitative review of mentoring research: Test of a model. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 72, 269283.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Wanberg, C. R. (2003). Unwrapping the organizational entry process: Disentangling multiple
antecedents and their pathways to adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 779794.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Judge, T. A., & Scott, B. A. (2009). The role of core self-evaluations in the coping process. Journal of
Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2003). Social network and organizations. London: Sage Publications.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and
Company.
Lambert, T. A., Eby, L. T., & Reeves, M. P. (2006). Predictors of networking intensity and network quality among white-collar
job seekers. Journal of Career Development, 32, 351365.
Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., Wang, D., & Wang, L. (2000). Effect of supervisor-subordinate guanxi on supervisory decisions in
China: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11, 751765.
Li, N., Liang, J., & Crant, M. (2010). The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior:
A relational perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 395404.
Liu, S. (2003). Culture within culture: Unity and diversity of two generations of employees in state-owned enterprises. Human
Relations, 56, 387417.
Liu, D., Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., & Mao, Y. (2009). What can we gain as a mentor? The effect of mentoring on the job performance
and social status of mentors in China. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 871895.
Metz, I. (2009). Organizational factors, social factors, and womens advancement. Applied Psychology: An International Review,
58, 193213.
Michael, J., & Yukl, G. (1993). Managerial level and subunit function as determinants of networking behavior in organizations.
Group & Organization Management, 18, 328351.
Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson, & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads:
Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333352). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Noe, R. A., Greenberger, D. B., & Wang, S. (2002). Mentoring: What we know and where we might go. Research in Personnel
and Human Resource Management, 21, 129173.
Parker, S. K. (1998). Role breadth self-efcacy: Relationship with work enrichment and other organizational practices. Journal of
Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of
Management, 36, 633662.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical
review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879903.
Ragins, B. R. (1999). Gender and mentoring relationships: A review and research agenda for the next decade. In G. N. Powell
(Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 347370). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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, 529550.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive
personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54, 845974.
J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/job
1201
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal,
44, 21937.
Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology,
84, 416427.
Seidel, M. D. L., Polzer, J. T., & Stewart, K. J. (2000). Friends in high places: The effects of social networks on discrimination in
salary negotiations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 124.
Singh, V., Bains, D., & Vinnicombe, S. (2002). Informal mentoring as an organizational resource. Long Range Planning, 35,
389405.
Singh, R., Ragins, B. R., & Tharenou, P. (2009). Who gets a mentor? A longitudinal assessment of the rising star hypothesis.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 1117.
Spence, A. M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 355374.
Thompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90, 10111017.
Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrarm networks. Academy of Management Journal,
41, 464476.
Tsui, A. S., & Farh, J. L. (1997). Where guanxi matters: Relational demography and guanxi in the Chinese context. Work and
Occupations, 24, 5679.
Turban, D. B., & Dougherty, T. W. (1994). Role of protg personality in receipt of mentoring and career success. Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 688702.
Underhill, C. M. (2006). The effectiveness of mentoring programs in corporate settings: A meta-analytical review of the literature.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 292307.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity.
Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108119.
Wanberg, C. R., Kammeyer-Mueller, J., & Marchese, M. 2006. Mentor and protg predictors and outcomes of mentoring in a
formal mentoring program. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 410423.
Wang, S., Noe, R. A., Wang, Z., & Greenberger, D. (2009). What affects willingness to mentor in the future? An investigation of
attachment styles and mentoring experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 245256
Wang, S., Tomlinson, E. C., & Noe, R. A. (2010). The role of mentor trust and protg internal locus of control in formal mentoring
relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 358367.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect:
The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 10631070.
Wu, P. C., Foo, M. D., & Turban, D. B. (2008). The role of personality in relationship closeness, developer assistance, and career
success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 440448.
Xin, K. R. (2004). Asian American managers: An impression gap? An investigation of impression management and supervisorsubordinate relationships. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40, 160181.
Yang, K. S. (1993). Chinese social orientation: An integrative analysis. In L. Y. Cheng, F. M. C. Cheung, & C. N. Chen (Eds.),
Psychotherapy for the Chinese: Selected papers from the rst international conference (pp. 1956). Hong Kong: The Chinese
University of Hong Kong.
Yang, L.-Q., Xu, X., Allen, T. D., Shi, K., Zhang, X., & Lou, Z. (2011). Mentoring in China: Enhanced understanding and
association with occupational stress. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 485499.
Youndt, M. A., Subramaniam, O., & Snell, S. A. (2004). Intellectual capital proles: An examination of investments and returns.
Journal of Management Studies, 41, 335361.
Zhang, Z., Wang, M., & Shi, J. Q. (2012). Leaderfollower congruence in proactive personality and work outcomes: The mediating
role of leadermember exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 111130.
J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/job
Copyright of Journal of Organizational Behavior is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.

Capitalizing On Proactivity For Informal Mentoring

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Capitalizing On Proactivity For Informal Mentoring

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Research Article

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

Capitalizing on proactivity for informal mentoring

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 09 June 2011

PROACTIVITY AND CAREER MENTORING

J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

J. LIANG AND Y. GONG

Theory and Hypotheses

Proactive personality and informal mentoring received

The mediating roles of networking and voice behavior

J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

PROACTIVITY AND CAREER MENTORING

J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

J. LIANG AND Y. GONG

The moderating effect of core self-evaluations

J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

PROACTIVITY AND CAREER MENTORING

J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

J. LIANG AND Y. GONG

J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

PROACTIVITY AND CAREER MENTORING

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

J. LIANG AND Y. GONG

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

PROACTIVITY AND CAREER MENTORING

Table 1. Comparison of measurement models for study variables.

Six factors: Proactive personality, networking, voice,

Note: Two-tailed tests.

J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Note: Two-tailed tests.

Table 3. Regression results for mediation analysis.

Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations among variables.

J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

PROACTIVITY AND CAREER MENTORING

J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

J. LIANG AND Y. GONG

High core self-evaluations

Proactive personality (X) ! Networking (M) ! Psychosocial mentoring (Y)

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

PROACTIVITY AND CAREER MENTORING

J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

J. LIANG AND Y. GONG

J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

PROACTIVITY AND CAREER MENTORING

Limitations and directions for future research

J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

J. LIANG AND Y. GONG

J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

PROACTIVITY AND CAREER MENTORING

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

J. LIANG AND Y. GONG

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)

PROACTIVITY AND CAREER MENTORING

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 11821201 (2013)