No abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this qualitative review paper is to identify for practitioners ways of matching mentors and protégés to enhance the effectiveness of formal mentoring programs.Design/methodology/approachThe paper qualitatively reviews the best available evidence of ways to match mentors and protégés to maximize mentorship outcomes.FindingsTwo factors to consider when making mentor–protégé matches emerged from the research literature (1) the matching process (i.e., how matches are made and facilitated by practitioners such as incorporating participant input on matches): and (2) individual characteristics (i.e., individual differences that may serve as matching criteria such as experiential, surface-level, and deep-level characteristics). This qualitative review resulted in three practical recommendations to practitioners interested in matching mentors and protégés using evidence-based methods: (1) match based on deep-level similarities, (2) consider developmental-needs of protégés during matching, and (3) seek mentors' and protégés’ input before finalizing matches.Research limitations/implicationsLimitations of the research reviewed are highlighted: measures of perceived similarity, relative effectiveness of matching-related factors, limited research investigating the role of dissimilarity on mentoring outcomes, and linear relationship assumptions between matching-related factors and mentoring outcomes.Practical implicationsThe authors’ recommendations suggested greater use of valid psychometric assessments to facilitate matching based on actual assessed data rather than program administrators' personal knowledge of mentors and protégés.Originality/valueThe literature on mentor–protégé matching is missing practical guidance on how to apply the research. This highlights a need for a qualitative review of the literature to identify what matching processes and criteria are most effective, providing a “one-stop-shop” for practitioners seeking advice on how to construct effective mentor–protégé matches in formal mentorship programs.

Given the high human and economic costs of workplace safety, researchers and practitioners have paid increasing attention to how leadership behaviors relate to workplace safety. Previous research has demonstrated that leadership behaviors are important for workplace safety. In this meta-analysis, we extend our understanding of the leadership-workplace safety relationship by (a) examining the associations between a broader range of five leadership categories-change-oriented, relational-oriented, task-oriented, passive, and destructive-and seven workplace safety variables; (b) investigating the relative importance of these leadership categories in explaining variance in these workplace safety variables; and (c) testing contextual and methodological contingencies of the leadership-workplace safety relationship. Using effect sizes from 194 samples (N = 104,364), we find that although leadership behaviors are associated with workplace safety, the leadership categories vary considerably in their relative importance. Task-oriented leadership followed by relational-oriented leadership emerge as the most important contributors to workplace safety. Change-oriented leadership (which includes transformational leadership) does not emerge as the largest contributor for any of the seven tested safety variables, despite it being the most frequently examined leadership model in the workplace safety literature. Effectiveness of leadership behaviors in relation to workplace safety varies by national culture power distance, industry risk, workforce age, as well as by contextualized forms of leadership (i.e., safety-specific vs. generalized). Finally, there is meta-analytic evidence for publication bias and common-method variance.

No abstract

No abstract