How do mentors influence the career satisfaction of protégés: dual processing mechanism of cognition and emotion

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate how mentors affect the career satisfaction of protégés. Drawing from the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), the authors propose a dual processing model that considers both cognition and emotion in the relationship between mentoring and the career satisfaction of protégés.Design/methodology/approachThe study employed a three-stage questionnaire survey to collect data from employees in Chinese enterprises, resulting in a total of 329 valid responses.FindingsThe results showed that mentoring had a significant positive impact on protégé career satisfaction. Additionally, role clarity and positive affect of protégés played dual-mediating effects between mentoring and protégé career satisfaction. Moreover, as a non-mentoring behavior, mentor advice-seeking behavior strengthened the positive impact of mentoring on role clarity and positive affect.Originality/valueIn the study, the authors utilize the ELM as a new perspective to construct a dual-mediating model of protégé role clarity and positive affect to illuminate the mechanism of mentoring on protégé career satisfaction, advancing the literatures of mentoring relationship and career development. Further, the authors put forward the moderating effect of mentor advice-seeking behavior by considering it as a non-mentoring behavior of mentors to deepen the understanding of mentorships. Moreover, the authors attempt to propose the long-term cumulative effect of the dual processing to expand the application of the ELM in interpersonal processes.

Competency development opportunities and organizational citizenship behaviors: the mediating role of subjective career success

“…, 2003; Schreurs et al. , 2022; Wei and Yu, 2023). The first wave included items about POCD and participants’ demographic information, while the second wave focused on SCS and supervisor-rated OCBs.…”

“…The questionnaire survey was administered twice, with a two-week interval, which is deemed adequate to alleviate concerns related to common method bias and participant attrition (e.g. Melody et al, 2016;Podsakoff et al, 2003;Schreurs et al, 2022;Wei and Yu, 2023). The first wave included items about POCD and participants' demographic information, while the second wave focused on SCS and supervisor-rated OCBs.…”