Running head: MENTORING AS LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

Running head: MENTORING AS LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTION 1

Mentoring as a Leadership Development Intervention

A Research Paper

Presented to

The Faculty of the Adler Graduate School

__________________

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

The Degree of Master of Arts in

Adlerian Counseling and Psychotherapy

___________________

By:

Nancy Hodnefield

November, 2013

MENTORING AS LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTION 2

Abstract

The early 21st century has been a time of significant change and growth for the world economy.

Now considered a global economy, increased competition is forcing companies to identify

competitive advantages in order to maximize organizational performance and ensure their

survival. Through other studies, employee engagement and productivity have been linked to

organizational performance. This study attempts to ascertain the effects of a leadership

development intervention—mentoring, on organizational performance.


Table of Contents

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………2

List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………..4

List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………...5

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem……………………………………………………………….6

Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………………….7

Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………………………8

Significance of the Study………………………………………………………………….8

Definition of Terms………………………………………………………………………10

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Leadership………………………………………………………………………………..12

Goal Setting and Self-regulation…………………………………………………………15

Mentoring………………………………………………………………………………...18

Impact on Protégé, Mentor and Organization………………...………………….18

Optimal mentoring program structure………………………...…………………19

Common pitfalls…………………………………………………………………20

Factors that facilitate success………………..…………………………………..21

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….21

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………..23


List of Figures

Figure 1. What People Need From Their Bosses: A Checklist of Personal Needs


List of Tables

Table 1. Elements of a Developmental Experience


Mentoring as a Leadership Development Intervention

The world economy has experienced significant change in the 21st century, marked by its

expansion across the globe, the transition from producing goods to providing services, and

increased utilization for and the value of knowledge. Its landscape has shifted from one that is

predictable, manageable, and controllable to one that is highly competitive, fast-paced,

increasingly demanding, and chaotic. What is a company to do in order to survive in today’s

information-based, knowledge-driven, service-intensive, global economy? While there are

endless tactics and strategies companies can take in order to ensure their success and long-term

survival, which are the most effective? Which ones ensure that these companies will remain

long-term key players?

McGuire and Rhodes (2009) contend that a new type of organizational leadership culture

is emerging in the Western world as a result of these changes. They also maintain that the two

former ‘command and control’ and ‘achievement-based’ types of organizations may not be

compatible with the types of changes the global economy is now experiencing. They suggest that

what is needed (and what they purport is actually starting to evolve) is the ‘interdependent-

collaborative’ organization. It encompasses collaboration and the ability to transform, and

involves “adaptive, quick-footed, see-around-the-corner capacity” (McGuire & Rhodes, 2009, p.

6).

Kouzes and Posner (2002) found parallel support for this theory when they conducted

research to better understand what people did in order to be effective at leading others. They

found that while the content of what is expected of leadership today is the same as it was in the

past, the context to which a leader responds has changed, and is more important now given the

amount of change and tragedy experienced in the world in recent years. A leader’s response to


change and uncertainty, combined with behaviors they model, impacts followers’ ability and

willingness to adjust and move forward. This is also the case in terms of the role leaders play in

sustaining or changing an organization’s culture. Cultural assumptions “become quite evident

through the daily behavior of the leaders” (Schein, 2010, p. 250).

Companies that provide effective leadership development to train and prepare their future

leaders will be the most likely to survive in today’s global economy. Doing so will also enable

companies to engage and retain their employees—the likelihood of which is often directly

related to the sense of belonging/connection employees have with their respective organization.

“All of us want to belong” (Mosak & Maniacci, 1999, p. 16).

This paper will explore ways one can develop leadership, with emphasis on the

relationship between self-regulation and goal setting. The intervention of mentoring will also be

analyzed as an effective vehicle for developing employees to become future leaders.

Statement of the Problem

According to a study completed in 2012 by the Society for Human Resource

Management (SHRM), “the three biggest challenges facing human resource executives over the

next ten years are: retaining and rewarding the best employees (59%), developing the next

generation of corporate leaders (52%), and creating a corporate culture that attracts the best

employees to organizations (36%)” (Challenges Facing HR, 2012). In today’s fast-paced, highly

competitive environment, organizations need to be able to quickly address issues in a way that

diffuses or preferably eliminates long-term negative impact. A mentoring program is a leadership

development vehicle that has the potential to address all three of these issues.


Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to determine how to structure a mentoring program to

effectively develop and retain employees to become leaders in an organization.

Significance of the Study

The question of whether mentoring is an effective leadership development intervention is

important because we currently operate in a world where the mindset is ‘do more with less’ and

‘get things done as quickly as possible, at minimum cost’. This new mindset has caused many

leaders to focus more on their bottom line than on their employees. “Lack of job security,

shifting emphasis away from seniority and toward flexibility and the variety of structural

arrangements within and among organizations often make managers unavailable as mentors”

(Pullins & Fine, 2002, p. 259).

Consequently, employees may receive less interaction, feedback or coaching from their

managers, causing them to feel discouraged, disconnected and disengaged. The result is that they

may not develop leadership skills; may become unproductive; or may choose to leave the

organization. Any one of these situations negatively impacts an organization and makes it

vulnerable. The potential impact of these events may be catastrophic to an organization, causing

it to fail. Implementing a mentoring program that enables leaders committed to developing others

may serve as a good supplement to address this dilemma.

According to Baird and Kram (1983), people generally experience four stages in their

career, and have identifiable personal needs from their bosses during each of these stages, as

indicated in Figure 1.


Career Stage Personal Needs

Establishment. Coaching

Feedback

Training

Role-modeling

Acceptance and confirmation

Protection

Advancement. Exposure

Challenging work

Sponsorship

Counseling

Maintenance. Autonomy

Opportunities to develop others

Withdrawal. Consultative roles

Figure 1. What People Need From Their Bosses: A Checklist of Personal Needs (after Baird &

Kram, 1983, p. 54).

During the establishment and advancement phases of one’s career, employees are in

greater need of support and guidance. A mentor could be a good alternative, or complement to

the employee’s manager for either phase. In the course of the maintenance phase, employees are

in greater need of developing others. Being a mentor to someone else would enable an individual

to fulfill this phase.

The following is a list of topics that will be addressed throughout this study. Some are

general questions related to leadership development and goal theory, while others are specific to

mentoring.

1. How is leadership developed?

2. What role does goal setting and self-regulation play in development?


3. How does mentoring impact the individual, organization?

4. What is the optimal mentoring program structure?

5. What are the common pitfalls of mentoring programs?

6. What factors facilitate the success of mentoring programs?

Definition of Terms

The following terms are related to leadership development and mentoring and are

referred to throughout this paper.

Goal orientation – “Mental framework that one uses to interpret and then shape how to

behave in learning-oriented environments” (Salas, Tannenbaum, Kraiger, & Smith-Jentsch,

2012, p. 84).

Leadership efficacy – “Specific form of efficacy associated with the level of confidence

in the knowledge, skills, and abilities associated with leading others” (Hannah, Avolio, Luthans,

& Harms, 2008, p. 669).

Mentoring – “The relationship between a senior and more junior member of an

organization directed towards the advancement and support of the junior member” (Fowler &

O’Gorman, 2005, p. 1).

Self-efficacy – “What [an individual] believes about his or her own ability” (Salas et al.,

2012, p. 84).

Self-regulation – “Processes that enable an individual to guide his or her goal-directed

activities over time and across changing circumstances, including the modulation of thought,

affect, and behavior” (Porath & Bateman, 2006, p. 185).

Social interest – “An action based upon the feeling of community, of a sense of

belonging” (Mosak & Maniacci, 1999, p. 113).


Striving – “Motivational force used to move from a perceived minus situation to a

perceived plus situation” (Mosak & Maniacci, 1999, p. 21-22).

Applications of Mentoring as a Leadership Development Tool

The research of Christopher A. Bartlett and Sumantra Ghoshal (2002) suggest that during

the last couple of decades, the focus of successful companies’ strategy has evolved from

competition for products and markets, to competition for resources and competencies, to

competition for talent and dreams. As a result, successful companies now consider human and

intellectual capital as their key strategic resource versus financial capital.

In today’s global economy, the costs associated with doing business are significantly

greater than they were decades ago. The expectations for companies to grow their earnings

increases each year, to the point that they have to be conservative in the amount of dollars

allocated to their budgets to support running their businesses. As a result, considerations about

how to spend budget dollars are heavily scrutinized, with the expectation that whatever is

invested in will directly or indirectly produce results.

Lin and Wang (2005) indicated that it is necessary for companies to identify, invest and

maintain their human capital in order to derive a competitive advantage from that capital.

“Investments in labor are maximized when they are focused or aligned with the business strategy

and its targeted markets, when they are directed at motivating or energizing employees to excel,

and when they provide the requisite capabilities and resources to flourish” (Schiemann, 2006, p.

43).

The 21st century is a time of constant change and chaos. In order to effectively deal with

this reality, companies and their employees will need to be agile, flexible and resilient as

required. Agility, flexibility and resiliency are important key competencies required to be


successful in today’s environment. How do companies ensure their employees possess these

competencies? This author believes that leadership development is an opportunity for companies

to maximize investments made in their human capital resources.

The focus of this study is to explore what leadership is and how it is developed; what

characteristics are required in order for someone to learn and develop; the importance of goal

setting and self-regulation; and finally, how mentoring can serve as a leadership development

intervention.

Leadership

Kotter (1996) distinguishes leadership from management by its requirements of strategic,

creative, and adaptive capabilities. He believes “leadership defines what the future should look

like, aligns people with that vision, and inspires them to make it happen despite the obstacles” (p.

25). This author believes Kotter’s definition effectively captures the current challenges and needs

required of this important role.

The subject of whether leadership is born or made remains controversial. In his case

study to resolve this issue, William Fifer (1997) found that leadership demonstrated by

individuals he analyzed was the result of both of these factors, combined with destiny. Kouzes

and Posner (2002) contend that leadership is available to all types of people and exists at all

levels. They also maintain that “success in leading will be wholly dependent upon the capacity to

build and sustain those human relationships that enable people to get extra-ordinary things done

on a regular basis” (p. 21).

Tubbs and Schulz (2006) found extensive research to support the link between

organizational success and its commitment to leadership development. Additionally, they created

a taxonomy of leadership competencies that distinguish between those that can be learned


(behaviors) from those that are either inherent (core personality) or values-based. This taxonomy

demonstrates that leadership is both born and made.

The postmodern information age has created a shift in leadership expectations. The

former command-control leader is no longer acceptable. To be successful and effectively enable

people to reach their goals in today’s global economy, leaders need to be motivating and

inspiring. This shift requires a change in what and how we develop future leaders (Leonard,

2003).

What enables leadership development? Can a person simply attend a management class

one day and expect to be knowledgeable enough to be placed into a leadership position?

McCauley and Van Velsor, editors for the Creative Center for Leadership (CCL), (2004) would

say that this is not the case, based on research and educational programs they have conducted.

Instead, they would say that leadership development is a process that occurs throughout a

person’s lifetime. Skip Bell (2010) also believes that leadership development is an ongoing

process. Additionally, he suggests that “it is created by nurturing eight conditions: rethinking

mission, interrelatedness, theological reflection, theoretical learning, reflection on leadership

practices, experiential learning, training, and feedback” (p. 111).

A review completed recently by Cummings, Lee, MacGregor, Davey, Wong, Paul and

Stafford (2008) found that participation in leadership development programs had significant

influences on participants’ observed leadership. A longitudinal field experiment consisting of a

six-month mentorship program completed by Lester, Hannah, Harms, Vogelgesang and Avolio

(2011) found that leadership efficacy could be enhanced through a semiformal mentoring

program. Okpala, Hopson, Chapman and Fort (2011) recently found while completing their


study, that job experiences increased the cognitive dimensions of leadership development of

adult learners.

McCauley and Van Velsor (2004) have identified three elements that must be present for

leadership development to occur, combined with the two functions that each of them serve:

Table 1. Elements of a Developmental Experience.

Element Role in Motivation Role as a Resource

Assessment Desire to close gap between

current self and ideal self

Clarity about needed changes; clues

about how gap can be closed

Challenge Need to master the challenge Opportunity for experimentation and

practice; exposure to different

perspectives

Support Confidence in ability to learn and

grow; positive value placed on

change

Confirmation and clarification of lessons

learned

(after McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004, p. 5).

Leadership development can occur through learning from experience in multiple ways,

ranging from attending classroom training, to completing online learning programs, to taking on

new projects at work. McCauley and Van Velsor (2004) believe that the ability to learn from

experience involves all of the following:

Recognizing when new behaviors, skills, or attitudes are called for; this involves

being able to see when current approaches are not working or when existing strengths

are not enough

Accepting responsibility for one’s development and continued effectiveness

Understanding the important aspects of one’s personality, preferences, values, and

commitments; how they inform current strengths; and how they get in the way of

easily taking a different approach


Going against the grain—intentionally trying on behaviors or attitudes that do not feel

natural or moving into areas where one’s skills are not well honed so that one might

be exposed to opportunities for development

Being able to reflect on the process of learning in day-to-day life; monitoring daily

experiences with an eye toward examining how one is attempting to learn what is

needed to be successful

Persisting with attempts to learn, grow, and change in the face of mistakes, setbacks,

and temporary performance outcomes

Using a variety of learning tactics to understand what is required in a new situation

and to facilitate the development of new capacities (p. 210).

Goal Setting and Self-regulation

A key theory of Alfred Adler is his belief that man’s behavior is directed by his goals. He

also believes that all men strive for superiority, and depending upon their level of social interest,

their striving is either negative or positive. According to Mosak and Maniacci (1999), horizontal

(positive) striving is thought to be prosocial (concern about the impact on/welfare of others);

whereas, vertical (negative) striving is considered to be antisocial (focus is on self – often at the

expense of others). Griffith and Graham (2004) believe that specific strategies are required to

enable people to attain goals that “create the conditions that allow people to experience meaning,

purpose, and growth” (p. 25).

Researchers Locke and Latham (2002) believe that “goals affect performance through

four mechanisms: (1) they direct attention and effort toward goal-relevant activities and away

from goal-irrelevant activities, (2) high goals lead to greater effort than low goals, (3) goals

affect persistence, and (4) goals affect action indirectly by leading to the arousal, discovery,


and/or use of task-relevant knowledge and strategies” (p. 706-707). They also indicate, based on

research, which three factors influence whether or not goals effectively impact performance:

“goal commitment (which includes importance and self-efficacy); clear and timely feedback; and

task complexity” (p. 707-708).

Koch and Nafziger (2011) believe that goals motivate us in most cases, but not all. In

their research to show how the choice of goals can serve as a tool for regulating one’s own

behavior, they found that setting challenging goals can influence an individual‘s motivation to

perform because they want to avoid failure. They also found that self-regulation does not work

for everyone when the outcome results in having to face uncomfortable self-discipline.

Porath and Bateman (2006) completed a longitudinal field study to understand how

people attempt to self-regulate at work, and how self-regulation can be done to enhance job

performance. They found evidence to support that “both learning and performance-prove goal

orientations predicted proactive behavior, but learning goal orientation predicted emotional

intelligence tactics whereas performance-prove goal orientation predicted a different self

regulation tactic, feedback seeking” (p. 189).

Sandars and Cleary (2011) researched studies on the self-regulation process and found it

to be cyclical and iterative, with “before (or forethought), during (or performance), and after (or

self-reflection) phases” (p. 876). Sandars and Cleary also developed key self-regulation

questions that could be integrated into a person’s learning/development process in order to

enhance it:

Forethought Phase

What is the nature of the task?

What is my goal?


What kind of information and strategies do I need?

How much time and resources will I need?

What is my motivation?

Do I need to modify the environment?

Performance Phase

Do I have a clear understanding of what I am doing?

Does the task make sense?

Am I reaching my goals?

Do I need to make changes?

Do I need to modify my thoughts/emotions?

Do I need to modify the environment?

Self-reflection Phase

Have I reached my goal?

What worked?

What didn’t work?

Would I do things differently next time?

What is the impact on my motivation? (p.884)

In summary, goals and self-regulation provide the motivation and processes to move

people in positive or negative directions in terms of their performance and development.

Anticipating and reflecting on key questions throughout learning and/or performance phases, as

proposed by Sandars and Clearly, increases the potential for an individual to develop and

perform successfully. This potential could be further maximized if integrated into a mentoring


program because a mentor could provide ongoing feedback and encouragement to the protégé to

enable the transfer of learning.

Mentoring

This section reviews key considerations of implementing a mentoring program. Those

considerations include: impact on protégé, mentor and organization; optimal structure; common

pitfalls; and, factors that facilitate success.

Impact on protégé, mentor and organization. A successful mentoring program has the

potential to be an effective leadership development intervention given its focus on development,

combined with its inter-connected, relationship-oriented process. Based on the six month

longitudinal field experiment conducted by Lester et al. (2011), they suggest that “mentoring that

helps leaders make meaning of their leadership experiences could be important in influencing

development” (p. 413).

The benefits of mentoring to the protégé include: increased self-efficacy and feeling of

belongingness (Pullins & Fine, 2002; Lester et al., 2011; Hegstad & Wentling, 2005; Reinstein &

Fogarty, 2012/2013), increased job satisfaction (Pullins & Fine, 2002; Hegstad & Wentling,

2005; Reinstein & Fogarty, 2012/2013), alignment of beliefs and greater organizational

commitment (Wallen et al., 2010), enhanced knowledge, skills and abilities (United States Office

of Personnel Management, 2008), increased visibility and likelihood of promotion (Hegstad &

Wentling, 2005; Reinstein & Fogarty, 2012/2013), increased social/career network (OPM, 2008;

Hegstad & Wentling, 2005; Reinstein & Fogarty, 2012/2013), and increased ability to manage

stress and conflict (Reinstein & Fogarty, 2012/2013).

The benefits of mentoring to the mentor include: leadership skill development and

practice (OPM, 2008; Pullins & Fine, 2002; Lester et al., 2011; Reinstein & Fogarty,


2012/2013), fulfilling psychosocial need (Pullins & Fine, 2002; Hegstad & Wentling, 2005),

increased self-awareness (Reinstein & Fogarty, 2012/2013), increased leader efficacy (Pullins &

Fine, 2002; Lester et al., 2011), and greater job fulfillment/rejuvenation (OPM, 2008; Pullins &

Fine, 2002; Hegstad & Wentling, 2005; Reinstein & Fogarty, 2012/2013).

The organization benefits from mentoring in the following ways: increased

morale/motivation (Hegstad & Wentling, 2005; Reinstein & Fogarty, 2012/2013), increased

employee retention (Wallen et al., 2010; Hegstad & Wentling, 2005; Reinstein & Fogarty,

2012/2013), improved succession planning (Joiner, Bartram & Garreffa, 2004), increased

organizational commitment (Joiner, Bartram & Garreffa, 2004; Hegstad & Wentling, 2005,

Reinstein & Fogarty, 2012/2013), career/leadership development (Joiner, Bartram & Garreffa,

2004; Lester et al., 2011; Hegstad & Wentling, 2005; Reinstein & Fogarty, 2012/2013),

knowledge transfer and retention (Lester et al., 2011; Reinstein & Fogarty, 2012/2013) and

organizational development and cultural transformation (Lester et al., 2011).

Optimal mentoring program structure. In order to be successful, a mentoring program

should have senior leaders’ commitment and support, appropriate resources designated to

support it, and an established direction and understanding regarding its goals and objectives. A

key consideration when making decisions about the program is the process that will be used to

identify protégé and mentor participants, in addition to how the matching of partnerships will be

determined. Another key consideration is whether the program should be formal or informal. A

formal mentoring program is one that assigns mentoring partnerships, is structured, and generally

lasts for a shorter timeframe than an informal one. Informal mentoring typically occurs

organically, and lacks the formal structure and support from the organization (Reinstein et al.,

2012/2013).


To ensure understanding of the mentoring program and its goals, combined with what it

will entail, this author recommends developing a framework that outlines these key elements.

The United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) recommends including the following

when creating a mentoring program framework:

The goal(s) of the mentoring program;

Success factors and desired outcomes;

Targeted population (e.g. all employees, specific occupations, new employees,

new supervisors);

Duration of the program;

How the [organization] plans to market and recruit mentors and protégés;

Benefits to mentors and protégés;

Benefits to the [organization] (e.g., increased morale, transfer of knowledge from

one employee to another);

Budget (include contractor cost if planning to use one);

Matching process;

Outline of the orientation session;

Types of materials provided to mentors, protégés, and supervisors; and

Potential mentoring and development activities (2008, p. 7).

Common pitfalls. Hegstad and Wentling (2005) found “difficulty in making mentoring a

priority, time constraints and constant organizational changes” to be barriers to success for

mentoring programs (p. 485). In their study that researched problems in mentoring relationships

from a mentor perspective, Eby, Durley, Evans and Ragins (2008) found “three distinct types of

negative experiences: protégé performance problems, interpersonal problems, and destructive


relational patterns” (p. 369). Researchers Hunt and Michael (1983) also claim that poor

relationship issues can occur between the mentor and protégé causing the partnership to fail. This

was further evidenced by researchers Warren, Humphris, and Bicknell (2008) who identified the

need to confirm alignment of personal and professional goals of protégés and mentors to ensure

successful mentoring matches.

Factors that facilitate success. The study conducted by Hegstad and Wentling (2005)

involving interviews with 29 participants of successful mentoring programs from 17 different

Fortune 500 companies, found that top management support/involvement is a necessary

component of the success of a mentoring program. Also important is an “effective matching

process, alignment of organizational and program missions, effective ongoing communication

and committed coordinators and teams” (p. 485). Lester et al., (2011) found the development of

leadership efficacy was influenced by the protégé’s preference for feedback and trust in their

mentor. Valerie Stead (2005) found mentoring to be effective in leadership development when

combined with other learning-oriented activities and support. And last, the process for

identifying and matching protégé/mentor participants is important. This includes whether or not

participants are given a voice in how they are matched (Allen, Eby & Lentz, 2006a; Allen, Eby

& Lentz, 2006b; Warren et al., 2008).

Conclusion

There are many different approaches and methods organizations can take for developing

and preparing their future leaders. To survive in today’s fast-paced, ever-changing, highly

competitive environment, companies need to develop and implement creative leadership

development solutions that are adaptable, cost-effective, and flexible enough to address multiple

issues. These solutions must also align with and support the goals and objectives of the


individual and company, as well as the ‘interdependent-collaborative’ organizational culture that

is emerging in today’s workplace.

This literature review explored ways one could develop leadership, with a focus

on the relationship between self-regulation and goal setting. Mentoring was analyzed as an

effective intervention for developing leadership because its framework enables each of these

constructs to occur naturally, while promoting and enabling collaboration of participants through

development activities at minimum expense to the organization.


References

Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., & Lentz, E. (2006a). Mentorship behaviors and mentorship quality

associated with formal mentoring programs: Closing the gap between research and

practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 567-578.

Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., & Lentz, E. (2006b). The relationship between formal mentoring

program characteristics and perceived program effectiveness. Personnel Psychology,

59(1), 125-153.

Baird, L. & Kram, K. (1983). Career dynamics: Managing the superior/subordinate relationship.

Organizational Dynamics, 11(4), 46-64.

Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (2002). Building competitive advantage through people. MIT

Sloan Management Review, 43(2), 34-41.

Bell, S. (2010). Learning, changing, and doing: A model for transformational leadership

development in religious and non-profit organizations. Journal of Religious Leadership,

9(1), 93-111.

Cummings, G., Lee, H., MacGregor, T., Davey, M., Wong, C., Paul, L., & Stafford, E. (2008).

Factors contributing to nursing leadership: A systematic view. Journal of Health Services

Research & Policy, 13(4), 240-248.

Eby, L. T., Durley, J. R., Evans, S. C. & Ragins, B. R. (2008). Mentors’ perceptions of negative

mentoring experiences: Scale development and nomological validation. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 93(2), 358-373.

Fifer, W. R. (1997). Is leadership born or made? The Physician Executive, 23(8), 14-18.

Fowler, J. L. & O’Gorman, J. G. (2005). Mentoring functions: A Contemporary view of the

perceptions of mentees and mentors. British Journal of Management, 16(1), 51-57.


Griffith, B. A. & Graham, C. C. (2004). Meeting needs and making meaning: The pursuit of

goals. Journal of Individual Psychology, 60(1), 25-41.

Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B., Luthans, F., & Harms, P. D. (2008). Leadership efficacy: Review and

future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 669-692.

Hegstad, C. D. & Wentling, R. (2005). Organizational antecedents and moderators that impact

on the effectiveness of exemplary formal mentoring programs in Fortune 500 companies

in the United States. Human Resource Development International, 8(4), 467-487.

Hunt, D. M. & Michael, C. (1983). Mentorship: A career training and development tool.

Academy of Management Review, 8(3), 475-485.

Joiner, T. A., Bartram, T., & Garreffa, T. (2004). The effects of mentoring on perceived career

success, commitment and turnover intentions. The Journal of American Academy of

Business, Cambridge, 5(1/2), 164-170.

Koch, A. K. & Nafziger, J. (2011). Self-regulation through goal setting. Scandinavian Journal of

Economics, 113(1), 212 – 227.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge (3rd

ed.). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Leonard, H. S. (2003). Leadership development for the postindustrial, postmodern information

age. Consulting Psychology Journal, 55(1), 3 -14.

Lester, P. B., Hannah, S. T., Harms, P. D., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Avolio, B. J. (2011).

Mentoring impact on leader efficacy development: A field experiment. Academy of

Management Learning & Education, 10(3), 409-429.


Lin, K. & Wang, M. (2005). The classification of human capital according to the strategic goals

of firms: An analysis. International Journal of Management, 22(1), 62-70.

Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and

task motivation. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.

McCauley, C. D. & Van Velsor, E. (Eds.). (2004). The center for creative leadership handbook

of leadership development (2nd

ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

McGuire, J. B. & Rhodes, G. B. (2009). Transforming your leadership culture. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mosak, H. & Maniacci, M. (1999). A primer of Adlerian psychology: The analytic-behavioral-

cognitive psychology of Alfred Adler. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.

Okpala, C. O., Hopson, L. B., Chapman, B., & Fort, E. (2011). Leadership development

expertise: A mixed-method analysis. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 38(2), 133-

137.

Porath, C. L. & Bateman, T. S. (2006). Self-regulation: From goal orientation to job

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 185-192.

Pullins, E. B. & Fine, L. M. (2002). How the performance of mentoring activities affects the

mentor’s job outcomes. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 22(4), 259-

271.

Reinstein, A., Sinason, D. H. & Fogarty, T. J. (2012/2013). Examining mentoring in public

accounting organizations. Review of Business, 33(1), 40-49.

Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kraiger, K., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2012). The science of training

and development in organizations: What matters in practice. Psychological Science in the

Public Interest, 13(2), 74-101.


Sandars, J. & Cleary, T. J. (2011). Self-regulation theory: Applications to medical education:

AMEE guide no. 58. Medical Teacher, 33(11), 875-886.

Schein, Edgar H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th

ed.). San Francisco: CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Schiemann, W. A. (2006). People equity: A new paradigm for measuring and managing human

capital. Human Resource Planning, 29(1), 34-44.

Society of Human Resource Management. (2012). Research Spotlight: Future HR Challenges

and Talent Management Tactics. Retrieved from

http://www.shrm.org/Research/SurveyFindings/Articles/Documents/SHRM-Chllenge-

HR-2022-Spotlight.pdf

Stead, V. (2005). Mentoring: A model for leadership development? International Journal of

Training and Development, 9(3), 170-184.

Tubbs, S. L. & Schultz, E. (2006). Exploring a taxonomy of global leadership competencies and

meta-competencies. The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 8(2), 29-

34.

United States Office of Personnel Management. (2008). Best Practices: Mentoring. Washington,

DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.opm.gov/hrd/lead/BestPractices-Mentoring.pdf

Wallen, G. R., Mitchell, S. A., Melnyk, B., Fineout-Overholt, E., Miller-Davis, C., Yates, J. &

Hastings, C. (2010). Implementing evidence-based practice: Effectiveness of a structured

multifaceted mentorship programme. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66(12), 2761-2771.

Warren, O. J., Humphris, P., & Bicknell, C. D. (2008). ‘Prepare to lead’: Reflections on the first

year of a leadership development mentoring programme for specialist and GP registrars

in London. The International Journal of Clinical Leadership, 16(3), 149-155.