Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 11–17

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate / jvb

Who gets a mentor? A longitudinal assessment of the rising star hypothesis

Romila Singh a,*, Belle Rose Ragins a,1, Phyllis Tharenou b,2

a Department of Management, University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee, 3202 N. Maryland Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53211, USAb Division of Business, University of South Australia, City West Campus, Adelaide, SA 5001, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 8 September 2008Available online 8 October 2008

Keywords:MentoringProtégé Attributes

0001-8791/$ - see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Incdoi:10.1016/j.jvb.2008.09.009

* Corresponding author. Fax: +1 14 229 5999.E-mail addresses: romila@uwm.edu (R. Singh), ra

1 Fax: +1 414 229 5999 (School), fax: +1 414 3322 Fax: +1 61 8 830 20904.

This study assessed the rising star hypothesis, which proposes that individuals who are onthe fast track to career success are more likely to gain mentors than others. The study useda sample of employees who had never been mentored and examined the relationshipbetween rising star attributes measured at Time 1 and the attainment of a mentor a yearlater. In support of the hypothesis, individuals who were on the fast-track for promotion,had higher advancement expectations, and engaged in more proactive career behaviorswere more likely to gain a mentor than individuals lacking these attributes. Implicationsof these results for the theory, research and practice of mentoring are discussed.

� 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Although mentoring is a critical developmental relationship (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004; Underhill, 2006), wehave a limited understanding of the characteristics of individuals who obtain an informal mentoring relationship. Most re-search on this topic has either asked mentors about the criteria they would use for selecting protégés (Allen, 2004; Allen,Poteet, & Burroughs, 1997; Allen, Poteet, & Russell, 2000; Olian, Carroll, & Giannantonio, 1993) or examined characteristicsof protégés who have had mentoring relationships in the past (e.g., Fagenson, 1989; Fagenson, 1992; Judge & Bretz, 1994), apractice which fails to recognize that the relationship itself may change the individual. In their review of the literature, Wan-berg et al. called for longitudinal research to address this shortcoming as this approach allows for a true assessment of the‘‘rising star hypothesis”(Wanberg, Welsh, & Hezlett, 2003). The rising star hypothesis holds that individuals are more likelyto enter informal mentoring relationships when they demonstrate that they are motivated, high-performers who have careersavvy and take a proactive approach to their careers (Ragins, 1999; Ragins & Cotton, 1993). The rising star hypothesis focuseson informal rather than formal mentoring relationships because of the fundamental difference in the way these relationshipsdevelop; formal relationships are assigned relationships that develop with organizational assistance while informal relation-ships develop spontaneously and are therefore susceptible to the rising star effect (e.g., Chao, Walz, & Gardner, 1992; Ragins& Cotton, 1999; Wanberg et al., 2003). As we will see, it is important to assess the rising star effect not only to enrich men-toring theory, but also to offer practical guidance for utilizing mentoring in workforce development. A troubling implicationof the rising star hypothesis, if it is true, is that those who need mentoring the most may not be the ones who receive it.

Existing research offers preliminary support for the rising star hypothesis. Using a student sample, Green and Bauer(1995) found that student potential predicted future research collaboration with academic advisors. In terms of workplacementoring, mentors reported that they used ability, performance, and potential as criteria for selecting protégés and thatthey select protégés who have these attributes (Allen, 2004; Allen et al., 1997; Allen et al., 2000; Kram, 1985; Olian et al.,

. All rights reserved.

gins@uwm.edu (B.R. Ragins), phyllis.tharenou@unisa.edu.au (P. Tharenou).8322 (Home).

12 R. Singh et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 11–17

1993). Although this past research offers an important first step for understanding the rising star hypothesis, there are twosignificant gaps in this literature. First, these studies capture mentors’ perceptions of attributes that their protégés ought topossess rather than assessing the extent to which protégé competency predicts actually gaining a mentor. Second, becausegaining a mentor may change a protégé’s career orientation (e.g., Kammeyer-Mueller & Judge, 2008; Kram, 1985), a longi-tudinal design is necessary to examine whether individuals who obtain a mentor differ from others on pre-existing attri-butes before they actually get a mentor. It is therefore important to test the rising star hypothesis by using employeeswho have never had a mentor. This approach allows for a relatively pure assessment of pre-existing individual attributesthat actually predict getting a mentor.

2. Theoretical overview and hypotheses

According to the rising star hypothesis, two key attributes predict the attainment of an informal mentoring relationship:having a strong promotional history and engaging in proactive career behaviors (Ragins, 1999; Ragins & Cotton, 1993). In thissection, we draw on the careers and mentoring literature to examine the role these attributes play in gaining a mentor.

2.1. Promotional history

The rising star hypothesis holds that individuals who subsequently obtain mentors are more likely to have a strong pro-motional history and view their future prospects for advancement in more positive ways than those who do not obtain amentor. Research and theory from the careers literature offers general support for this perspective. For example, career tour-nament theory holds that employees with a strong promotional record are regarded more positively by others, are identifiedas having greater potential for future promotions, and are more likely to be offered future opportunities for development andnetworking than others (Jaskolka, Beyer, & Trice, 1985; Rosenbaum, 1984; Rosenbaum, 1989). Rosenbaum (1984) proposedthat managers use signals from employees’ work histories when making promotion decisions; employees on the fast trackare viewed as high performers who have won the early rounds of the tournament and are therefore viewed as excellent can-didates for further advancement. This creates a cyclical process; a strong promotional record strengthens expectations forfuture advancement, which in turn motivates the employee to pursue advancement and developmental opportunities (Har-lan, 1989; Rosenbaum, 1984).

Mentoring research also supports the proposition that individuals with strong advancement expectations and a trackrecord of promotions should be more likely to gain a mentor than those lacking these attributes. For example, mentorshave been found to report that they select protégés on the basis of protégé ability, potential, and performance (Allen,2004; Allen et al., 1997; Allen et al., 2000; Olian et al., 1993). Although this research offers some support for the risingstar hypothesis, mentors’ self-reports of the criteria they use for selecting protégés may differ from the actual protégéattributes that predict the attainment of a mentor. In addition, since mentors may influence protégés’ promotional his-tory and expectations for advancement (Kram 1985), an accurate assessment of the rising star hypothesis requiresselecting only those individuals who have never had a mentor over the course of their careers (Ragins, 1999).

Accordingly, the present study started with a sample of employees who had never been mentored and then examined therelationship between rising star attributes measured in Time 1 and whether or not a mentor was obtained a year later. Sup-port for the rising star hypothesis would be evident if those who gained an informal mentor at Time 2 displayed strongerpromotional histories and higher advancement expectations at Time 1 than those who do not get a mentor.

Hypothesis 1. Employees’ with stronger promotional histories and higher advancement expectations are more likely toobtain a mentor than those with weaker promotional histories and lower advancement expectations.

2.2. Proactive career behaviors

A record of successful promotions may be an important but insufficient condition for distinguishing oneself as talentedand worthy of being a protégé. According to the rising star hypothesis, individuals are more likely to gain a mentor whenthey engage in proactive career behaviors that enhance and showcase talents that make them more visible and appealingto potential mentors (Ragins, 1999; Ragins & Cotton, 1993). Existing research on proactive career behaviors (Ashford & Black,1996; Claes & Ruiz-Quintanilla, 1998; Crant, 2000; Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001) suggests there are two types of proactivecareer behaviors that are relevant to the attainment of a mentoring relationship: career initiative and skill development. Ca-reer initiative behaviors involve career planning, feedback seeking, and consultation with senior colleagues (Tharenou & Ter-ry, 1998). Skill development behaviors involve increasing credentials and expertise by engaging in training and developmentactivities (cf., Ohlott, Ruderman, & McCauley, 1994; Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999; Tharenou, 1997; Tharenou, 2001). Re-search indicates that individuals who engage in proactive career behaviors are more likely to actively seek career supportthan those who do not engage in these behaviors (Ashford & Black, 1996; Frese, Fay, Hilberger, Lang, & Tag, 1997). The ideathat proactive individuals will be more likely than others to get a mentor has been proposed (Higgins, Chandler, & Kram,2007; Wanberg et al., 2003), yet not empirically examined. Accordingly, we tested the second component of the rising starhypothesis:

R. Singh et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 11–17 13

Hypothesis 2. Employees who engage in proactive career behaviors are more likely to obtain a mentor than those who donot engage in such behaviors.

3. Method

The data were collected as part of a larger study of career attitudes and experiences (reference withheld to preserve ano-nymity of review process). A comparable number of men and women were selected using stratified sampling from lower andmiddle managerial levels in the Australian Public Service and private sector companies. Respondents were white-collaremployees holding administrative, clerical, and professional positions. The data were collected at two time periods, eacha year part. In the first year, 10,820 surveys were mailed and 5627 (2614 women; 3013 men) surveys were returned. Ofthese, 83 percent (4670) volunteered to be a part of the second phase of the study. There were 323 individuals who couldnot be contacted for various reasons (e.g., incorrect addresses, employment changes, and death) at Time 2. Of the remaining4347 individuals who were surveyed at Time 2, 79 percent responded (3,434: 1,593 women; 1,841 men).

In order to check for differences between respondents and non-respondents, we used Chi-square analyses to compareTime 1 respondents who returned surveys at Time 2 with those who did not and found some differences between thetwo groups. The respondents were younger [v2 (9, 5001) = 184.92, p = .00] and were more likely to be single [v2 (1,5010) = 12.67.17, p = .00] and less educated [v2 (9, 5001) = 186.58, p = .00] than non-respondents. They also worked feweryears [v2 (6, 5004) = 91.20, p = .00], held lower level occupations [v2 (7, 5003) = 370.46, p = .00], were more likely to work inthe private sector than the public sector [v2 (1, 5010) = 475.64, p = .00] and in larger rather than smaller organizations (v2(4, 5006) = 136.05, p = .00].

Because of the differences in work experiences between self-employed and organizationally-employed individuals(Hundley, 2001), 150 self-employed individuals were removed from the sample. After matching respondents on nameand address across the two time periods, we were left with 2381 matched responses for Time 1 and 2. We selected only thoseindividuals who had never had a mentoring relationship over the course of their careers (n = 236) and excluded those whoreported being a part of formal mentoring programs (n = 146). Our final sample therefore consisted of 236 employees. Therelatively small percentage of employees without mentors in this sample is in line with other studies that have found similaror lower proportions in Australian (e.g., Scandura, 1997), North American (e.g., Bahniuk, Dobos, & Hill, 1990; Godshalk & Sos-ik, 2003; Simon & Eby, 2003), British (e.g., Bozionelos, 2004) and Nigerian (e.g., Okurame & Balogun, 2005) samples.

About a third of our final sample had completed high school, 15% completed a technical college course, 20% held anundergraduate degree, and 4% held a postgraduate degree. There were 138 men and 98 women in our sample and the aver-age age ranged from 40 to 44 years. On average, respondents had worked for their current employer for 5–10 years, heldtheir current position for 2–5 years, and worked for organizations that employed between 1000 and 2000 employees. About85% were employed in various types of public sector organizations and the remainder 15% worked in private sector firms.

3.1. Measures

Promotional history was assessed by asking respondents the number of promotions they had over their careers. A promo-tion was defined as an increase in job responsibility, scope, authority, or level within or outside the organization. The itemwas adapted from Cox and Harquail’s (1991) measure and was assessed on a five-point scale with ‘‘no promotions” coded as1 and ‘‘seven or more promotions” coded as 5.

Advancement expectations were assessed by adapting Kunst and Soeters’ (1991) three item scale which measured the ex-tent to which individuals believed future advancement was likely in their organization (Time 1, a = .79; Time 2, a = .78). Asample item reads: ‘‘It is likely that I will advance in my career with my present employer.” Each item was rated on a seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree) and higher scores indicated greater advancement expectations.

Proactive career behaviors were assessed with two measures: career initiative and skill development activities. Consistentwith Seibert et al.’s (2001) approach, career initiative was assessed using the six-item enacted managerial aspirations scaledeveloped and validated by Tharenou and Terry (1998). Items were rated on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (stronglydisagree) to 7 (completely agree), and achieved acceptable reliability estimates (Time 1, a = .79; Time 2, a = .80). Sample itemincludes: ‘‘I have engaged in career path planning;” ‘‘I have sought feedback on my job performance;” and ‘‘I have updatedmy skills in order to be more competitive for promotion.” Skill development was assessed by Tharenou and Conroy’s (1994)six-item training and development measure which assessed participation in training courses, industry meetings, and inter-nal development opportunities (Tharenou & Conroy, 1994). Validating evidence for the scale is provided in Tharenou, Lati-mer, and Conroy (1994). Items were rated on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (six or more times), and achievedacceptable reliability estimates (Time 1, a = .78; Time 2, a = .78). A sample item reads: ‘‘How many times in your career haveyou attended training and development courses run outside your organization/department?”

Attaining a Mentor in Time 2. In line with other research (cf., Kram, 1985; Ragins, 1999), a mentor was defined as a higher-ranking individual with advanced experience and knowledge who played a positive role in the development of one’s career.The attainment of an informal mentor in Time 2 was coded as 0 (no mentor) and 1 (attaining a mentor).

Control variables. We started with a large list of variables that have been theoretically linked to mentoring (Ragins, 1999;Wanberg et al., 2003) and employed as control variables in other studies, such as gender, age, organizational size, industry,

14 R. Singh et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 11–17

respondent’s rank, organizational and position tenure, work continuity, and employment in line or staff positions. To pre-serve power, we selected variables that were correlated with the dependent variable yet had relatively low intercorrelationsamong themselves. To offer a precise assessment of the rising star hypothesis, we controlled for six organizational and indi-vidual factors that could create different opportunities for getting a mentor: gender (1 = men, 2 = women), rank (measured asone’s current position relative to the total number of positions in the organization), position tenure, number of years spent infull-time employment, organization size (ranged from 1 = less than 25 employees; 10 = more than 8000 employees), and indus-try type (1 = public, 2 = private).

4. Results

The correlations, means, standard deviations, and alpha coefficients for the study variables are displayed in Table 1.Since the dependent variable of obtaining a mentor is dichotomous, hierarchical logistic regression analysis was used to

test the hypotheses. Specifically, the control variables (gender, rank, position tenure, years in full-time employment, orga-nization size, and industry) were entered in the first step, followed by the independent variables in the second step ofthe analysis.

The results are displayed in Table 2. In support of Hypothesis 1, promotional history (b = .17; p < .05) and advancementexpectations (b = .35; p < .001) measured at Time 1 significantly predicted gaining a mentor at Time 2. In support of Hypoth-esis 2, career initiative behaviors (b = .25; p < .05) and skill development activities (b = .25; p < .05) measured at Time 1 pre-dicted gaining a mentor at Time 2. In sum, full support was found for the rising star hypothesis.

5. Discussion

This study used a longitudinal design to examine whether the attributes identified by the rising star hypothesis predictthe subsequent attainment of an informal mentor. In support of the rising star hypothesis, promotional history, advancementexpectations, and engagement in proactive career behaviors predicted subsequent attainment of a mentor. The finding that astrong promotional history predicts getting a mentor complements previous research findings that mentors report selectingprotégés on the basis of their competency and potential (e.g., Allen et al., 1997; Olian et al., 1993). It also extends this re-search by moving beyond mentors’ self-reports of what they say they do, which is subjective and may be susceptible toreporting biases, to a more objective assessment of the attributes that actually predict the attainment of a mentor. The re-sults also illustrate the importance of proactive career behaviors in attaining mentoring relationships. These findings notonly support the rising star hypothesis, but also lend related support to new perspectives which hold that some individualshave career savvy (cf., Chandler & Kram, 2007) and purposefully engage in development-seeking behaviors (e.g., informa-tion-seeking, help-seeking, feedback-seeking) that create and build developmental networks and relationships (cf., Higgins& Kram, 2001; Higgins et al., 2007).

The results offer intriguing paths for future research. To start, it is possible that rising stars may engage in a self-fulfillingprocess of career success. Future research could follow rising stars through a longer longitudinal window in order to examine

Table 1Means, standard deviations, reliability estimates, and intercorrelationsa among study variables.

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Control variables1 Genderb —2 Rank 0.50 .17 �.05 —3 Position tenure 3.14 1.56 .14* .08 —4 Years fulltime employment 6.20 1.86 .24** .17** .38** —5 Organization size 6.91 2.67 .15* .23** �.15* .02 —6 Industryc 1.15 0.36 �.01 .01 �.05 .02 .06 —

Independent variables7 Promotional history 3.15 1.16 .05 .25** �.10 .41** .23** .05 —8 Advancement expectations 4.19 1.57 .03 .12 .33** �.15* .12 .09 .19** (.80)9 Career initiatives 4.30 1.21 �.01 .09 �.04 .02 .14* .14* .19** .12 (.75)10 Skill development 3.89 1.51 .02 .34** �.00 .30** �.02 �.17* .44** .28** .23** (.78)

Dependent variable11 Obtained/Not obtained a Mentord — — �.04 �.08 �.12 �.17* .11 .02 .09 .18** .16* .08 —

a Correlations are between attainment of a mentor (assessed in Time 2) and the control variables and independent measures (both assessed in Time 1).Where applicable, reliability estimates calculated at Time 1 appear on the diagonal (in parentheses). N’s range from 212 to 236 for all variables.

b Gender coded as: 1 = men; 2 = women.c Industry coded as: 1 = public; 2 = private.d Obtained/Not obtained a Mentor coded as: 0 = did not obtain a mentor at Time 2; 1 = obtained a mentor at Time 1.* p < .05.

** p < .01.

Table 2Logistic regression analysis predicting acquisition of a mentor at Time 2.

Variables Acquisition of a mentor at Time 2

Step 1: Control variables b SEGendera �.08 .16Rank �.20 .40Position tenure �.08 .05Years fulltime employment �.14* .05Organization size �.01 .03Industry typeb �.42* .19

�2 Log likelihood = 1380.29v2

(6, 211) = 40.53***

Cox and Snell R^2 = .02Nagelkerke R^2 = .04

Step 2: Test of Hypothesis 1Promotional history .17* .08Advancement expectations .35*** .05

�2 Log likelihood = 1324.09v2

(2, 211) = 56.19***

Cox and Snell R^2 = .04Nagelkerke R^2 = .09

Step 2: Test of Hypothesis 2Career initiatives .25* .13Skill development .25* .12

�2 Log likelihood = 270.10v2

(2, 211) = 11.61**

Cox and Snell R^2 = .10Nagelkerke R^2 = .13

a Gender coded as: 1 = men; 2 = women.b Industry coded as: 1 = public; 2 = private.* p < .05.

** p < .01.*** p < .001.

R. Singh et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 11–17 15

how mentoring builds on their performance and career competencies. Another path that could be explored is the idea of aself-generating cycle of mentoring. Since the rising stars in the present sample were more likely than others to gain a mentor,and the experience of being in a mentoring relationship increases the probability of developing future relationships as eithermentors or protégés (Allen et al., 1997; Ragins & Cotton, 1993; Ragins & Scandura, 1999), it could be possible that rising starsare engaged in self-generating cycles of mentoring that perpetuates and proliferates the rising star effect. Because mentorsoften choose protégés who are similar to them (cf., Allen, 2007; Allen et al., 2000; Kram, 1985), the rising star hypothesis mayultimately manifest as a proliferating selection system in which rising stars choose other rising stars to mentor, which prop-agates and perpetuates the rising star hypothesis. Future research could employ dyadic longitudinal designs to examinethese intriguing relationships.

This study also offers insights for theories that explain the development of mentoring relationships. For example, accord-ing to self-structural theory, mentors and protégés have mentoring self-structures, such as schemas, identities and possibleselves, that guide and motivate the development of their mentoring relationships (Ragins, in press; Ragins & Verbos, 2007).Self-structures are the mental maps that frame experiences, shape expectations, and motivate behaviors in mentoring rela-tionships. Self-structural theory could incorporate the possibility that rising stars have unique mentoring self-structures thatnot only influence the development of their relationships, but also create a cyclical process by which the relationship itselffacilitates the acquisition of rising star attributes and reinforces the very self-structures that guide the development of futurerelationships.

The results of this study also have important practical implications. First, HR managers may need to help mentors becomeaware of the rising star effect and encourage them to mentor employees who may not be rising stars, but still need a mentorto help them develop and realize their full potential. Without this intervention, there may be an ever-widening chasm inaccess to mentoring relationships. Rising stars may enter a self-perpetuating cycle in that their pre-existing attributes in-crease the probability of attaining a mentor who may further hone their career competencies and place them in the positionto develop future relationships. By the same token, employees who do not have or display these attributes may be left out ofthis cycle, which widens the chasm between those who obtain access to mentoring, with all its benefits and opportunities,and those who do not. Members of non-dominant groups may be less likely to be on the ‘‘fast track” because of glass ceilingsand walls (Konrad & Linnehan, 1995; Linnehan & Konrad, 1999; Morrison & Von Glinow, 1990; Powell & Butterfield, 1994;Thomas, 2001) and are often excluded from the ‘‘old boys networks” that are the training grounds for honing strategies forcareer success (Ragins, 1989).

16 R. Singh et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 11–17

Given these concerns, organizations need to take a proactive role in levelling the playing field of mentoring. They need toactively support the development of mentoring relationships that involve not just high potential employees, but employeeswho need mentoring to reach their full potential. For example, formal mentoring and training programs can be offered thathelp mentors recognize the importance of mentoring these ‘‘diamonds in the rough,” employees with untapped and unre-alized potential that can be nurtured and developed by a mentor. In addition, training programs can be used to help theseindividuals acquire the attributes needed to gain a mentoring relationship. Finally, it is important that organizations are cog-nizant of the rising star effect when developing criteria for protégé selection into formal mentoring programs. Formal men-toring programs that are aimed at high potential employees may reinforce the rising star effect if potential is assessed merelyby promotional history. By narrowly focusing on past accomplishments, organizations may exclude the very employees whomay benefit the most from mentoring programs.

Although this study addressed an important and unexplored phenomenon reported in the mentoring literature, the re-sults need to be interpreted in the context of the small effect sizes observed. Further, because our study relied on self-reportdata, it has the limitations associated with this method. Although the longitudinal design addressed some of the problemsassociated with self-report data and common method variance, it does not fully rule out the existence of unknown or chang-ing third variables, such as transitory moods or states of mind that may vary over time (Zapf, Dormann, & Frese, 1996). An-other limitation is that, even though we controlled for industry type, a substantial portion of our sample were employed inpublic sector organizations, which may limit the generalizability of the results. Finally, although we asked respondents aboutthe presence of a mentor, we did not inquire as to how the relationship developed. Future research could offer a more fine-grained assessment of how rising stars develop their mentoring relationships.

In conclusion, although the rising star effect may be a fact of life, organizations can intervene in leveling the playing fieldof mentoring. Mentoring scholars can help achieve this goal by examining how the rising star effect unfolds over time, peopleand place. Finally, individuals who are potential mentors need to be aware of this effect so that they can look beyond theglitter to see the gold.

References

Allen, T. D. (2007). Mentoring relationships from the perspective of a mentor. In B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work: Research,theory, and practice (pp. 123–148). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 89, 127–136.

Allen, T. D., Poteet, M. L., & Burroughs, S. M. (1997). The mentor’s perspective: A qualitative inquiry and future research agenda. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 51, 70–89.

Allen, T. D., Poteet, M. L., & Russell, J. E. A. (2000). Protégé selection by mentors: What makes the difference? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 271–282.Allen, T. D. (2004). Protégé selection by mentors: Contributing individual and organizational factors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 469–483.Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: Antecedents, tactics and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 199–214.Bahniuk, M. H., Dobos, J., & Hill, S. K. (1990). The impact of mentoring, collegial support, and information adequacy on career success: A replication. Journal

of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 431–451.Bozionelos, N. (2004). Mentoring provided: Relation to mentor’s career success, personality, and mentoring received. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64,

24–46.Chandler, D. E., & Kram, K. E. (2007). Mentoring and developmental networks in the new career context. In H. Gunz & M. Peiperl (Eds.), Handbook of Career

Studies (pp. 241–267). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison of mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentored

counterparts. Personnel Psychology, 45, 619–636.Claes, R., & Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A. (1998). Influences of early career experiences, occupational group, and national culture on proactive career behavior.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 357–378.Cox, T. H., & Harquail, C. V. (1991). Career paths and career success in the early career stages of male and female MBAs. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39,

54–75.Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435–462.Fagenson, E. A. (1989). The Mentor Advantage: Perceived career/job experiences of protégés versus non-protégés. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10,

309–320.Fagenson, E. A. (1992). Mentoring: Who needs it? A comparison of protégés’ and non-protégés’ needs for power, achievement, affiliation, and autonomy.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 41, 48–60.Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilberger, T., Lang, K., & Tag, A. (1997). The concept of personal initiative: Operationalization, reliability and validity in two German

samples. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 139–161.Godshalk, V. M., & Sosik, J. J. (2003). Aiming for career success: The role of learning goal orientation in mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 63, 417–437.Green, S. G., & Bauer, T. N. (1995). Supervisory mentoring by advisers: Relationships with Ph.D. student potential, productivity, and commitment. Personnel

Psychology, 48, 537–561.Harlan, S. L. (1989). Opportunities and attitudes toward job advancement in a manufacturing firm. Social Forces, 67, 766–788.Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. E. (2001). Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A developmental network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 2,

264–298.Higgins, M. C., Chandler, D. E., & Kram, K. E. (2007). Developmental initiation and developmental networks. In B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook

of mentoring at work: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 349–372). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Hundley, G. (2001). Why and when are the self-employed more satisfied with their work? Industrial Relations, 40, 293–316.Jaskolka, G., Beyer, J. M., & Trice, H. M. (1985). Measuring and predicting managerial success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 26, 189–205.Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. (1994). Political influence behavior and career success. Journal of Management, 20, 43–65.Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Judge, T. A. (2008). A quantitative review of mentoring research: Test of a model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 269–283.Konrad, A. M., & Linnehan, F. (1995). Formalized HRM structures: Coordinating equal employment opportunity or concealing organizational practices? The

Academy of Management Journal, 38, 787–820.Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.Kunst, P., & Soeters, J. (1991). Works council membership and career opportunities. Organization studies, 12, 75–93.

R. Singh et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 11–17 17

Linnehan, F., & Konrad, A. M. (1999). Diluting diversity: Implications for intergroup inequality in organizations. Journal of Management Inquiry, 8, 399–414.Morrison, A. M., & Von Glinow, M. A. (1990). Women and minorities in management. American Psychologist, 45, 200–208.Ohlott, P. J., Ruderman, M. N., & McCauley, C. D. (1994). Gender differences in managers’ developmental job experiences. Academy of Management Journal, 37,

46–68.Okurame, D. E., & Balogun, S. K. (2005). Role of informal mentoring in the career success of first-line bank managers: A Nigerian case study. Career

Development International, 10, 512–521.Olian, J. D., Carroll, J. S., & Giannantonio, C. M. (1993). Mentor reactions to protégés: An experiment with managers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43,

266–278.Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (1994). Investigating the ‘‘Glass Ceiling” phenomenon: An empirical study of actual promotions to top management. The

Academy of Management Journal, 37, 68–86.Ragins, B. R. (1989). Barriers to mentoring: The female manager’s dilemma. Human Relations, 42, 1–22.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. 347–370). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Ragins, B.R. (in press). Positive identities in action: A model of mentoring self-structures and the motivation to mentor. In L.M. Roberts and J. Dutton (Eds.)

Exploring positive identities and organizations: Building a theoretical and research foundation. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1993). Gender and willingness to mentor in organizations. Journal of Management, 19, 97–111.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, 529–550.Ragins, B. R., & Scandura, T. (1999). Burden or blessing? Expected costs and benefits of being a mentor. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 493–509.Ragins, B. R., & Verbos, A. K. (2007). Positive relationships in action: Relational mentoring and mentoring schemas in the workplace. In J. Dutton & B. R.

Ragins (Eds.), Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation (pp. 91–116). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.Rosenbaum, J. E. (1984). Career mobility in a corporate hierarchy. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Rosenbaum, J. E. (1989). Organization career systems and employee misperceptions. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of career

theory (pp. 329–353). NY: Cambridge University Press.Scandura, T. (1997). Mentoring and organizational justice. An empirical investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 58–69.Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 416–427.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, 845–874.Simon, S. A., & Eby, L. T. (2003). A typology of negative mentoring experiences. Human Relations, 56, 1083–1106.Tharenou, P. (1997). Managerial career advancement. In C. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology

(pp. 39–93). New York: Wiley.Tharenou, P. (2001). Going up? Do traits and informal social processes predict advancing in management? Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1005–1017.Tharenou, P., & Conroy, D. (1994). Men and women managers’ advancement: Personal or situational determinants? Applied Psychology: An International

Review, 43, 5–31.Tharenou, P., Latimer, S., & Conroy, D. (1994). How do you make it to the top? An examination of influences of women’s and men’s managerial advancement.

Academy of Management Journal, 37, 899–931.Tharenou, P., & Terry, D. J. (1998). Reliability and validity of scales to measure managerial aspirations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58,

474–491.Thomas, D. A. (2001). The truth about mentoring minorities: Race matters. Harvard Business Review, 79, 98–107.Underhill, C. M. (2006). The effectiveness of mentoring programs in corporate settings: A meta-analytical review of the literature. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 68, 292–307.Wanberg, C. R., Welsh, E. T., & Hezlett, S. A. (2003). Mentoring research: A review and dynamic process model. Research in Personnel and Human Resources

Management, 21, 39–124.Zapf, D., Dormann, C., & Frese, M. (1996). Longitudinal studies in organizational stress research: A review of the literature with reference to methodological

issues. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 145–169.