1. Paying it Forward: The Effect of Mentoring on Protégé OCB Lillian Turner de Tormes Eby Marcus M. Butts University of Georgia University of Texas-Arlington

2. Overview • Mentoring can be an important developmental experience (Allen et al., 2004; Eby et al., 2008) • Also associated with learning & performance (e.g., Sanchez et al., 2006; Lankau & Scandura, 2002) • Protégés can also have negative experiences with mentors(Eby et al., 2000; Scandura, 1998) • Related to a wide range of negative attitudinal & strain outcomes (Eby & Allen, 2002; Eby et al., 2004) • Some initial evidence linking negative experiences to less learning (Eby et al., 2004) • Limited research examining the relationship between mentoring & OCB

3. Why Examine Mentoring & OCB? • Mentoring has been conceptualized as a form of OCB (McManus & Russell, 1997) • Mentors act as role models for protégés (Kram, 1985) • Leader OCB is positively related to follower OCB (Yaffe & Kark, 2011) • Receipt of mentoring support is positively related to protégé OCB (Donaldson et al., 2000; Jandeska & Kraimer, 2005) • But, negative mentoring may inhibit protégé OCB • Emotional strain is negatively to OCB (Chang et al., 2007) • Abusive supervision negatively related to OCB (Ayree et al., 2007; Tepper, 2000; Zellars et al., 2002)

4. Mentoring & OCB • Prior research suggests there may be a connection • Causal direction for positive mentoring • Protégés that receive more mentoring engage in more OCB (social exchange theory; social learning theory) • Competing prediction: protégés that engage in OCB receive more mentoring (rising star hypothesis; demonstrates motivation; ideal employee prototype) • Causal direction for negative mentoring • Negative mentoring creates psychological reactance, which leads protégés to withhold effort (Brehm & Brehm, 1981)

5. The Current Study • Disentangle the relationship between mentoring & OCB • Examine both positive and negative mentoring experiences in relation to OCB • Expect effects only for OCB-I due to relational focus • Cross-lagged panel design • Two full waves of data collection • Matched mentor-protégé data

6. Method • Employees working in health services occupation • 190 in-tact mentor-protégé dyads • Formal (assigned) mentoring relationships • Surveyed at 2 points in time (1 yr interval) • Established multi-item scales • Reliability > .82 both years • Positive & negative mentoring reported by protégé • Overall measures • Protégé OCB rated by mentor • OCB-I & OCB-O

7. Data Analysis & Results • Measurement invariance across time (full support) • Four separate SEM models (all CFIs > .90, RMSEA < .08, SRMR <.07) • Four different parameter estimates per model • Stability of latent variables over time • all significant, r = .58 to .73 • Correlation between variables at time 1 • all significant, r = -.17 to .22 • Correlation between variables at time 2 • all significant, r = -.32 to .43 • Two cross-lagged effects (both directions; OCB-I & OCB-O)

8. Cross-Lagged Results Standardized values reported, ** p <.01

9. Discussion • Support for the prediction that mentoring leads to OCB, but only behaviors aimed at individuals • Relational aspects of both mentoring & OCB-I • Firm conclusion about causal direction • No support for the alternative explanation that protégés who engage in OCB get “rewarded” with more mentoring

10. Implications • Mentoring theory • Protégé may learn to model helping behavior from mentors • Negative relational experiences thwarts helping behaviors • What are mediating mechanisms? • Leadership theory • Sheds light on research examining LMX & OCB as well as abusive supervision & OCB • OCB theory • Extends research on predictors of OCB • Lends support for the importance of differentiating OCB-I & OCB-O

11. Acknowledgements • This study was supported by Award Number R01DA019460 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse