thomas et al-2009-human resource management

Human Resource Management,Human Resource Management, MayJune 2009, Vol. 48, No. 3, Pp. 417 432

2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20288

PREVENTING BURNOUT: THE

EFFECTS OF LMX AND MENTORING

ON SOCIALIZATION, ROLE STRESS,

AND BURNOUT

C H R I S T O P H E R H . T H O M A S A N D M E L E N I E J . L A N K A U

Halbesleben and Buckleys (2004) review of burnout research suggested a lin-gering need to examine the relationship between social support and burnout. We address that need by investigating Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) and mentoring as sources of workplace social support. We used data from 422 employees in a health care setting to test three structural models investigat-ing the direct and indirect effects of LMX, supervisory mentoring, and non-supervisory mentoring on organizational socialization, role stress, and burn-out. Results suggest that high-LMX supervisors and nonsupervisory mentors serve as resources that minimize emotional exhaustion through increased socialization and decreased role stress. This study advances the literature on burnout by clarifying the effects of different types of social support in reduc-ing burnout. 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: burnout, mentoring, stress, LMX, social support, health care

According to the National Insti-tute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH, 1999), job stress can be defined as the harmful physical and emotional responses

that occur when the requirements of the job do not match the capabilities, resources, or needs of the worker (p. 6). One stress-related response that has received consid-erable research attention is job burnout. Burnout is a state of physical, emotional, and mental exhaustion in employees who work with people in emotionally demanding

situations (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). Persons suffering from burnout exhibit low energy, lack of motivation, nega-tive feelings about themselves or their work, and withdrawal from interpersonal interac-tions (Maslach & Jackson, 1984; Maslach & Schaufeli, 1993). Much research designed to identify the causes of burnout has been driven by the desire to prevent harmful per-sonal and organizational effects.

Research has linked burnout to negative outcomes such as health problems, reduc-tions in job satisfaction and organizational

Correspondence to: Christopher H. Thomas, Assistant Professor of Management, Department of Management, University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677, Phone: 662-915-5820, E-mail: [email protected]

418 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MAYJUNE 2009

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

commitment, and reduced productivity, as well as absenteeism, turnover intentions, and actual turnover (Maslach & Jackson, 1984; Van Dierendonck, Schaufeli, & Buunk, 2001). At the organizational level, research has linked burnout to financial losses, accidents, and reductions in the quality of patient care in health care organizations (Demir, Ulusoy, & Ulusoy, 2003). Job-related stress costs cor-porate America an estimated $300 billion annually as a result of these outcomes (Amer-ican Institute of Stress, 2007). The human and economic impacts associated with job

burnout underscore the need for research that examines factors that can help reduce the effects of stressful working conditions.

Researchers have highlighted the need to investigate organiza-tional interventions for alleviat-ing burnout, and subsequent research has identified several work-context factors as likely causes (Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004; Schaufeli & Enzmann, 1998). Researchers have investi-gated factors such as unmet ex-pectations (Van Dierendonck et al., 2001) and lack of social sup-port (Janssen, De Jonge, & Bakker, 1999) as potential causes of burn-out. In a recent review of research on burnout, Halbesleben and Buckley (2004) called for research

on ways in which resources can be provided to address demands faced at work. Although work-related social support can serve as a re-source to reduce the likelihood of burnout, we noted a scarcity of research on the source or type of social support.

With this study we seek to make a unique contribution to the literature on burnout by investigating the effects of different types of workplace social support on emotional ex-haustion.Specifically, we examine supervi-sory and mentoring relationships as sources of social and career-related support that contribute to increased socialization and re-duced role stress. We examine role stress as a proximal predictor of burnout. We chose to examine the relationships between sources of

social support, socialization, role stress, and job burnout in a health care setting. Burnout has generated much research within health care settings (Maslach et al., 2001), which isdue, in part, to the fact that health care en-vironments inevitably include conditions that lead to high levels of work-related stress among employees. For instance, Mosbys Med-ical Dictionary cites several antecedents of burnout specific to health care: stressful, even dangerous work; confrontation with severe illness and death; lack of managerial support; and frustration caused by discrepancies be-tween job expectations and realities (Ander-son, 2002). A health care context increases the probability of finding employees who are experiencing burnout, which allows for a more robust examination of antecedents that may influence the level of job burnout em-ployees report. Health care jobs also tend to be high in emotional labor and thus are more prone to the effects of stress and burnout. Therefore, the findings of this study may have implications for other jobs high in emo-tional labor, such as those in service indus-tries that include the hospitality industry, academia, social work and counseling, and banking.

Theory and Proposed Model

The conservation-of-resources (COR) theory and the job demands-resources model (JD-R) are two theoretical frameworks that have been utilized to understand the social psy-chological processes leading to burnout. Hobfolls (1989) COR theory suggests that stress and burnout occur when individuals perceive a threat to what they value in their work environment (e.g., job security, rela-tionships, competence, recognition). In-creased demands, decreased resources, or in-sufficient return on resources invested into the job and organization can cause the threat. When individuals feel that they do not have sufficient resources (e.g., time, energy, sup-port) to address the demands of their work role, they are likely to experience a negative affective reaction and become more vulnera-ble to job burnout. In response to depleted resources, individuals will conserve resources

The human and

economic impacts

associated with

job burnout

underscore the

need for research

that examines

factors that can help

reduce the effects

of stressful working

conditions.

PREVENTING BURNOUT 419


and may not invest as much in their job per-formance or be as committed to the organiza-tion (Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004).

The JD-R model extends COR theory by further defining the role of job demands and job resources (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001). Job demands are charac-teristics associated with the task or working environment that require workers to exert physical or mental effort; theyare associated with negative psychological reactions like burnout. Job resources, on the other hand, are aspects of the job that facilitate accom-plishing goals, decrease the demands of the job, or enhance personal growth (Halbesle-ben & Buckley, 2004). Examples of job re-sources are performance feedback, support from colleagues, supervisory coaching and support, participation in decision making, rewards, recognition, and advancement op-portunities (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Re-cent research provides empirical support for the JD-R model. Job demands have been shown to predict the emotional exhaustion component of burnout as well as burnout in general; lack of job resources has been significantly related to burnout (Bakker, Demerouti, & Verbeke, 2004; Demerouti et al., 2001).

Both the COR and JD-R models highlight the role of social support as a resource that may reduce the likelihood of burnout. In the work context, social support occurs via inter-personal exchanges that demonstrate emo-tional concern, instrumental aid, and sharing of information by coworkers. Such exchanges help individuals develop realistic expecta-tions about work and reinforce positive as-pects of self (Halbesleben, 2006).

In this study, we explore supervisors and mentors as two types of work resources that provide social support, which enables indi-viduals to cope with their job demands. Spe-cifically, we investigate how leader-member exchange (LMX) relationships, supervisory mentoring, and nonsupervisory mentoring affect burnout through their impact on orga-nizational socialization and role stress. Re-search shows that role stress has a particularly strong positive relationship to burnout (Lee & Ashforth, 1996; Schaufeli & Enzmann,

1998). We, therefore, treat role stress as the construct most proximally linked to burn-out.

The Leader-Member Relationship

Surprisingly, the role of leadership processes in burnout has received only scant research attention. Seltzer and Numerof (1988) exam-ined the relationship between supervisory consideration and initiating structure behav-iors and subordinate burnout. The study found subordinates reported less burnout when their supervisors provided a higher amount of con-sideration behaviors and less structure (i.e., greater autonomy). A more recent study by Hetland, Sandal, and Johnsen (2007) exam-ined transformational leadership behaviors and burnout in the in-formation technology sector. The results of their study indicated that passive-avoidance leadership was related to emotional exhaus-tion, which suggested that leader-ship that provides little worker control, minimal participation, and low goal clarity may have det-rimental effects on subordinates well-being. The authors noted that the burnout literature has neglected the study of how leader-ship processes affect burnout.

In our study, we propose that the quality of the exchange rela-tionship between a leader and subordinate can impact burnout levels. LMX theory proposes that a supervisor has a unique relation-ship with each member of his or her work-group and that these dyadic relationships vary in quality (Graen & Scandura, 1987). High-quality LMX relationships are character-ized by higher levels of mutual trust, respect, liking, interaction, and support than low-quality LMX relationships (Liden, Wayne, & Stillwell, 1993; Uhl-Bien, Graen, & Scandura, 2000). Empirical studies have shown that workers who have high-quality exchanges with their supervisor tend to receive greater

Surprisingly, the

role of leadership

processes in

burnout has

received only

scant research

attention. we

propose that

the quality of

the exchange

relationship

between a leader

and subordinate

can impact burnout

levels.



organizational and job-related information, greater job direction, and higher objective performance ratings;they also display higher competence (Gerstner & Day, 1997). Thus, leaders can be viewed as a resource, according to JD-R theory, when high-quality relation-ships lead to information and tangible re-sources (Erdogan & Enders, 2007; Erdogan & Liden, 2002). Accordingly, we posit that the quality of LMX will be positively related to organizational socialization.

In addition, we propose that LMX should also be directly related to reports of role stress. Role theory is the original theoretical base for LMX and the foundation of the role negotia-tion process central to the LMX relationship

(Jensen, Olberding, & Rodgers, 1997). Supervisors are in a unique position to instruct subordinates in proper role management by clearly defining roles and expectations. In high-LMX relationships, the sup-port and increased communication may help reduce uncertainty and ambiguity (Harris & Kacmar, 2006). Accordingly, those workers who report high LMX tend to have more positive role perceptions and generally hold similar role percep-tions and expectations to their su-pervisors (Jensen et al., 1997). For subordinates in low-LMX relation-ships, the absence of information or minimal level of support may exacerbate stress. Research suggests that individuals compare them-selves to peers and notice the distri-bution of LMX in their workgroup. Those in a low-LMX relationship with their supervisor may see it as an additional role stressor that is a demand rather than a resource (Erdogan & Liden, 2002). We propose that LMX quality will be negatively related to role stress.

Supervisory Mentoring

Subordinates in high-LMX relationships with their supervisors tend to describe them as possessing the characteristics of mentoring

relationships (Scandura & Williams, 2004). Mentoring has traditionally been defined as an interpersonal work relationship in which a senior and more experienced organizational member supports a younger and less experi-enced member in his or her career develop-ment (Kram, 1985). More recent definitions of mentoring have removed the age and ex-perience stipulations in recognition of the nature of todays workforce, in which inexpe-rienced younger employees may be supervis-ing older employees or coaching them on skills such as technology competence (Kram & Ragins, 2007). Many individual and orga-nizational benefits have been attributed to having a mentor, such as career outcomes like salary progression and promotion rates and attitudinal outcomes like higher job sat-isfaction or greater self-esteem (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004). Mentors pro-vide protgs with developmental support, such as increased visibility within the organi-zation, sponsorship, coaching, friendship, and counseling (Kram, 1985; Ragins & Cotton, 1999).

The provision of development functions distinguishes supervisory mentoring from LMX. The focus in a traditional leadership process is current job performance, whereas mentoring involves the mentors investment in the protgs career success (Sosik & God-shalk, 2000). Employees in a high-LMX relationship may have a positive working re-lationship with their supervisor but may not view him or her as committed to their long-term development (Scandura & Schriesheim, 1994). Employees who have supervisory mentors and receive special career-related at-tention may be more likely to assimilate into the organization with fewer difficulties. Previous research supports a positive relation-ship between mentoring and socialization. Mentoring may convey normative informa-tion about organizational culture and values (Chao, Walz, & Gardner, 1992). We predict that mentoring will be positively associated with organizational socialization.

We also propose that mentoring will have a direct effect on role stress. Mentoring has been touted as a vehicle for transmitting encouragement, counsel, and social support

Mentors, through

the development

functions, can assist

their protgs in

clarifying their work

roles so that they

perceive fewer

role stressors and

experience more

positive attitudes.

Therefore, we

hypothesize

that supervisory

mentoring will have a

direct negative effect

on role stress.



during challenging times (Kram, 1985; Smith, McAllister, & Crawford, 2001). Mentors pro-vide reassurance to their protgs and afford them opportunities to take new risks. Such experiences often result in the protgs in-creased self-esteem, enhanced self-image, confidence, and efficacy (Smith et al., 2001). Mentors, through the development func-tions, can assist their protgs in clarifying their work roles so that they perceive fewer role stressors and experience more positive attitudes (Lankau, Carlson, & Nielson, 2006). Therefore, we hypothesize that supervisory mentoring will have a direct negative effect on role stress.

LMX and Nonsupervisory Mentoring

In the previous sections, we discussed two types of support (high LMX and mentoring) provided from the same source: the supervi-sor. Recently, researchers have touted the importance of having support from multiple developers in light of the extent of change in organizations and the learning demands pro-fessionals face (Higgins & Kram, 2001). Baugh and Scandura (1999) found that the number of mentors an employee had was related to enhanced career expectations and lower role ambiguity. Higgins and Thomas (2001) found that the quality of multiple developmental relationships explained additional variance in intention to remain with an organization and work satisfaction beyond a primary men-tor. Individuals in jobs and organizations prone to high-stress conditions, such as health care organizations in which the conse-quences of errors are high, may benefit from having emotional, informational, and instru-mental support from a nonsupervisory men-tor. A nonsupervisory mentor may provide access to a network of resources (information and relationships) that are external to the im-mediate workgroup that enable employees to address their job demands better. In a study by Scandura and Williams (2004), employees who received mentoring outside the supervi-sory relationship reported higher job satisfac-tion and organizational commitment than counterparts who did not have that addi-tional support. In our study, we wanted to

explore the effects of having both a support-ive supervisor (e.g., high LMX) and a non-supervisory mentoring relationship on the processes affecting job burnout.

Socialization

The act of adapting to or assuming an organi-zational role is a central tenet of organizational socialization. During socialization, individuals are familiarized with expectations associated with their organizational role (Feldman, 1989; Brief, Aldag, Van Sell, & Melone, 1979). The frequency and extent of change in organiza-tions have transformed socialization into a lifelong process encompassing individuals entire careers as they constantly refine their understanding of their roles within and across organizations (Chao, OLeary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein, & Gard-ner, 1994). Thus, socialization is not restricted to newcomers.

Expectations about the nature of work, intrinsic and extrinsic rewards associated with work, and the quality of relationships in the work environment influence individuals job attitudes. If their expectations are not realistic, individuals are likely to have unmet expectations and realize a lack of fit between them and the organization or perceive a breach in their psychological contract with the organization (Halbesleben & Buck-ley, 2004; Sturges, Conway, Guest, & Liefooghe, 2005; Wanous, Poland, Premack, & Davis, 1992).

Effective socialization can reduce role stress by minimizing differences between unrealistic expectations and the reality of the work role. Socialization leads to an appropriate understanding of role behaviors by clarifying duties and norms within work-groups as well as fostering the skills to manage conflicting role demands (Feldman, 1989). For example, Chao et al. (1994) found that socialization was linked to iden-tity resolution and adaptability. Taormina and Law (2000) speculate that systematic hospital socialization programs foster a

Effective

socialization can

reduce role stress

by minimizing

differences

between unrealistic

expectations and

the reality of the

work role.



greater ability to cope and reduce stress by facilitating employee adjustment to organizational roles and demands. We contend that organizational socialization

will have an inverse relationship with the amount of role stress employees experience.

Role Stress

Roles are patterns of behaviors that employees perceive as ex-pected and necessary to fulfill job responsibilities. Role conflict oc-curs when a person is faced with incompatible or mutually com-peting expectations or demands. Role ambiguity is a lack of clarity regarding the expectations for ones role, the methods for fulfill-ing those expectations, and the consequences of effective or inef-fective performance. Role stress results when employees experi-ence role conflict, role ambiguity, or a combination of both (Brief et al., 1979).

Role stress often occurs because individuals may have different ex-pectations about what they believe their roles to be and what they are actually accomplishing in their jobs (Wanous et al., 1992). In a hos-pital environment, role conflict can arise when workers are charged with improving patient care while striving to cut costs, when compet-

ing demands restrict their ability to provide high-quality care, or when they are assigned to multiple care units and face opposing expecta-tions in those units (Thompson & Brown, 2002). Role ambiguity is also a common com-plaint of health care providers who fulfill vari-ous roles such as planning and coordinating patient care plans, providing instruction and counseling, and serving as coaches for new hires (Brief et al., 1979; Chang, Hancock, John-son, Daly, & Jackson, 2005).

Researchers have found role stress and other role-related problems to be moderately to highly correlated with burnout (Maslach

et al., 2001; Schaufeli & Enzmann, 1998; Lee & Ashforth, 1996) due to lack of control or uncertainty, declining self-efficacy, and lack of congruence between effort and outcomes (Cherniss, 1993; Schaufeli, Maslach, & Marek, 1993). These factors increase employees per-ceptions of job demands since they must put forth additional effort to clarify ambiguous or conflicting role expectations. Furthermore, tests of the JD-R model show that job de-mands are consistently related to burnout (Bakker et al., 2004; Demerouti et al., 2001; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Therefore, we ex-pect that role stress will be positively related to job burnout.

Methods

Sample

Work overload, increasing job demands, role ambiguity, and the nursing shortage have been noted as stressors in the health care set-ting (Janssen et al., 1999; Thompson & Brown, 2002). The U.S. Bureau of Labor pre-dicts that 1.2 million new nurses will be needed by 2014 to replace retiring or leaving nurses and to meet growing health care needs (Hecker, 2005). Thus, this setting is well suited for an investigation of burnout.

Our survey respondents were employees of a medium-sized not-for-profit hospital in the southeastern United States. A paper-and-pencil survey was distributed to 2,100 employees through interdepartmental mail. There were an initial mailing and two follow-up mailings six weeks apart from one another. Four hundred forty surveys were returned for an overall response rate of 21%. We removed surveys with missing data for this studys variables; as a result, the final sample totaled 422.

Demographic comparisons indicated that respondents did not differ from the general organizational population in terms of age, gender, or average salary. To evaluate nonresponse bias, we compared survey par-ticipants who responded to the last follow-up stepto respondents from the initial and first follow-up mailings since persons who respond to later data collection waves have

In a hospital

environment, role

conflict can arise

when workers

are charged with

improving patient

care while striving

to cut costs,

when competing

demands restrict

their ability to

provide high-quality

care, or when they

are assigned to

multiple care units

and face opposing

expectations in

those units.



been shown to be similar to nonrespondents (Fowler, 1993). We conducted chi-square analyses and t-test analyses on demographic, independent, and dependent variables across the two groups of respondents. The compari-son between earlier and follow-up respon-dents on demographic variables showed no significant differences in age, salary, months since last promotion, tenure in profession at hospital, tenure in profession overall, em-ployment status (full-time versus part-time), gender, and marital status. We found a sig-nificant chi-square for education (2 = 21.49). Significantly fewer respondents from the last follow-up had earned an associates degree (8.7% versus 23.0%), and more held only a high school degree (36.9% versus 18.2%) when compared to the earlier respondents. Comparison of the independent and depen-dent variables between earlier and follow-up respondents revealed no significant differ-ences. These results minimized concerns of response bias in our study.

To analyze the influence of different sources and forms of social support on the outcomes of interest, we created three sub-samples. The first (n = 204) were those re-spondents who reported on the quality of the relationship with their direct supervisor (LMX) but indicatedthey did not currently have a mentor (nonmentored). The second (n = 108) consisted of respondents who reported on the relationship with their super-visor and also reported that their direct su-pervisor was providing mentoring functions (supervisory mentoring). The final subset (n = 110) comprised respondents who were mentored by someone other than their direct supervisor (nonsupervisory mentoring).

The majority of the respondents were women (322 individuals, or 76%), and highly educated (52% held at least a bachelors de-gree). Respondents average age was 38.6 years; the youngest was 19 and the oldest was 75. The average organizational tenure was 6.9 years; the mean length of occupational tenure was 12.1 years. Nurses composed the largest group of respondentsnearly one-third of the sample. Other health care professionals accounted for the majority of remaining respondents, who were, in descending order

of representation,medical technicians, thera-pists, nurse managers, physicians, speech pathologists, care assistants, psychologists, dieticians, pharmacists, social workers, and nurse educators. The remainder of the sample comprised administrative personnel and staff members such as clerical, security, mainte-nance, and food-service workers.

Measures

LMX

We used the seven-item LMX measure (Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982) to assess the quality of leader-member exchange relation-ships. We gathered responses on a 1 to 4 Likert scale. For each item, response 1 represented the highest-quality LMX relationship, while response 4 represented the lowest-quality LMX. For instance, a sam-ple item is How well do you feel that your immediate supervisor recognizes your potential? Re-sponses for the sample item are (1) Fully, (2) As much as the next per-son, (3) Some but not enough, (4) Not at all. Prior to conducting our analyses, responses were reverse-scored so that higher scores equated to high-quality LMX. The Cronbach alpha reliability for the scale was .91.

Mentoring

We provided respondents with the following definition of a mentor: A mentor can gener-ally be defined as an influential individual in your work environment who has advanced experience and knowledge and who is com-mitted to providing upward mobility and support to your career. We asked respon-dents to indicate whether they had a current mentor and whether that mentor was their immediate supervisor. We measured mentor-ing functions for supervisors and nonsupervi-sors using a 15-item scale Scandura and Ragins (1993) developed that is designed to represent vocational, psychosocial, and role-modeling support that protgs have

To analyze the

influence of different

sources and forms

of social support

on the outcomes of

interest, we created

three subsamples.



received from their mentors. Responses were given on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Scale alpha was .86 for supervisory mentor-ing and .84 for nonsupervisory mentoring.

Socialization

We used Chao et al.s (1994) 34-item mea-sure of organizational socialization to assess respondents levels of socialization. The instrument represents six subdimensions of socialization: organizational goals and values, history, language, politics, perfor-mance proficiency, and people. Responses were given on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicated greater levels of organizational socialization. Scale alpha was .87.

Role Stress

We measured this outcome by a 14-item scale from Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970). Eight items assess role conflict, and six items assess role ambiguity. A sample item measuring role conflict is I receive incompatible requests from two or more people. An example from the ambiguity dimension is I know exactly what is expected of me (reverse-scored). We scaled responses from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Higher scores on this measure indicated greater levels of role stress. Scale alpha was .81.

Job Burnout

We measured this attitude by Form A of the Gillespie-Numerof Burnout Inventory (Gillespie & Numerof, 1984), which assesses the emotional exhaustion dimension of burnout. A sample item is I feel buried in my job. Survey participants indicated their level of agreement with 10 statements on burnout ranging from 1 (strongly dis-agree) to 5 (strongly agree). Higher num-bers on this scale indicated greater levels of job burnout. Scale alpha was .96.

Procedure

We report the means, standard deviations, and correlations in Table I. Correlations for the mentored sample are found in the lower triangle, while correlations for the nonmen-tored sample are found in the upper triangle. Age and professional tenure were significantly associated with several focal variables. We did not include these two demographic variables in tests of the measurement model, but we controlled for their influences in the struc-tural model.

We conducted all subsequent tests of the measurement model and structural models using maximum-likelihood estimation (MLE) in LISREL software, version 8.72 (Jreskog & Srbom, 2005). To assess the overall fit of our models, we used four fit indices: 2, Com-parative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and the root mean square error of

T A B L E I Means, Standard Deviations, Alphas, and Correlations for Mentored and Nonmentored Respondents

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Age 37.14 8.87 .62 .20 .08 .19 .192. Occupational

tenure11.05 7.04 .42 .17 .14 .11 .15

3. LMX 2.91 .74 .10 .11 (.91) .37 .51 .474. Socialization 3.79 .43 .07 .21 .28 (.88) .40 .305. Role stress 2.50 .57 .02 .07 .46 .47 (.83) .586. Burnout 2.08 .91 .15 .16 .31 .35 .61 (.96)7. Mentoring

received 3.70 .56 .09 .03 .18 .25 .08 .08 (.87)

Note: Means, standard deviations, and alpha values are reported for full sample of respondents (N = 422), with the exception of Mentor-ing received. Correlations greater than or equal to |.14| are signifi cant at p.05; greater than or equal to |.20| are signifi cant at p .01 (two-tailed). Correlations for mentored sample (n = 218) are found in the lower triangle; correlations for nonmentored sample (n = 204) are found in the upper triangle.



approximation (RMSEA). Researchers gener-ally agree that CFI and TLI values greater than .90 indicate acceptable fit, while values greater than .95 indicate good fit. RMSEA values less than .08 indicate acceptable fit, with values closer to .06 being favored (Lance & Vandenberg, 2002).

Common Method Variance

Consistent with past research in this area, we collected data via self-report surveys. As with all self-report data, the potential exists for common method variance (CMV). We fol-lowed the proceduresPodsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003) recommend to test for the influence of an unmeasured latent method effect. Unlike the Harman method, which only indicates the presence of CMV but does not correct for it, the unmeasured latent factor technique partials out variance shared among substantive indicators that is due neither to their relationship with the substantive construct nor to random error.

To conduct this test, we added another la-tent factor to the measurement model. This method factor has no unique indicator items but rather has paths to all of the items present in the model. Accounting for the method fac-tor created small differences in several factor correlations reported via the LISREL phi matrix. Including the unmeasured method effect factor significantly improved the fit of the model (2 (312) = 590.83, p=.001; RMSEA = .06; CFI = .97; TLI = .97). This improvement can be compared to the original confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model using a nested

comparison (2= 216.00; df = 28, p =.01). Next, we compared the squared-multiple orre-lations for the items. The original CFA cumula-tively accounted for 55% of the total item variance, while the method effect model accounted for slightly more variance (59%). Finally, we examined the individual factor loadings. Although most standardized path coefficients decreased slightly, t-values indi-cated that all substantive factor loadings remained significant at p .001.

Taken together, the results support the notion that there may be common-method artifacts present in our data, but the minimal impact on substantive factor loadings, small additional amount of variance explained, and minor changes in factor correlations sug-gest that CMV will not bias the results. How-ever, to account for any adverse influences from CMV, we tested the structural model with the method effect factor included. By including this factor in the final model, we accounted for nonsubstantive item covari-ance that could potentially augment or at-tenuate the relationships being studied. Thus, we can be confident that the results are an accurate depiction of the actual relationships we investigated and not the result of method variance.

Results

Structural Models

We used three structural models to test our hypothesized network of relationships. In the reported results, t-values equal to or greater

Org.Soc.

RoleStress Burnout

LMX

.40**

-.17

-.55**

.70**

FIGURE 1. Results of SEM Model for LMX-Only, Nonmentored Respondents

N = 204; Model fi t 2 = 626.46 (df = 256); RMSEA = .08; TLI = .92; CFI = .93p < .05 *p < .01 **p < .001



than 1.96, 2.58, and 3.29 are significant at p =.05, .01, and .001, respectively. The first model consisted of those respondents who reported on the quality of their relationship with their immediate supervisor (see Figure 1). These respondents did not identify their supervisor as a mentor; nor did they report involvement in a mentoring relation-ship at the time of the survey. This model provided an adequate but not a good fit for the data (2(256) = 626.46, p



burnout. Finally, the structural equations accounted for 81% of the variance in role stress and 41% of the variance in burnout.

Discussion

Many researchers contend that organizations should focus on preventing rather than treat-ing burnout (Van Dierendonck et al., 2001). Our study demonstrates that the quality of the relationships with a leader and nonsuper-visory mentor represents a valuable resource that can help employees cope with job de-mands and reduce the likelihood of burnout. In addition, supervisors and nonsupervisory mentors have the chance to recognize burn-out symptoms and take corrective action be-fore the early symptoms become full-blown burnout.

Our study found that employees benefit from high-quality relationships with their supervisors and also from multiple support-ive relationships. We investigated three net-works of relationships in which role stress was designated as the most proximal predic-tor of burnout. The first model consisted of employees who reported on the quality of the relationship with their immediate super-visor but had no mentor in the organization. In this sample, individuals who reported higher-quality relationships with their super-visors were better socialized and experienced lower role stress. Overall, the hypothesized network of relationships explained 42% of

the variance in role stress. Furthermore, the strong positive relationship between role stress and burnout demonstrated that lower role stress would equate to lower burnout. The second model consisted of respondents who were mentored by their immediate supervisors. This model also fit the data well but explained only 20% of role stress vari-ance.

The final model included employees who reported on their relationship with their su-pervisor and who also had a nonsupervisory mentor. In this model, LMX and nonsupervi-sory mentoring were positively associated with organizational socialization, and social-ization was strongly negatively associated with role stress. In fact, this model explained 81% of the variance in role stress. This find-ing suggests that having multiple supportive relationships increases the likelihood of re-ceiving the type of information and resources that will help clarify role ambiguity and re-duce role conflicts. Future research should examine the effects of other sources of devel-opmental support (e.g., peers, members of professional associations, family members) on job burnout as recent research has dem-onstrated that employees are likely to have various types of social networks to meet their developmental needs (Higgins, Chandler, & Kram, 2007).

Our study showed that LMX had direct effects on organizational socialization and role stress as predicted. These results indicate

FIGURE 3. Results of SEM Model for LMX and Nonsupervisory Mentoring

N = 110; Model fi t 2 = 524.02 (df = 375); RMSEA = .06; TLI = .96; CFI = .96p < .05 *p < .01 **p < .001

Mentoring Received

Org.Soc. RoleStress Burnout

LMX

.13

.33*

.32

-.69**

-.32*

-.15

.63**



that high-quality relationships between su-pervisors and subordinates characterized by mutual liking, trust, and respect result in bet-ter expectations and behaviors that help indi-viduals adapt. Supervisors and subordinates in these relationships may be more likely to communicate with one another about effec-tive role management. However, the results also mean that supervisor-subordinate relationships that are lower in quality are associated with role stress. Erdogan and Liden (2002) suggested that the distribution of LMX is visible to peers and that the perceived fairness of those supervisors treat as in-group members versus out-group members may negatively influence employees attitudes and behaviors. They furthermore posited that those low in LMX may experience stress over being so when comparing themselves to oth-

ers in the workgroup. Therefore, being low in LMX may be per-ceived as a threat according to COR theory or an additional de-mand associated with psychologi-cal costs (e.g., trying to improve the relationship) according to JD-R theory.

Nonsupervisory mentors (see Figure 3) had direct effects on orga-nizational socialization but not on role stress. While these mentors were able to assist employees in providing additional information about the organization, they may not have been in a position to help employees with their immediate roles. The degree to which immedi-ate supervisors are solely responsi-ble for defining employees roles may vary across settings, with men-

tors advice to protgs regarding role-related behavior being differentially effective, depend-ing on the organizational culture and struc-ture. Future research should investigate this finding in diverse settings to determine whether this is a generalizable finding or idiosyncratic to the current setting. Determining boundary conditions for this finding will provide insights as to which social support relationships are most effective in terms of reducing role-related stress within a given context.

An unexpected finding was that the rela-tionships between supervisory mentoring and organizational socialization and role stress were nonsignificant. We posited that supervi-sory mentoring involved greater investment into subordinates long-term career success than just a high-quality leader-member relationship and that this would result in greater organizational socialization and reduced role stress. The lack of significant findings indicates the need to explore the dis-tinction between supervisory mentoring and leader-member exchange more thoroughly and consider moderators of this relationship. Recently, Erdogan and Enders (2007) sug-gested that mentoring on top of supervisory duties may require a broader network of re-sources or different skills. In their study on LMX, they found that the supervisors level of perceived organizational support contributed to improved benefits for subordinates. Also, it may be that once subordinates view their su-pervisors as mentors, their expectations of the relationship increase and some supervisors may not be able to deliver on those expecta-tions. Tepper (1995) has suggested that there may be differential relational agendas in su-pervisory mentoring relationships compared to nonmentoring relationships. In addition, Tonidandel, Avery, and Phillips (2007) have found that supervisory mentors success in terms of their performance in the organiza-tion affects their protgs performance. If the supervisory mentor is struggling in his or her position or perhaps experiencing his or her own job burnout due to the additional de-mands of mentoring, he or she may not be capable of contributing much to subordi-nates. Future research should obtain matched pairs of employees and supervisors in order to capture the supervisors perspective. These studies could consider the supervisory mentors position, power, confidence, perfor-mance, and burnout levels as well as subordi-nates expectations as moderators of the relationships between supervisory mentoring and socialization and role stress.

As researchers continue to investigate these issues, some specific aspects of our study can be extended or improved. Our focus on organizational components that

Our focus on

organizational

components that

exist in diverse

settings affords us

some confidence

that our findings

are generalizable,

particularly for jobs

high in emotional

labor.



exist in diverse settings affords us some con-fidence that our findings are generalizable, particularly for jobs high in emotional labor. However, the actual degree to which our findings are transferable to other con-texts is unclear. Somewhat related to this issue was our use of a unidimensional measure of burnout that focused on emo-tional exhaustion. Emotional exhaustion has been the primary component of all ex-tant conceptualizations of burnout, and it has been the most consistent in terms of relationships with outcome variables (Hal-besleben & Bowler, 2007). However, a future study that incorporates other dimensions (i.e., depersonalization and diminished ac-complishment) would establish important boundary conditions regarding the extent to which our findings extend to jobs that are not defined by high emotional labor re-quirements. Finally, the cross-sectional, self-report nature of our data presented some inherent limitations. Future studies utiliz-ing longitudinal, multisource data would allow for more accurate descriptions of changes that are occurring over time, as well as allow for stronger assertions of cau-sality.

Practical Implications

The problem of burnout among health care workers is particularly troubling because of financial losses associated with accidents and decreased quality of care given to pa-tients (Demir et al., 2003). Furthermore, considering the previously established link between burnout and turnover, the high cost of turnover in the health care industry should not be ignored (Thompson & Brown, 2002). Waldman, Kelly, Arora, and Smith (2004) studied turnover across all positions at a large medical center and determined that turnover-related costs accounted for 5% of the entire hospitals annual operating budget. Our study identifies mechanisms that significantly reduce role stress by pro-viding job-related social support. From a practical standpoint, these results suggest that human resource managers can help prevent burnout, and subsequent turnover,

by reducing role stress employees experi-ence in their organizations.

Our findings suggest several strategies for human resource managers to consider for re-ducing burnout. First, they illuminate the direct role supervisors play in reducing burn-out. Supervisors need guidance on how to communicate role expectations consistently and fairly across subordinates and how to socialize employees through role changes. Supervisors need to be aware of how they can minimize the potential for unrealistic or unmet expectations about em-ployees job experiences and out-comes. In addition, supervisors can learn how to fine-tune their skills in trying to create high-qual-ity exchanges with their subordi-nates.

Our findings also highlight the importance of multiple sources of support. The changing nature of work coupled with in-dividuals needs for increased skill development make it diffi-cult, if not impractical, for employees to rely on just one person in the organization for support. Employees can receive training on how to build and maintain a network of support-ive relationships and how to uti-lize various sources of support to address socialization and role clarity needs to mini-mize the possibility of burnout.

As a cautionary note, our findings suggest that organizations should be careful in imple-menting programs that require supervisors to engage in mentoring their subordinates. Super-visors may perceive mentoring as an additional work demand for which they feel inadequately equipped or feel that the return is not worth the additional investment of time and energy.If mentoring is expected of supervisors, then it is important to provide additional support and training for them so they feel capable and can meet subordinates raised expectations.It may also be important to provide them with spe-cific training on how to coach subordinates to deal with changes in organization (Scandura & Williams, 2004).

These results

suggest that human

resource managers

can help prevent

burnout, and

subsequent turnover,

by reducing role

stress employees

experience in their

organizations.



We believe this study provides the ground-work for organizations to address employee burnout proactively. High-quality relation-ships with immediate supervisors appear to reduce role stress directly and indirectly. In addition, nonsupervisory mentoring appears

to be a conduit for work-related social support that reduces burnout. Our findings suggest that organizations can avert burnout before it becomes a debilitating condition by develop-ing environments that make social support readily available to workers.

Christopher H. Thomas received his Ph.D. from the Terry College of Business at the Uni-versity of Georgia. He is currently an Assistant Professor of Management at the University of Mississippi. His primary areas of expertise are Human Resources and Organizational Behavior. His research interests include mentoring, leadership, employee engagement, and burnout. His research has been published in the Journal of Vocational Behavior, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Educational and Psychological Meas-urement, and Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

Melenie J. Lankau received her Ph.D. from the School of Business Administration at the University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida.She was a faculty member for four years at Cor-nell Universitys School of Hotel Administration prior to her current position as an Associ-ate Professor at the Terry College of Business, University of Georgia.Her area of expertise is Organizational Behavior.Her research interests include mentoring, individual learning and early career socialization, and diversity.She has published articles in academic journals such as the Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Management, Leadership Quar-terly, Journal of Vocational Behavior, and Journal of Organizational Behavior.

ReferencesAllen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L.

(2004). Career benefi ts associated with mentoring for protgs: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 127136.

American Institute of Stress. (2007). Job Stress. Retrieved June 30, 2007, from http://www.stress.org/job.htm

Anderson, D. M. (2002). Mosbys medical dictionary (6th ed). St. Louis: Mosby.

Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the job demands-resources model to predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Man-agement, 43, 83104.

Baugh, S. G., & Scandura, T. A.(1999). The effects of multiple mentors on protg attitudes toward the work setting.Journal of Social Behavior & Personal-ity, 14, 503521.

Brief, A., Aldag, R., Van Sell, M., & Melone, N. (1979). Anticipatory socialization and role stress among registered nurses. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 20, 161166.

Chang, E. M., Hancock, K. M., Johnson, A., Daly, J., & Jackson, D. (2005). Role stress in nurses: Review of

related factors and strategies for moving forward. Nursing & Health Sciences, 7, 5765.

Chao, G. T., OLeary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J., & Gardner, P. D. (1994). Organizational socialization: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 730743.

Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison of mentoring functions and contrast with nonmen-tored counterparts. Personnel Psychology, 45, 619636.

Cherniss, C. (1993). Role of professional self-effi cacy in the etiology and amelioration of burnout.In W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, and T. Marek (Eds.), Profes-sional burnout: Recent developments in theory and research (pp. 253259). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufe-li, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499512.

Demir, A., Ulusoy, M., & Ulusoy, M. F. (2003). Investi-gation of factors infl uencing burnout levels in the professional and private lives of nurses. Interna-tional Journal of Nursing Studies, 40, 807827.



Erdogan, B., & Enders, J. (2007). Support from the top: Supervisors perceived organizational support as a moderator of leader-member exchange to satisfac-tion and performance relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 321330.

Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2002). Social exchanges in the workplace: A review of recent developments and future research directions in leader-member exchange theory. In L. L. Neider & C. A. Schrieshe-im (Eds), Leadership (pp. 65114). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Press.

Feldman, D. C. (1989).Socialization, resocialization, and training: Reframing the research agenda. In I. Gold-stein (Ed.), Training and development in organiza-tions (pp. 376416). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fowler, F. J.(1993). Survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Cor-relates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827844.

Gillespie, D. F., & Numerof, R. E.(1984).The Gillespie-Numerof burnout inventory: Technical manual. St. Louis: Washington University.

Graen, G. B., Novak, M. A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109131.

Graen, G., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychol-ogy of dyadic organizing. In B. Slaw & L. L. Cum-mings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: Vol. 9 (pp. 175208). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Halbesleben, J. R. B.(2006).Sources of social support and burnout: A meta-analytic test of the conserva-tion of resources model.Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 91, 11341145.

Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Bowler, W. M. (2007). Emo-tional exhaustion and job performance: The mediat-ing role of motivation. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 92, 93106.

Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Buckley, M. R. (2004). Burnout in organizational life. Journal of Management, 30, 859879.

Harris, K. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (2006). Too much of a good thing? The curvilinear effect of leader-member exchange on stress. Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 6584.

Hecker, D. E. (2005). Occupational employment projec-tions to 2014. Monthly Labor Review, 128(11), 70101.

Hetland, H., Sandal, G. M., & Johnsen, T. B. (2007).Burnout in the information technology sector: Does

leadership matter?European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16, 5875.

Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. E.(2001).Reconceptualiz-ing mentoring at work: A developmental network perspective.Academy of Management Review, 26, 264288.

Higgins, M. C., Chandler, D. E., & Kram, K. E.(2007).Developmental initiation and developmental net-works.In B. Ragins & K. Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work (pp. 349372). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.

Higgins, M. C., & Thomas, D. A.(2001). Constellations and careers: Toward understanding the effects of multiple developmental relationships.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 223247.

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513524.

Janssen, P. P. M., De Jonge, J., & Bakker, A. B. (1999). Specifi c determinants of intrinsic work motivation, burnout and turnover intentions: A study of nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29, 13601369.

Jensen, J. L., Olberding, J. C., & Rodgers, R. (1997). The quality of leader-member exchange (LMX) and member performance: A meta-analytic review. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Acad-emy of Management, Boston, MA.

Jreskog, K., & Srbom, D. (2005). LISREL (Version 8.72) [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scien-tifi c Software International, Inc.

Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Kram, K. E., & Ragins, B. R. (2007). The landscape of mentoring in the 21st century.In B. Ragins & K. Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work (pp. 659692). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lance, C. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2002). Confi rmatory factor analysis. In F. Drasgow & N. Schmitt (Eds.), Measuring and analyzing behavior in organizations (pp. 221254). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lankau, M. J., Carlson, D. S., & Nielson, T. R. (2006). The mediating infl uence of role stressors in the relationship between mentoring and job attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 308322.

Lee, R. T., & Ashforth. B. E. (1996). A meta-analytic exami-nation of the correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 123133.

Liden, R., Wayne, S. J., & Stillwell, D. (1993). A longi-tudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 78, 662674.



Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1984). Burnout in organizational settings. Applied Social Psychology Annual, 5, 133135.

Maslach, C., & Schaufeli, W. B. (1993). Historical and con-ceptual development of burnout. In W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, and T. Marek (Eds.), Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory and research (pp. 118). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397422.

NIOSH. (1999).Stress at work.(Publication No. 99101). Cincinnati, OH: Department of Health and Human Services.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879903.

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, 529550.

Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I.(1970).Role confl ict and role ambiguity in complex organizations.Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150163.

Scandura, T. A., & Ragins, B. R. (1993). The effects of sex and gender role orientation on mentorship in male-dominated occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43, 251265.

Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1994). Leader-member exchange and supervisory career mentor-ing as complementary constructs in leadership research. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 15881602.

Scandura, T. A, & Williams, E. A. (2004).Mentoring and transformational leadership: The role of superviso-ry career mentoring.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 448468.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293315.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Enzmann, D. (1998). The burnout companion to study and practice: A critical analy-sis. London: Taylor & Francis.

Schaufeli, W. B., Maslach, C., & Marek, T. (1993). The future of burnout. In W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, and T. Marek (Eds.), Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory and research (pp. 253259). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

Seltzer, J., & Numerof, R.(1988).Supervisory leader-ship and subordinate burnout.Academy of Man-agement Journal, 31, 439446.

Smith, L. S., McAllister, L. E., & Crawford, C. S.(2001). Mentoring benefi ts and issues for public health nurses. Public Health Nursing, 18, 101107.

Sosik, J. J., & Godshalk, V. M.(2000).Leadership styles, mentoring functions received, and job-related stress: A conceptual model and preliminary study.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 365390.

Sturges, J., Conway, N., Guest, D., & Liefooghe, A. (2005). Managing the career deal:The psycho-logical contract as a framework for understanding career management, organizational commitment and work behavior.Journal of Organizational Be-havior, 26, 821838.

Taormina, R. J., & Law, C. M.(2000). Approaches to preventing burnout: The effects of personal stress management and organizational socialization. Journal of Nursing Management, 8, 8999.

Tepper, B. J. (1995). Upward maintenance tactics in supervisory mentoring and nonmentoring rela-tionships. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 11911205.

Thompson, T. P., & Brown, H. N.(2002). Turnover of licensed nurses in skilled nursing facilities. Nursing Economics, 20(2), 6669, 82.

Tonidandel, S., Avery, D. R., & Phillips, M. G. (2007). Maximizing returns on mentoring: Factors affect-ing subsequent protg performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 89110.

Uhl-Bien, M., Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (2000).Implications of leader-member exchange (LMX) for strategic human resource management systems: Relationships as social capital for competitive advantage. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 18, 137185.

Van Dierendonck, D., Schaufeli, W. B., & Buunk, B. P. (2001). Toward a process model of burnout: Results from secondary analysis.European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 4152.

Waldman, J. D., Kelly, F., Arora, S., & Smith, H. L. (2004). The shocking cost of turnover in health care. Health Care Management Review, 29, 27.

Wanous, J. P., Poland, T. D., Premack, S. L., & Davis, K. S.(1992).The effects of met expectations on newcomer attitudes and behaviors: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 288297.

thomas et al-2009-human resource management

Documents