Does Mentor-Protégé Agreement on Mentor Leadership Behavior Influence the Quality of a Mentoring Relationship?

By Veronica M. Godshalk, John J. Sosik. 2000

170 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Education, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c60bf56113b3902e26cefdebbbc8c7dd17fc3d6b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

In Education

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

The impact of emotional intelligence on accuracy of self‐awareness and leadership performance (2011, unknown): “It is intuitive to presume that managers who underestimate their transformational leadership abilities are lacking in the intrapersonal, or self-awareness, component of EI (Atwater and Yammarino, 1997; Godshalk and Sosik, 2000; Sosik and Megerian, 1999).”
Who Is a Mentor? A Review of Evolving Definitions and Implications for Research (2011, background): “Some definitions even include a motive for the relationship (e.g., “with the agreed-on goal of having the lesser skilled person grow and develop specific competencies”; Godshalk & Sosik, 2000: 109).”
Ten Difference Score Myths (2001, background): “Still other researchers have adopted this approach as a response to the general call to replace difference scores with other analytical procedures (Godshalk & Sosik, 2000).”
Formal mentoring versus supervisor and coworker relationships: differences in perceptions and impact (2003, methodology): “Because previous research relied on a single perspective to describe the mentoring relationship (Higgins & Kram, 2001), however, we do not know the extent to which the mentor and mentee have similar perceptions of their relationship (see Godshalk & Sosik, 2000, for an exception).”
A Review of Developmental Networks (2012, background): “…underestimation, in agreement) about a mentor’s transformational leadership behavior is related to the amount of career and psychosocial support received, career satisfaction, protégé’s aspirations, and perceived mentoring effectiveness (Godshalk & Sosik, 2000; Sosik & Godshalk, 2004).”
Scale Development and Construct Clarification of Servant Leadership (2006, background): “Godshalk and Sosik (2000) examined the dynamics of the mentorprotégé relationship and found expectations of both parties play a role in the effectiveness of the relationship.”
Mentors and College Student Leadership Outcomes: The Importance of Position and Process (2012, background): “…mentoring and leadership through the recognition that the processes of modeling leadership behaviors (e.g., defining personal values, developmental coaching) had the potential to influence mentee’s actual capacities for leadership as well (Godshalk & Sosik, 2000; Popper & Lipshitz, 1993).”
Protégé--Mentor Agreement about the Provision of Psychosocial Support: The Mentoring Relationship, Personality, and Workload (2004, methodology): “…to understand the needs of the other, be more open to receiving and understanding feedback from the other, and be more likely to make the attitudinal and behavioral adjustments required to ensure a continued relationship (Baird & Kram, 1983; Godshalk & Sosik, 2000; Yammarino & Atwater, 1997).”