The role of personality in relationship closeness, developer assistance, and career success

We investigate the role of relationship closeness, which is adapted from social network theory, in developmental relationships using a sample of 278 full-time working individuals. We theorize that personality, operationalized with the Five Factor Model, is associated with relationship closeness which is positively related to developer assistance received, which in turn is linked to objective and subjective measures of career success. In general, results supported our hypothesized model, although personality had direct effects on career success beyond the indirect effects through relationship closeness and developer assistance. The theoretical and practical implications are discussed. 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Since Kram’s (1985) seminal work on developmental relationships, defined as a relationship in which a more experienced individual (mentor) assists in the development of a younger organization member (protégé), numerous studies have investigated whether developmental relationships influence career success. A recent meta-analysis found developmental assistance to associate positively with both objective and subjective measures of career success (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004). Little is known, however, about what motivates developers, such as mentors and direct supervisors, to assist their protégés. Nonetheless, scholars have speculated that relationship closeness, defined as the level of intimacy and communication frequency in the relationship influences developmental assistance provided to protégés (Allen, Eby, & Lentz, 2006; Allen et al., 2004; Granovetter, 1973; Higgins & Kram, 2001). In the field of mentoring, Higgins and Kram (2001) used concepts from tie strength (Granovetter, 1973) to argue that stronger developmental relationship ties enhance the value of the developmental relationship for the protégés. Tie strength, or relationship closeness, consists of how often individuals communicate with one another and their level of emotional closeness. As relationship closeness is related to career success, scholars have called for research to understand sources and consequences of relationship closeness in developmental relationships (Siebert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001). In this study, we theorized that relationship strength influences the amount of psychosocial and career assistance provided to the protégé and thus the extent to which the developmental relationship enhances the protégé’s career. We drew upon Higgins and Kram’s (2001) framework and proposed that personality is an antecedent of the closeness of the developmental relationship. Personality, defined as behavioral tendencies, is conceptualized as the Five-Factor Model (FFM), which represents a broad description of the human characteristics of extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness to experience, and conscientiousness (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Although not extensive, some research indicates that personality influences developmental relationships (Turban & Lee, 2007), social network characteristics (Bozionelos, 2003) . All rights reserved. ), [email protected] (M.-D. Foo), [email protected] (D.B. Turban). P.-C. Wu et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 440–448 441 as well as career success (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999; Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005). We have, however, little insight into how personality impacts career success. We extend such research and investigate whether a mechanism through which personality influences career success is its influence on the quality of development relationships formed. This study was conducted in Singapore where relationships might be particularly crucial in career outcomes. Scholars have noted the importance that individuals in some cultural groups, such as Asian communities, place on the opinions of others when making career choices (Schultheiss, 2003). Singapore is a collectivistic society where people stress relatedness within groups (Hofstede, 1980; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). Because the self is considered as part of a larger ‘we’ and interdependent with others, personal preferences may be sacrificed to fulfill group’s goals, duties and obligations. Furthermore, cultures define counseling psychology (e.g., Savickas, 2007) or career (e.g., Savickas, 2001) in different ways, leading to calls for a culturally embedded understanding of careers (Blustein, Schultheiss, & Flum, 2004). By exploring the relational perspective in careers in a country outside of the US, we also seek to contribute to a wider understanding of contextual and cultural influences on work and career. 1. Conceptual development and hypotheses Although mentoring scholars have theorized about the importance of interpersonal comfort, few empirical studies have examined such variables (Allen, Day, & Lentz, 2005). Nonetheless, some recent evidence suggests that relationship closeness influences relationship development (Allen et al., 2006; Flum, 2001). We adapt concepts from career theory and social network theory to examine the role of relationship closeness in dyadic developmental relationships and subsequent career success (Flum, 2001; Higgins & Kram, 2001). Flum (2001) established the links between relational dimensions, defined as modes of human connection, and career development. Among the eight relational dimensions Flum (2001) identified attachment, defined as the process of keeping closeness to another person, to be the most important in developing close and secure relationships and leading to less loneliness and anxiety. According to Flum (2001, p. 3), ‘‘when people know that someone is there for them, the relationship becomes a resource from which they draw strength and enjoyment.” Thus attachment, which is conceptually similar to relationship closeness, is an important aspect of developmental relationships at work. In a similar vein, Granovetter (1973, p. 1361), who distinguished strong ties from weak ties, defined tie strength as: ‘‘The strength of [an interpersonal] tie combines the amount of time, emotional intensity, intimacy, and reciprocal services which characterize the tie.” Strong ties aid in the transfer of tacit and complex knowledge and promote knowledge transfer and sharing (Uzzi, 1997). Siebert et al. (2001) found that individuals who had more strong ties also received more career assistance and access to information. We theorize that in developmental relationships, individuals will obtain more developmental assistance and support from close relationships, conceptualized as relationships with more intimacy and communication frequency. In their model examining antecedents of developmental networks, Higgins and Kram (2001) theorized that individual differences, such as personality, influence the establishment of developmental relationships. There is considerable evidence that personality influences organization relevant outcomes such as job performance, leadership, motivation, teamwork, and career success (Ng et al., 2005). The Big Five traits shape an individual’s ability to adapt to society, family life, working relationships, interpersonal relationships, and other life domains (Caligiuri, 2000). Below, we provide reasons why the Big Five personality traits influence relationship closeness. 1.1. Personality and relationship closeness Conscientious individuals tend to strive for achievement and are dutiful, self-disciplined, hard working, and reliable (Costa & McCrae, 1992) and this trait is linked with high job performance (Judge et al., 1999). High conscientious individuals are motivated to get along with others, which contribute to better interpersonal relationships and performance outputs (Hough, 1992). Conscientious individuals also tend to be cautious about taking actions that will damage their reputations (Caligiuri, 2000). Because conscientious individuals are more responsible and hardworking, we theorize that they will be more highly liked and respected by their developers. In addition, conscientious individuals should be likely to initiate and keep in close contact with their career developers to obtain work-related assistance. Thus, we hypothesize that conscientiousness will be related positively to relationship closeness. Hypothesis 1. Conscientiousness relates positively to (a) intimacy and (b) communication frequency. Highly extraverted individuals tend to be warm, outgoing, positive, sociable, and with a high energy level; thus they tend to be comfortable interacting with others (Costa & McRae, 1992). For example, Asendorpf and Wilpers (1998) found extraversion to be positively associated with the number of friends made and the time spent interacting with them. Extraverted individuals, however, can be outspoken and domineering (John, 1989), characteristics that can hurt social relationships. But we theorize that extraverted individuals may curtail these domineering tendencies with developers who are usually of higher status. Thus, on balance because highly extraverted individuals handle social situations well (Goldberg, 1999), we expect extraversion to foster close relationships with developers. 442 P.-C. Wu et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 440–448 Hypothesis 2. Extraversion relates positively to (a) intimacy and (b) communication frequency. Individuals who are more neurotic tend to have large mood swings, poor emotional control, and experience negative affect, stress, and anxiety (Costa & McCrae, 1992). These individuals often have less intimate and satisfying relationships (White, Hendrick, & Hendrick, 2004). High neuroticism individuals are usually poor at handling interpersonal differences, and adopt an avoidance conflict management strategy (Antonioni, 1998) characterized by a reluctance to communicate their needs to others. More broadly, neuroticism results in greater vengefulness, or attempts to redress perceived offenses (McCullough, Bellah, Kilpatrick, & Johnson, 2001). Such vengefulness might sour relationships with others, especially when misunderstandings or tensions arise in developmental relationships. Individuals with low emotional stability (i.e., high neuroticism) are also less likely to initiate developmental relationships with others (Turban & Dougherty, 1994). Therefore, we hypothesize that neurotic individuals will have less close relationships with developers. Hypothesis 3. Neuroticism relates negatively to (a) intimacy and (b) communication frequency. High openness to experience individuals tend to be curious, to be flexible, to be receptive to ideas, to seek novelty and to explore the environment (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Because these individuals are drawn to novelty (Goldberg, 1999), they might solicit advice from several developers rather than to build a relationship based on intensive interactions with one individual. Thus, high openness individuals could communicate less frequently with a specific developer and instead communicate with a wider range of people. The effects of openness to experience on intimacy are mixed; high openness individuals get pleasure from connecting with others, but may not spend enough time with each individual to build intimate bonds. Thus, we expect that openness to experience will be negatively related to communication frequency, but we do not predict a relationship of openness to experience to intimacy. Hypothesis 4. Openness to experience relates negatively to communication frequency. Finally, high agreeableness individuals are warm, trusting, cooperative, helpful and show empathy. Agreeableness is a prosocial trait that describes how people conduct interpersonal relationships, such that high agreeableness individuals tend to have more intimate, satisfying, and secure relationships (Ansell & Pincus, 2004; White et al., 2004). Agreeable individuals communicate more effectively and tend to contact informants more frequently to obtain job search information (Wanberg, Kanfer, & Banas, 2000). Perhaps not surprisingly a recent study found agreeableness led to better interactions and adjustment for expatriate managers (Shaffer, Harrison, Gregersen, Black, & Ferzandi, 2006). Thus, we hypothesize that: Hypothesis 5. Agreeableness relates positively to (a) intimacy and (b) communication frequency. 1.2. Relationship closeness and developer assistance Considerable evidence indicates that individuals with more (versus fewer) close relationships obtain more social resources (Granovetter, 1973; Seibert et al., 2001). Similarly, social support and relational connections enhance career progress (Phillips, Christopher-Sisk, & Gravion, 2001). For example, individuals may turn to their siblings (Schultheiss, Palma, Predragovich, & Glasscock, 2002) for emotional support when making career decisions. Beyond the family circle, individuals can benefit from others that they are close to (Bozionelos, 2003; Higgins & Kram, 2001; Seibert et al., 2001) by getting career developmental assistance. Recent evidence demonstrates that ‘‘interpersonal comfort”, which is conceptually similar to relationship closeness, is related to mentoring assistance received by protégés (Allen, et al., 2005). Studies on supervisor-subordinate relationships also find interpersonal comfort (Fairhurst, 1993) and liking (Liden, Wayne, & Stillwell, 1993) to increase assistance provided and quality of relationships, respectively. Thus, we theorize that intimacy will be related to more developmental assistance. Hypothesis 6. Intimacy relates positively to (a) psychosocial and (b) career assistance. More frequent communication should increase the level of developmental assistance provided to individuals. Frequent communication results in more sharing of information and knowledge, and greater assistance (Reagans & McEvily, 2003). Furthermore, frequent contact and communication makes individuals more noticeable, which may influence the attitudes others develop toward them, as well the assistance provided to them (Becerra & Gupta, 2003). Focusing on mentoring relationships, time spent with mentors is related to the amount of mentoring assistance received (Noe, 1988). Similarly, studies on formal mentoring relationships suggest that interaction frequency increases developmental assistance received (Allen et al., 2006). To summarize, individuals who communicate more frequently with their career developers should get more assistance from their developers (Kram, 1985; Noe, 1988). Hypothesis 7. Communication frequency relates positively to (a) psychosocial and (b) career assistance. P.-C. Wu et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 440–448 443 1.3. Career developer assistance and career success We replicate prior research and examine the relationships between career and psychosocial assistance with objective and subjective measures of career success. In her seminal work, Kram (1985) discussed two major mentoring functions—career and psychosocial mentoring—and most research has examined these functions. Career mentoring should enhance task-related capabilities, whereas psychosocial mentoring enhances the junior colleague’s sense of competence and identity in the professional role (Kram, 1985). Career assistance provided should enhance objective and subjective measures of career success in terms of promotions, and career satisfaction. Psychosocial mentoring should be related only to subjective career success and such expectations are consistent with recent meta-analytic results (Allen et al., 2004). H8a. Psychosocial assistance relates positively to career satisfaction. H8b. Career assistance relates positively to career satisfaction and promotions. The hypothesized relationships are shown in Fig. 1. Although we hypothesize a fully mediated model, we also test alternative models in which personality and relationship closeness have direct effects on the ‘‘downstream” variables.