An Understusied Antecedant

An understudied antecedent: Personality incongruence in the mentoring dyad. One of the antecedents of negative mentoring experiences that needs more scholarly attention, is dyadic incongruency. While the mentoring literature has acknowledged the importance of matching the mentor and protégé carefully, often formal mentoring programmes fall short of best practices in dyadic matching. Ironically, mentoring, often touted as an HR best practice, can turn into a wholly dissatisfying experience for the protégé.

A more nuanced understanding of dyadic matching can pave the way for better practices that would be more likely to lead to mutual identification and greater interpersonal comfort, which are the key requirements for a successful mentoring relationship (Allen et al., 2005; Allen et al., 2006). For example, greater mentor input into the matching process was found to be negatively related to nepotism (Parise & Forret, 2008).

This understanding can be achieved by studying personality types, given that there is a recurring behaviour pattern due to perceived ways of thinking and perceiving (Hogan, 1991). So why study personality and not any other type of congruence?

After all there are many other types of dyadic incongruencies such as in experiences, interests, and communication styles (Arnold & Johnson, 1997), to demographic variables such as age or tenure in the organization (Fagenson-Eland, Baugh, & Lankau, 2005). mismatch of values, personality, and workstyles have also been identified as barriers to relationship effectiveness by both protégés (Eby et al., 2004) and mentors (Eby & Lockwood, 2005), and as a barrier to learning too (Lentz, 2007).

 In congruence studies it is suggested that deep similarity variables (including personality and values) appear to have more far-reaching consequences than surface similarity (such as gender, age and race). For example one study suggests that protégés paired with mentors of similar and different races, were more satisfied with mentors whom they perceived to be more like themselves in outlook, values, or perspective (not necessarily racial similarity) (Eshner & Murphy, 1997).

 Furthermore, deep similarity has been found to have strong predictive value in other literature apart from mentoring too, for example in children’s friendships (Newcomb & Bagwell, 1995) and romantic relationships (Gaunt, 2006).

Studies have suggested that dyadic congruence in relation to the deep similarity variable of personality is a strong antecedent for positive mentoring for the protégé, mentor, and the dyadic relationship (Mitchell, Eby, & Ragins, 2015; Menges, 2016). However, more research on incongruence in personalities is required. It is only when both sides of the coin are understood that suitable matching of mentor–protégé pairs can be accomplished.

The few studies on personality mismatch are from the perspective of perceived similarity or dissimilarity in the dyad (Madia & Lutz, 2004). While personal identification, or oneness with the other, is obviously a strong dynamic (Ashforth, Schinoff, & Rogers, 2016), this study is specifically examining outcomes in the context of lack of personal identification in a dyadic relationship.

This study on actual dissimilarity can provide results of considerable value for practitioners for the purposes of adequately matching the mentoring pair before the mentoring process begins (Menges, 2016), by possibly indicating which employees are more likely to flourish in a mentoring relationship, and which are not (Scandura & Pellegrini, 2007).

So far, the research on negative mentoring experiences from the protégé perspective has been largely inductive, clearly showing that mismatch in the personality dyad is a matter of concern for protégés (Eby et al., 2000). It also seems to be widespread: In a meta-analysis of 151 research papers from 1986–2000, about one-third mentioned negative mentor outcomes, with both mentors and protégés referring to personal or professional incompatibility as a thorn in the flesh of their relationship (Hansford, Tennent, & Ehrich, 2002).

In a leading study from the protégé perspective, ‘personality mismatch’ in the mentoring dyad was referred to a little vaguely by the respondents as dissimilar personalities and habits (Eby, McManus & Russell, 2000). In a subsequent study this was described as ‘bad fit in the mentor-protégé relationship due to differences in personality, for example if one in the dyad was an introvert while the other was an extrovert’ (Eby & Allen, 2002, p 460). 

In these papers Eby uses the words poor dyadic fit, dissimilarity in the dyad and mismatch in the dyad more or less interchangeably. This reflects several other studies of congruence in organizational research, in which references are made to fit, matching, similarity and agreement (Edwards, 1993).

In the supervisor-subordinate literature, the terms personality similarity, homogeneity (and heterogeneity) and personality congruence are drawn upon (Glomb, & Welsh, 2005; Bernerth, Armenakis, Feild, Giles & Walker, 2008; Zhang, Wang & Shi, 2012). I shall be using the term personality congruence (and incongruence) as this is widely used in organizational research and beyond, in many other areas of study too, for example sports coaching (Jackson, Dimmock, Gucciardi, & Grove, 2011). (For operationalization of personality as Big 5 see section ).

In terms of dyadic congruence, research on the perceptions of either the protégé or the mentor predominate the literature. Although a few studies have examined actual matching of personality, operationalized as Big Five, these have been largely in relation to successful mentoring relationships. No systematic empirical study has been made of actual personality congruence and incongruence in the dyad.

2.4.2 Outcomes in the Mentoring Literature. A host of studies indicate that there are several positive instrumental and career-related protégé outcomes of mentoring, such as compensation, promotion, and perceived career success (Allen et al., 2004; Eby & Allen, 2002; Eby, Allen et al., 2008;Kammeyer-Mueller, & Judge, 2008; Ng, Eby, Sorenson, & Feldman,2005; Underhill, 2006).  Later, building on the positive organizational scholarship movement (Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003), researchers then extended the range of mentoring outcomes to include subjective states in the mentoring relationship, such as protégé well-being (Eby, Durley, Evans, & Ragins, 2006) (See Table 2.5).