Influence Of Mentoring On Achievement Motivation In Leadership Role As Perceived By Extension Workers In Iran

Refereed Paper

Karami, Roya; Ismail, Maimunah; Binti Omar, Zoharah; Binti Abdul Wahat, Nor Wahiza

Abstract

The effect of mentoring on career outcome has been heavily researched worldwide but there has been a gap in knowledge why mentoring results in this positive career outcome. One of the probable reasons is the effect of mentoring on employees’ self-efficacy. Thus, this paper aimed at examining the effect of mentoring on achievement motivation in leadership role by considering the mediating effect of self-efficacy. The respondents of this study were 123 extension workers of Jihad-e-Agriculture organizations of Kermanshah and Tehran provinces, Iran. The study focused on extension workers because leadership is a fundamental task of these human resource professionals. The study results show that extension workers’ self-efficacy is significantly increased by mentoring, and self-efficacy is positively related to achievement motivation. The study further supports the partial mediating effect of self-efficacy on the relationship between mentoring and achievement motivation of the extension workers.

Keywords: Extension workers, Leadership role, Achievement motivation, Mentoring, Self-efficacy.

Introduction

Bandura’s social cognitive theory reveals that self-efficacy beliefs are cultivated through four information sources namely vicarious learning, affective, physiological, and verbal persuasions (Bandura, 2000). Vicarious learning is one of the processes closely related to mentoring. A mentor through career functions should sponsor, coach, exposure/visibility, and protect the provision of challenging assignments (Day & Allen, 2004). The accomplishment of such a mentor functions could emerge through mentee’s learning, from direct experience or observation of mentor which could be based on mentee vicarious learning and capability as one of the sources of self-efficacy beliefs. Vicarious learning alters efficacy beliefs through transmission of competencies and comparison with the attainment of others (Bandura, 2000). Further, the mentor could help in performance accomplishments by provision of challenging task or verbal persuasion. Therefore, a mentor through career functions could be considered as a source of information for cultivation of self-efficacy while emotional arousal is more related to psychological function of mentor which is beyond the scope of this paper.

A mentor as a role model could simultaneously transmit new ways of thinking and behaving to many people in different areas, which in a cognitive processing of efficacy it becomes a valuable experience (Bandura, 2006). Self-efficacy as proposed by Bandura (1989) is a cognitive ability that in a reciprocal relationship with environmental factor (e.g. Mentoring) affects individuals’ behavior, one of which is achievement motivation. Thus, this article aims to examine the mediating effect of self-efficacy on the relationships of mentoring and achievement motivation in leadership role as perceived by extension workers in Iran. The article is organized as follows: the background of this study in terms of the importance of achievement motivation in leadership role of extension agents in Iran will be presented in the next section. It is followed by the literature review on achievement motivation, mentoring, and self-efficacy. The article continues to present the methodological procedures and results of the study. The article ends with discussion, conclusion and practical implication of this study.

Background of the study

Philosophically, one of the roles of extension workers is to encourage clients in community to bring about their development and that of society following an appropriate approach in democratic ways (Chauhan, 2007). The role of extension is consistent with the leadership definition as a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals in the community to achieve a common goal in a democratic way (Northouse, 2007). It is understood that extension philosophy is all about leading clients to achieve

life wellbeing. When the social, economic, and political situations have evolved, the roles of extension workers also change into a more complex and interconnected role, which need different mindsets and different ways of thinking. The role of extension workers evolves from someone who merely delivers contents of technological information to a facilitator that facilitates progress, creates a vision (Morse, Brown, & Warning, 2006), builds capacities and teamwork (Vijayaragavan, Singh, & Wason, 2005) which are all criteria of leadership role.

The extension work is based upon some principles, which the knowledge of these principles is necessary for an extension worker. Past literature in extension used to capture the role of “local leaders” as one of the principles that extension systems have to adhere to (Franco, 1960), while in recent literature the term has been replaced by “leadership development” (Nisha, 2006). Leadership development among rural people relates to a process of strengthening groups by enhancing the capacity of members to work together effectively (Vijayaragavan et al., 2005). Although the use of local leader has always been an important principle (Malekmohammadi, 2000) but the differences are mainly rely on the development of leadership abilities among clients instead of using the available leaders. However, the emphasis on leadership development of extension agents to rural people is always missing although there is an increasing attention to keep extension professionals updated and motivated. For that, Chauhan (2007) has extended the principles of extension by considering “principle of trained specialists” and “principle of workers encouragement”. But yet there is a lack of study on factors influencing achievement motivation in leadership role that could help update extension workers’ role model task to the clients.

The leadership role of extension agents is important from three perspectives of extension organization, extension agents and extension clients. The importance of extension agents’ leadership role from the organizational aspect relates to rapid changes and transition of agricultural extension organizations (Khalil, Maimunah, Turiman, & Abu Daud, 2009). The changes involve usage of new sustainable technologies in the farming system such as high-yielding varieties of paddy, biotechnology, and modern communication resulting from economic liberalization, population explosion, and solutions toward poverty and unemployment (Vijayaragavan et al., 2005). Thus, extension organization structure needs to transform from one that emphasizes functional hierarchy to more customer-driven with a cost-effective approach, which requires flexible methods to meet the changing customer needs. It is a criterion of ‘learning organization’ that requires the concept of leadership be expanded beyond the individual to group functions in order to face any emergent challenge (Allen & Morton, 2006). To effectively make the transition from a functional hierarchy to learning organization, leadership practices would supplement organizational bureaucracy (Ladewig & Rohs, 2000). In such an environment personnel motivation would change as time and conditions change (Sadighi, 2006), as well as skills and knowledge would quickly become expired.

The importance of leadership role to the extension agents is also related to external and internal changes in response to the rapid development of ocial, economic, and environmental conditions globally (Ladewig & Rohs, 2000). In such an environment, skills and knowledge quickly become obsolete and new skills and practices have to replace the old ones (Vijayaragavan et al., 2005). Successful performance of new roles calls for efficient extension professionals with skills of modern management practices such as leadership (Vijayaragavan et al., 2005). The leadership role nowadays is used as part of extension agents’ performance appraisal (Fabusoro, Awotunde, Sodiya, & Alarima, 2008) and it is one of the required competencies of extension agents (Vijayaragavan & Ghosh, 2006). The leadership role of extension agents will become even more important as resources and staff become more limited and task become varied in the new era of changes (Ladewig & Rohs, 2000). Issue of motivational factors of leadership achievement is important among the extension agents considering the fact that having an efficient cadre of extension agents is one of the principles of extension (Chauhan, 2007).

The third perspective on the importance of extension agents’ leadership role is related to the extension clients. Leadership development is important in rural area because skilful leader is one of the determinants for success of agricultural cooperative (Androulidakis, 2001). Goff, Lindner, and Dooley (2007) find cooperative as the best-suited institution that helps developed farmers in agricultural development. Specifically, they find that achievements of agricultural cooperatives depend on democratic processes and bottom-up decision making. Bottom-up decision making is about improving the leadership

competencies of extension clients, which is also considered as a criterion for long-term sustainability. This necessitates the extension agents to act as a role model to the client, i.e. They should possess the leadership role. Thus an investigation of extension agent’s leadership achievement motivation and the related influencing factors could be a meaningful contribution to extension organizations, agents and clients especially in a country like Iran which depends on the performance of the extension system in rural development.

Achievement motivation

Achievement motivation is defined as a tendency to try hard in the direction of performance excellence (Cox, 2008). Achievement motivation theorists try to clarify the term to individual’s choice of achievement tasks, persistence on those tasks and vigor in carrying them out (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). By using Bandura’s social cognitive as her theoretical foundation, Farmer (1997), relates to achievement motivation to three dimensions, namely, aspiration, mastery, and salience. Bandura’s social cognitive theory asserts that self-regulatory systems mediate outer affects and present a foundation for purposeful action. The self-regulatory process permits people to control their own thoughts, feelings, motivations, and actions and forms through reciprocal influence of self and outer sources which consist of social and moral standards of motivation. The motivational standards guide the behavior in a process of “discrepancy production” (goal setting) and “discrepancy reduction” (work to attain a goal). The process of goal arrangement and then comparison of goal with personal achievement is a common event. This comparison of goals with standards and personal achievement could motivate a person to work harder or change their behavior (Stone, 1998). One could argue that discrepancy production through desire for goal setting is aspiration motive and hard working to attain a goal is near to mastery motive and commitment (salience). Consistent with London and Noe’s (1997) study that they considered desire for goal setting as an indicator of situational characteristics that affects aspiration, and working hard to attain a goal as supporter of mastery and salience motive. But researchers who study achievement motivation are interested in why individuals engaged in the variety of achievement related behaviors they do. According to Bandura’s social cognitive theory it is personal and environmental factors that affect human behavior including achievement motivation (Bandura, 2006). Thus, in the present research mentoring considered as one of the environmental factors affecting achievement motivation and self-efficacy is a personal factor variable that could mediate the relationship of mentoring and achievement motivation.

Mentoring

The origins of mentoring term are in Greek mythology, which mostly has been related to the teaching and learning process which an experienced and older person acts as role model of others and as a medium of learning (Mincemoyer & Thomson, 1998; Strouse, Sieverdes, & Hecht, 2005). In workplace a mentor is defined as an experienced employee who acts as a role model and gives feedback, support and guidance for mentee and committed to the mentee’s success. Two comprehensive mentoring functions of mentors include career and psychosocial functions. Career functions related to sponsorship, coaching, exposure/visibility, protection and the provision of challenging assignments. Psychosocial functions include role modeling, counseling, friendship and acceptance (Day & Allen, 2004). According to Noe (1988) psychosocial functions of mentoring affect job involvement and career planning activity. Kram (1983) and Lease (2005) assert that an experienced mentor will be a good source for raising an employee’s self-esteem, self-confidence and sense of competence that could result in career success, achievement, satisfaction, motivation and progression. Ottino (2009) additionally explains that mentoring increases skill transfer in considerable amount, for example, in the stage of abstract learning, 5%; proposing application of ideas, 10%; observing practice gaining work experience, 20%; obtaining feedback, 25%; reflecting on actions 90%.

Researchers argue that mentor relationships take place in a series of successive events in a lifetime, each with its own life cycle and time-line (Kram, 1983). Strouse, Sieverdes and Hecht (2005) identified four stages in the protégé-mentor relationship. The first stage relates to beginning of the mentee-mentor relationship. The second stage is a stage of debate between two parties and finding of new manner of acting and attitudes. Acquisition of new manner of acting and attitudes by mentee is the starting point of stage three which most of the significant learning has taken place in this time. During this stage the

protégé constructs confidence and gains sense of empowerment for moving. In stage four mentee will redefine self and look for more independence. It could be interpreted that a mentor provides the raw data of raising self-efficacy in first three stages, which in last stage the information becomes real experience and self-efficacy will rise in this stage.

Simmonds and Zammit Lupi’s (2010) study on an innovative e-mentoring program found that e-mentoring as an efficient and effective method for the development of employees whose time and geographical limitations may prevent their face-to-face meetings and traditional off-job training. They further declare that to ensure the quality of e-mentoring relationships, the mentee needs to actively participate in initial matching process. The initial matching process includes selection and weighting the criteria for mentor, undertakes an initial meeting to test the workability of the relationships, and evaluation of the learning experience by both mentor and mentee. Also, there are extra limitations in e-mentoring due to lack of verbal cues and clues, time zones, and perceived imbalance power through electronic communication process.

There are different aspects that have to be considered in mentoring. They are gender preferences, cultural differences, time spent in mentoring relationship and the type of mentoring whether formal or informal relationships (Strouse et al., 2005). Also relevant are the effect of gender roles and age on mentee-mentor relationship and beneficial results of a formal mentoring program for the mentee, the mentor, and the organization. Also, varying sources of mentoring in different life stages are discussed. But one question that needs to be asked who is the source of mentoring in the workplace; supervisors, pairs and in which situation whether formal or informal? London and Noe (1997) reveals that working for a boss that serves as an ideal role model and support employees’ development may be a source of resilience, insight, and identity development. It is true and important finding that a good boss could be a role model and acts as a source of motivation for achievement but, still the effect of similarity or dissimilarity of positions in organization hierarchy between mentor and mentee is still questionable.

The research results about gender similarity between mentor and mentee are inconsistent, for example, Strouse, Sieverdes and Hecht (2005) find that male mentee largely self-selects male mentors while female mentee equally chooses male and female mentors. One recent study concludes that opposite sex mentoring has advantages and also hazards. The advantages of opposite sex mentoring for women is an “in” or in the other word entrance to the good old boy network while hazard of women opposite sex mentoring may happen when the good old boys have the power to damage women’s dignity, intelligence, stature, and credibility (Ottino, 2009).

Day and Allen (2004) study the relations between career motivation as a mediator of the relationship between mentoring and measures of job success. They conclude that mentored individuals do report higher levels of job motivation than those who have not been mentored, while findings only partially support the mediator role of job self-efficacy as a component of job motivation in relations to mentoring and job success.

Ricciardi ( 2005) investigates the outcome of a one-year mentoring program conducted for entry-level administrators. They analyzed mentoring outcomes and showed that the participants who experienced more hours in mentoring relationships rated higher career and psychosocial support. Although, the respondents’ gender, race, position and school level, and paired similarity did not significantly affect the mentoring outcomes. The author further suggested some consideration for policy makers in designing mentoring programs that should consist of supporting both functions of mentoring, policies regarding duration, mentor training and pairing, and program goals (Ricciardi, 2005).

Mincemoyer and Thomson (1998) studied a planned mentoring program in Pennsylvania State Cooperative Extension's. They found that when both mentor and mentee were accountable in the same programs, it provided more favorable time for communication during program planning and more chance for interaction and professional progression activities. Geographic nearness of mentors and protégés was recognized as a facilitative feature. Successful mentoring relationships were found to be related to shared variety and frequency of information particularly about program development or technical/subject

Mentoring Achievement motivation

Self-efficacy

information. Also, the initiation of contact through face-to-face mentoring meetings in first possible time and in a friendship manner seems to assist the victory of the mentoring relationships.

Thus, based on the reviewed literature the direct effect of mentoring in positive career outcome is well supported, while this paper in addition to direct will investigate indirect effects of mentoring through self-efficacy on achievement motivation.

Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy has been acknowledged as having an advanced development in the field of psychology (Borgen & Betz, 2008; Pajares & Urdan, 2006). Originated from Bandura’s Social Learning Theory, it is defined as peoples’ beliefs regarding their ability to effectively carry out a given task (Bandura, 2006). Self-efficacy has been used as a mediator in studies of people’s behavior and behavioral change (Hampton, 2005; Pajares & Urdan, 2006; Burke, 2005). Hence, it is believed that phenomena such as human motivation, learning, self-regulation and accomplishment, well-being and success in life could not be explained without discussing the function of self-efficacy. Bandura (2006) further explains that different contexts in which people develop their efficacy shape different levels of self-efficacy, which is unique to any individual. As alluded to earlier, self-efficacy beliefs are cultivated through four information sources, which according to Leal (2006) it is interpret as vicarious learning.

Bandura asserts that perceived efficacy, in addition to direct effect, also indirectly affects people’s behavior through affecting people beliefs about the goal, the challenging task they choose to do and how much attempt they put forth in given tasks, and their commitment to the tasks (Bandura, 2006). The literature about self-efficacy shows that there are extensive support for the role of self-efficacy in determining work related performance (Steers, Mowday, & Shapiro, 2004). Cox (2008) further reveals that self-efficacy is essential for women to aspire to move into leadership positions, likewise to feel confident in their abilities for performing this role. Also, findings of a recent study show the effects of self-efficacy to work-related performance controls for personality, intelligence or general mental ability, and job or task experience. Although a meta-analysis of the relevant literatures explained that self-efficacy mostly predict the job or job roles performance with small complexity but could not predict those job or job roles with medium or high complexity (Judge, Jackson, Shaw, Scott, & Rich, 2007). Larson et al., (2007) studied Taiwanese students and found that self-efficacy significantly contributing to students’ choice for majors and in their future goals such as career aspirations. Leal (2006) also found that aspirations and mastery motivation were positively related to non-traditional career self-efficacy. In addition, she verified significant moderation effect for ethnic identity in the relationship of mastery motivation and non-traditional career self-efficacy. Efizah, Maimunah, and Jegak (2009) found a positive linear relationships between self-efficacy and the professionals’ career aspirations among R&D professionals in Malaysian government research institutes. They further found that self-efficacy as the main contributor to the professionals’ career aspiration.

Based on the above reviews and the research framework generated as indicated in Figure 1, we therefore hypothesize that:

H1: There is a positive relationship between mentoring and self-efficacy. H2: There is a positive relationship between mentoring and achievement motivation. H3: There is a positive relationship between self-efficacy and achievement motivation. H4: Self-efficacy mediates the relationship between mentoring and achievement motivation.

Figure 1: The research framework

Methods

The respondents of this study were 123 extension workers of Jihad-e-Agriculture organizations of Kermanshah and Tehran provinces in Iran. A simple random sampling was conducted to determine the study respondents in which half of the counties in each province were randomly selected and then all of the extension workers of those counties were considered as the research respondents. Although the number of sample size is previously decided based on the number of population but scholars who use Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) mostly discuss the importance of determining sample size based on the number of variables and complexity of framework. The sample size could be ranging from 10 to 20 respondents per variable (Schumacker & Lomax, 2010). Thus, the number of participants by having 5 variables including mentoring, self-efficacy, and three dimension of achievement motivation (aspiration, mastery, and salience) and considering the highest number of case per variable was calculated as 100 and decided to have a little more than 100 which is the minimum according to Kline (2008). The numbers of collected questionnaires were 123. A questionnaire was prepared as the instrument of the study and it was distributed using ‘drop-and-pick’ procedures to the respondents.

Achievement motivation was measured through three dimensions, namely, aspiration, mastery, and salience. Aspiration is measured by the coping version of career aspiration scale of O’Brien Gray, Tourajdi, and Eigenbrode (1996) cited in (Cannon, 2004; Hensley, 2002; Leal, 2006) that was translated to Persian and adapted in Karami, Maimunah, and Rahim (2011). The Cronbach's alpha for the Persian adapted version was .877. The CAS is composed of 10 items and uses a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “not at all true of me” to “very true of me”. The edited version of the Work and Family Orientation Questionnaire (WOFO) designed by Helmreich and Spence 1978 cited in (Leal, 2006) was used to measure the mastery motivation with original reliability of .61. Respondents responded to 8 items using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. The latest version of salience scale developed by Farmer (1997) was used to assess the respondents salience toward achievement motivation. The modification of scale was included to change some wording in addition to reducing the number of items from 16 to 10 to make it more relevant for extension agents’ achievement motivation. The responses ranged in five-point Likert from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

The self-efficacy was assessed using General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE) designed for the general adult population. It is a 10-item self-reported measure, intended to assess a general sense of perceived self-efficacy. The response level includes not at all true (1), barely true (2), moderately true (3), and exactly true (4) (Burke, 2005). By summing the responses to all items, the GSE yields a total composite score. Higher scores on the GSE indicate a higher sense of general self-efficacy.

To measure mentoring the adapted version of scale developed by Ricciardi ( 2005) was used. The original scale was developed by Noe (1988) with 21 items to identify mentoring outcomes. The scale assesses mentoring outcomes on two functions including career and psychological functions (Noe, 1988), which in this study only the career function of scale was used with five item. The response ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). No modification was made on this scale; however, several questions were added regarding the characteristics of respondents’ mentor such as gender, position, as well as formal and informal types of mentoring.

Data analysis

Profile of the respondents

The analysis of respondents’ demographic characteristics (Table 1) shows that a total of 73.2% of the respondents are male while 26.8% are female. The majority of respondents (64.3%) age 30 to 50 years old (mean=40, SD=9.44) and most of the respondents have a bachelor (74.0%) degree.

Nearly two-third of respondents (65.0 %) reported having mentor in their career. Most of the respondents (73 of 80) who engaged in mentoring had male mentor. A little more than half of respondents (57.7%) preferred gender similarity with their mentor. Most of respondents disagreed with a view about position similarity with their mentor (65.9%). Also, 40.7% of the respondents reported that they prefer defining the

mentor relationship in a formal structure of organization while 13.0% preferred informal mentor and 46.3% think both formal and informal could be useful.

Table 1: Demographics and mentoring profile of respondentsCharacteristics Frequency PercentageGender

Male Female

9033

73.226.8

Age (mean=40, SD=9.44 years)≥ 3030 - 40 41 – 5051 ≤

23433621

18.735.029.317.1

Education levelDiploma 9 7.3Technician 5 4.1Bachelor 91 74.0Master 18 14.6

Having MentorYesNo

8043

65.035.0

Male or Female mentorMale mentorFemale mentorNo mentor

73743

59.35.735.0

Gender Similarity with mentorYes No

7152

57.742.3

Position Similarity with mentorYesNo

4281

34.165.9

Formal and Informal mentorFormalInformal Both formal and informal

501657

40.713.046.3

Developing and assessing validity of measurement model

The measurement model was assessed to provide empirical evidence about the relationships among latent variable and its related items. In measurement model a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to determine the degree of model fit, the adequacy of factor loadings (construct validity), and average amount of variance explained by items in each construct (convergence validity) for the measurement variables. Also the reliability of each construct was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha (see Figure 2).

Results of the measurement model analysis showed that self-efficacy (with 5 items), mentoring (with 4 items), and dimensions of achievement motivation including aspiration (with 4 items) mastery (with 5 items) and salience (with 4 items), was found to fit the model. Some items were excluded from the analysis due to low standardized regression coefficients (below .5). After removing the items with low coefficient, the remaining items showed meaningful fit model (see Table 2 and Figure 2). The results of measurement model assessment revealed good fit indices as follows: x2 (199) = 321.265, p =.000, x2/¿ d.f. = 1.614, GFI = .816, AGFI= .767, CFI = .919, NFI= .815, TLI = .906, IFI=.920, RMSEA = .071. Further, construct validity assessment showed that all confirmed items had standardized factor loading (regression coefficients) higher than 0.5 on their underlying constructs (values ranged from .52 to .95), which all were significant at 0.001. Moreover, the average variance extracted (AVE) from all constructs,

exceeded the minimum criterion of 0.50, indicating that the majority of the variance was explained by the constructs (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010) (see Table 2). The reliability was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha. The alpha values for three constructs ranged from .824 to .887. As shown in the Table 2, each construct exceeds the minimum requirement of 0.7, ensuring adequate internal consistency.

Figure 2: The measurement model of the study assessing the instrument validity

Table 2: The results of confirmatory factor analysis for measurement model

Constructs and indicators Standardized factor loadings

Cronbach’s alpha AVE

[Mentoring] .856 .615˗ Mentoring, item 1 .78˗ Mentoring, item 2 .84˗ Mentoring, item 3 .74˗ Mentoring, item 4 .79[Self-efficacy] .859 .556˗ Self-efficacy, item 1 .70˗ Self-efficacy, item 2 .80˗ Self-efficacy, item 3 .67˗ Self-efficacy, item 4 .77˗ Self-efficacy, item 5 .78[Aspiration] .882 .672˗ Aspiration, item 1 .65˗ Aspiration, item 2 .95˗ Aspiration, item 3 .69˗ Aspiration, item 4 .94[Mastery] .887 .616˗ Mastery, item 1 .81˗ Mastery, item 2 .52˗ Mastery, item 3 .88˗ Mastery, item 4 .79˗ Mastery, item 5 .88[Salience] .824 .555˗ Salience, item 1 .80˗ Salience, item 2 .92˗ Salience, item 3 .66˗ Salience, item 4 .55

x2 (199) = 321.265, p =.000, x2/¿ d.f. = 1.614, GFI = .816, AGFI= .767, CFI = .919, NFI= .815, TLI = .906, IFI=.920, RMSEA = .071

Note: GFI = Goodness-of-Fit IndexAGFI= Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit IndexCFI= Comparative Fit IndexNFI= Normed Fit IndexTLI = Tucker-Lewis IndexIFI= Incremental Fit IndexRMSEA= Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

AVE = Average Variance Extracted Source: Ho (2006)

Specifying and assessing validity of structural model

The results of the analysis in direct model indicate that the data fit the model: x2 (13) = 17.354, p = .184; GFI = .957, AGFI = .907, CFI = .983, NFI=.936, TLI = .972, IFI=.983, RMSEA = .052 (see Figure 3). The

hypothesis path model shows direct effect of mentoring on achievement motivation which is significant by the critical ratio test (>±1.96 , p<.05), (see Figure 3). Further, the model explains 24% of variance.

Also the data was fit the overall model:x2 (51) = 78.048, p = .009; GFI = .909, AGFI = .860, CFI = .952, NFI=.876, TLI = .938, IFI=.953, RMSEA = .066 (see Figure 4). The regression weights and standardized regression weights for the hypothesized path model show that three coefficients are associated with the path model, that all of them are significant by the critical ratio test (>±1.96 , p<.05), (see Figure 4). Moreover the results of path model revealed that 39% of variance of the achievement motivation could be explained by predictor variables (which consist of mentoring and self-efficacy) in this path model.

Figure 3: The direct structural model of the study Table 3: Regression weights and standardized regression weights in the direct model

Hypothesized Relationships

Regression Weights EstimateB

S.E.

Standardized Regression WeightsBeta

C.R. P

Mentoring → Achievement motivation .257 .080 .488 3.195 .001

Figure 4: The structural model of the study showing the relationships between variables

Table 4: Regression weights and standardized regression weights in the hypothesized path model

Hypothesized Relationships

Regression Weights EstimateB

S.E.

Standardized Regression WeightsBeta

C.R. P

Mentoring → Self-efficacy .359 .085 .473 4.251 .000Mentoring → Achievement

motivation .154 .070 .287 2.202 .028

Self-efficacy → Achievement motivation .309 .105 .437 2.945 .003

H 1 stated that there is a significant relationship between mentoring and self-efficacy. Results of the standardized path coefficient show that the data were consistent with the hypothesis by indicating a significant positive relationship (B=.473, p = .000) between the variables. Therefore, hypothesis 1 is supported.

H 2 stated that there is a significant relationship between mentoring and achievement motivation. Results of the standardized path coefficient show that the data are consistent with the hypothesis by indicating a significant relationship (B=.287, p = .028) between the variables. Therefore, hypothesis 2 is supported.H 3 stated that there is a significant relationship between self-efficacy and achievement motivation. Results of the standardized path coefficient showed that the data are consistent with the hypothesis by indicating a significant positive relationship (B=.437, p = .003) between the variables. Therefore, hypothesis 3 was supported.

H 4 state that self-efficacy mediates the relationships between the mentoring as independent variable and achievement motivation as dependent variable in this study. The results of direct model show that mentoring had a significant direct relationships with achievement motivation (β = .488, p = .001). The results of overall model indicated that the indirect relationship between these variables through self-efficacy was significant (mentoring → self efficacy → achievement motivation) (β = .473, p = .000 and β = .437, p = .003, respectively). Also the indirect effect of mentoring on achievement motivation is significant (β = .287, p = .028). Thus, the analysis result supports the partial mediating effect of self-efficacy due to its reduced magnitude, but remains significant effect of mentoring on achievement motivation from direct to overall structural model in this study.

Discussion and conclusions

The study results showed that respondents mostly prefer male mentor that is consistent with findings of Strouse et al. (2005). Although as reported by Ricciardi ( 2005) the gender of mentor did not significantly affect the mentoring outcomes, but it could cause employees’ sense of comfort in terms of contact they make, especially about women who mostly prefer the same gender mentor. The respondents’ preference about position dissimilarity with their mentor, and desire for a mentor with higher position was another results of this study that supported by the study of London and Noe (1997) who revealed that working for a boss should serve as an ideal role model. By doing so, it should support employees’ development in terms of resilience, insight, and identity development. Furthermore, Strouse, Sieverdes and Hecht (2005) discussed the beneficial results of a formal mentoring program for employees, the mentor, and the organization as indicated in this study by around half of the respondents.

This study further showed that self-efficacy was significantly increased through mentoring and consistently self-efficacy was positively related to achievement motivation. Bandura asserts that different environmental situations (such as mentoring) are able to raise different levels of self-efficacy. Further, perceived self-efficacy does not only directly affect the people behavior but also it has indirect effect on other determinants such as aspiration, and even opportunities in the social environment. Efficacy beliefs affect people decision, the challenging task they are supposed to do and how much attempt they should put forth in a given tasks, as well as their commitment to the tasks. Thus, this study concludes that self-efficacy affects aspiration, mastery and salience dimensions of achievement motivation of extension workers. According to Cox (2008) self-efficacy is a career essential to aspire to move into higher positions, likewise to feel confident in their abilities for performing this role. This concurs with the study results of Efizah et al. (2009) on career aspiration of R&D professionals and Leal’s (2006) study on non-traditional career self-efficacy and aspirations as well as mastery motivation.

This study supports the direct effect of mentoring on career achievement motivation, consistent with Day and Allen (2004) who found mentored individuals did report higher levels of job motivation than those who had not been mentored. Bandura asserts that self-efficacy is the major mediator of people behavior and behavioral change (Hampton, 2005). The present study results also found self-efficacy as mediator with partial effect in the relationship between mentoring and achievement motivation. It is about similar with the study results of Day and Allen (2004) that partially supports the mediator role of job self-efficacy as a component of job motivation in the relationships between mentoring and job success.

The study has practical implications in mentoring at the workplace. Having employees who possess relevant attributes such as self-efficacy may not be sufficient to motivate them in leadership achievement if the environmental supports do not co-exist. The development of mentoring programs can help extension agents in their career functions through which it provides opportunities to learn new skills and understand the unwritten rules, and assist them in meeting the deadlines of given task, and suggest specific strategies for achieving career goals. At the same time, organizations could see the potential of mentoring as a powerful learning and developmental strategy which could be used in employee training at workplace. Thus mentoring could be considered as an effective way for on-the-job training among extension workers in Iran since it is inexpensive and by doing so it strengthens the communication network and interactional behaviors in organizations. It also concludes that there is a need on the

redefinition about the gender of those involved in mentoring whether similar or different genders, as well as their job positions. The study is unique due to its focus on mediating effect of self-efficacy on the relationships of mentoring and achievement motivation. Hence, future study is suggested in terms of considering the effect of both career and psychological functions of mentoring and possible mediating effect of self-esteem and competency on achievement motivation. Hence according to Kram (1983) an experienced mentor will be a good source for raising a mentee self-esteem, self-confidence and sense of competence. And also according to Bandura (1989) acquisition of knowledge and skills, which is a determinant of competency, is required for cognitive attainments, can mediate the relationship between mentoring and achievement motivation. A limitation of study is the small number of respondents, which according to Byrne (2010) may tend to over reject true population models. Another limitation is on the career function of mentoring, which future research is suggested to focus on both its psychological and career functions.

References:

Allen, B. L., & Morton, L. W. (2006). Generating self-organizing capacity: leadership practices and training needs in non-profits. Journal of Extension, 44(6).

Androulidakis, S. (2001). Leadership ability dimensions in relation to rural women’s personal characteristics: A methodological model for further consideration Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education 8(1), 39-46.

Bandura, A. (1989). Social Cognitive Theory. Annals of child development, 6, 1-60.

Bandura, A. (2000). Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), Handbook of principles of orgenization behavior. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing a self-eccicacy scales. In F. Pajares, & Urdan, T. C. (Ed.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents United State of America: IAP-Infornation Age Publishing ,Inc.

Borgen, F. H., & Betz, N. E. (2008). Career self-efficacy and personality: linking career confidence and the healthy personality. Journal of Career Assessment, 16(1), 22–43.

Burke, M. U. (2005). Family influence on self-efficacy: exploring the relationship between perceived parenting style, current social support, and self-efficacy belife in a sample of nontraditional college students (doctoral dissertation) Capella University, Minnesota.

Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS; basic concepts, applications, and programming (second edition ed.). New York, London: Taylor and Francis Group.

Cannon, S. C. (2004). Supporting first-year college women in math, science, and related majors: A Career Development Intervention (Doctoral dissertation). North Carolina State University, , United State.

Chauhan, J. (2007). Introduction to agricultural extension education. In Agricultural extension education. India: R. B. S. College, Bichpuri.

Cox, K. S. (2008). Motivational factors influencing women's decision to pursue upper-level administrative position in higher education (doctoral dissertation). Kansas State University Manhattan, Kansas

Day, R., & Allen, T. D. (2004). The relationship between career motivation and self-efficacy with protégé career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 72-91.

Efizah, S. R., Maimunah, I., & Jegak, U. (2009). Antecedents of career aspiration of R&D professionals in Malaysian Public Organizations. European Journal of Scientific Research, 26(1), 66-79.

Fabusoro, E., Awotunde, J. A., Sodiya, C. I., & Alarima, C. I. (2008). Status of Job Motivation and Job Performance of Field Level Extension Agents in Ogun State: Implications for Agricultural Development. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 14(2), 139-152.

Farmer, H. S. (1997). Women’s motivation related to mastery, career salience, and career aspiration: A multivariate model focusing on the effects of sex role socialization. Journal of Career Assessment, 5(2), 355-381.

Franco, J. D. (1960). Extension philosophy. Costa Rica: Inter-American Institute of Agricultural sciences, Turrilba

Goff, S., Lindner, J. R., & Dooley, K. E. (2007). Organizational and leadership development: A case study of three coffee cooperatives in Rwanda. Paper presented at the Internationalizing with Cultural Leadership, May 20 to 24, Polson, Montana.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. United State of Amreica Pearson education inc.

Hampton, N. Z. (2005). Testing for the structure of the career decision self-efficacy scale-short form among Chinese college students. Journal of Career Assessment, 13 (1), 98–113.

Hensley, L. (2002). The Influence of Gender Role and Gender Stereotyping on the Career Choice and Career Commitment of Adolescents (Publication. Retrieved 29 Jan, 2009: http:// www. Samford.edu/schools/artsci/scs/hensley.html.

Ho, R. (2006). Handbook of univariate and multivariate data analysis and interpretation with SPSS. United States of Americ: Chapman & Hall/CRC, Taylor & Francis Group.

Judge, T., Jackson, C., Shaw, J., Scott, B., & Rich, B. (2007). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: the integral role of individual differences. The Journal of Applied Psychology 92(1), 107-127.

Karami, R., Maimunah, I., & Rahim, M. S. (2011). Gender identity and career aspiration to top management of Malaysian graduate students. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 32,4 (December, 2011).

Khalil, A. H. O., Maimunah, I., Turiman, S., & Daud, S. A. (2009). Human resource development competencies as predictors of agricultural extension agents' performance in Yemen. Human Resource Development International, 12(4), 429-447.

Kline, R. B. (2008). Promise and pitfalls of structural equation modeling in gifted research. Prepublication version submitted April 15, 2008. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Books.

Kram, E. K. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 608-625.

Ladewig, H., & Rohs, F. R. (2000). Southern extension leadership development: Leadership development for a learning organization. Journal of Extension,, 38(3).

Larson, M. L., Wei, M., Wu, T. F., Borgen, H. F., & Bailey, C. D. (2007). Discriminating among educational majors and career aspirations in Taiwanese undergraduates: the contribution of personality and self-efficacy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(4), 395-408.

Leal, V. M. (2006). Predictors of non-traditional career self-efficacy in Mexican American adolescent women (doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University USA.

Lease, S. H. (2005). Decision-making difficulties: testing the role of race and academic institution effect of locus of control, work knowledge, and mentoring on career. Journal of Career Assessment, 12, 239-254.

London, M., & Noe, R. A. (1997). London’s career motivation theory: An update on measurement and research. Journal of Career Assessment, 5(1), 61-80.

Malekmohammadi, I. (2000). Agricultural extension education and human resourses. Tehran, Iran: Tehran University Publication

Mincemoyer, C. C., & Thomson, J. S. (1998). Establishing effective mentoring relationships for individual and organizational success. Journal of Extension, 36(2).

Morse, R. S., Brown, P. W., & Warning, J. E. (2006). Catalytic leadership: reconsidering the nature of extension's leadership role. Journal of Extension, 44(2).

Nisha, M. (2006). Understanding extension education. New Delhi, India: Kalpaz Publications.

Noe, R. A. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships Personnel Psychology, 41( 3), 457 - 479.

Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership theory and practice (fourth ed.). Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: SAGE Publication.

Ottino, K. L. (2009). Diminished aspiration: women central office administrators and the superintendency (doctoral dissertation). The University of Minnesota United State.

Pajares, F., & Urdan, T. C. (2006). Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents United State of America: IAP-Infornation Age Publishing ,Inc.

Ricciardi, D. ( 2005). Socializing and supporting new leaders: examining the mentor and Protégé relationship Paper presented at the Democracy in Educational Leadership: the unfinished journey toward justice, November Nashville, TN.

Sadighi, H. (2006). Factors affecting agricultural extension personnel's motivation level. Paper presented at the 22nd annual conference of AIAEE"International teamwork in agricultural and extension education", May14 to19 Clearwater beach, Florida.

Schumacker, R., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner's guide to Structural Equation Modeling New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Simmonds, D., & Lupi, A. M. Z. (2010). The matching process in e-mentoring: a case study in luxury hotels. Journal of European Industrial Training, 34(4), 300-316.

Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Shapiro, D. L. (2004). Introduction to special topic forum the future of work motivation theory. . Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 379-387.

Stone, D. (1998). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved 19, Sep, 2009, from www.infosihat.gov.my/.../Social%20Cognitive%20Theory.doc

Strouse, S. K., Sieverdes, C. M., & Hecht, U. S. (2005). Leadership mentor selection, developmental stages, and personal leadership development Paper presented at the 21st Annual Conference"Educational, Extension and Research Strategies for a Changing World", San Antonio.

Vijayaragavan, K., & Ghosh, S. (2006). Development oriented performance appraisal system to enhance productivity of extension professional Paper presented at the 22nd annual conference of AIAEE" International teamwork in agricultural and extension education", Clearwater Beach, Florida

Vijayaragavan, K., Singh, P., & Wason, M. (2005). Developing training modules for improving management skills of extension professionals. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Conference "Educational, Extension and Research Strategies for a Changing World", San Antonio, TX, pp. 13-24.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81.