Description
Turnover in public accounting firms is a critically important issue as firms seek to retain
quality accounting personnel in the face of skilled labour shortages. Mentoring is one initiative
that has been suggested as a means of reducing the high costs associated with
employee turnover. However, prior accounting research examining the association
between mentoring and turnover intentions has produced mixed results, which may be
due, at least in part, to difficulties in operationalizing the mentoring construct. Drawing
on recent management literature regarding organizational turnover intentions, we challenge
the conventional view that mentoring generally leads to reduced turnover intentions,
by testing a theoretical model that posits that different functions of mentoring have differing
effects on turnover intentions. Specifically, we argue that while the psychosocial support
function of mentoring can serve to reduce public accountants’ turnover intentions, the
career development function of mentoring has the potential to increase turnover intentions.
Results support this conclusion.
Mentoring and turnover intentions in public accounting
?rms: A research note
Matthew Hall
a,
*
, David Smith
b
a
Department of Accounting, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom
b
Department of Accounting and Finance, Monash University, 900 Dandenong Rd, Caul?eld East, Victoria, 3145, Australia
a b s t r a c t
Turnover in public accounting ?rms is a critically important issue as ?rms seek to retain
quality accounting personnel in the face of skilled labour shortages. Mentoring is one ini-
tiative that has been suggested as a means of reducing the high costs associated with
employee turnover. However, prior accounting research examining the association
between mentoring and turnover intentions has produced mixed results, which may be
due, at least in part, to dif?culties in operationalizing the mentoring construct. Drawing
on recent management literature regarding organizational turnover intentions, we chal-
lenge the conventional view that mentoring generally leads to reduced turnover intentions,
by testing a theoretical model that posits that different functions of mentoring have differ-
ing effects on turnover intentions. Speci?cally, we argue that while the psychosocial sup-
port function of mentoring can serve to reduce public accountants’ turnover intentions, the
career development function of mentoring has the potential to increase turnover inten-
tions. Results support this conclusion.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
In recent years there has been considerable interest sur-
rounding the development, operation and effects of men-
toring relationships within public accounting ?rms (see,
for example, Herbohn, 2004; Kaplan, Keinath, & Walo,
2001; Viator & Pasewark, 2005). A mentoring relationship
is an interpersonal exchange between a senior experienced
colleague (the mentor) and a less-experienced junior col-
league (the protégé) in which the mentor provides direc-
tion, support and feedback to the protégé regarding
career plans and personal development (Kram, 1985;
Russell & Adams, 1997). One of the strongest claims
regarding mentoring relationships is that they assist public
accounting ?rms in retaining employees (AICPA, 2007;
Gregg, 1999). However, despite numerous studies, it is un-
clear whether and how mentoring relationships affect pub-
lic accountants’ organizational turnover intentions. Simply
having a mentor does not necessarily result in lower turn-
over intentions; some studies ?nd a negative association
between having a mentor and intentions to leave the
accounting ?rm (Barker, Monks, & Buckley, 1999; Scandura
& Viator, 1994; Viator & Scandura, 1991), whereas others
report no association (Herbohn, 2004; Viator, 2001). Stud-
ies focusing on the support provided by a mentor to a
protégé also report mixed results. Some research ?nds that
both career development and psychosocial support are
associated with lower turnover intentions (Barker et al.,
1999; Herbohn, 2004), but other studies report mixed re-
sults (Scandura & Viator, 1994).
1
We propose several
explanations for these mixed ?ndings.
Most prior research has focused on differences in turn-
over intentions between those public accountants who
have a mentor and those who do not (for example, Barker
et al., 1999; Viator & Scandura, 1991). Operationalizing
0361-3682/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.aos.2008.11.003
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 (0)20 7849 4633; fax: +44 (0)20 7955
7420.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Hall).
1
A summary table of ?ndings from prior studies of mentoring and
organizational turnover in accounting ?rms appears in the Appendix.
Accounting, Organizations and Society 34 (2009) 695–704
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Accounting, Organizations and Society
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ aos
mentoring as a dichotomous (yes/no) variable is problem-
atic because it potentially masks the effects of mentoring
relationships by combining good and poor quality mentor-
ing in one category (Ragins, Cotton, & Miller, 2000). We ar-
gue that it is not the presence or absence of a mentor that
is important; rather, it is the quality of a mentoring rela-
tionship that is likely to affect an individual’s turnover
intentions (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004; Ragins
et al., 2000).
A mentor can provide two different types of support:
career development support and psychosocial support
(Kram, 1985). Prior research on mentoring has argued that
both career development support and psychosocial sup-
port are negatively associated with intentions to leave
the accounting ?rm (Barker et al., 1999; Herbohn, 2004;
Scandura & Viator, 1994). However, theory indicates that
the two types of mentoring support can have different ef-
fects because they relate to different facets of the mentor-
ing relationship (Allen et al., 2004; Kram, 1985; Tharenou,
2005). Career development support is primarily concerned
with preparing the protégé for career advancement, such
as providing assistance with learning the job and sponsor-
ing the protégé for important assignments (Allen et al.,
2004; Kram, 1985; Viator, 2001). In contrast, psychosocial
support primarily relates to developing the protégé’s iden-
tity and sense of self, such as sharing of personal experi-
ences, acts of friendship, and acting as a role model
(Allen et al., 2004; Kram, 1985; Viator, 2001). As such, it
is questionable whether both types of mentor support
would have the same effect on public accountants’ organi-
zational turnover intentions.
Prior research has focused almost exclusively on the di-
rect-effect of mentoring relationships on organizational
turnover intentions, rather than indirect-effects. There
can be theoretical differences between direct- and indi-
rect-effects models that have practical implications (Hall,
2008; Shields, Deng, & Kato, 2000). In particular, mentor
support may serve to both increase and decrease turnover
intentions through its effect on intervening psychological
mechanisms, yet these con?icting effects are not examined
in direct-effect models, potentially resulting in inconsis-
tent results (Luft & Shields, 2007, p. 45). Indirect-effects
models also allow an investigation into how and why a
relationship between mentoring and organizational turn-
over intentions may exist (Lankau & Scandura, 2002; Payne
& Huffman, 2005).
We test a theoretical model linking the two types of
support provided by a mentor (career development and
psychosocial support) to organizational turnover inten-
tions through three intervening variables: psychological
empowerment, affective organizational commitment, and
procedural justice. Collectively, these three variables help
to explain how and why mentor support is related to orga-
nizational turnover intentions. Through including three
intervening variables in our theoretical model, we increase
understanding of the psychological mechanisms through
which mentoring relationships affect public accountants’
intentions to leave an accounting ?rm.
The remainder of the paper contains four sections. The
next section develops the theoretical model and presents
hypotheses. The research method, including sample selec-
tion and variable measurement, is then presented. This is
followed by presentation of the results. The ?nal section
discusses the results and concludes the paper.
Theoretical framework
2
Career development support and psychological empowerment
Psychological empowerment refers to intrinsic task moti-
vation manifested in a set of four cognitions: meaning (the
value placed on work judged in relation to an individual’s
own ideals or standards), competence (an individual’s belief
in his/her capacity to perform a job with skill), self-determi-
nation (an individual’s belief concerning the degree of choice
he/she has in initiating and performing work behaviours),
and impact (the extent to which an individual believes he/
she can in?uence outcomes at work) (Spreitzer, 1995;
Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Career development support in-
volves the mentor sponsoring the protégé for assignments
that increase contact with important clients, partners and
managers, increasing a protégé’s opportunities for informa-
tion exchange and knowledge acquisition unavailable
through usual channels (Allen et al., 2004). Social exchanges
with important individuals within and outside the ?rm can
increase a protégé’s sense of power and mastery, thus devel-
oping beliefs related to self-determination, impact and com-
petence (Spreitzer, 1996). Furthermore, greater contact with
key clients and partners/managers is likely to be intrinsically
rewarding, strengthening a protégé’s sense of meaning and
purpose. Career development support also involves the
mentor helping the protégé to learn new skills and to devel-
op expertise, which is likely to enhance a protégé’s belief in
their own competence, and to in?uence outcomes in his/her
work role. Furthermore, work roles that develop new skills
and abilities are viewed as more meaningful than those roles
that do not develop such skills and abilities (Hackman &
Oldham, 1980; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Hence:
H1: There is a positive association between career devel-
opment support and psychological empowerment.
Psychological empowerment and organizational turnover
intentions
Maertz and Griffeth (2004) argue that one driver of
turnover behaviour is an ‘alternative force’ related to an
individual’s belief in his/her ability to secure a valued
alternative position in another ?rm. Public accountants
2
We include affective organizational commitment and procedural
justice in our theoretical model as prior research shows that these two
variables are important outcomes of mentor support (Scandura, 1997;
Siegel, Reinstein, & Miller, 2001; Stallworth, 2003). In addition, both
affective organizational commitment and procedural justice have been
found to be important predictors of organizational turnover intentions (see,
for example, Fogarty & Kalbers, 2006; Ketchand & Strawser, 1998;
Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991). We include psychological empowerment
in our model to test our expectation that some forms of mentor support are
likely to enhance protégés’ beliefs in their ability to secure valued
employment at other ?rms, which can lead to higher turnover intentions.
696 M. Hall, D. Smith / Accounting, Organizations and Society 34 (2009) 695–704
with high levels of psychological empowerment have
strong belief in their own ability, competence and in?u-
ence, and thus are more likely to believe that they will
be able to obtain valued alternative employment in other
?rms. Importantly, such beliefs can be based not only on
knowledge of speci?c positions and job offers, but on per-
ceptions of the job market and the types of positions avail-
able in other ?rms (Maertz & Griffeth, 2004). In contrast,
individuals with low psychological empowerment are un-
likely to believe that they have the necessary skills,
competence or in?uence to obtain valued alternative
employment in other ?rms (Benson, Finegold, & Mohrman,
2004). Finally, psychological empowerment re?ects an ac-
tive, rather than passive, orientation to one’s work role
(Spreitzer, 1995). As such, employees who have high levels
of psychological empowerment are likely to be more active
in searching for, and have more opportunities to learn
about, options for alternative employment in other ?rms.
This leads to H2:
H2: There is a positive association between psychologi-
cal empowerment and organizational turnover
intentions.
Psychosocial support, affective organizational commitment
and procedural justice
Affective organizational commitment refers to an indi-
vidual’s emotional attachment to an organization and
develops when an individual becomes involved in, recog-
nizes the value relevance of, and/or derives his/her identity
from the organization (Ketchand & Strawser, 2001; Meyer
& Allen, 1997; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). Psychosocial
support, through the provision of friendship, counselling,
and role modelling, develops emotional bonds and pro-
motes the adoption of organizational values by protégés,
thus facilitating identi?cation with the organization
(Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986; Joiner,
Bartram, & Garreffa, 2004; Payne & Huffman, 2005; Stall-
worth, 2003). In contrast, a lack of psychosocial support
from a mentor is likely to limit the extent to which a proté-
gé identi?es with the organization. Siegel et al. (2001)
found that two aspects of psychosocial support, social sup-
port and role modelling, were positively associated with
affective organizational commitment.
Procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness of the
mechanisms and processes by which decisions in the orga-
nization are made (Greenberg, 1990; Parker & Kohlmeyer,
2005). Psychosocial support is expected to develop higher
levels of procedural justice by enhancing protégés’ percep-
tions of the fairness of organizational processes and proce-
dures as it involves the mentor discussing concerns, talking
about problems, and showing empathy for and feelings of
respect toward the protégé (Allen et al., 2004; Kram,
1985; Viator, 2001). In contrast, where mentors fail to dis-
cuss concerns with and show respect for the protégé, this is
likely to reduce a protégé’s belief in the fairness of organi-
zational procedures. Prior research shows a positive associ-
ation between psychosocial support and procedural justice
(Scandura, 1997; Siegel et al., 2001). The above discussion
leads to H3 and H4:
H3: There is a positive association between psychosocial
support and affective organizational commitment.
H4: There is a positive association between psychosocial
support and procedural justice.
Affective organizational commitment, procedural justice and
organizational turnover intentions
An employee who is attached to, and enjoys his/her
membership of, an organization is motivated to continue
that experience by maintaining his/her membership
(Meyer & Allen, 1997). In contrast, employees who do not
enjoy their membership will seek to avoid discomfort by
withdrawing their membership (Maertz & Griffeth, 2004).
Many prior studies show that affective organizational com-
mitment is negatively associated with organizational turn-
over intentions (Fogarty & Kalbers, 2006; Ketchand &
Strawser, 1998; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer & Herscov-
itch, 2001).
When an employee perceives that the organization has
failed in one or more of its obligations, this reduces or ne-
gates any felt obligations owed to the organization, includ-
ing obligations to stay (Maertz & Griffeth, 2004). In
particular, individuals who perceive bias or unjust treat-
ment are motivated to pursue employment in other ‘fairer’
organizations (Parker & Kohlmeyer, 2005). Several studies
have found a negative relationship between procedural
justice and organizational turnover intentions (e.g., Aryee,
Budhwar, & Zhen, 2002; Dailey & Kirk, 1992; Konovsky &
Cropanzano, 1991). This leads to H5 and H6:
H5: There is a negative association between affective
organizational commitment and organizational turn-
over intentions.
H6: There is a negative association between procedural
justice and organizational turnover intentions.
Research method
Sample selection and data collection
The sample for the study was drawn from accountants
below partner level working in Australian public account-
ing ?rms. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Austra-
lia contacted public accounting ?rms on our behalf. Seven
?rms (one Big 4 ?rm and six middle-tier ?rms) agreed to
participate. A liaison person at each ?rm distributed survey
packages to participants through each ?rm’s internal mail
system. Each survey package contained a cover letter
explaining the purpose of the study, a three-page question-
naire, and a postage-paid envelope. Of the 490 question-
naires sent to participants, 260 were returned, for a
response rate of 53%, which is within acceptable limits
(Baruch, 1999).
M. Hall, D. Smith/ Accounting, Organizations and Society 34 (2009) 695–704 697
We used the following question to identify whether
respondents had a mentor: ‘‘Are you involved in a working
relationship with someone of a higher position in your
?rm, which you believe has helped your career and af-
fected your mobility in accounting (i.e., a mentor)?” In this
way, we believe our de?nition of a ‘mentor’ encompasses
both formal and informal mentoring.
Variable measurement
All items were scored on a seven-point Likert scale
(1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). We measure
mentor support using Viator’s (2001) 16-item instrument,
which measures two aspects of psychosocial support (social
support androlemodelling) andtwoaspects of career devel-
opment support (career-related, and protection and assis-
tance). As the scale has not been subject to further testing,
we examine its dimensionality using an exploratory factor
analysis (oblique rotation). The initial solution, shown in
Table 1, Panel A, shows that the protection and assistance
items (PA1–PA3) do not load on a single factor; thus, we re-
move these items and re-run the factor analysis.
3
Panel B
shows that two factors are extracted, with the social support
and role modelling items loading on the ?rst factor, and the
career development items loading on the second factor. Thus,
we combine the social support and role modelling items to
construct a psychosocial support variable (Cronbach’s al-
pha = 0.91), and the career development items to construct
a career development support variable (alpha = 0.75).
Affective organizational commitment was measured
using Meyer and Allen’s (1997) six-item scale. All items
loaded on a single factor with an eigenvalue greater than
one. The Cronbach’s alpha is 0.79. Procedural justice was
measured using Moorman’s (1991) six-item scale. All
items loaded on a single factor with an eigenvalue greater
than one. The Cronbach’s alpha is 0.89. Psychological
empowerment was measured with the 12-item scale
developed by Spreitzer (1995), comprising four dimen-
sions (meaning, competence, self-determination, and im-
pact). Consistent with Fulford and Enz (1995) and
Hancer, George, and Kim (2005), we ?nd a three-factor
structure comprising meaning, competence and in?uence
(self-determination and impact items).
4
Job satisfaction
was measured using a six-item scale adapted from Rusbult
and Farrell (1983).
5
All items loaded on a single factor with
an eigenvalue greater than one. The Cronbach’s alpha is 0.90.
Organizational turnover intentions was measured with the
two-item scale developed by Viator (2001), and Cronbach’s
alpha for the scale is 0.79.
Results
Presence/absence of a mentor
Results of a MANOVA show no differences across vari-
ables between respondents who report having a mentor
and those who do not (F(5, 254) = 1.49, p = 0.193).
6
There
are also no signi?cant differences in means for each depen-
dent variable according to MENTOR (all p-values >0.05).
Consistent with calls to examine the quality of the mentor-
ing relationship (Allen et al., 2004; Ragins et al., 2000), our
results show that the mere presence of a mentor has no ef-
fect on organizational turnover intentions or any other vari-
ables in our model.
7
Table 1
Factor loadings from an exploratory factor analysis (oblique rotation) of the
mentor support scale.
Item Factor loadings
1 2 3
Panel A: factor analysis of all items
CD1 À0.195 0.906 À0.194
CD2 0.081 0.708 À0.021
CD3 0.334 0.476 À0.312
PA1 0.030 0.756 0.226
PA2 0.227 0.072 0.484
PA3 0.410 0.159 À0.728
SS1 0.314 0.593 0.219
SS2 0.726 À0.020 0.104
SS3 0.813 À0.072 À0.094
SS4 0.771 0.068 À0.080
SS5 0.797 À0.082 0.069
SS6 0.533 0.187 0.300
RM1 0.800 À0.004 À0.085
RM2 0.628 0.232 0.013
RM3 0.753 0.029 À0.051
RM4 0.434 0.416 0.171
Eigenvalue 7.15 1.38 1.10
% Variance explained 44.69 8.62 6.90
Item Factor loadings
1 2
Panel B: factor analysis: PA items removed
CD1 À0.131 0.923
CD2 0.147 0.722
CD3 0.290 0.562
SS1 0.555 0.342
SS2 0.760 À0.061
SS3 0.804 À0.112
SS4 0.829 À0.049
SS5 0.838 À0.169
SS6 0.650 0.091
RM1 0.731 0.089
RM2 0.670 0.200
RM3 0.703 0.087
RM4 0.581 0.283
Eigenvalue 6.50 1.25
% Variance explained 49.98 9.57
n = 107. CD, career development; PA, protection and assistance; SS, social
support; RM, role modelling.
3
In addition, the Cronbach’s alpha of a scale comprised of the PA items is
unacceptable at 0.17, supporting our decision to remove these items from
the mentor support scale.
4
Full results of the exploratory factor analysis on the psychological
empowerment scale are available from the authors. In our tests of
hypotheses, we model psychological empowerment as a second-order
factor as we are interested in how the overall construct of psychological
empowerment is associated with other variables in our model. The second-
order factor also allows for a more parsimonious model.
5
We include job satisfaction in our model as it is likely to intervene in
several of the relations between our variables; see footnote 14 for further
discussion.
6
For the MANOVA: independent variable = MENTOR, dependent vari-
ables = affective organizational commitment, procedural justice, psycho-
logical empowerment, job satisfaction, organizational turnover intentions.
7
Results also show no differences in MENTOR according to ?rm type (Big
4 vs. middle tier ?rm) (v
2
= 0.116, df = 1, p = 0.734), or gender (v
2
= 2.491,
df = 1, p = 0.114).
698 M. Hall, D. Smith / Accounting, Organizations and Society 34 (2009) 695–704
Partial least squares (PLS) regression
We employ PLS regression analysis using PLS-Graph 3.0
to test our hypotheses. We present results from the mea-
surement model ?rst followed by an examination of the
hypothesized relations between the constructs.
8
First, an
analysis of PLS cross-loadings (not reported) shows that all
items load above 0.5 on their respective constructs. Second,
the composite reliability scores for each variable are above
0.70 (see Table 2 for statistics). Third, the AVE for all vari-
ables except affective organizational commitment (0.49) is
above 0.50 (Chin, 1998; Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black,
1998). Fourth, the square roots of the AVEs (diagonal) are
all greater than the respective correlations. Overall, the re-
sults from the PLS measurement model indicate the con-
structs exhibit satisfactory reliability and convergent and
discriminant validity (Chin, 1998; Fornell & Larcker, 1981;
Nunnally, 1978).
Tests of hypotheses
We estimate a structural model in PLS-Graph to test the
hypotheses.
9
Fig. 1 shows our estimated model.
10
Our re-
sults show a positive association between career develop-
ment support and psychological empowerment (b = 0.284,
p < 0.01) (H1), and a positive association between psycho-
logical empowerment and organizational turnover inten-
tions (b = 0.191, p < 0.05) (H2). Psychosocial support is
positively associated with affective organizational commit-
ment (b = 0.233, p < 0.05) (H3) and procedural justice
(b = 0.262, p < 0.05) (H4). Further, affective organizational
commitment is negatively associated with organizational
turnover intentions (b = À0.295, p < 0.01) (H5). The associa-
tion between procedural justice and organizational turnover
intentions is not signi?cant (b = À0.092, p > 0.10) (H6). Re-
sults for control variable paths and explanatory power (R
2
)
are shown in Table 3.
11
Discussion
Our study contributes to the literature on public accoun-
tants’ mentoring and organizational turnover intentions by
providing an explanation for prior con?icting results. First,
we show that the mere presence/absence of a mentor has
no effect on organizational turnover intentions or any other
variables within our research model. This highlights the
importance of investigating the nature of mentoring sup-
port, rather than the presence/absence of a mentor. Second,
we show that some types of mentoring support (speci?-
cally, career development support) may increase
organizational turnover intentions: we ?nd that career
development support is positively associated with psycho-
logical empowerment, which, in turn, is positively associ-
ated with organizational turnover intentions. This is
contrary to the conventional view that ‘‘good” mentoring
necessarily leads to desirable outcomes for the ?rm (e.g.,
employee retention). However, our ?ndings are consistent
with theory that predicts that forms of organizational sup-
port that enhance employees’ beliefs about their ability to
secure valued alternative employment can increase turn-
over intentions (Benson et al., 2004; Harris, Kacmar, & Witt,
2005; Ito & Brotheridge, 2005; Maertz & Griffeth, 2004).
Our ?ndings raise an interesting question – should
accounting ?rms de-emphasize career development sup-
port mentoring? We argue that both types of mentor sup-
port are important for protégés’ development, and that one
should not be ignored in favour of the other. However, our
results should encourage accounting ?rms to re-think the
ef?cacy and design of mentoring programs insofar as they
are aimed at reducing employee turnover. In particular, for
formal mentoring, accounting ?rms can instruct mentors
on the likely effects of different types of mentor support
on protégés’ turnover intentions and behaviours. Whilst
more dif?cult for informal mentoring, it appears necessary
to develop an awareness among actual and potential men-
tors of the likely effects that career development support
can have on turnover behaviour, perhaps through educa-
tion programs and/or more speci?c guidance.
The effect of career development support on turnover is
likely to be particularly problematic in tight labour mar-
kets and in situations where protégés feel stressed, under-
8
Prior research indicates that individuals’ judgments and perceptions
about the organization usually take at least one year to develop (Vanden-
berg & Self, 1993). Thus, we remove 18 respondents who reported being
mentored for less than one year, resulting in a ?nal sample of 107. This at
least partially allows for the time lag between obtaining a mentor and this
having effects on our variables of interest. For the sample of 107, the
average (standard deviation) age of respondents is 26.78 (5.18) years with
an average (standard deviation) tenure in their accounting ?rm of 3.84
(3.23) years. Forty-nine respondents are male and 58 female. Eighty-three
respondents are from middle-tier ?rms and 24 are from Big 4 ?rms.
9
As PLS makes no distributional assumptions, we use bootstrapping
(1000 samples with replacement) to evaluate the statistical signi?cance of
each path coef?cient (Chin, 1998).
10
In addition to the hypothesized paths, we estimate several paths in the
PLS structural model to control for other relations among the variables.
First, we estimate paths from: procedural justice to job satisfaction (see, for
example, Parker & Kohlmeyer, 2005); affective organizational commitment
to job satisfaction (see, for example, Fogarty & Kalbers, 2006; Poznanski &
Bline, 1997), psychological empowerment to job satisfaction (Liden, Wayne,
& Sparrowe, 2000; Spreitzer, Kizilos, & Nason, 1997); and job satisfaction to
organizational turnover intentions (Harrell, 1990; Pasewark & Strawser,
1996; Pasewark & Viator, 2006; Snead & Harrell, 1991). Second, we control
for relations among our set of intervening variables. We estimate paths
from: procedural justice to affective organizational commitment (Siegel
et al., 2001) and psychological empowerment to affective organizational
commitment (Kraimer, Seibert, & Liden, 1999; Liden et al., 2000). Third, to
investigate whether mentoring’s effect on turnover intentions is direct or
indirect, we estimate paths from psychosocial support and career devel-
opment support to turnover intentions.
11
We also assessed the statistical signi?cance of the three indirect effects
captured by our hypothesized paths. We did this using a technique that
does not make distributional assumptions and is appropriate for small
samples. For each of the 1000 bootstraps, we multiply the estimated
coef?cients for each direct path to calculate an estimated coef?cient for the
indirect effect (e.g., multiply career development support-psychological
empowerment path coef?cient by the psychological empowerment-orga-
nizational turnover intentions path coef?cient). We determine signi?cance
by rank-ordering the 1000 indirect effect coef?cients and examining the
percentage above (for negative effects)/below (for positive effects) zero.
Results show that the career development support-psychological empow-
erment-organizational turnover intentions path is signi?cant (p = 0.03), as
is the psychosocial support-affective organizational commitment-organi-
zational turnover intentions path (p = 0.023). The psychosocial support-
procedural justice-organizational turnover intentions path is not signi?cant
(p = 0.113).
M. Hall, D. Smith/ Accounting, Organizations and Society 34 (2009) 695–704 699
Table 2
Descriptive statistics, reliability statistics, and correlations.
Variable Cronbach
alpha
Composite
reliability
Average
variance
extracted
Mean Standard
deviation
Career
development
support
Psycho-
social
support
Affective
organizational
commitment
Procedural
justice
Meaning Competence In?uence Job
satisfaction
Organizational
turnover
intentions
Career
development
support
0.750 0.855 0.663 5.260 1.048 0.814
Psychosocial
support
0.910 0.926 0.558 5.332 0.937 0.569
**
0.747
Affective
organizational
commitment
0.792 0.850 0.491 4.300 1.096 0.216
*
0.350
**
0.701
Procedural justice 0.887 0.915 0.645 4.270 1.284 0.288
**
0.341
**
0.420
**
0.803
Meaning 0.879 0.925 0.805 4.698 1.263 0.304
**
0.368
**
0.581
**
0.394
**
0.897
Competence 0.787 0.906 0.827 5.561 0.784 0.118 0.060 0.184 0.233
*
0.319
**
0.909
In?uence 0.905 0.927 0.680 4.634 1.129 0.352
**
0.220
*
0.470
**
0.426
**
0.603
**
0.490
**
0.825
Job satisfaction 0.892 0.918 0.654 4.608 1.150 0.329
**
0.414
**
0.646
**
0.517
**
0.783
**
0.216
*
0.588
**
0.809
Organizational
turnover
intentions
0.794 0.907 0.829 4.698 1.658 0.116 À0.161 À0.553
**
À0.349
**
À0.471
**
À0.044 À0.210
*
À0.602
**
0.910
n = 107.
Diagonal elements are the square roots of the AVE statistics. Off-diagonal elements are the correlations between the variables calculated in PLS-graph. The mean and standard deviation reported are for summated
scales calculated for each variable in SPSS.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01 (two-tailed).
7
0
0
M
.
H
a
l
l
,
D
.
S
m
i
t
h
/
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
,
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
S
o
c
i
e
t
y
3
4
(
2
0
0
9
)
6
9
5
–
7
0
4
valued and/or dissatis?ed at work. As such, a focus on
mentoring practices should not occur in isolation from
other mechanisms. In particular, it is important for
accounting ?rms to examine closely the operation of other
organizational practices (for example, internal promotion
opportunities, salary increases, work ?exibility – see Al-
mer, Higgs, & Hooks, 2005) to counteract against the po-
tential loss of staff who have received strong career
development support.
Our paper points to several fruitful areas for future re-
search. First, as our results show that some forms of
organizational support increase turnover intentions, fur-
ther research could consider whether and how other types
of organizational support (e.g., leader-member exchange,
supervisor support) relate to turnover intentions in
accounting ?rms. Second, whilst our study has focused on
howmentor support affects protégés, future research could
investigate the antecedents of different forms of mentor
H6(-)
H2(+)
H4(+)
H3(+)
H1(+)
H?(+)
H?(+)
H5(-)
**
________ hypothesized path
------------- control path
**
<0.01
*
<0.05
**
** **
**
**
**
**
*
*
*
Career
Development
Support
Psychosocial
Support
Job
Satisfaction
Psychological
Empowerment
Affective
Organizational
Commitment
Procedural
Justice
Organizational
Turnover
Intentions
Fig. 1. PLS estimated model.
Table 3
PLS structural model results: path coef?cients, t statistics and R
2
.
Dependent variables Independent variables
Career
development
support
Psychosocial
support
Procedural
justice
Psychological
empowerment
Affective organizational
commitment
Job
satisfaction
R
2
Affective organizational
commitment
À0.127 0.233
*
0.171 0.450
**
– – 37.37%
(1.146) (1.866) (1.732) (5.158)
Procedural justice 0.139 0.262
*
– – – – 12.93%
(0.925) (2.040)
Psychological
empowerment
0.284
**
0.131 – – – – 14.02%
(2.389) (0.989)
Job satisfaction – – 0.175
**
0.449
**
0.326
**
– 61.95%
(2.334) (5.343) (4.047)
Organizational turnover
intentions
0.355
**
À0.035 À0.092 0.191
*
À0.295
**
À0.602
**
54.26%
(4.479) (0.449) (1.153) (1.951) (3.117) (4.746)
n = 107.
Each cell reports the path coef?cient (t-value).
Blank cells indicate the path was not tested in the PLS model.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01 – (hypothesized paths are one-tailed tests, all other paths are two-tailed tests).
M. Hall, D. Smith/ Accounting, Organizations and Society 34 (2009) 695–704 701
support. In particular, consideration of how ?rm (e.g., for-
mal mentor programs, mentor training) and mentor (e.g.,
personality, interpersonal skills, and hierarchical position)
characteristics affect a mentor’s ability to provide psycho-
social and career development support represents a prom-
ising line of enquiry. Finally, it is also important to examine
whether or how mentoring practices combine with other
organizational practices to in?uence protégés’ beliefs and
work behaviours. Such research could be pursued through
?eld-studies of protégés where the wide variety of prac-
tices that shape their behaviours can be examined.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge ?nancial assis-
tance from CPA Australia, and would also like to thank
the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia for
their assistance in identifying ?rms to participate in our
study. Thanks to Wim Van der Stede, Rob Chenhall, Axel
Schulz, Robyn Moroney, Peter Carey, Dean Hanlon, Kim
Lang?eld-Smith, and Pauline Weetman for their helpful
comments on the paper.
Summary of results concerning mentoring relationships and organizational turnover intentions of public accountants.
Study Sample Variables Tests Results
Viator and
Scandura (1991)
1024 public
accountants in
large ?rms in US
INFMEN, CD, SS,
RM, INTLEAVE
Chi-square INFMEN Àve INTLEAVE
CD Àve INTLEAVE
Scandura and
Viator (1994)
1024 public
accountants in
large ?rms in US
INFMEN, CD, SS,
RM, INTLEAVE
Path analysis INFMEN Àve INTLEAVE
CD Àve INTLEAVE
Barker et al. (1999) 287 public
accountants in
Ireland
INFMEN, CD, SS,
RM, INTLEAVE
Chi-square, t-tests INFMENT Àve INTLEAVE
CD Àve INTLEAVE
SS Àve INTLEAVE
Viator (2001) 794 public
accountants in
large ?rms in US
FORMMEN, INFMEN,
RA, RC, PEU, JP,
INTLEAVE, CD,
PA, SS, RM
Structural equation
modelling
INFMEN Àve RA, FORMMEN
Àve RA
INFMEN Àve PEU, INFMEN
+ve JP
INFMEN not associated
INTLEAVE
FORMMEN not associated
INTLEAVE
CD Àve RA, PA Àve RC, CD
Àve PEU
Siegel et al. (2001) 118 public
accountants in
large ?rms in US
INFMEN, CD, SS,
RM, DJ, PJ, CE
(career expectations),
JOBSAT, OC
ANCOVA, correlation,
regression
INFMEN +ve DJ, INFMEN
+ve PJ
SS +ve DJ, SS +ve PJ, RM +ve
PJ
CD not associated DJ or PJ
CD +ve OC, SS +ve CE, SS +ve
JOBSAT
SS +ve OC, RM +ve CE, RM
+ve OC
Stallworth (2003) 107 public
accountants in
large
?rms in US
INFMEN, OC, INTLEAVE Correlation, regression INFMEN +ve OC
OC +ve INTLEAVE
Herbohn (2004) 161 public
accountants
in small and
large
?rms in
Australia
INFMEN, CD, SS, RM,
JOBSAT, INTLEAVE
t-tests, correlation INFMEN not associated
INTLEAVE
INFMEN +ve JOBSAT, CD
Àve INTLEAVE
SS Àve INTLEAVE, CD +ve
JOBSAT
CD, career development support; CE, career expectations; DJ, distributive justice; FORMEN, formal mentor; INFMEN,
informal mentor; INTLEAVE, intentions to leave accounting ?rm; JOBSAT, job satisfaction; JP, job performance; OC, orga-
nizational commitment; PEU, perceived environmental uncertainty; PJ, procedural justice; RA, role ambiguity; RC, role
con?ict; RM, role modelling; SS, social support.
Appendix
702 M. Hall, D. Smith / Accounting, Organizations and Society 34 (2009) 695–704
References
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career
bene?ts associated with mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 127–136.
Almer, E. D., Higgs, J. L., & Hooks, K. L. (2005). A theoretical framework of
the relationship between public accounting ?rms and their auditors.
Behavioral Research in Accounting, 17, 1–22.
American Institute of Certi?ed Public Accountants (AICPA). (2007). http://
www.aicpa.org/YoungCPANetwork/Mentoring.htm. Accessed
30.10.07.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Zhen, X. C. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the
relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test
of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23,
267–286.
Barker, P., Monks, K., & Buckley, F. (1999). The role of mentoring in the
career progression of chartered accountants. British Accounting
Review, 31, 297–312.
Baruch, Y. (1999). Response rate in academic studies – A comparative
analysis. Human Relations, 52, 421–438.
Benson, G. S., Finegold, D., & Mohrman, S. A. (2004). You paid for the skills,
now keep them: Tuition reimbursement and voluntary turnover.
Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 315–331.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach for structural
equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for
business research (pp. 295–336). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dailey, R. C., & Kirk, J. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as
antecedents of job satisfaction and intent to turnover. Human
Relations, 45, 305–317.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived
organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507.
Fogarty, T. J., & Kalbers, L. P. (2006). Internal auditor burnout: An
examination of behavioral consequences. Advance.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models
with observable variables and measurement error. Journal of
Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
Fulford, M. D., & Enz, C. A. (1995). The impact of empowerment on service
employees. Journal of Managerial Issues, 7(2), 161–175.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and
tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399–432.
Gregg, C. (1999). Someone to look up to. Journal of Accountancy, November,
89–93.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Hall, M. (2008). The effect of comprehensive performance measurement
systems on role clarity, psychological empowerment and managerial
performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33, 141–163.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998).
Multivariate data analysis (?fth ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-
Hall International.
Hancer, M., George, R. T., & Kim, B. (2005). An examination of
psychological empowerment: Scale for service employees.
Psychological Reports, 97, 667–672.
Harrell, A. (1990). A longitudinal examination of large CPA ?rm auditors’
personnel turnover. Advances in Accounting, 8, 233–246.
Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Witt, L. A. (2005). An examination of the
curvilinear relationship between leader-member exchange and intent
to turnover. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 363–378.
Herbohn, K. (2004). Informal mentoring relationships and the career
processes of public accountants. The British Accounting Review, 36,
369–393.
Ito, J. K., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2005). Does supporting employees’ career
adaptability lead to commitment, turnover, or both? Human Resource
Management, 44(1), 5–19.
Joiner, T. A., Bartram, T., & Garreffa, T. (2004). The effects of mentoring on
perceived career success, commitment and turnover intentions. The
Journal of American Academy of Business, 164–170.
Kaplan, S. E., Keinath, A. K., & Walo, J. C. (2001). An examination of
perceived barriers to mentoring in public accounting. Behavioral
Research in Accounting, 13, 195–220.
Ketchand, A. A., & Strawser, J. R. (1998). The existence of multiple
measures of organizational commitment and experience-related
differences in a public accounting setting. Behavioral Research in
Accounting, 10, 109–137.
Ketchand, A. A., & Strawser, J. R. (2001). Multiple dimensions of
organizational commitment: Implications for future accounting
research. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 13, 222–251.
Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee
drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 698–708.
Kraimer, M. L., Seibert, S. E., & Liden, R. C. (1999). Psychological
empowerment as a multidimensional construct: A construct validity
test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 127–142.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in
organizational life. Glenview: Scott, Foresman and Co.
Lankau, M. J., & Scandura, T. A. (2002). An investigation of personal
learning in mentoring relationships: Content, antecedents, and
consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 779–790.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination of the
intervening role of psychological empowerment on the relations
between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 407–416.
Luft, J., & Shields, M. D. (2007). Mapping management accounting:
Graphics and guidelines for theory-consistent empirical research. In
C. S. Chapman, A. G. Hopwood, & M. D. Shields (Eds.), Handbook of
management accounting research (pp. 27–95). Oxford: Elsevier.
Maertz, C. P., & Griffeth, R. W. (2004). Eight motivational forces and
voluntary turnover: A theoretical synthesis with implications for
research. Journal of Management, 30, 667–683.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the
antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational
commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 671–684.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace. Sage:
Thousand Oaks.
Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace:
Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11,
299–326.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and
organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions
in?uence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6),
845–855.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (second ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Parker, R. J., & Kohlmeyer, J. M. (2005). Organizational justice and
turnover in public accounting ?rms: A research note. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 30, 357–369.
Pasewark, W. R., & Strawser, J. R. (1996). The determinants and outcomes
associated with job insecurity in a professional accounting
environment. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 8, 91–113.
Pasewark, W. R., & Viator, R. E. (2006). Sources of work-family con?ict in
the accounting profession. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 18,
147–165.
Payne, S. C., & Huffman, A. H. (2005). A longitudinal examination of the
in?uence of mentoring on organizational commitment and turnover.
Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 158–168.
Poznanski, P. J., & Bline, D. M. (1997). Using structural equation modeling
to investigate the causal ordering of job satisfaction and
organizational commitment among staff accountants. Behavioral
Research in Accounting, 9, 154–171.
Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: The
effects of type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design
on work and career attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6),
1177–1194.
Rusbult, C. E., & Farrell, D. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment
model: The impact on job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover
of variations in rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 68, 429–438.
Russell, J. E. A., & Adams, D. M. (1997). The changing nature of mentoring
in organizations: An introduction to the special issue on mentoring in
organizations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 1–14.
Scandura, T. A. (1997). Mentoring and organizational justice: An empirical
investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 58–69.
Scandura, T. A., & Viator, R. E. (1994). Mentoring in public accounting
?rms: An analysis of mentor-protégé relationships, mentorship
functions, and protégé turnover intentions. Accounting, Organizations
and Society, 19(8), 717–734.
Shields, M. D., Deng, F. J., & Kato, Y. (2000). The design and effects of
control systems: Tests of direct- and indirect-effects models.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 25, 185–202.
Siegel, P. H., Reinstein, A., & Miller, C. L. (2001). Mentoring and
organizational justice among audit professionals. Journal of
Accounting, Auditing, and Finance, 16(1), 1–25.
Snead, K., & Harrell, A. (1991). The impact of psychological factors on the
job satisfaction of senior auditors. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 3,
85–96.
M. Hall, D. Smith/ Accounting, Organizations and Society 34 (2009) 695–704 703
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace:
Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management
Journal, 38, 1442–1465.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological
empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483–504.
Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W. (1997). A dimensional
analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment
and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain. Journal of Management,
23(5), 679–704.
Stallworth, H. L. (2003). Mentoring, organizational commitment and
intentions to leave public accounting. Managerial Auditing Journal,
18(5), 405–419.
Tharenou, P. (2005). Does mentor support increase women’s career
advancement more than men’s? The differential effects of career and
psychosocial support. Australian Journal of Management, 30(1),
77–109.
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of
empowerment: An ‘‘interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation.
Academy of Management Review, 15, 666–681.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Self, R. M. (1993). Assessing newcomers’ changing
commitments to the organization during the ?rst 6 months of work.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 557–568.
Viator, R. E. (2001). The association of formal and informal public
accounting mentoring with role stress and related job outcomes.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26(1), 73–93.
Viator, R. E., & Scandura, T. A. (1991). A study of mentor-protégé
relationships in large public accounting ?rms. Accounting Horizons,
September, 20–30.
Viator, R. E., & Pasewark, W. R. (2005). Mentor separation tension in the
accounting profession: The consequences of delayed structural
separation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30, 371–387.
704 M. Hall, D. Smith / Accounting, Organizations and Society 34 (2009) 695–704
doc_159906940.pdf
Turnover in public accounting firms is a critically important issue as firms seek to retain
quality accounting personnel in the face of skilled labour shortages. Mentoring is one initiative
that has been suggested as a means of reducing the high costs associated with
employee turnover. However, prior accounting research examining the association
between mentoring and turnover intentions has produced mixed results, which may be
due, at least in part, to difficulties in operationalizing the mentoring construct. Drawing
on recent management literature regarding organizational turnover intentions, we challenge
the conventional view that mentoring generally leads to reduced turnover intentions,
by testing a theoretical model that posits that different functions of mentoring have differing
effects on turnover intentions. Specifically, we argue that while the psychosocial support
function of mentoring can serve to reduce public accountants’ turnover intentions, the
career development function of mentoring has the potential to increase turnover intentions.
Results support this conclusion.
Mentoring and turnover intentions in public accounting
?rms: A research note
Matthew Hall
a,
*
, David Smith
b
a
Department of Accounting, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom
b
Department of Accounting and Finance, Monash University, 900 Dandenong Rd, Caul?eld East, Victoria, 3145, Australia
a b s t r a c t
Turnover in public accounting ?rms is a critically important issue as ?rms seek to retain
quality accounting personnel in the face of skilled labour shortages. Mentoring is one ini-
tiative that has been suggested as a means of reducing the high costs associated with
employee turnover. However, prior accounting research examining the association
between mentoring and turnover intentions has produced mixed results, which may be
due, at least in part, to dif?culties in operationalizing the mentoring construct. Drawing
on recent management literature regarding organizational turnover intentions, we chal-
lenge the conventional view that mentoring generally leads to reduced turnover intentions,
by testing a theoretical model that posits that different functions of mentoring have differ-
ing effects on turnover intentions. Speci?cally, we argue that while the psychosocial sup-
port function of mentoring can serve to reduce public accountants’ turnover intentions, the
career development function of mentoring has the potential to increase turnover inten-
tions. Results support this conclusion.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
In recent years there has been considerable interest sur-
rounding the development, operation and effects of men-
toring relationships within public accounting ?rms (see,
for example, Herbohn, 2004; Kaplan, Keinath, & Walo,
2001; Viator & Pasewark, 2005). A mentoring relationship
is an interpersonal exchange between a senior experienced
colleague (the mentor) and a less-experienced junior col-
league (the protégé) in which the mentor provides direc-
tion, support and feedback to the protégé regarding
career plans and personal development (Kram, 1985;
Russell & Adams, 1997). One of the strongest claims
regarding mentoring relationships is that they assist public
accounting ?rms in retaining employees (AICPA, 2007;
Gregg, 1999). However, despite numerous studies, it is un-
clear whether and how mentoring relationships affect pub-
lic accountants’ organizational turnover intentions. Simply
having a mentor does not necessarily result in lower turn-
over intentions; some studies ?nd a negative association
between having a mentor and intentions to leave the
accounting ?rm (Barker, Monks, & Buckley, 1999; Scandura
& Viator, 1994; Viator & Scandura, 1991), whereas others
report no association (Herbohn, 2004; Viator, 2001). Stud-
ies focusing on the support provided by a mentor to a
protégé also report mixed results. Some research ?nds that
both career development and psychosocial support are
associated with lower turnover intentions (Barker et al.,
1999; Herbohn, 2004), but other studies report mixed re-
sults (Scandura & Viator, 1994).
1
We propose several
explanations for these mixed ?ndings.
Most prior research has focused on differences in turn-
over intentions between those public accountants who
have a mentor and those who do not (for example, Barker
et al., 1999; Viator & Scandura, 1991). Operationalizing
0361-3682/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.aos.2008.11.003
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 (0)20 7849 4633; fax: +44 (0)20 7955
7420.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Hall).
1
A summary table of ?ndings from prior studies of mentoring and
organizational turnover in accounting ?rms appears in the Appendix.
Accounting, Organizations and Society 34 (2009) 695–704
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Accounting, Organizations and Society
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ aos
mentoring as a dichotomous (yes/no) variable is problem-
atic because it potentially masks the effects of mentoring
relationships by combining good and poor quality mentor-
ing in one category (Ragins, Cotton, & Miller, 2000). We ar-
gue that it is not the presence or absence of a mentor that
is important; rather, it is the quality of a mentoring rela-
tionship that is likely to affect an individual’s turnover
intentions (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004; Ragins
et al., 2000).
A mentor can provide two different types of support:
career development support and psychosocial support
(Kram, 1985). Prior research on mentoring has argued that
both career development support and psychosocial sup-
port are negatively associated with intentions to leave
the accounting ?rm (Barker et al., 1999; Herbohn, 2004;
Scandura & Viator, 1994). However, theory indicates that
the two types of mentoring support can have different ef-
fects because they relate to different facets of the mentor-
ing relationship (Allen et al., 2004; Kram, 1985; Tharenou,
2005). Career development support is primarily concerned
with preparing the protégé for career advancement, such
as providing assistance with learning the job and sponsor-
ing the protégé for important assignments (Allen et al.,
2004; Kram, 1985; Viator, 2001). In contrast, psychosocial
support primarily relates to developing the protégé’s iden-
tity and sense of self, such as sharing of personal experi-
ences, acts of friendship, and acting as a role model
(Allen et al., 2004; Kram, 1985; Viator, 2001). As such, it
is questionable whether both types of mentor support
would have the same effect on public accountants’ organi-
zational turnover intentions.
Prior research has focused almost exclusively on the di-
rect-effect of mentoring relationships on organizational
turnover intentions, rather than indirect-effects. There
can be theoretical differences between direct- and indi-
rect-effects models that have practical implications (Hall,
2008; Shields, Deng, & Kato, 2000). In particular, mentor
support may serve to both increase and decrease turnover
intentions through its effect on intervening psychological
mechanisms, yet these con?icting effects are not examined
in direct-effect models, potentially resulting in inconsis-
tent results (Luft & Shields, 2007, p. 45). Indirect-effects
models also allow an investigation into how and why a
relationship between mentoring and organizational turn-
over intentions may exist (Lankau & Scandura, 2002; Payne
& Huffman, 2005).
We test a theoretical model linking the two types of
support provided by a mentor (career development and
psychosocial support) to organizational turnover inten-
tions through three intervening variables: psychological
empowerment, affective organizational commitment, and
procedural justice. Collectively, these three variables help
to explain how and why mentor support is related to orga-
nizational turnover intentions. Through including three
intervening variables in our theoretical model, we increase
understanding of the psychological mechanisms through
which mentoring relationships affect public accountants’
intentions to leave an accounting ?rm.
The remainder of the paper contains four sections. The
next section develops the theoretical model and presents
hypotheses. The research method, including sample selec-
tion and variable measurement, is then presented. This is
followed by presentation of the results. The ?nal section
discusses the results and concludes the paper.
Theoretical framework
2
Career development support and psychological empowerment
Psychological empowerment refers to intrinsic task moti-
vation manifested in a set of four cognitions: meaning (the
value placed on work judged in relation to an individual’s
own ideals or standards), competence (an individual’s belief
in his/her capacity to perform a job with skill), self-determi-
nation (an individual’s belief concerning the degree of choice
he/she has in initiating and performing work behaviours),
and impact (the extent to which an individual believes he/
she can in?uence outcomes at work) (Spreitzer, 1995;
Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Career development support in-
volves the mentor sponsoring the protégé for assignments
that increase contact with important clients, partners and
managers, increasing a protégé’s opportunities for informa-
tion exchange and knowledge acquisition unavailable
through usual channels (Allen et al., 2004). Social exchanges
with important individuals within and outside the ?rm can
increase a protégé’s sense of power and mastery, thus devel-
oping beliefs related to self-determination, impact and com-
petence (Spreitzer, 1996). Furthermore, greater contact with
key clients and partners/managers is likely to be intrinsically
rewarding, strengthening a protégé’s sense of meaning and
purpose. Career development support also involves the
mentor helping the protégé to learn new skills and to devel-
op expertise, which is likely to enhance a protégé’s belief in
their own competence, and to in?uence outcomes in his/her
work role. Furthermore, work roles that develop new skills
and abilities are viewed as more meaningful than those roles
that do not develop such skills and abilities (Hackman &
Oldham, 1980; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Hence:
H1: There is a positive association between career devel-
opment support and psychological empowerment.
Psychological empowerment and organizational turnover
intentions
Maertz and Griffeth (2004) argue that one driver of
turnover behaviour is an ‘alternative force’ related to an
individual’s belief in his/her ability to secure a valued
alternative position in another ?rm. Public accountants
2
We include affective organizational commitment and procedural
justice in our theoretical model as prior research shows that these two
variables are important outcomes of mentor support (Scandura, 1997;
Siegel, Reinstein, & Miller, 2001; Stallworth, 2003). In addition, both
affective organizational commitment and procedural justice have been
found to be important predictors of organizational turnover intentions (see,
for example, Fogarty & Kalbers, 2006; Ketchand & Strawser, 1998;
Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991). We include psychological empowerment
in our model to test our expectation that some forms of mentor support are
likely to enhance protégés’ beliefs in their ability to secure valued
employment at other ?rms, which can lead to higher turnover intentions.
696 M. Hall, D. Smith / Accounting, Organizations and Society 34 (2009) 695–704
with high levels of psychological empowerment have
strong belief in their own ability, competence and in?u-
ence, and thus are more likely to believe that they will
be able to obtain valued alternative employment in other
?rms. Importantly, such beliefs can be based not only on
knowledge of speci?c positions and job offers, but on per-
ceptions of the job market and the types of positions avail-
able in other ?rms (Maertz & Griffeth, 2004). In contrast,
individuals with low psychological empowerment are un-
likely to believe that they have the necessary skills,
competence or in?uence to obtain valued alternative
employment in other ?rms (Benson, Finegold, & Mohrman,
2004). Finally, psychological empowerment re?ects an ac-
tive, rather than passive, orientation to one’s work role
(Spreitzer, 1995). As such, employees who have high levels
of psychological empowerment are likely to be more active
in searching for, and have more opportunities to learn
about, options for alternative employment in other ?rms.
This leads to H2:
H2: There is a positive association between psychologi-
cal empowerment and organizational turnover
intentions.
Psychosocial support, affective organizational commitment
and procedural justice
Affective organizational commitment refers to an indi-
vidual’s emotional attachment to an organization and
develops when an individual becomes involved in, recog-
nizes the value relevance of, and/or derives his/her identity
from the organization (Ketchand & Strawser, 2001; Meyer
& Allen, 1997; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). Psychosocial
support, through the provision of friendship, counselling,
and role modelling, develops emotional bonds and pro-
motes the adoption of organizational values by protégés,
thus facilitating identi?cation with the organization
(Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986; Joiner,
Bartram, & Garreffa, 2004; Payne & Huffman, 2005; Stall-
worth, 2003). In contrast, a lack of psychosocial support
from a mentor is likely to limit the extent to which a proté-
gé identi?es with the organization. Siegel et al. (2001)
found that two aspects of psychosocial support, social sup-
port and role modelling, were positively associated with
affective organizational commitment.
Procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness of the
mechanisms and processes by which decisions in the orga-
nization are made (Greenberg, 1990; Parker & Kohlmeyer,
2005). Psychosocial support is expected to develop higher
levels of procedural justice by enhancing protégés’ percep-
tions of the fairness of organizational processes and proce-
dures as it involves the mentor discussing concerns, talking
about problems, and showing empathy for and feelings of
respect toward the protégé (Allen et al., 2004; Kram,
1985; Viator, 2001). In contrast, where mentors fail to dis-
cuss concerns with and show respect for the protégé, this is
likely to reduce a protégé’s belief in the fairness of organi-
zational procedures. Prior research shows a positive associ-
ation between psychosocial support and procedural justice
(Scandura, 1997; Siegel et al., 2001). The above discussion
leads to H3 and H4:
H3: There is a positive association between psychosocial
support and affective organizational commitment.
H4: There is a positive association between psychosocial
support and procedural justice.
Affective organizational commitment, procedural justice and
organizational turnover intentions
An employee who is attached to, and enjoys his/her
membership of, an organization is motivated to continue
that experience by maintaining his/her membership
(Meyer & Allen, 1997). In contrast, employees who do not
enjoy their membership will seek to avoid discomfort by
withdrawing their membership (Maertz & Griffeth, 2004).
Many prior studies show that affective organizational com-
mitment is negatively associated with organizational turn-
over intentions (Fogarty & Kalbers, 2006; Ketchand &
Strawser, 1998; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer & Herscov-
itch, 2001).
When an employee perceives that the organization has
failed in one or more of its obligations, this reduces or ne-
gates any felt obligations owed to the organization, includ-
ing obligations to stay (Maertz & Griffeth, 2004). In
particular, individuals who perceive bias or unjust treat-
ment are motivated to pursue employment in other ‘fairer’
organizations (Parker & Kohlmeyer, 2005). Several studies
have found a negative relationship between procedural
justice and organizational turnover intentions (e.g., Aryee,
Budhwar, & Zhen, 2002; Dailey & Kirk, 1992; Konovsky &
Cropanzano, 1991). This leads to H5 and H6:
H5: There is a negative association between affective
organizational commitment and organizational turn-
over intentions.
H6: There is a negative association between procedural
justice and organizational turnover intentions.
Research method
Sample selection and data collection
The sample for the study was drawn from accountants
below partner level working in Australian public account-
ing ?rms. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Austra-
lia contacted public accounting ?rms on our behalf. Seven
?rms (one Big 4 ?rm and six middle-tier ?rms) agreed to
participate. A liaison person at each ?rm distributed survey
packages to participants through each ?rm’s internal mail
system. Each survey package contained a cover letter
explaining the purpose of the study, a three-page question-
naire, and a postage-paid envelope. Of the 490 question-
naires sent to participants, 260 were returned, for a
response rate of 53%, which is within acceptable limits
(Baruch, 1999).
M. Hall, D. Smith/ Accounting, Organizations and Society 34 (2009) 695–704 697
We used the following question to identify whether
respondents had a mentor: ‘‘Are you involved in a working
relationship with someone of a higher position in your
?rm, which you believe has helped your career and af-
fected your mobility in accounting (i.e., a mentor)?” In this
way, we believe our de?nition of a ‘mentor’ encompasses
both formal and informal mentoring.
Variable measurement
All items were scored on a seven-point Likert scale
(1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). We measure
mentor support using Viator’s (2001) 16-item instrument,
which measures two aspects of psychosocial support (social
support androlemodelling) andtwoaspects of career devel-
opment support (career-related, and protection and assis-
tance). As the scale has not been subject to further testing,
we examine its dimensionality using an exploratory factor
analysis (oblique rotation). The initial solution, shown in
Table 1, Panel A, shows that the protection and assistance
items (PA1–PA3) do not load on a single factor; thus, we re-
move these items and re-run the factor analysis.
3
Panel B
shows that two factors are extracted, with the social support
and role modelling items loading on the ?rst factor, and the
career development items loading on the second factor. Thus,
we combine the social support and role modelling items to
construct a psychosocial support variable (Cronbach’s al-
pha = 0.91), and the career development items to construct
a career development support variable (alpha = 0.75).
Affective organizational commitment was measured
using Meyer and Allen’s (1997) six-item scale. All items
loaded on a single factor with an eigenvalue greater than
one. The Cronbach’s alpha is 0.79. Procedural justice was
measured using Moorman’s (1991) six-item scale. All
items loaded on a single factor with an eigenvalue greater
than one. The Cronbach’s alpha is 0.89. Psychological
empowerment was measured with the 12-item scale
developed by Spreitzer (1995), comprising four dimen-
sions (meaning, competence, self-determination, and im-
pact). Consistent with Fulford and Enz (1995) and
Hancer, George, and Kim (2005), we ?nd a three-factor
structure comprising meaning, competence and in?uence
(self-determination and impact items).
4
Job satisfaction
was measured using a six-item scale adapted from Rusbult
and Farrell (1983).
5
All items loaded on a single factor with
an eigenvalue greater than one. The Cronbach’s alpha is 0.90.
Organizational turnover intentions was measured with the
two-item scale developed by Viator (2001), and Cronbach’s
alpha for the scale is 0.79.
Results
Presence/absence of a mentor
Results of a MANOVA show no differences across vari-
ables between respondents who report having a mentor
and those who do not (F(5, 254) = 1.49, p = 0.193).
6
There
are also no signi?cant differences in means for each depen-
dent variable according to MENTOR (all p-values >0.05).
Consistent with calls to examine the quality of the mentor-
ing relationship (Allen et al., 2004; Ragins et al., 2000), our
results show that the mere presence of a mentor has no ef-
fect on organizational turnover intentions or any other vari-
ables in our model.
7
Table 1
Factor loadings from an exploratory factor analysis (oblique rotation) of the
mentor support scale.
Item Factor loadings
1 2 3
Panel A: factor analysis of all items
CD1 À0.195 0.906 À0.194
CD2 0.081 0.708 À0.021
CD3 0.334 0.476 À0.312
PA1 0.030 0.756 0.226
PA2 0.227 0.072 0.484
PA3 0.410 0.159 À0.728
SS1 0.314 0.593 0.219
SS2 0.726 À0.020 0.104
SS3 0.813 À0.072 À0.094
SS4 0.771 0.068 À0.080
SS5 0.797 À0.082 0.069
SS6 0.533 0.187 0.300
RM1 0.800 À0.004 À0.085
RM2 0.628 0.232 0.013
RM3 0.753 0.029 À0.051
RM4 0.434 0.416 0.171
Eigenvalue 7.15 1.38 1.10
% Variance explained 44.69 8.62 6.90
Item Factor loadings
1 2
Panel B: factor analysis: PA items removed
CD1 À0.131 0.923
CD2 0.147 0.722
CD3 0.290 0.562
SS1 0.555 0.342
SS2 0.760 À0.061
SS3 0.804 À0.112
SS4 0.829 À0.049
SS5 0.838 À0.169
SS6 0.650 0.091
RM1 0.731 0.089
RM2 0.670 0.200
RM3 0.703 0.087
RM4 0.581 0.283
Eigenvalue 6.50 1.25
% Variance explained 49.98 9.57
n = 107. CD, career development; PA, protection and assistance; SS, social
support; RM, role modelling.
3
In addition, the Cronbach’s alpha of a scale comprised of the PA items is
unacceptable at 0.17, supporting our decision to remove these items from
the mentor support scale.
4
Full results of the exploratory factor analysis on the psychological
empowerment scale are available from the authors. In our tests of
hypotheses, we model psychological empowerment as a second-order
factor as we are interested in how the overall construct of psychological
empowerment is associated with other variables in our model. The second-
order factor also allows for a more parsimonious model.
5
We include job satisfaction in our model as it is likely to intervene in
several of the relations between our variables; see footnote 14 for further
discussion.
6
For the MANOVA: independent variable = MENTOR, dependent vari-
ables = affective organizational commitment, procedural justice, psycho-
logical empowerment, job satisfaction, organizational turnover intentions.
7
Results also show no differences in MENTOR according to ?rm type (Big
4 vs. middle tier ?rm) (v
2
= 0.116, df = 1, p = 0.734), or gender (v
2
= 2.491,
df = 1, p = 0.114).
698 M. Hall, D. Smith / Accounting, Organizations and Society 34 (2009) 695–704
Partial least squares (PLS) regression
We employ PLS regression analysis using PLS-Graph 3.0
to test our hypotheses. We present results from the mea-
surement model ?rst followed by an examination of the
hypothesized relations between the constructs.
8
First, an
analysis of PLS cross-loadings (not reported) shows that all
items load above 0.5 on their respective constructs. Second,
the composite reliability scores for each variable are above
0.70 (see Table 2 for statistics). Third, the AVE for all vari-
ables except affective organizational commitment (0.49) is
above 0.50 (Chin, 1998; Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black,
1998). Fourth, the square roots of the AVEs (diagonal) are
all greater than the respective correlations. Overall, the re-
sults from the PLS measurement model indicate the con-
structs exhibit satisfactory reliability and convergent and
discriminant validity (Chin, 1998; Fornell & Larcker, 1981;
Nunnally, 1978).
Tests of hypotheses
We estimate a structural model in PLS-Graph to test the
hypotheses.
9
Fig. 1 shows our estimated model.
10
Our re-
sults show a positive association between career develop-
ment support and psychological empowerment (b = 0.284,
p < 0.01) (H1), and a positive association between psycho-
logical empowerment and organizational turnover inten-
tions (b = 0.191, p < 0.05) (H2). Psychosocial support is
positively associated with affective organizational commit-
ment (b = 0.233, p < 0.05) (H3) and procedural justice
(b = 0.262, p < 0.05) (H4). Further, affective organizational
commitment is negatively associated with organizational
turnover intentions (b = À0.295, p < 0.01) (H5). The associa-
tion between procedural justice and organizational turnover
intentions is not signi?cant (b = À0.092, p > 0.10) (H6). Re-
sults for control variable paths and explanatory power (R
2
)
are shown in Table 3.
11
Discussion
Our study contributes to the literature on public accoun-
tants’ mentoring and organizational turnover intentions by
providing an explanation for prior con?icting results. First,
we show that the mere presence/absence of a mentor has
no effect on organizational turnover intentions or any other
variables within our research model. This highlights the
importance of investigating the nature of mentoring sup-
port, rather than the presence/absence of a mentor. Second,
we show that some types of mentoring support (speci?-
cally, career development support) may increase
organizational turnover intentions: we ?nd that career
development support is positively associated with psycho-
logical empowerment, which, in turn, is positively associ-
ated with organizational turnover intentions. This is
contrary to the conventional view that ‘‘good” mentoring
necessarily leads to desirable outcomes for the ?rm (e.g.,
employee retention). However, our ?ndings are consistent
with theory that predicts that forms of organizational sup-
port that enhance employees’ beliefs about their ability to
secure valued alternative employment can increase turn-
over intentions (Benson et al., 2004; Harris, Kacmar, & Witt,
2005; Ito & Brotheridge, 2005; Maertz & Griffeth, 2004).
Our ?ndings raise an interesting question – should
accounting ?rms de-emphasize career development sup-
port mentoring? We argue that both types of mentor sup-
port are important for protégés’ development, and that one
should not be ignored in favour of the other. However, our
results should encourage accounting ?rms to re-think the
ef?cacy and design of mentoring programs insofar as they
are aimed at reducing employee turnover. In particular, for
formal mentoring, accounting ?rms can instruct mentors
on the likely effects of different types of mentor support
on protégés’ turnover intentions and behaviours. Whilst
more dif?cult for informal mentoring, it appears necessary
to develop an awareness among actual and potential men-
tors of the likely effects that career development support
can have on turnover behaviour, perhaps through educa-
tion programs and/or more speci?c guidance.
The effect of career development support on turnover is
likely to be particularly problematic in tight labour mar-
kets and in situations where protégés feel stressed, under-
8
Prior research indicates that individuals’ judgments and perceptions
about the organization usually take at least one year to develop (Vanden-
berg & Self, 1993). Thus, we remove 18 respondents who reported being
mentored for less than one year, resulting in a ?nal sample of 107. This at
least partially allows for the time lag between obtaining a mentor and this
having effects on our variables of interest. For the sample of 107, the
average (standard deviation) age of respondents is 26.78 (5.18) years with
an average (standard deviation) tenure in their accounting ?rm of 3.84
(3.23) years. Forty-nine respondents are male and 58 female. Eighty-three
respondents are from middle-tier ?rms and 24 are from Big 4 ?rms.
9
As PLS makes no distributional assumptions, we use bootstrapping
(1000 samples with replacement) to evaluate the statistical signi?cance of
each path coef?cient (Chin, 1998).
10
In addition to the hypothesized paths, we estimate several paths in the
PLS structural model to control for other relations among the variables.
First, we estimate paths from: procedural justice to job satisfaction (see, for
example, Parker & Kohlmeyer, 2005); affective organizational commitment
to job satisfaction (see, for example, Fogarty & Kalbers, 2006; Poznanski &
Bline, 1997), psychological empowerment to job satisfaction (Liden, Wayne,
& Sparrowe, 2000; Spreitzer, Kizilos, & Nason, 1997); and job satisfaction to
organizational turnover intentions (Harrell, 1990; Pasewark & Strawser,
1996; Pasewark & Viator, 2006; Snead & Harrell, 1991). Second, we control
for relations among our set of intervening variables. We estimate paths
from: procedural justice to affective organizational commitment (Siegel
et al., 2001) and psychological empowerment to affective organizational
commitment (Kraimer, Seibert, & Liden, 1999; Liden et al., 2000). Third, to
investigate whether mentoring’s effect on turnover intentions is direct or
indirect, we estimate paths from psychosocial support and career devel-
opment support to turnover intentions.
11
We also assessed the statistical signi?cance of the three indirect effects
captured by our hypothesized paths. We did this using a technique that
does not make distributional assumptions and is appropriate for small
samples. For each of the 1000 bootstraps, we multiply the estimated
coef?cients for each direct path to calculate an estimated coef?cient for the
indirect effect (e.g., multiply career development support-psychological
empowerment path coef?cient by the psychological empowerment-orga-
nizational turnover intentions path coef?cient). We determine signi?cance
by rank-ordering the 1000 indirect effect coef?cients and examining the
percentage above (for negative effects)/below (for positive effects) zero.
Results show that the career development support-psychological empow-
erment-organizational turnover intentions path is signi?cant (p = 0.03), as
is the psychosocial support-affective organizational commitment-organi-
zational turnover intentions path (p = 0.023). The psychosocial support-
procedural justice-organizational turnover intentions path is not signi?cant
(p = 0.113).
M. Hall, D. Smith/ Accounting, Organizations and Society 34 (2009) 695–704 699
Table 2
Descriptive statistics, reliability statistics, and correlations.
Variable Cronbach
alpha
Composite
reliability
Average
variance
extracted
Mean Standard
deviation
Career
development
support
Psycho-
social
support
Affective
organizational
commitment
Procedural
justice
Meaning Competence In?uence Job
satisfaction
Organizational
turnover
intentions
Career
development
support
0.750 0.855 0.663 5.260 1.048 0.814
Psychosocial
support
0.910 0.926 0.558 5.332 0.937 0.569
**
0.747
Affective
organizational
commitment
0.792 0.850 0.491 4.300 1.096 0.216
*
0.350
**
0.701
Procedural justice 0.887 0.915 0.645 4.270 1.284 0.288
**
0.341
**
0.420
**
0.803
Meaning 0.879 0.925 0.805 4.698 1.263 0.304
**
0.368
**
0.581
**
0.394
**
0.897
Competence 0.787 0.906 0.827 5.561 0.784 0.118 0.060 0.184 0.233
*
0.319
**
0.909
In?uence 0.905 0.927 0.680 4.634 1.129 0.352
**
0.220
*
0.470
**
0.426
**
0.603
**
0.490
**
0.825
Job satisfaction 0.892 0.918 0.654 4.608 1.150 0.329
**
0.414
**
0.646
**
0.517
**
0.783
**
0.216
*
0.588
**
0.809
Organizational
turnover
intentions
0.794 0.907 0.829 4.698 1.658 0.116 À0.161 À0.553
**
À0.349
**
À0.471
**
À0.044 À0.210
*
À0.602
**
0.910
n = 107.
Diagonal elements are the square roots of the AVE statistics. Off-diagonal elements are the correlations between the variables calculated in PLS-graph. The mean and standard deviation reported are for summated
scales calculated for each variable in SPSS.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01 (two-tailed).
7
0
0
M
.
H
a
l
l
,
D
.
S
m
i
t
h
/
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
,
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
S
o
c
i
e
t
y
3
4
(
2
0
0
9
)
6
9
5
–
7
0
4
valued and/or dissatis?ed at work. As such, a focus on
mentoring practices should not occur in isolation from
other mechanisms. In particular, it is important for
accounting ?rms to examine closely the operation of other
organizational practices (for example, internal promotion
opportunities, salary increases, work ?exibility – see Al-
mer, Higgs, & Hooks, 2005) to counteract against the po-
tential loss of staff who have received strong career
development support.
Our paper points to several fruitful areas for future re-
search. First, as our results show that some forms of
organizational support increase turnover intentions, fur-
ther research could consider whether and how other types
of organizational support (e.g., leader-member exchange,
supervisor support) relate to turnover intentions in
accounting ?rms. Second, whilst our study has focused on
howmentor support affects protégés, future research could
investigate the antecedents of different forms of mentor
H6(-)
H2(+)
H4(+)
H3(+)
H1(+)
H?(+)
H?(+)
H5(-)
**
________ hypothesized path
------------- control path
**
<0.01
*
<0.05
**
** **
**
**
**
**
*
*
*
Career
Development
Support
Psychosocial
Support
Job
Satisfaction
Psychological
Empowerment
Affective
Organizational
Commitment
Procedural
Justice
Organizational
Turnover
Intentions
Fig. 1. PLS estimated model.
Table 3
PLS structural model results: path coef?cients, t statistics and R
2
.
Dependent variables Independent variables
Career
development
support
Psychosocial
support
Procedural
justice
Psychological
empowerment
Affective organizational
commitment
Job
satisfaction
R
2
Affective organizational
commitment
À0.127 0.233
*
0.171 0.450
**
– – 37.37%
(1.146) (1.866) (1.732) (5.158)
Procedural justice 0.139 0.262
*
– – – – 12.93%
(0.925) (2.040)
Psychological
empowerment
0.284
**
0.131 – – – – 14.02%
(2.389) (0.989)
Job satisfaction – – 0.175
**
0.449
**
0.326
**
– 61.95%
(2.334) (5.343) (4.047)
Organizational turnover
intentions
0.355
**
À0.035 À0.092 0.191
*
À0.295
**
À0.602
**
54.26%
(4.479) (0.449) (1.153) (1.951) (3.117) (4.746)
n = 107.
Each cell reports the path coef?cient (t-value).
Blank cells indicate the path was not tested in the PLS model.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01 – (hypothesized paths are one-tailed tests, all other paths are two-tailed tests).
M. Hall, D. Smith/ Accounting, Organizations and Society 34 (2009) 695–704 701
support. In particular, consideration of how ?rm (e.g., for-
mal mentor programs, mentor training) and mentor (e.g.,
personality, interpersonal skills, and hierarchical position)
characteristics affect a mentor’s ability to provide psycho-
social and career development support represents a prom-
ising line of enquiry. Finally, it is also important to examine
whether or how mentoring practices combine with other
organizational practices to in?uence protégés’ beliefs and
work behaviours. Such research could be pursued through
?eld-studies of protégés where the wide variety of prac-
tices that shape their behaviours can be examined.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge ?nancial assis-
tance from CPA Australia, and would also like to thank
the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia for
their assistance in identifying ?rms to participate in our
study. Thanks to Wim Van der Stede, Rob Chenhall, Axel
Schulz, Robyn Moroney, Peter Carey, Dean Hanlon, Kim
Lang?eld-Smith, and Pauline Weetman for their helpful
comments on the paper.
Summary of results concerning mentoring relationships and organizational turnover intentions of public accountants.
Study Sample Variables Tests Results
Viator and
Scandura (1991)
1024 public
accountants in
large ?rms in US
INFMEN, CD, SS,
RM, INTLEAVE
Chi-square INFMEN Àve INTLEAVE
CD Àve INTLEAVE
Scandura and
Viator (1994)
1024 public
accountants in
large ?rms in US
INFMEN, CD, SS,
RM, INTLEAVE
Path analysis INFMEN Àve INTLEAVE
CD Àve INTLEAVE
Barker et al. (1999) 287 public
accountants in
Ireland
INFMEN, CD, SS,
RM, INTLEAVE
Chi-square, t-tests INFMENT Àve INTLEAVE
CD Àve INTLEAVE
SS Àve INTLEAVE
Viator (2001) 794 public
accountants in
large ?rms in US
FORMMEN, INFMEN,
RA, RC, PEU, JP,
INTLEAVE, CD,
PA, SS, RM
Structural equation
modelling
INFMEN Àve RA, FORMMEN
Àve RA
INFMEN Àve PEU, INFMEN
+ve JP
INFMEN not associated
INTLEAVE
FORMMEN not associated
INTLEAVE
CD Àve RA, PA Àve RC, CD
Àve PEU
Siegel et al. (2001) 118 public
accountants in
large ?rms in US
INFMEN, CD, SS,
RM, DJ, PJ, CE
(career expectations),
JOBSAT, OC
ANCOVA, correlation,
regression
INFMEN +ve DJ, INFMEN
+ve PJ
SS +ve DJ, SS +ve PJ, RM +ve
PJ
CD not associated DJ or PJ
CD +ve OC, SS +ve CE, SS +ve
JOBSAT
SS +ve OC, RM +ve CE, RM
+ve OC
Stallworth (2003) 107 public
accountants in
large
?rms in US
INFMEN, OC, INTLEAVE Correlation, regression INFMEN +ve OC
OC +ve INTLEAVE
Herbohn (2004) 161 public
accountants
in small and
large
?rms in
Australia
INFMEN, CD, SS, RM,
JOBSAT, INTLEAVE
t-tests, correlation INFMEN not associated
INTLEAVE
INFMEN +ve JOBSAT, CD
Àve INTLEAVE
SS Àve INTLEAVE, CD +ve
JOBSAT
CD, career development support; CE, career expectations; DJ, distributive justice; FORMEN, formal mentor; INFMEN,
informal mentor; INTLEAVE, intentions to leave accounting ?rm; JOBSAT, job satisfaction; JP, job performance; OC, orga-
nizational commitment; PEU, perceived environmental uncertainty; PJ, procedural justice; RA, role ambiguity; RC, role
con?ict; RM, role modelling; SS, social support.
Appendix
702 M. Hall, D. Smith / Accounting, Organizations and Society 34 (2009) 695–704
References
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career
bene?ts associated with mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 127–136.
Almer, E. D., Higgs, J. L., & Hooks, K. L. (2005). A theoretical framework of
the relationship between public accounting ?rms and their auditors.
Behavioral Research in Accounting, 17, 1–22.
American Institute of Certi?ed Public Accountants (AICPA). (2007). http://
www.aicpa.org/YoungCPANetwork/Mentoring.htm. Accessed
30.10.07.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Zhen, X. C. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the
relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test
of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23,
267–286.
Barker, P., Monks, K., & Buckley, F. (1999). The role of mentoring in the
career progression of chartered accountants. British Accounting
Review, 31, 297–312.
Baruch, Y. (1999). Response rate in academic studies – A comparative
analysis. Human Relations, 52, 421–438.
Benson, G. S., Finegold, D., & Mohrman, S. A. (2004). You paid for the skills,
now keep them: Tuition reimbursement and voluntary turnover.
Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 315–331.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach for structural
equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for
business research (pp. 295–336). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dailey, R. C., & Kirk, J. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as
antecedents of job satisfaction and intent to turnover. Human
Relations, 45, 305–317.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived
organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507.
Fogarty, T. J., & Kalbers, L. P. (2006). Internal auditor burnout: An
examination of behavioral consequences. Advance.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models
with observable variables and measurement error. Journal of
Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
Fulford, M. D., & Enz, C. A. (1995). The impact of empowerment on service
employees. Journal of Managerial Issues, 7(2), 161–175.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and
tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399–432.
Gregg, C. (1999). Someone to look up to. Journal of Accountancy, November,
89–93.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Hall, M. (2008). The effect of comprehensive performance measurement
systems on role clarity, psychological empowerment and managerial
performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33, 141–163.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998).
Multivariate data analysis (?fth ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-
Hall International.
Hancer, M., George, R. T., & Kim, B. (2005). An examination of
psychological empowerment: Scale for service employees.
Psychological Reports, 97, 667–672.
Harrell, A. (1990). A longitudinal examination of large CPA ?rm auditors’
personnel turnover. Advances in Accounting, 8, 233–246.
Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Witt, L. A. (2005). An examination of the
curvilinear relationship between leader-member exchange and intent
to turnover. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 363–378.
Herbohn, K. (2004). Informal mentoring relationships and the career
processes of public accountants. The British Accounting Review, 36,
369–393.
Ito, J. K., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2005). Does supporting employees’ career
adaptability lead to commitment, turnover, or both? Human Resource
Management, 44(1), 5–19.
Joiner, T. A., Bartram, T., & Garreffa, T. (2004). The effects of mentoring on
perceived career success, commitment and turnover intentions. The
Journal of American Academy of Business, 164–170.
Kaplan, S. E., Keinath, A. K., & Walo, J. C. (2001). An examination of
perceived barriers to mentoring in public accounting. Behavioral
Research in Accounting, 13, 195–220.
Ketchand, A. A., & Strawser, J. R. (1998). The existence of multiple
measures of organizational commitment and experience-related
differences in a public accounting setting. Behavioral Research in
Accounting, 10, 109–137.
Ketchand, A. A., & Strawser, J. R. (2001). Multiple dimensions of
organizational commitment: Implications for future accounting
research. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 13, 222–251.
Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee
drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 698–708.
Kraimer, M. L., Seibert, S. E., & Liden, R. C. (1999). Psychological
empowerment as a multidimensional construct: A construct validity
test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 127–142.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in
organizational life. Glenview: Scott, Foresman and Co.
Lankau, M. J., & Scandura, T. A. (2002). An investigation of personal
learning in mentoring relationships: Content, antecedents, and
consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 779–790.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination of the
intervening role of psychological empowerment on the relations
between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 407–416.
Luft, J., & Shields, M. D. (2007). Mapping management accounting:
Graphics and guidelines for theory-consistent empirical research. In
C. S. Chapman, A. G. Hopwood, & M. D. Shields (Eds.), Handbook of
management accounting research (pp. 27–95). Oxford: Elsevier.
Maertz, C. P., & Griffeth, R. W. (2004). Eight motivational forces and
voluntary turnover: A theoretical synthesis with implications for
research. Journal of Management, 30, 667–683.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the
antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational
commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 671–684.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace. Sage:
Thousand Oaks.
Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace:
Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11,
299–326.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and
organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions
in?uence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6),
845–855.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (second ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Parker, R. J., & Kohlmeyer, J. M. (2005). Organizational justice and
turnover in public accounting ?rms: A research note. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 30, 357–369.
Pasewark, W. R., & Strawser, J. R. (1996). The determinants and outcomes
associated with job insecurity in a professional accounting
environment. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 8, 91–113.
Pasewark, W. R., & Viator, R. E. (2006). Sources of work-family con?ict in
the accounting profession. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 18,
147–165.
Payne, S. C., & Huffman, A. H. (2005). A longitudinal examination of the
in?uence of mentoring on organizational commitment and turnover.
Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 158–168.
Poznanski, P. J., & Bline, D. M. (1997). Using structural equation modeling
to investigate the causal ordering of job satisfaction and
organizational commitment among staff accountants. Behavioral
Research in Accounting, 9, 154–171.
Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: The
effects of type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design
on work and career attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6),
1177–1194.
Rusbult, C. E., & Farrell, D. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment
model: The impact on job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover
of variations in rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 68, 429–438.
Russell, J. E. A., & Adams, D. M. (1997). The changing nature of mentoring
in organizations: An introduction to the special issue on mentoring in
organizations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 1–14.
Scandura, T. A. (1997). Mentoring and organizational justice: An empirical
investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 58–69.
Scandura, T. A., & Viator, R. E. (1994). Mentoring in public accounting
?rms: An analysis of mentor-protégé relationships, mentorship
functions, and protégé turnover intentions. Accounting, Organizations
and Society, 19(8), 717–734.
Shields, M. D., Deng, F. J., & Kato, Y. (2000). The design and effects of
control systems: Tests of direct- and indirect-effects models.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 25, 185–202.
Siegel, P. H., Reinstein, A., & Miller, C. L. (2001). Mentoring and
organizational justice among audit professionals. Journal of
Accounting, Auditing, and Finance, 16(1), 1–25.
Snead, K., & Harrell, A. (1991). The impact of psychological factors on the
job satisfaction of senior auditors. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 3,
85–96.
M. Hall, D. Smith/ Accounting, Organizations and Society 34 (2009) 695–704 703
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace:
Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management
Journal, 38, 1442–1465.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological
empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483–504.
Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W. (1997). A dimensional
analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment
and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain. Journal of Management,
23(5), 679–704.
Stallworth, H. L. (2003). Mentoring, organizational commitment and
intentions to leave public accounting. Managerial Auditing Journal,
18(5), 405–419.
Tharenou, P. (2005). Does mentor support increase women’s career
advancement more than men’s? The differential effects of career and
psychosocial support. Australian Journal of Management, 30(1),
77–109.
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of
empowerment: An ‘‘interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation.
Academy of Management Review, 15, 666–681.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Self, R. M. (1993). Assessing newcomers’ changing
commitments to the organization during the ?rst 6 months of work.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 557–568.
Viator, R. E. (2001). The association of formal and informal public
accounting mentoring with role stress and related job outcomes.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26(1), 73–93.
Viator, R. E., & Scandura, T. A. (1991). A study of mentor-protégé
relationships in large public accounting ?rms. Accounting Horizons,
September, 20–30.
Viator, R. E., & Pasewark, W. R. (2005). Mentor separation tension in the
accounting profession: The consequences of delayed structural
separation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30, 371–387.
704 M. Hall, D. Smith / Accounting, Organizations and Society 34 (2009) 695–704
doc_159906940.pdf