Are self-leaders more willing to mentor others? A study among Indian and Spanish university teachers

1 Are self-leaders more willing to mentor others? A study among Indian and Spanish university teachers Purpose: This study aims to understand the influence of self-leadership on the intention to mentor among university teachers considering the mediating role of self-efficacy and the moderating role of individualism-collectivism dimensions. Design/methodology/approach: A standardized questionnaire was used to collect data from Indian and Spanish university teachers. SEM and hierarchical multiple regression analysis were used to theorize about the relationship between self-leadership and intention to mentor, and the potential influence of self-efficacy and cultural variables in this relationship. Findings: Self-leadership strategies influence the intention to mentor through university teachers´ self-efficacy. The positive relationship between self-efficacy and intention to mentor becomes stronger when the respondents are inclined towards vertical collectivistic or horizontal individualistic values. Research limitations/implications: The study extends mentoring literature since it incorporates both individual and cultural variables, allowing observing their interplay and giving a holistic understanding of the issue. The main limitation of the study is its crosssectional survey design, which is the use of data collected from a single-sitting, self-reporting measure. Different procedures were used to control method biases. Practical implications: Intention to mentor can help university teachers (especially the younger staffs) and students to establish the process that can reinforce their commitment towards realistic goals. In the long term, entering into a mentoring relationship might boost self-efficacy and self-leadership qualities of the mentors themselves. 2 Originality/value: The comprehensiveness and relevance of the variables in the context chosen is the primary strength of this research. In the scenario of increasing professionalization and globalization, the cross-cultural nature of this study brings in a global perspective of the research problem. Keywords: Self-leadership, self-efficacy, intention to mentor, cross-cultural study, individualism-collectivism. Article classification: Research paper Cita: Ganesh, M.P., López-Cabarcos, M.Á. and Vázquez-Rodríguez, P. (2019), "Are self-leaders more willing to mentor others? A study among Indian and Spanish university teachers", Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 223-245. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-04-2017-0047 3 Introduction The emergence of a knowledge-based economy has led to the increased professionalization of work force (Antal International, 2015). Professionals are characterized by long periods of extensive training and specialized education (Shulman, 1998). Compared to individuals at managerial roles, professionals enjoy a high level of autonomy in their work sphere and are governed more by the internalized ethical values of the profession than by their managers or organizational rules and procedures (Forsyth and Danisiewicz, 1985). Thus, professionalized jobs are considered to be self-governed and not externally governed (Weggeman, 1989). Recent changes in the social structures, technology and demographics have also increased the need for self-direction in most careers (Sullivan and Baruch, 2009). Employee self-governance requires self-influence in the form of discipline and direction, the qualities which can be grouped under the taxonomy of self-leadership (Neck and Manz, 1992). Most theorists have construed self-leadership as a self-influence process involving a set of behavioural and cognitive strategies, which are broadly classified into three groups, namely: behaviour focused strategies, natural reward strategies, and constructive thought process strategies (Anderson and Prussia, 1997). Setting goals and aligning oneself towards them, rewarding oneself when those goals are achieved, and self-correction during deviation from those goals are some forms of behaviour focused strategies. Natural reward strategies aim to improve the perception of inherent positive elements in a given task, which is similar to that of finding an innate meaning in the given task rather than looking for external rewards. Constructive thought pattern strategies involve challenging irrational belief 4 systems, mental imagery of successful performance and positive self-talk (Neck and Houghton, 2006). These self-leadership qualities are highly relevant for professionalized jobs with high levels of autonomy and self-control (Manz and Sims, 1987). From an organization’s point of view, using traditional measures of managerial and leadership control may not be effective in managing such self-directed workforces. In the context of self-directed and autonomous work force, leadership might involve encouraging others to lead themselves. Manz and Sims (1991) call this form of leadership as superleadership. Being self-leaders themselves, super-leaders might be highly motivated to inculcate those qualities in their followers (Houghton et al., 2003). Demonstrating the benefits of self-leadership qualities to others as a role model might involve creating nurturing relationships like a mentoring relationship. Thus, it would be very interesting to analyse if self-leaders commit themselves to the idea of creating leaders out of followers by mentoring others in the organization. The relationship between self-leadership qualities and willingness to mentor can be explained by the improved sense of security and control among self-leaders. Especially, selfleadership as a self-regulatory mechanism can improve an individual’s perception of selfcontrol and self-confidence and this can translate into higher levels of self-efficacy (Neck and Houghton, 2006). In this sense, self-efficacy is one’s judgement of “how well one can execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations” (Bandura, 1982, p. 122) and it is also a strong determinant of a person’s behaviour, thought pattern and emotional response in reaction to challenging situations. Among various professionals, academic jobs are considered to be protean careers in which the individuals are self-driven, and their personal values drive their career progress (Baruch and Hall, 2004). According to Higgins and Kram (2001), relational influences like 5 mentoring can serve as a key resource for such kind of employees. So, understanding the influence of self-leadership on intention to mentor through academicians’ self-efficacy might give valuable insights, specifically because both variables are highly relevant in the context of academic profession (Demir, 2008). Increased globalization and mobility of people across national boundaries have created the need to understand the role of cultural orientation in employees’ behaviour. Cultural values can have a strong influence on the career attitudes of the employees (Minkov and Hofstede, 2011). Many contextual factors like cultural values, political environment, economy along with personal factors can influence an individual’s journey in his/her career path (Sullivan and Arthur, 2006). For example, Segers et al. (2008) found that individuals in lower power distance cultures were more self-directed in their career management. This study also argues that employees with different cultural orientations may have widely different career needs and may be motivated by different career factors. Thus, understanding the influence of cultural values on the work behaviour of professionals like academicians can bring in valuable insights. The significance of this study is the selection of variables and the study context because it is quite novel to analyse the role of self-leadership for teacher’s effectiveness in higher educational institutions across different nationalities. Selecting university level teachers is a key highlight of this study because their role is expected to be that of a nurturant one. In fact, most societies expect the teacher to imbibe holistic development of other people through mentoring (Davis, 2003). So, the primary objective of the present study is to understand the effect of self-leadership on the intention to mentor through Spanish and Indian university teachers’ self-efficacy, considering different cultural values. 6 The concept of Self-leadership Self-leadership is a process involving control and influence of one’s own behaviour through certain behavioural and cognitive strategies (Manz, 1986). Employees who regulate their actions in a positive direction can be an asset to the organization, wherein they not only perform effectively but also influence people around them as role models (Gong et al., 2009). The concept of self-leadership borrows heavily from the larger theoretical framework of self-influence (Neck and Houghton, 2006). According to behavioural self-regulation approach (Carver and Scheier, 1981, 1998), individuals monitor and control the balance between their aspirations and actual behaviour through a self-regulatory process that helps to reduce the discrepancy between one’s own performance standard and the effort exerted. Bandura’s (1986) theory of social cognition also has a strong relevance to self-leadership. Similar to self-regulation theory, social cognitive theory establishes an individual’s selfregulatory system as a product of three processes, namely: self-monitoring, self-judgment and self-reaction (Neck and Houghton, 2006). Self-leadership strategies are also closely related to the concept of intrinsic motivation (Manz, 1986). Unlike self-management strategies, which focus on the external rewards as a result of successful completion of the task, self-leadership focus on the natural rewards which are the rewarding nature of the task itself (Neck and Houghton, 2006). Previous studies on self-leadership in work context were primarily focused on the areas of self-managing work groups (Manz and Sims, 1986, 1987) and empowering leadership (Manz and Sims, 1991). In fact, empowering leadership in contrary to mainstream leadership models of the 1970s insisted on the notion of empowering followers and creating self-leaders as an effective leadership practice (Manz and Sims, 1991). The concept of empowering leadership is like that of super-leadership, which is helping the subordinates to 7 lead themselves more effectively (Neck and Houghton, 2006). As leadership qualities, selfleadership and super-leadership are connected in many ways. A super-leader not only creates self-directed subordinates but also becomes a self-leader him/herself demonstrating the benefits of those self-leadership qualities to others as a role model. According to Houghton et al. (2012), to measure self-leadership it is necessary to consider three sub-dimensions, behavioural awareness and volition (BAV), task motivation (TM) and constructive cognition (CC). BAV involved self-observation and self-goal setting which can be categorized as behaviour focused strategies of self-leadership. TM factor involves visualizing successful performance and self-reward and represents both the behaviour focused and constructive thought process strategies dimensions. The CC factor includes self-talk and evaluating beliefs and thus represents constructive thought process strategies of self-leadership. The researches on self-leadership in university context and those analysing the relationship between self-leadership and other outcomes are scarce. Self-leadership strategies are highly relevant for the successful career of professionals including university teachers. In most cases, apart from the broader organizational guidelines for career advancements, performance targets of university teachers are highly internalized and are associated with long terms career goals (Austin, 2002). Intention to mentor as an outcome Mentoring is defined as a process through which the older experienced individual (mentor) acts as a guide, counsellor and a friend to a younger or inexperienced individual (mentee), with potential benefits to the mentees (Koyuncu et al., 2014). Among various factors which affect the effectiveness of a mentoring program, the mentors’ willingness or intention to 8 mentor plays a crucial role (Ragins and Scandura, 1994). Various theories in social psychology have also noted the role of intentions in actual behaviour of an individual (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Specifically, the theory of planned behaviour suggests individuals’ attitude towards behaviour leads to intentions which in turn leads to actual behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). So, considering intention to mentor can help understand the individual’s discretionary preferences to get involved in a mentoring process, aiming to avoid already existing mentoring relationships potentially influenced by external factors like formal mentoring programmes prescribed by the own organization. Previous research on mentoring has used the mentors´ willingness to mentor as the outcome variable (Allen et al., 1997; Ragins and Scandura, 1999; Bear and Hwang, 2015; Banerjee-Batist et al., 2019). Being self-aware and having the ability to manage one’s own emotional state and cope with hardships are some of the crucial predispositions of an effective mentor (Leban and Zulauf, 2004). Intention to mentor is considered as a crucial super-leadership quality because it acts as a starting point for nurturing such self-leadership practices within the organization (Kram and Hall, 1996). Based on career and life stage theories, Allen (2003) proposes that mentors might be motivated to get into mentoring relationships primarily to fulfil their own developmental needs. Thus, teachers who are high in self-leadership qualities would be more willing to mentor others and help their mentees become self-reliant. It could be thought that a teacher´s responsibilities encompass the role of a mentor to the students (Stanulis, 1995), but if mentoring is understood as a process that involves teachers and students in a deeper relationship than that based on teaching activity, this kind of process do not arise in all cases. Thus, the social expectation of the role of a teacher as a mentor to the students is an implicit one and in many cases it does not agree with a formal job description. So, teachers’ mentoring behaviours can be often discretionary and extra-role in nature (DeAngelo et al., 2016). 9 The need for faculty-faculty level of mentoring is also acute, as most academic careers emphasize individuals to choose their own career paths and take care of their progress in those chosen paths (Young et al., 2005). Self-leadership qualities can help in situations where the structure and certainty in career paths are low. They may increase the willingness to mentor, encouraging teachers to mentor younger colleagues who are in the early stages of their careers (Manz and Neck, 2004). The crucial link which connects self-leadership qualities and willingness to mentor is the level of control one perceives over his/her life (Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2007), which is related to the concept of self-efficacy. The role of Self-efficacy Self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1997) proposes that efficacy beliefs are strong determinant of people’s choice of goals, and their effort and persistence in achieving those goals. Social cognitive perspective considers self-efficacy as a dynamic quality which is linked to particular performance domains which are task specific (Bandura, 1986). Selfefficacy is also considered as a generalized state of mind (Chen et al., 2001). Generalized self-efficacy represents “the individuals’ perception of their ability to perform across a variety of situations” (Judge et al., 1998, p. 170). Researches have shown a positive impact of leadership on self-efficacy and many of these studies focus on external leadership rather than self-leadership (Karl et al., 1993). As a construct, self-efficacy is closely associated with selfleadership. In this sense, self-regulatory strategies have proximal connection to the concept of confidence in terms of perception of one’s own personal capabilities (Neck and Houghton, 2006). According to social learning theory, modelling in the form of self-instructional thoughts (labelled as cognitive modelling) is an influential antecedent of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977; Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998). These self-instructional thoughts are similar to 16 Cotton (1993). This scale uses a 7-point rating scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. All these items are included in Table 3. Individualism and collectivism were measured using the scale developed by Triandis and Gelfland (1998). This scale measures individualism and collectivism at two levels namely horizontal and vertical. Therefore, the scale has four subscales, namely horizontal individualism (4 items), vertical individualism (4 items), horizontal collectivism (4 items) and vertical collectivism (4 items). 9-point rating scale was used where response ranged from never/definitely no to always/definitely yes. The country has been used as a control variable of the model. Results The means, standard deviations, simple correlations and estimated reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) of the variables used in this study are presented in Table 1. All of them showed Cronbach’s alpha values acceptable and higher than 0.60 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Correlation analysis indicated a significant positive correlation between self-leadership and self-efficacy, intention to mentor, horizontal individualism, vertical individualism and vertical collectivism. Intention to mentor displayed a significant positive correlation with self-efficacy, vertical individualism and horizontal collectivism. Apart from the intention to mentor, self-efficacy showed a significant positive correlation with horizontal collectivism. Correlational analysis also noted that nationality was significantly correlated with intention to mentor, horizontal individualism, vertical individualism, vertical collectivism and behavioural awareness and volition; hence nationality was controlled when testing the model (Shi et al., 2011). (Insert Table 1 about here) There are significant differences between Indian and Spanish respondents on both vertical individualism (M(SD) India = 5.06(1.5), M(SD) Spain = 3.6(1.5), t(df) = 6.36(193), 17 p<.01) and vertical collectivism (M(SD) India = 7.2(1.4), M(SD) Spain = 6.6(1.4), t(df) = 3.27(194), p<.01), and also in horizontal individualism (M(SD) India = 6.75(1.57), M(SD) Spain = 6.23(1.42), t(df) = 2.42(186), p<.05). Indians teachers had higher scores, which is in contradiction to the popular belief that individuals belonging to eastern countries are more collectivistic than the westerners. A keen look at the items of the questionnaire and the definition of the sub dimensions reveal interesting insights. The present study shows that for the Indian respondents, the vertical component is the overpowering attribute of the individualism-collectivism dimension. Indian respondents also showed a higher value in one of the dimensions of self-leadership (namely, behavioural awareness and volition, M(SD) India = 4.05(0.6), M(SD) Spain = 3.7(0.63), t(df) = 3.34(195), p<.001), which means, that the increase in competition has created the need to be more self-observant and focused on their goals. Finally, Indian respondents showed higher intention to mentor than the Spain counterparts (M(SD) India = 5.7(1.2), M(SD) Spain = 5.2(1.08), t(df) = 3.52(185), p<.001), which can also be associated with their high scores in several cultural values dimensions. The rest of the variables did not show significant differences between Indian and Spanish respondents. Measurement model Convergent validity analysis showed that all indicators loaded onto their respective latent factor significantly (p<.001) and substantially (λ>.5). Moreover, two additional indicators namely composite reliability index and average variance extracted (AVE) were calculated in order to measure the scale’s reliability. Thus, the scale’s reliability was confirmed. Lastly, discriminant validity was evaluated in two different ways. First, the AVE and the squared correlations between constructs were compared (Hair et al., 2009). In all cases, the AVE was 18 greater than the squared correlation estimates. Second, a series of CFA tests were evaluated on alternative measurement models (Table 2). Using a chi-square difference test, the hypothesized three-factor measurement model was compared with these alternative measurement models. Model 1 had a significantly better fit to the data than model 2 (Δχ2 (1) = 7.775, p <.001). Simultaneously, model 1 showed better fit to the data than model 3 (Δχ2 (2) = 0.356, n.s.) and model 4 (Δχ2 (4) = 0.437, n.s.), although the differences were not significant. So, results of comparisons between the hypothesized model and the alternative models showed that model 1 provided the best fit to the data: χ2 (df) = 155.886(97), p < .001, GFI = 0.910, RMSEA = 0.056, TLI = 0.946, CFI = 0.956, χ2 / df = 1.607. (Insert Table 2 about here) (Insert Table 3 about here) Structural model The theoretical model was tested. The goodness-of-fit indices of the model presented good values: χ2 (df) = 214.971(111), p < .001, GFI = 0.888, RMSEA = 0.070, TLI = 0.909, CFI = 0.926, χ2 / df = 1.937. The structural paths between self-leadership and self-efficacy (β = 0.622, p < .001) and self-efficacy and the intention to mentor (β = 0.413, p < .05), were significant, thus confirming H1 and H2. The structural path between country variable and self-efficacy was not significant (β = 0.093, p < n.s.), however the path between country variable and the intention to mentor was significant (β = 0 .215, p < .01). The results indicate that self-leadership accounts for 41.6% of the self-efficacy in the university teachers and, in turn, self-efficacy accounts for 26.3% of their intention to mentor. From the results it can be deduced that self-efficacy fully mediates the relationship between self-leadership and intention to mentor. In order to confirm this result, two additional 19 models were proposed (Baron and Kenny, 1986). Table 4 presents the model-fit statistics and Table 5 shows the path coefficients of the three models. As shown in Table 5, the relationship between self-leadership and intention to mentor was only significant in Model 3 (direct effects) but disappeared once self-efficacy was taken into consideration (Model 1). The paths from self-leadership to self-efficacy and from self-efficacy to the intention to mentor remained significant in both models (partial and full mediation). In addition, the Sobel test (1982) was performed to assess the significance of the indirect effects of self-leadership on the intention to mentor through self-efficacy. The test supported the mediating effect of selfefficacy (z = 3.83; p < .001). As shown in Table 4, the chi-square of Model 2 (full mediation) (χ2 = 215.018, df = 112) was greater than the chi-square of Model 1 (partial mediation) (χ2 = 214.971, df = 111), although not significantly different (Δ χ2 = 0.047, Δ df = 1, n.s.), and lower than the chi-square of Model 3 (direct effects) (χ2 = 281.260, df = 113) and significantly different (Δ χ2 = 66.242, Δ df = 1, sig). Some authors disagree that the final decision on mediation depends on the significance of a parameter (which is always a convention) and prefer to establish as criterion of analysis where part of the total effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable is due to the mediation effect (Variance Accounted For - VAF). Our results showed VAF of 0.9518 and supported full mediation as it exceeded 0.80 (Hair et al., 2014). So, the above results establish Model 2 as a better choice. Thereby, the hypothesis H3 which asserts that self-efficacy fully mediates the relationship between selfleadership and intention to mentor is supported. (Insert Table 4 about here) (Insert Table 5 about here) We also analysed the moderating effect of cultural dimensions in the relationship between self-efficacy and the intention to mentor, considering them as a proxy of the country, 20 since as mentioned above, three of the four cultural dimensions considered in the study have shown significant differences between both countries. With this background, moderating effects of cultural orientation dimensions were studied using hierarchical multiple regression (Cohen and Cohen, 1983). Specifically, horizontal individualism, vertical individualism, horizontal collectivism and vertical collectivism were used as separate moderators in the relationship between self-efficacy and intention to mentor. After centring the predictor variables to reduce the correlation between them (Dawson, 2014), four different regression analyses were conducted. Table 6 shows that while horizontal individualism and vertical collectivism interacted with self-efficacy and had significant impact on intention to mentor, the interaction of vertical individualism or horizontal collectivism and self-efficacy did not have any significant impact on the intention to mentor. Therefore, H7 was supported. And H4 was supported in a different direction from the one hypothesized, whereas H5 and H6 were not supported. (Insert Table 6 about here) Hence, the above results show that the relationship between self-efficacy and intention to mentor differ according to the level of horizontal individualism or vertical collectivism; however, it was not clear how it differs. The interaction terms were positive, so it suggests that the relationship between self-efficacy and intention to mentor becomes more positive as horizontal individualism or vertical collectivism increased; however, the size and precise nature of these effects were not easy to estimate using only these coefficients. Therefore, these effects were plotted in to interpret it visually (Dawson, 2014) (Figures 1 and 2). Two new grouping variables were created, categorizing horizontal individualism and vertical collectivism into three levels – low, moderate and high – to predict the relationship between self-efficacy and intention to mentor at the three levels of the moderator variables, obtaining 21 three different regression groups. It was shown that a high level of horizontal individualism had a strong regression effect (R2 Lineal = 0.484) on self-efficacy and intention to mentor relationship (correlation value = 0.69). R2 Lineal horizontal individualism moderate = 0.147 (correlation value = 0.38), and R2 Lineal horizontal individualism low = 0.004 (correlation value = 0.06). Hence, it was demonstrated that the relationship between self-efficacy and intention to mentor is always positive, but it was higher for individuals with higher levels than for individuals with lower levels of horizontal individualism. Although horizontal individualism has moderated the relationship between self-efficacy and intention to mentor as we have hypothesized, it does it in the opposite direction. Results also indicate that a high level of vertical collectivism has a strong regression effect (R2 Lineal = 0.347) on the relationship between self-efficacy and intention to mentor (correlation value = 0.58). R2 Lineal vertical collectivism moderate = 0.161 (correlation value = 0.40), and R2 Lineal vertical collectivism low = 0.019 (correlation value = 0.13). Here it is demonstrated that the relationship between self-efficacy and intention to mentor is always positive, but it is distinctively heightened for individuals with higher levels of vertical collectivism than for those with lower levels. (Insert Figures 1 and 2 about here) Figure 3 summarizes the results of the hypotheses tested. (Insert Figure 3 about here) Discussion The study results show that self-leadership has a significant impact on self-efficacy. As previously discussed, self-leadership involves individuals exerting conscious effort to set their own performance goals and monitor progress towards fulfilling those goals. During this process, individuals may introspect on their strengths and weaknesses, and be conscious about 22 the external factors which can influence their performance (Hollenbeck and Williams, 1987). Thus, the increase of self-awareness due to introspection and awareness of the environment (external factors) may bring in a sense of control, which in turn increases the individual’s selfconfidence and self-efficacy (Karoly, 1993). The significant positive impact of self-efficacy on intention to mentor among the respondents denotes the importance of self-confidence among employees in nurturing leadership qualities like intention to mentor others (Rekha and Ganesh, 2010). The ultimate objective of mentoring is to create independent self-reliant individuals, i.e., self-leaders. Through this understanding mentoring can be viewed as an act of creating more leaders (super-leadership) with self-confidence which is a necessary trait in any form of leadership (Kipnis and Lane, 1962). Teachers with higher levels of self-efficacy may consider mentoring others as a positive way of gaining referent power in the organization (Carson et al., 1993). Studies also show that mentoring relationships can help mentors gain self-confidence, therefore in contrast to our hypothesis; it is possible that employees use mentoring as an avenue to improve themselves (Rekha and Ganesh, 2010). Results also show that self-efficacy fully mediates the relationship between selfleadership and intention to mentor. This proves the role of self-efficacy as the process through which self-leadership influence intention to mentor. From an organizational perspective, nurturing self-leadership involves certain level of delegation and decentralization of authority from the top, reducing the dependency on external performance control mechanisms (Stewart and Manz, 1995). Thus, teachers can perceive mentoring students and colleagues as a moral obligation to the organization which has given them more autonomy and power (Moberg and Velasquez, 2004). 23 In the present study, horizontal individualism and vertical collectivism moderate the relationship between self-efficacy and intention to mentor. This result in in line with recent research which has also found collectivism (Chiu et al., 2018) or individualism (Mukherjee et al., 2012; Alcántara-Pilar and Del Barrio-García, 2015) play a moderator role in different study contexts. The nature of the moderating effect shows that the positive relationship between self-efficacy and intention to mentor becomes stronger when the respondents are inclined towards vertical collectivistic or horizontal individualistic values. The reason for the different direction of the moderating effect of horizontal individualism could be due to the unique nature of the context of academic work. The fact that most academic institutions have few formal hierarchical levels to differentiate between teachers can instil a sense of equality among them. Teachers with high self-efficacy are inclined towards mentoring; their intention becomes stronger when they are driven by a feeling of empathy generated from the equality (Kalbfleisch and Keyton, 1995). In a knowledge-based industry like a University, reverse mentoring (mentors gaining through mentoring) and learning orientation are important driving factors in an individual’s intention to mentor (Allen, 2003). The changing nature of the interaction of cultural values with other variables over decades have created difficulties for researchers to hypothesize the exact nature of their moderation effect (Matsumoto and van de Vijver, 2010) irrespective of existing strong theoretical support. On the other hand, the moderating effect of vertical collectivism shows that the moral obligation to their roles by complying with certain social norms strengthens the relationship between self-efficacy and mentoring among University teachers. A previous study found that cultural value orientation in terms of individual and collectivistic values influence the way individuals define extra-role performances at the workplace (Varela et al., 2010). If we consider intention to mentor as a voluntary behaviour, 24 it can be focused towards the organization (a sense of obligation towards the organization drives the employee’s performance) or focused towards fellow workers (a sense of empathy drives it) (Organ, 1997). The results from the present study indirectly show that some respondents have viewed mentoring as beneficial to the organization, while others have viewed it as primarily an interpersonal behaviour aimed at developing individuals. Implications The primary insight from this research is the need for organizations to encourage selfmanagement skills among their employees in order to improve their effectiveness in the workplace. In practice, it implies that empowering professionals to manage their own career is important not only to boost their self-efficacy but also to instil voluntary behaviours like intention to mentor. Also, it asserts that self-leadership qualities in the workplace can be facilitated by providing autonomy to academicians to choose the means of achieving their goals as well as their long-term career goals. This can be accomplished by the academic institutions promoting a varied set of performance standards as criteria for career advancements and providing other rewards for teachers, instead of focusing on few rigid standards. For example, in the present scenario most universities evaluate a teacher’s performance using their research and published papers, which may be a source of stress to those academicians whose interests lie in private organizations collaboration, socially relevant projects or excellence in teaching. So, by bringing in these dimensions to the specification of a teachers’ role and giving shared weightage to these components the teachers would be free to choose their long-term career goals and the criteria they are comfortable with. However, it must be noted that higher levels of autonomy to choose one’s own career goals can lead to a sense of lack of direction, particularly for academic professionals who are in their early stage 25 of their careers. This can be tackled by encouraging young faculty to choose mentors within the organization who can help them in the self-goal setting process. Mentoring will help young university teachers not only to set realistic goals but also to establish the process that will reinforce their commitment towards those goals. In the long run, entering into a mentoring relationship might boost self-efficacy and self-leadership qualities of mentors as well. Mentoring as a support is found to help mentees convert their research efforts into entrepreneurial ventures (Fernández-Pérez et al., 2015). Previous research clearly states that there is also a strong need felt among students at university levels to participate in mentoring programs (Luna and Cullen, 1998). Benefits of increasing teachers’ intention to mentor can go beyond students’ academic career and can lead to students´ increased professionalism and sensitization to ethical values (Rose et al., 2005). Therefore, teachers can play a fundamental role in the future professional possibilities of those students with whom they establish a relationship that goes beyond the relationship based on a mere teaching activity. Regardless of who is the mentee, as a policy level implication this study throws light on the key challenge for the administrators while choosing between formal and informal mentoring programs. Formal mentoring programs may reduce the voluntary nature of the process of mentoring, and thus the internal motivation associated with it decreases. Informal mentoring programs may overcome this weakness but in contrast might not have much support from teachers. Moderation results show that teachers with higher self-efficacy are driven either by the sense of equality (horizontal individualism) or moral obligation (vertical collectivism) in their choice of whether or not to mentor. As a managerial implication, this explains that the structure and policies of the organization can play an important role in disseminating both these cultural values among its employees. Flatter organizational structures encourage interaction and collaboration and thus bridge the gap arising due to the diversity in age, 32 Davis, H.A. (2003), “Conceptualizing the role and influence of student-teacher relationships on children's social and cognitive development”, Educational Psychologist, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 207-234. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3804_2 Dawson, J.F. (2014), “Moderation in management research: what, why, when, and how”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 1-19. doi: 10.1007/s10869013-9308-7 Day, R. and Allen, T.D. (2004), “The relationship between career motivation and self-efficacy with protégé career success”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 7291. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00036-8 DeAngelo, L., Mason, J. and Winters, D. (2016), “Faculty engagement in mentoring undergraduate students: How institutional environments regulate and promote extrarole behavior”, Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 317-332. doi: 10.1007/s10755-015-9350-7 Demir, K. (2008), “Transformational leadership and collective efficacy: the moderating roles of collaborative culture and teachers’ self-efficacy”, Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 33, pp. 93-112. Feldman, D.C. and Bolino, M.C. (1999), “The impact of on-site mentoring on expatriate socialization: a structural equation modelling approach”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 54-71. doi: 10.1080/095851999340639 Fernández-Pérez, V., Alonso-Galicia, P.E., Rodríquez-Ariza, L. and Fuentes-Fuentes, M.M. (2015), “Professional and personal social networks: a bridge to entrepreneurship for academics?”, European Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 37-47. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2014.07.003 33 Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Forsyth, P.B. and Danisiewicz, T.J. (1985), “Toward a theory of professionalization”, Work and Occupations, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 59-76. doi: 10.1177/0730888485012001004 Ganesh, M.P. (2015), “Role of self-efficacy and family supportive organizational perceptions in teachers’ organizational citizenship behaviour: a study on engineering college teachers in India”, Asian Education and Development Studies, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 394408. doi: 10.1108/AEDS-01-2015-0001 Gong, Y., Huang, J-C. and Farh, J-L. (2009), “Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: the mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 765-778. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2009.43670890 Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (2009), Multivariate data analysis - 6th edition, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey. Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2014), A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage, Los Angeles, CA. Harman, H.H. (1967), Modem factor analysis, University of Chicago, Chicago. Higgins, M.C. and Kram, K.E. (2001), “Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: a developmental network perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. (2), pp. 264-288. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2001.4378023 Hofstede, G. (1983), “The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 75-89. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490867 34 Hofstede, G. (1985), “The interaction between national and organizational value systems”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 347-357. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1985.tb00001.x Hollenbeck, J.R. and Williams, C.R. (1987), “Goal importance, self-focus, and the goalsetting process”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 204-211. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.72.2.204 Houghton, J.D., Dawley, D. and DiLiello, T.C. (2012), “The abbreviated self-leadership questionnaire (ASLQ): a more concise measure of self-leadership”, International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 216-232. Houghton, J.D., Neck, C.P., & Manz, C.C. (2003), “Self-leadership and superleadership: the heart and art of creating shared leadership in teams”, In Pearce, C.L. and Conger, J.A. (Eds), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp.123-140. Johnson, R.E., Rosen, C.C. and Chang, C-H. (2011), “To aggregate of not to aggregate: steps for developing and validating higher-order multidimensional constructs”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 241–248. doi: 10.1007/s10869-0119238-1. Judge, T.A., Erez, A. and Bono, J.E. (1998), “The power of being positive: the relationship between positive self-concept and job performance”, Human Performance, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 167-187. doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup1102&3_4 Kalbfleisch, P.J. and Keyton, J. (1995), “Power and equity in mentoring relationships”, In Kalbfleisch, P.J. and Cody, M.J. (Eds.), Gender, power, and communication in human relationships, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 189–212. 35 Karl, K.A., O'Leary‐Kelly, A.M. and Martocchio, J.J. (1993), “The impact of feedback and self‐efficacy on performance in training”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 379-394. doi: 10.1002/job.4030140409 Karoly, P. (1993), “Mechanisms of self-regulation: a systems view”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 23-52. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.000323 Kipnis, D. and Lane, W.P. (1962), “Self-confidence and leadership”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 291-295. doi: 10.1037/h0044720 Korsgaard, M.A. and Roberson, L. (1995), “Procedural justice in performance evaluation: the role of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions”, Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 657-669. doi: 10.1016/01492063(95)90004-7 Koyuncu, M., Burke, R.J., Alayoglu, N. and Wolpin, J. (2014), “Mentoring relationships among managerial and professional women in Turkey: potential benefits?”, Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 2-22. doi: 10.1108/CCM-10-2012-0103 Kram, K.E., & Hall, D.T. (1996), “Mentoring in a context of diversity and turbulence”, In Kossek, E.E. and Lobel, S.A. (Eds.), Managing diversity: human resource strategies for transforming the workplace, Blackwell Business, Cambridge, MA, pp. 108-136. Leban, W. and Zulauf, C. (2004), “Linking emotional intelligence abilities and transformational leadership styles”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 554-564. doi: 10.1108/01437730410561440 Luna, G. and Cullen, D. (1998), “Do graduate students need mentoring?”, College Student Journal, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 322-330. 36 Manz, C.C. (1986), “Self-leadership: toward an expanded theory of self-influence processes in organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 585-600. doi:10.5465/AMR.1986.4306232 Manz, C.C. and Neck, C.P. (2004), Mastering self-leadership: empowering yourself for personal excellence, Pearson Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. (1986), “Leading self-managed groups: a conceptual analysis of a paradox”, Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 141-165. doi: 10.1177/0143831X8672002 Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. (1987), “Leading workers to lead themselves: the external leadership of self-managing work teams”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 32, pp. 106-129. doi:10.2307/2392745 Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. (1991), “Superleadership: beyond the myth of heroic leadership”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 18-35. doi:10.1016/00902616(91)90051-A Marin, G. and Triandis, H.C. (1985), “Allocentrism as an important characteristic of the behavior of Latin Americans and Hispanics”, In Diaz Guerrero, R. (Ed.), Crosscultural and national studies of social psychology, North Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 85114. Matsumoto, D. and van de Vijver, F.J.R. (Eds.) (2010), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Mathew, S. and Taylor, G. (2018), "Power distance in India: Paternalism, religion and caste: some issues surrounding the implementation of lean production techniques", Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, available at: http://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-02-2018-0035 (accesed 8 March 2019) 37 Minkov, M. and Hofstede, G. (2011), “The evolution of Hofstede's doctrine”, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 10-20. doi: 10.1108/13527601111104269 Minkov, M., Dutt, P., Schachner, M., Morales, O., Sanchez, C., Jandosova, J., Khassenbekov, Y. and Mudd, B. (2017), “A revision of Hofstede’s individualism-collectivism dimension: a new national index from a 56-country study”, Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 386-404. doi: 10.1108/CCSM-11-2016-0197 Moberg, D.J. and Velasquez, M. (2004), “The ethics of mentoring”, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 95-122. doi: 10.5840/beq20041418 Moorman, R.H. and Blakely, G.L. (1995), “Individualism‐collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behaviour”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 127-142. doi: 10.1002/job.4030160204 Mukherjee, D., Hanlon, S.C., Kedia, B.L. and Srivastava, P. (2012), “Organizational identification among global virtual team members: the role of individualismcollectivism and uncertainty avoidance”. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 526-545. doi: 10.1108/13527601211270002 Neck, C.P. and Houghton, J.D. (2006), “Two decades of self-leadership theory and research: past developments, present trends, and future possibilities”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 270-295. doi: 10.1108/02683940610663097 Neck, C.P. and Manz, C.C. (1992), “Thought self‐leadership: the influence of self‐talk and mental imagery on performance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 7, 681-699. 38 Nicholson, J.D. and Stepina, L.P. (1998), “Cultural values: A cross-national study”, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1/2, pp. 33-47. doi: 10.1108/13527609810796880 O’Leary, T.J. and Levinson, D. (1991), Encyclopedia of world cultures (Vol. 1), G. K. Hall & Company, Boston, MA. Organ, D.W. (1997), “Organizational citizenship behavior: it's construct clean-up time”, Human Performance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 85-97. doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup1002_2 Peterson, R.A. (2000), “A meta-analysis of variance accounted for and factor loadings in exploratory factor analysis”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 261-275. doi: 10.1023/A:1008191211004 Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 Ragins, B.R. and Cotton, J L. (1993), “Gender and willingness to mentor in organizations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 97-111. doi: 10.1016/0149-2063(93)90047-Q Ragins, B.R. and Scandura, T.A. (1994), “Gender differences in expected outcomes of mentoring relationships”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 957971. doi: 10.2307/256606 Ragins, B.R. and Scandura, T.A. (1999), “Burden or blessing? Expected costs and benefits of being a mentor”, Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 4, 39 pp. 493-509. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199907)20:4<493::AIDJOB894>3.0.CO;2-T Rekha, K.N. and Ganesh, M.P. (2010), “Do mentors learn by mentoring others?”, International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 205217. doi: 10.1108/20466851211279466 Richard, O.C., Ismail, K.M., Bhuian, S.N. and Taylor, E.C. (2009), “Mentoring in supervisor– subordinate dyads: antecedents, consequences, and test of a mediation model of mentorship”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 11, pp. 1110-1118. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.09.007 Rose, G.L., Rukstalis, M.R. and Schuckit, M.A. (2005), “Informal mentoring between faculty and medical students”, Academic Medicine, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 344-348. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200504000-00007 Salancik, G.R. and Pfeffer, J. (1977), “An examination of need-satisfaction models of job attitudes”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 427-456. doi: 10.2307/2392182 Segers, J., Inceoglu, I., Vloeberghs, D., Bartram, D. and Henderickx, E. (2008), “Protean and boundaryless careers: a study on potential motivators”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 212-230. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2008.05.001 Shi, J., Chen, Z. and Zhou, L. (2011), “Testing differential mediation effects of subdimensions of political skills in linking proactive personality to employee performance”, Journal of Business Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 359-369. doi: 10.1007/s10869-010-9195-0. Shulman, L.S. (1998), “Theory, practice, and the education of professionals”, The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 98 No. 5, pp. 511-526. doi: 10.1086/461912 40 Sobel, M.E. (1982), “Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models”, In Leinhart, S. (Ed.), Sociological methodology, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 290-312. Stajkovic, A.D. and Luthans, F. (1998), “Social cognitive theory and self-efficacy: going beyond traditional motivational and behavioral approaches”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 62-74. doi: 10.1016/S0090-2616(98)90006-7 Stanulis, R.N. (1995), “Classroom teachers as mentors: possibilities for participation in a professional development school context”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 331-344. doi: 10.1016/0742-051X(94)00035-5 Stewart, G.L. and Manz, C.C. (1995), “Leadership for self-managing work teams: a typology and integrative model”, Human relations, Vol. 48 No. 7, pp. 747-770. doi: 10.1177/001872679504800702 Sullivan, S.E. and Arthur, M.B. (2006), “The evolution of the boundaryless career concept: examining physical and psychological mobility”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 19-29. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2005.09.001 Sullivan, S.E. and Baruch, Y. (2009), “Advances in career theory and research: a critical review and agenda for future exploration”, Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 1542-1571. doi: 10.1177/0149206309350082 Terry, D.J. and O'Leary, J.E. (1995), “The theory of planned behaviour: the effects of perceived behavioural control and self‐efficacy”, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 199-220. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1995.tb01058.x Tourangeau, R., Rips, L.J. and Rasinski, K. (2000), The psychology of survey response, Cambridge University Press, New York. 41 Triandis, H.C. and Gelfland, M.J. (1998), “Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 118-128. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.118 Tschannen-Moran, M. and Hoy, A.W. (2007), “The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 944-956. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003 Varela, O.E., Salgado, E.I. and Lasio, M.V. (2010), “The meaning of job performance in collectivistic and high power distance cultures: evidence from three Latin American countries”, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 407-426. doi: 10.1108/13527601011086603 Weber, T.J., Sadri, G. and Gentry, W.A. (2018), “Examining diversity beliefs and leader performance across cultures”, Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-11-2016-0200 (accessed 4 May 2018) Weggeman, M. (1989), “Is the professional self-managing or is there really a need for professional management?”, European Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 422430. doi: 10.1016/0263-2373(89)90079-0 Young, J.R., Bullough, Jr. R.V., Draper, R.J., Smith, L.K. and Erickson, L.B. (2005), Novice teacher growth and personal models of mentoring: choosing compassion over inquiry, Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 169-188. doi: 10.1080/13611260500105477 Zimmerman, B.J. (2000), “Self-efficacy: an essential motive to learn”, Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 82-91. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1016 48 Figure 1. Graph of regression effects between self-efficacy and intention to mentor depending on different levels of horizontal individualism (cultural orientation) 49 Figure 2. Graph of regression effects between self-efficacy and intention to mentor depending on different levels of vertical collectivism (cultural orientation) 50