Human capital has become the key to success for organizations in the intellectual economy age (Becker, 1993). In this regard, new employees may bring huge challenges to the management of organizations. For example, a lack of work experience may lead to problems such as poor performance and low organizational loyalty (Holton, 1996). Mentoring has emerged as one way to deal with these problems (Kram, 1983). However, although many researchers have discussed the beneficial effect of mentoring on the organization and new staff from the perspective of occupational development (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004), there are few studies on mentoring from the perspective of knowledge sharing, particularly in the context of China. In this study, we have defined mentoring as the relationship that exists between an experienced and skilled employee (mentor) and an inexperienced but promising employee (intern), thus supporting the development of the intern. Mentoring is regarded as an effective tool for training new staff to speed up the process of socialization, and is becoming increasingly popular in organizations around the world (Thomas & Lankau, 2009). Mentoring promotes the occupational success of protégés and increases occupational satisfaction (Byrne, Dik, & Chiaburu, 2008) through the transformation from tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge, and the socialization of knowledge (Nonaka, 1994). Previous researchers have indicated that tacit knowledge is more widely shared than explicit knowledge is (Oliveira, Curado, Maçada, & Nodari, 2015).

The knowledge-sharing behavior of providers is influenced by the ability, attitude, and learning willingness of receivers (Allen et al., 2004). In prior studies on knowledge sharing, the main focus has been on the learning willingness of receivers and organizational incentives, which are regarded as important factors in intrinsic and extrinsic motivation that influence the knowledge-sharing behavior of mentors (Chen & Wen, 2011). Previous discussion has mainly been focused on organizational factors, such as structure, salary, strategy, and leader behavior. The tendency is for knowledge-sharing behavior to be promoted by cooperation, trust, innovation, and support among internal organizational members (DeLong, Gabarro, & Lees, 2008). Opinions on the effect of organizational incentives on knowledge sharing differ (Lin, 2007). In this study, we considered the effect of the interaction of learning willingness of interns, organizational incentives, and mentor personality on the knowledge-sharing behavior of mentors. We expected that the results would further understanding of the association between these factors and would enrich the theoretical study of factors that influence the knowledge-sharing behavior of mentors.

The primary focus in previous studies has been on the direct impact of mentoring on the performance (Pan, Sun, & Chow, 2011) or career success (Kwan, Liu, & Yim, 2011) of the protégé. Because of the significant effect of mentoring on these outcomes and the lack of research on the knowledge-sharing behavior of mentors, in this study we focused on this aspect of mentoring. We investigated how this behavior was influenced by extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation, which, for example, Guo, Liao, Liao, and Zhang (2014) showed was positively related to job performance. To our knowledge, we are the first to discuss the effect of the learning willingness of interns on the knowledge- sharing behavior of mentors, and to examine the effects of mentor personality and organizational incentives as moderators in this relationship. The research framework is shown in Figure 1.

Literature Review and Development of Hypotheses

Learning Willingness of Interns and Knowledge-Sharing Behavior of Mentors

Although mentors guide and share knowledge with protégés, mentoring can also reflect the relationship between colleagues or partners (Eby, 1997). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation each has an effect on mentors’ knowledge-sharing behavior (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994). Extrinsic motivation involves material factors such as salary, incentives, and promotion, whereas intrinsic motivation is generated internally and reflects a sense of joy and internal satisfaction generated by behavior such as a sense of achievement and responsibility (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999). A high-quality mentoring relationship occurs when protégés have an open attitude to their mentor’s suggestions (Young & Perrewé, 2000). A mentor’s protégé selection and instruction behavior is influenced more by the learning willingness than by the ability of the protégé (Allen, Poteet, & Russell, 2000). According to attribution theory, this is because learning willingness is regarded by mentors as reflecting effort and is thought to be more manageable than ability. Furthermore, protégés with greater learning willingness than others display more knowledge demand and, consequently, mentors tend to share more knowledge. In turn, Allen (2004) found that greater knowledge reception by the protégé increased the mentor’s self-satisfaction. Thus, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: The learning willingness of interns will be positively related to the knowledge-sharing behavior of their mentors.

Organizational Incentives and Mentor Personality as Moderators

Lin (2007) found that organizational incentives had little effect on employees’ knowledge-sharing behavior, and suggested that the respondents, who were knowledge workers, tended to pay attention to noneconomic rewards. Wang and Hou (2015) showed that altruism for organizational benefit had a significant influence on knowledge-sharing behavior. Organizational incentives may even have a negative effect on employees’ knowledge-sharing behavior. According to cognitive evaluation theory (Deci, 1975), there is an intrinsic incentive for all behaviors. Combining an extrinsic incentive with any behavior has a negative influence, such as a sense of restraint, on an individual’s autonomy and self- satisfaction, thus weakening their intrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 1999). In support of this statement, Bock and Kim (2002) showed that the presence of organizational incentives as extrinsic motivation for state government staff reduced their intrinsic motivation. In contrast, other researchers reported that organizational incentives had a positive effect on employees’ knowledge-sharing behavior, because incentives led to economic motivation for knowledge sharing (Wah, Menkhoff, Loh, & Evers, 2007). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation are interdependent and also affect an individual’s behavior. We reasoned that the equivocal results on the effect of organizational incentives on knowledge-sharing behavior have been brought about by the moderating effect of the mentor’s personality on this relationship. People’s reactions to extrinsic and intrinsic motivation differ according to their personality, which influences behavior (Aryee, Chay, & Chew, 1996).

Each mentor takes different factors into consideration when choosing or instructing a protégé. Thus, a mentor’s personality should be considered when protégés are selected (Allen et al., 2000). The main focus in previous studies on mentors’ personality has been on Machiavellianism, internal locus of control, self-efficacy, altruism, and upward striving (Allen, Poteet, & Burroughs, 1997; Ragins & Cotton, 1993). Two personality traits, openness and conscientiousness, which are the basic dimensions of the five-factor model of personality (McCrae & John, 1992), effectively predicted mentors’ instructive and knowledge-sharing behavior (Matzler, Renzl, Müller, Herting, & Mooradian, 2008). Openness reflects curiosity and originality, which prompted individuals to seek the opinions of others, in Cabrera, Collins, and Salgado’s (2006) study. Mentors with high openness focused more on knowledge-sharing behavior than on extrinsic motivation. This meant that their intrinsic motivation was stronger (Matzler et al., 2008). Conscientiousness is defined as being reliable, responsible, and achievement oriented. Mentors with high conscientiousness tended to be more reliable and responsible. In a meta-analysis of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior, Organ and Ryan (1995) found that conscientiousness had a positive impact on job performance and promoted organizational citizenship behavior in mentors. As such, organizational incentives had little effect on mentors who were highly conscientious. Thus, we proposed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2: Mentor openness will have a negative impact on the influence of organizational incentives on the relationship between the learning willingness of interns and the knowledge-sharing behavior of mentors.
Hypothesis 3: Mentor conscientiousness will have a negative impact on the influence of organizational incentives on the relationship between the learning willingness of interns and the knowledge-sharing behavior of mentors.

Method

Participants and Procedure

We used a random sampling method to choose participants from 10 teaching hospitals in China. To avoid systematic sampling error, we collected data from both mentors and interns. Mentors filled in a survey that included measures of their intern’s learning willingness, organizational incentives, and their own personality, and interns completed a survey that was designed to enable them to evaluate their mentor’s knowledge-sharing behavior. This survey was conducted in accordance with applicable ethics regulations and strict confidentiality was assured.

We obtained 180 usable paired samples, for an overall response rate of 85.7%. There were 109 male mentors (60.56%) and 71 female mentors (39.44%), and 97 male interns (53.89%) and 83 female interns (46.11%). The average age of mentors and interns was 48.35 and 27.18 years, respectively. Most mentors had a bachelor’s degree or higher educational qualification (58.31%) and of the interns, 80.95% had a bachelor’s degree or higher qualification.

Measures

All measurement items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Learning willingness of interns. The learning willingness of each intern was evaluated by their mentor using the scale developed by Allen (2004). A sample item is “The intern is very willing to learn.” Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .85.

Knowledge-sharing behavior of mentors. The knowledge-sharing behavior of each mentor was evaluated by their intern using a scale adapted from Chennamaneni (2006). A sample item is “When I ask my mentor, he or she will share his or her knowledge.” Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .89.

Organizational incentives. Organizational incentives were evaluated by using a scale adapted from Lin (2007). A sample item is “Sharing knowledge with interns will give me more opportunities for a higher salary.” Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .83.

Mentors’ personality. Mentor personality was self-evaluated using Costa and McCrae’s (1992) Revised NEO Personality Inventory, from which two dimensions, openness and conscientiousness, were used. A sample item from the former is “I often try new and foreign foods.” A sample item from the latter is “I will try my best to achieve my goal.” Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were .86 and .89, respectively.

Statistical Analyses

We used accurate scales that had been found to be valid and reliable in previous studies, and two doctoral student scholars translated the questionnaires from English into Korean (Brislin, 1980). Before data analysis, we conducted tests to assess the reliability and validity of the translated scales. As the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients reported above show, reliability was high for all scales. Confirmatory factor analyses showed that factor loadings were greater than .50 and less than 1 for all variables, indicating that the convergent validity of the translated scales was high.

The moderating roles of organizational incentives and mentor personality in the association between the learning willingness of interns and the knowledge-sharing behavior of mentors, and the relationship between the learning willingness of interns and the knowledge-sharing behavior of mentors were estimated using hierarchical regression in SPSS version 17.0. Control variables were gender, age, and education of mentors and interns, as these variables can affect mentors’ behavior and the quality of the relationship between mentor and intern (Allen, Poteet, Russell, & Dobbins, 1997).

In case of multicollinearity in the regression equations, interactive data were standardized.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Means, standard deviations, and correlations for all variables are presented in Table 1. The learning willingness of interns was positively correlated with the knowledge-sharing behavior of mentors.

Hypotheses Testing

We tested the hypotheses by performing a series of linear regression analyses in which the control variables were entered into the first block (see Tables 2 and 3). To test Hypothesis 1, we used a regression model with the knowledge-sharing behavior of mentors as a criterion variable. As shown in Tables 2 and 3 (Model 1), the learning willingness of interns had a significant positive effect on the knowledge-sharing behavior of mentors. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was supported.

Regression analysis results (Model 4 in Table 2) indicated that the three-dimensional interactive items (organizational incentives, openness of mentors, and learning willingness of interns) were significantly correlated with the knowledge-sharing behavior of mentors (β = -.241, p < .05). This means that, if the mentor had a low level of openness, organizational incentives improved the relationship between the learning willingness of interns and the knowledge-sharing behavior of mentors. Otherwise, it weakened the relationship. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported.

Regression analysis results (Model 4 in Table 3) indicated that the three-dimensional interactive items (organizational incentives, conscientiousness of mentors, and learning willingness of interns) were significantly correlated with the knowledge-sharing behavior of mentors (β = -.179, p < .05). This means that, if the mentor had a low level of conscientiousness, organizational incentives promoted the relationship between the learning willingness of interns and the knowledge-sharing behavior of mentors. Otherwise, it weakened the relationship. Thus, Hypothesis 3 was supported.

Discussion

The conclusions that can be drawn from the empirical findings of this study are that the learning willingness of interns had a significantly positive effect on the knowledge-sharing behavior of mentors, and that the interaction between the learning willingness of interns, organizational incentives, and mentor personality had a significantly positive effect on the knowledge-sharing behavior of mentors. We also found that mentor personality plays a decisive role in the impact of organizational incentives on the relationship between the learning willingness of interns and the knowledge-sharing behavior of mentors.

Theoretical Implications

Previous researchers, such as Kram (1983) and Thomas and Lankau (2009), have found that protégés benefit from mentoring. In addition, the results of one recent study showed that knowledge sharing affected innovative work behavior in a healthcare setting (Radaelli, Lettieri, Mura, & Spiller, 2014). However, in contrast to previous researchers, our focus in this study was on factors that influence the behavior of mentors from the perspective of knowledge sharing. We combined references of interns with those of research mentors in hospitals from the perspective of knowledge sharing, and showed that the learning willingness of interns had a significant positive effect on the knowledge-sharing behavior of mentors. The result supports the conclusion that the learning willingness of the protégé is the pivotal reason for mentors’ selection of a protégé (Allen et al., 2000).

In addition, previous researchers have tended to analyze factors that influence the behavior of mentors from a single perspective. In this study, we examined the interactive effects of a number of factors on the knowledge-sharing behavior of mentors; thus, we have presented moderators that will enrich theoretical knowledge of these factors. Our findings show that mentor personality has an impact on whether or not organizational incentives are effective, and this result supports the idea that some guiding behavior of mentors will not be influenced by organizational incentives (Aryee et al., 1996).

Managerial Implications

We found that the learning willingness of interns is a critical factor in the mentoring process, which should help managers to realize its importance. Although much emphasis has been placed on organizational incentives to improve knowledge sharing of mentors (Lin, 2007), these had little impact on the relationship between interns’ learning willingness and mentors’ knowledge sharing. Employees with high openness and conscientiousness are likely to be effective mentors when organizational incentives are reduced (Deci et al., 1999).

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

There are several limitations in this study. The generalizability of the conclusions is limited, because the study was conducted in China and findings may be different in Western cultural contexts. Further research should be conducted to attempt to replicate these findings in a Western context. In addition, the data collection method may have affected the findings. Although the relationships among the variables were correlative, causality could not be tested.

Thus, analysis of longitudinal data would be useful in future studies. Finally, the measure of organizational incentives was idealized to some degree (Chen & Wen, 2011). Future researchers should use hierarchical linear models to take the objective influence of organizational incentives into consideration.

References

Allen, T. D. (2004). Protégé selection by mentors: Contributing individual and organizational factors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 469–483. http://doi.org/b6hb9w

Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 127–136. http://doi.org/fvd8js

Allen, T. D., Poteet, M. L., & Burroughs, S. M. (1997). The mentor’s perspective: A qualitative inquiry and future research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 70–89. http://doi.org/c3f8wt

Allen, T. D., Poteet, M. L., & Russell, J. E. A. (2000). Protégé selection by mentors: What makes the difference? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 271–282. http://doi.org/bj3v2g

Allen, T. D., Poteet, M. L., Russell, J. E. A., & Dobbins, G. H. (1997). A field study of factors related to supervisors’ willingness to mentor others. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 1–22. http://doi.org/fvp9sw

Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The Work Preference Inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 950–967. http://doi.org/d9sz7p

Aryee, S., Chay, Y. W., & Chew, J. (1996). The motivation to mentor among managerial employees: An interactionist approach. Group & Organization Management, 21, 261–277. http://doi.org/cv3c87

Becker, G. S. (1993). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bock, G. W., & Kim, Y.-G. (2002). Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratory study of attitude about knowledge sharing. Information Resources Management Journal, 15, 14–21. http://doi.org/dz9njq

Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 389–444). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Byrne, Z. S., Dik, B. J., & Chiaburu, D. S. (2008). Alternatives to traditional mentoring in fostering career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 429–442. http://doi.org/cq95pm

Cabrera, A., Collins, W. C., & Salgado, J. F. (2006). Determinants of individual engagement in knowledge sharing. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17, 245–264. http://doi.org/bmn9sq

Chen, C., & Wen, P. (2011). New generation employees’ learning willingness and mentors’ knowledge sharing behavior [In Chinese]. Economic Management, 10, 87–93.

Chennamaneni, A. (2006). Determinants of knowledge-sharing behaviors: Developing and testing an integrated theoretical model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Arlington, TX, USA.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627–668. http://doi.org/dd5gwh

DeLong, T. J., Gabarro, J. J., & Lees, R. J. (2008). Why mentoring matters in a hypercompetitive world. Harvard Business Review, 86, 115–121, 138.

Eby, L. T. (1997). Alternative forms of mentoring in changing organizational environments: A conceptual extension of the mentoring literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 125–144. http://doi.org/dn535w

Guo, Y., Liao, J., Liao, S., & Zhang, Y. (2014). The mediating role of intrinsic motivation on the relationship between developmental feedback and employee job performance. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 42, 731–741. http://doi.org/56x

Holton, E. F., III. (1996). New employee development: A review and reconceptualization. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7, 233–255. http://doi.org/b7m66z

Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 608–625. http://doi.org/fvb62v

Kwan, H. K., Liu, J., & Yim, F. H.-K. (2011). Effects of mentoring functions on receivers’ organizational citizenship behavior in a Chinese context: A two-study investigation. Journal of Business Research, 64, 363–370. http://doi.org/ct9pwt

Lin, H.-F. (2007). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing intentions. Journal of Information Science, 33, 135–149. http://doi.org/cns

Matzler, K., Renzl, B., Müller, J., Herting, S., & Mooradian, T. A. (2008). Personality traits and knowledge sharing. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 301–313. http://doi.org/bg24tn

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215. http://doi.org/b3vtj3

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5, 14–37. http://doi.org/fgqr7p

Oliveira, M., Curado, C. M. M., Maçada, A. C. G., & Nodari, F. (2015). Using alternative scales to measure knowledge sharing behavior: Are there any differences? Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 132–140. http://doi.org/6fj

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775–802. http://doi.org/dfqhzj

Pan, W., Sun, L.-Y., & Chow, I. H. S. (2011). The impact of supervisory mentoring on personal learning and career outcomes: The dual moderating effect of self-efficacy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78, 264–273. http://doi.org/dzcpd6

Radaelli, G., Lettieri, E., Mura, M., & Spiller, N. (2014). Knowledge sharing and innovative work behavior in healthcare: A micro-level investigation of direct and indirect effects. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23, 400–414. http://doi.org/6fm

Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1993). Gender and willingness to mentor in organizations. Journal of Management, 19, 97–111. http://doi.org/dtcdn8

Thomas, C. H., & Lankau, M. J. (2009). Preventing burnout: The effects of LMX and mentoring on socialization, role stress, and burnout. Human Resource Management, 48, 417–432. http://doi.org/dzgd83

Wah, C. Y., Menkhoff, T., Loh, B., & Evers, H.–D. (2007). Social capital and knowledge sharing in knowledge-based organizations: An empirical study. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 3, 29–48. http://doi.org/dt347t

Wang, W.-T., & Hou, Y.-P. (2015). Motivations of employees’ knowledge sharing behaviors: A self- determination perspective. Information and Organization, 25, 1–26. http://doi.org/6fh

Young, A. M., & Perrewé, P. L. (2000). The exchange relationship between mentors and protégés: The development of a framework. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 177–209. http://doi.org/bvvq9f

Allen, T. D. (2004). Protégé selection by mentors: Contributing individual and organizational factors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 469–483. http://doi.org/b6hb9w

Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 127–136. http://doi.org/fvd8js

Allen, T. D., Poteet, M. L., & Burroughs, S. M. (1997). The mentor’s perspective: A qualitative inquiry and future research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 70–89. http://doi.org/c3f8wt

Allen, T. D., Poteet, M. L., & Russell, J. E. A. (2000). Protégé selection by mentors: What makes the difference? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 271–282. http://doi.org/bj3v2g

Allen, T. D., Poteet, M. L., Russell, J. E. A., & Dobbins, G. H. (1997). A field study of factors related to supervisors’ willingness to mentor others. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 1–22. http://doi.org/fvp9sw

Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The Work Preference Inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 950–967. http://doi.org/d9sz7p

Aryee, S., Chay, Y. W., & Chew, J. (1996). The motivation to mentor among managerial employees: An interactionist approach. Group & Organization Management, 21, 261–277. http://doi.org/cv3c87

Becker, G. S. (1993). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bock, G. W., & Kim, Y.-G. (2002). Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratory study of attitude about knowledge sharing. Information Resources Management Journal, 15, 14–21. http://doi.org/dz9njq

Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 389–444). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Byrne, Z. S., Dik, B. J., & Chiaburu, D. S. (2008). Alternatives to traditional mentoring in fostering career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 429–442. http://doi.org/cq95pm

Cabrera, A., Collins, W. C., & Salgado, J. F. (2006). Determinants of individual engagement in knowledge sharing. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17, 245–264. http://doi.org/bmn9sq

Chen, C., & Wen, P. (2011). New generation employees’ learning willingness and mentors’ knowledge sharing behavior [In Chinese]. Economic Management, 10, 87–93.

Chennamaneni, A. (2006). Determinants of knowledge-sharing behaviors: Developing and testing an integrated theoretical model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Arlington, TX, USA.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627–668. http://doi.org/dd5gwh

DeLong, T. J., Gabarro, J. J., & Lees, R. J. (2008). Why mentoring matters in a hypercompetitive world. Harvard Business Review, 86, 115–121, 138.

Eby, L. T. (1997). Alternative forms of mentoring in changing organizational environments: A conceptual extension of the mentoring literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 125–144. http://doi.org/dn535w

Guo, Y., Liao, J., Liao, S., & Zhang, Y. (2014). The mediating role of intrinsic motivation on the relationship between developmental feedback and employee job performance. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 42, 731–741. http://doi.org/56x

Holton, E. F., III. (1996). New employee development: A review and reconceptualization. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7, 233–255. http://doi.org/b7m66z

Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 608–625. http://doi.org/fvb62v

Kwan, H. K., Liu, J., & Yim, F. H.-K. (2011). Effects of mentoring functions on receivers’ organizational citizenship behavior in a Chinese context: A two-study investigation. Journal of Business Research, 64, 363–370. http://doi.org/ct9pwt

Lin, H.-F. (2007). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing intentions. Journal of Information Science, 33, 135–149. http://doi.org/cns

Matzler, K., Renzl, B., Müller, J., Herting, S., & Mooradian, T. A. (2008). Personality traits and knowledge sharing. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 301–313. http://doi.org/bg24tn

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215. http://doi.org/b3vtj3

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5, 14–37. http://doi.org/fgqr7p

Oliveira, M., Curado, C. M. M., Maçada, A. C. G., & Nodari, F. (2015). Using alternative scales to measure knowledge sharing behavior: Are there any differences? Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 132–140. http://doi.org/6fj

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775–802. http://doi.org/dfqhzj

Pan, W., Sun, L.-Y., & Chow, I. H. S. (2011). The impact of supervisory mentoring on personal learning and career outcomes: The dual moderating effect of self-efficacy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78, 264–273. http://doi.org/dzcpd6

Radaelli, G., Lettieri, E., Mura, M., & Spiller, N. (2014). Knowledge sharing and innovative work behavior in healthcare: A micro-level investigation of direct and indirect effects. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23, 400–414. http://doi.org/6fm

Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1993). Gender and willingness to mentor in organizations. Journal of Management, 19, 97–111. http://doi.org/dtcdn8

Thomas, C. H., & Lankau, M. J. (2009). Preventing burnout: The effects of LMX and mentoring on socialization, role stress, and burnout. Human Resource Management, 48, 417–432. http://doi.org/dzgd83

Wah, C. Y., Menkhoff, T., Loh, B., & Evers, H.–D. (2007). Social capital and knowledge sharing in knowledge-based organizations: An empirical study. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 3, 29–48. http://doi.org/dt347t

Wang, W.-T., & Hou, Y.-P. (2015). Motivations of employees’ knowledge sharing behaviors: A self- determination perspective. Information and Organization, 25, 1–26. http://doi.org/6fh

Young, A. M., & Perrewé, P. L. (2000). The exchange relationship between mentors and protégés: The development of a framework. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 177–209. http://doi.org/bvvq9f

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71303175).

Mingyuan Dong, College of Public Administration, Central China Normal University, 152 Luoyu Road, Wuhan, Hubei 430072, People’s Republic of China. Email: [email protected]