QUAN T I T A T I V E S T UD Y

Do servant, transformational, transactional,and passive avoidant leadership styles influencementoring competencies for faculty? A study of agender equity leadership development program

Cynthia Sims1 | Angela Carter1 | Arelis Moore De Peralta2

1Department of Educational and

Organizational Leadership, College of

Education, Clemson University, Clemson,

South Carolina

2Department of Languages, College of

Architecture, Arts and Humanities, Clemson

University, Clemson, South Carolina

Correspondence

Cynthia Sims, Department of Educational and

Organizational Leadership, College of

Education, Clemson University, Clemson, SC

29634, USA.

Email: cmsims@clemson.edu

Abstract

This study examined whether women and men who were

more skilled in one leadership style—servant, transforma-

tional, transactional, or passive avoidant—were better men-

tors and assessed if gender influenced leadership style or

mentoring. Faculty (n = 56) who were members of one of

two cohorts, participated in leadership development pro-

grams focused on gender equity at a university in the south-

east U.S. The study used a quantitative cross-sectional

survey design and the units of analysis were individual pro-

gram participants. Initial regression analysis revealed ser-

vant leadership was positively and statistically associated

with mentoring and passive avoidant leadership was nega-

tively and statistically associated with mentoring. Transfor-

mational and transactional leadership were not statistically

associated with mentor competency. Gender was not found

to be associated with leadership style or mentoring. Human

Resource Development professionals and those who con-

duct gender equity and other leadership development pro-

grams should consider the benefits of servant leadership

due to its gender-neutral style and synergistic ability to

develop leaders as skilled mentors.

DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.21408

© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Human Resource Development Quarterly. 2020;1–21. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrdq 1

K E YWORD S

gender, higher education, leadership development, mentoring,

passive avoidant transactional, servant leadership, STEM,

transformational

1 | INTRODUCTION

In higher education, it is well documented that women hold fewer leadership positions than men (Cook, 2012; Eagly

& Carli, 2007; Richardson & Loubier, 2008; Ryan & Haslam, 2007). This marked lack of leadership diversity in the

academy (Johnson, 2016) is particularly salient in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disci-

plines (Levine, González-Fernández, Bodurtha, Skarupski, & Fivush, 2015; N. Thomas, Bystydzienski, & Desai, 2015).

To reverse this trend, the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) ADVANCE program works with higher education

“to increase the representation and advancement of women in academic science and engineering careers, thereby

developing a more diverse science and engineering workforce” (2009, p. 2). For their part, higher education institu-

tions determined that leadership development and mentoring are necessary, useful, and effective tools to prepare

women for future administrative roles and responsibilities (Madsen, 2011).

When planning a leadership development program, practitioners, and scholars are tasked with determining what

leadership style(s) should be taught. The style a leader adopts may be informed by theory (Bass & Bass, 2008;

Northouse, 2018). Leadership styles differ by goal and purpose, for example, servant focuses on personal develop-

ment, transformational elicits performance, transactional drives productivity, and passive avoidant intervenes to cor-

rect mistakes and punish noncompliance (Avolio & Bass, 2000; Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; Greenleaf, 1970). When

employed, these theories are reflected in the leaders' day-to-day practices. As the ability to mentor others is fre-

quently a desired outcome of leadership development programs, program administrators are likely to assess the

impact of leadership style on mentoring ability. The literature on leadership development of STEM faculty discusses

developing leadership skills in general; however, there is limited specific documentation or recommendations on

what leadership style(s) directly benefit both women and men in higher education gender equity leadership programs

(DeFrank-Cole, Latimer, Neidermeyer, & Wheatly, 2016; Laursen & Rocque, 2009; Levine et al., 2015; Margherio,

Horner-Devine, Mizumori, & Yen, 2016; O'Bannon, Garavalia, Renz, & McCarther, 2010; Richman, Morahan, Cohen,

& McDade, 2001). In brief, we asked whether women and men who were more proficient in one leadership style

would be more skilled mentors than those who enacted different styles.

2 | LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 | Leader and leadership development

Organizations use a variety of Human Resource Development (HRD) approaches to invest and build organiza-

tional capacity. Over time, leader and leadership development has become central to the field of HRD and is con-

sidered a critical undertaking of HRD professionals (Ardichvili, Natt och Dag, & Manderscheid, 2016; Callahan,

Whitener, & Sandlin, 2007; Madsen, 2011). Although there are many definitions of leadership, we use

Yukl's (2006), which says that “leadership is the process of influencing others to understand and agree about

what needs to be done and how to do it, and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to

accomplish shared objectives” (p. 3). As a skill, organizations seek to increase individuals' leadership capacity by

providing developmental experiences. The focus of these learning experiences is leader development—increasing

an individual's intrapersonal competencies, self-awareness, self-regulation, self-motivation, and leader identity, to

2 SIMS ET AL.

enhance their leadership performance across roles (Ardichvili et al., 2016; Day, 2000; Gardner, Avolio, Luthans,

May, & Walumbwa, 2005).

As individuals learn about different leadership theories, they can begin to align their behaviors accordingly and

reap the benefits associated with enacting specific leadership styles (Barbuto Jr. & Wheeler, 2006; Bass &

Bass, 2008; Day, 2000). Leadership style is described as the actions or behaviors deployed by an individual who

seeks to influence other's behavior to achieve a goal (Bass & Bass, 2008). While leader development focuses on

intrapersonal competencies or human capital, leadership development concentrates on how to build interpersonal

competencies or social capital (Day, 2000; Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, & McKee, 2014). Individuals need to build

their social awareness and social skills and use interpersonal competencies to differentiate and integrate appropriate

leadership behavior for the social context in which they might find themselves (Day, 2000). Both leader and leader-

ship development are complementary and necessary, as individuals need to develop their leader competencies and

apply them in the social context if their leadership is to be realized (Collins & Holton, 2004; Day, 2001; Day

et al., 2014). From an HRD perspective, leader and leadership development are developmental processes, which

require continual learning (Ardichvili et al., 2016; Day, Harrison, & Halpin, 2009).

2.2 | Leadership styles

While there are many leadership styles, a focus on transformational, transactional, passive avoidant, and servant

leadership styles is particularly germane. These styles stand out; transformational leadership is preeminent and such

leaders apply vision, strategy, and ethics; transactional leadership has a long history and helps ensure work gets done

in organizations; and passive avoidant is the antithesis of leadership and should be avoided (Bass & Bass, 2008). Ser-

vant leadership is a modern style, which focuses on people first, and being a positive force within and outside of the

organization (Barbuto Jr. & Wheeler, 2006; Greenleaf, 1970).

2.2.1 | Leadership continuum

Burns (1978) conceptualized and distinguished between two leadership styles: transactional (exchanges that occur

between leaders and associates) and transformational (the process whereby a person engages with others and cre-

ates a connection that raises the level of motivation and morality in both leader and the associate). Bass evolved the

theory and specified transformational leadership occurs when “[T]he leader elevates the follower morally about what

is important, valued, and goes beyond the simpler transactional relationship of providing reward or avoidance of pun-

ishment for compliance” (Bass & Bass, 2008, p. 1217). Avolio and Bass (2000) described a continuum of leadership

activity that is anchored on the left by passive avoidant or non-leadership, connected in the middle by transactional

or reinforcement leadership, and anchored on the right by transformational or motivational leadership. Transforma-

tional leaders set goals with a higher purpose and motivate followers to transcend self-interest to achieve outcomes

that meet or exceed expectations while enhancing the follower's self-worth (Bass & Bass, 2008).

Transformational leadership consists of idealized influence (be ethical, serve as role models, and inspire followers

to identify with and emulate the leader), inspirational motivation (using motivation, followers are inspired to commit

to the leader's vision and go beyond self-interest), intellectual stimulation (challenge the status quo, innovate, and

problem-solve to achieve the leader's vision), and individualized consideration (provide a supportive environment to

meet each employee's unique needs while furthering their growth and development) (Bass & Bass, 2008). Idealized

influence and individualized consideration are consistent with the relational competencies associated with leadership

development (Bass, 1985).

From a developmental perspective, Bass (1985) indicated that transformational leaders mentor others. As a

transformational leader, the individual comes to recognize that when they serve as a role model, share an

SIMS ET AL. 3

inspirational vision, ask followers to think outside of the box, and meet the unique developmental needs of their

employees, they are, respectively, using idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and indi-

vidualized consideration, which are directly transferrable to mentoring (Chun, Sosik, & Yun, 2012; Day et al., 2009).

As individuals build their transformational leadership competencies, they may use these behaviors in their mentoring

repertoire to provide psychosocial and career support (Chun et al., 2012).

Transactional leaders are likely to be successful mentors. As part of the contingent reward (CR), leaders set goals,

help employees develop the competencies for goal achievement, and set rewards (Sosik & Godshalk, 2000). When

mentors establish learning contracts with their protégés, mentors initiate support and direct the pair's activities to

fulfill the contract and reward the protégé as they succeed (Sosik & Godshalk, 2000). These actions likely facilitate

the career development of the protégé, builds trust between the mentor and protégé, increases the protégé's job sat-

isfaction, all of which are ways mentors provide psychosocial support to their protégés (Sosik & Godshalk, 2000).

Although transactional behavior supports aspects of the mentoring relationship, it is a poor replacement for transfor-

mational leadership and likely results in weaker mentoring relationships (Sosik & Godshalk, 2000).

Passive avoidant leadership is characterized by punishments and avoidant behaviors as it “strives to maintain the

status quo through delay, absence and indifference” (Sosik & Godshalk, 2000, p. 372). As mentoring is based on a

positive relationship where the mentor actively seeks positive career and developmental opportunities for their

protégés, acts as a positive role model, and provides psychosocial support, there will likely be a negative relationship

between passive avoidant leadership and mentoring (Banerjee-Batist, Reio Jr, & Rocco, 2019; Day, 2000; Noe, 1988;

Sosik & Godshalk, 2000; Yukl, 1994). The passive avoidant leader shirks their responsibility and is indifferent toward

their subordinates, this leadership style is in stark contrast to servant leadership, which we discuss next (Bass &

Bass, 2008).

2.2.2 | Servant leadership

When launching an institution, a servant leader “starts on a course toward people-building with leadership that has

a firmly established context of people first. With that, the right actions fall naturally into place” (Greenleaf, 1970, p.

31). Over time, theorists built upon Greenleaf's (1970) conceptualization of servant leadership (Eva, Robin,

Sendjaya, van Dierendonck, & Liden, 2019). Barbuto Jr. and Wheeler (2006) theorized servant leadership to include

altruistic calling (a fundamental personal desire to serve others and meet their needs), emotional healing (use of

empathy and listening to help others heal from hardship or trauma, and create an environment where employees

feel safe to speak), wisdom (ability to see and interpret environmental cues and anticipate what is to come), per-

suasive mapping (provide a compelling vision of the future based on reason and inspire other to support it), and

organizational stewardship (a desire to leave a positive legacy in the organization and society). Together these con-

structs manifest when servant leaders facilitate the personal and professional growth of others by meeting their

professional development and organizational needs. Thus, they ensure “followers develop in a positive direction”

(Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006, p. 308). Due to the developmental focus of servant leadership, such leaders are likely

to be good mentors.

Several studies address servant leadership and mentoring: Steinbeck's (2009) determined a moderately strong

positive relationship between mentors' behavior and effectiveness; Paul and Fitzpatrick (2015) revealed servant lead-

ership predicted student-advising satisfaction; and Jackson (2009) discovered that writing mentors applied servant

leadership to their clients. Mentors with greater learning goal orientation and servant leadership were found to pro-

vide their protégés with better role modeling, career development, and psychosocial support (Egan, 2005; Godshalk

& Sosik, 2000). Further, those with servant leadership behaviors may be more receptive to training and development,

likely to evolve their mentoring schemas and become more effective mentors over time (Banerjee-Batist et al., 2019).

This research suggests that as individuals grow as servant leaders, their skills in identifying and meeting others' needs

increase, and these leaders will demonstrate the interpersonal relational skills necessary of mentors to meet the

4 SIMS ET AL.

career and psychosocial needs of their protégés (Allen, Eby, & Lentz, 2006; Jackson, 2009; Paul & Fitzpatrick, 2015;

Steinbeck, 2009).

Both servant leadership and transformational leadership “emphasize the importance of appreciating and valuing

people, listening, mentoring or teaching and empowering followers”; yet these leadership styles are distinct (Barbuto

Jr. & Wheeler, 2006; Stone, Russell, & Patterson, 2004, p. 354). Servant leaders concentrate on serving followers'

needs, cultivating their relationship with others, and trusting their followers to act in the best interest of the organi-

zation (Sims & Morris, 2018; Stone et al., 2004). As compared to transformational leaders who motivate followers to

meet organizational goals (Barbuto Jr. & Wheeler, 2006).

2.3 | Leadership development and mentoring

Mentoring style “refers to the [observable] behaviors or strategies that mentors employ” and will change over time

based upon mentoring and other experiences (Nyanjom, 2020, p. 250). Mentoring is an effective leadership develop-

ment strategy, occurs in a context, and enhances protégés' intrapersonal and interpersonal competencies (Day, 2000).

As leadership and mentoring are participatory practices, what leadership behaviors individuals enact will influence

their mentoring competencies (Day, 2000). We theorize that the intrapersonal style of the leader will influence the

interpersonal relational skills they use when mentoring. Moreover, the quality of mentoring will differ based on the

leadership lens or style used by the mentor. The limited research on this topic indicates that through mentoring,

mentors increase their personal development as leaders (Banerjee-Batist et al., 2019; Eby, Durley, Evans, &

Ragins, 2006; Ghosh & Reio, 2013). Employing transformational leadership behavior positively relates to both men-

tors' and protégés' career development, role modeling, psychosocial support, and effectiveness and/or job satisfac-

tion (Chun et al., 2012; Godshalk & Sosik, 2000; Scandura & Williams, 2004; Sosik & Godshalk, 2000). There is

limited research that directly links leadership style to mentoring ability within individuals.

Mentoring may be a one-on-one relationship where someone in a more senior role provides guidance to some-

one less experienced. This traditionally paired relationship is called hierarchical mentoring and occurs within organi-

zations where typically, both mentors and protégés benefit from mentoring (Banerjee-Batist et al., 2019; Ghosh &

Reio, 2013). Mentoring is associated with increased job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and employee

retention and conversely, turnover intention (Aremu & Adeyoju, 2003; Germain, 2011; Stallworth, 2003; Walsh,

Borkowski, & Reuben, 1999). Mentors were likely to experience increased recognition, job performance, job satisfac-

tion, and leadership skill (Chun et al., 2012; Ghosh & Reio, 2013). When mentors act as coaches, counselors, role

models, and confidants they provide their protégé with psychosocial support and the protégé reap the benefits of

their mentor's sponsorship and guidance on how to navigate their organizational career successfully (Banerjee-Batist

et al., 2019; Sosik & Godshalk, 2000). When the mentor is considered a role model, the protégé benefits from greater

confidence, self-efficacy, and job performance (Dickson et al., 2014). Furthermore, the ability to mentor can be

learned and encouraged (Banerjee-Batist et al., 2019).

Research to determine the effects of synergy among leadership styles on mentor effectiveness is one aspect that

has been neglected (Banerjee-Batist et al., 2019; Godshalk & Sosik, 2000; Kim, 2007). As mentoring is pivotal to

career success, HRD professionals concern themselves with the design and conduct of mentoring programs to meet

individual and organizational needs (Banerjee-Batist et al., 2019; Hezlett & Gibson, 2005). Organizations use men-

toring programs to onboard and develop employees (Banerjee-Batist et al., 2019). Mentoring is also a tool used to

support leaders and leadership development (Chun et al., 2012; Day, 2001; Poon, 2006). Further, organizations are

well served to select and groom mentors who possess the leadership styles necessary to be successful mentors. As

individuals grow their interpersonal leadership skills, over time their mentoring skills, schema, and style will expand

(Banerjee-Batist et al., 2013; Nyanjom, 2020). Individuals' mentor style will reflect their identities, including their

leader, gender, and mentor identities (Nyanjom, 2020). More research is needed to address the confluence of leader-

ship, mentoring, and leadership.

SIMS ET AL. 5

2.3.1 | Gender, mentoring, and higher education

Research indicates that when mentored, women leaders were more likely to have expanded networks, experienced

greater career planning, and consider themselves better leaders (Dickson et al., 2014). Formal mentoring programs

are important for women because they may experience more institutional barriers to establishing informal relation-

ships than their male counterparts (Dickson et al., 2014). To be effective, mentors need skills to successfully navigate

gender and cultural differences, orient protégé's to the organization, and transfer their competencies (Chesler &

Chesler, 2002).

As higher education continues to experience extraordinary challenges, leaders with exceptional skills to ensure

organizations succeed are needed at the top and all leadership levels (Rubin, 2004). One reason there is a lack of

leaders, Madsen (2011) argues, is there are “fewer women positioned to take on such critical roles” (p. 4). Organiza-

tions that desire to advance change and establish an effective leadership cadre should encourage leadership develop-

ment practices like mentoring, as it is considered an effective tool (Bonebright, Cottledge, & Lonnquist, 2012;

Madsen, 2011; White, 2012). Although leadership development programs for women in higher education have

existed for decades, scholarly research is limited and much needed to provide guidance on leadership interventions,

including mentoring that can develop women's leadership skills (Madsen, 2011).

2.3.2 | Gender, mentoring, and leadership

Mentoring is offered and employed as one career development strategy to help address the inequity of women not

progressing in their careers, proportionally to their participation in the labor force (Banerjee-Batist et al., 2019; Eagly

& Carli, 2007). Abundant research exists on gender and mentoring and includes the examination of the difficulties

associated with cross-gender mentoring and the value organizations often place on having more masculine versus

feminine cultures (Banerjee-Batist et al., 2019; Ensher & Murphy, 2011). Unlike men in higher education, women fac-

ulty were more likely to be in mentoring relationships and provide more mentoring due to the gender-based expecta-

tions of their students (Banerjee-Batist et al., 2019; Griffin & Reddick, 2011; J. W. Smith, Smith, & Markham, 2000).

Women faculty encountered more challenges in mentoring male protégés (Banerjee-Batist et al., 2019; K. M.

Thomas, Willis, & Davis, 2007). Nonetheless, the male and female role expectations associated with mentoring did

not differ by gender (Banerjee-Batist et al., 2019; Walsh et al., 1999).

The research found women who were mentored enjoy more organizational success (Ragins, Townsend, &

Mattis, 1998; Wanberg, Welsh, & Hezlett, 2003). O'brien, Biga, Kessler, and Allen's (2010) meta-analysis determined

women and men were just as likely to report that they were a protégé and receive similar career development oppor-

tunities. As mentors, women provided more psychosocial support than men did; while male mentors provide more

career development support than female mentors do (O'Brien et al., 2010).

Just as gender was found to be differentiating within mentoring experiences, gender may influence leadership.

Leadership was historically conceptualized and studied more with a masculine lens (Bierema & Callahan, 2014;

Kark, 2004; Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell, & Ristikari, 2011). Gender research found women and men displayed different

levels of transformational leadership (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & Van Engen, 2003). Earlier meta-analyses (Eagly

& Carli, 2003) indicated women demonstrated a more democratic (or participative) style and less autocratic (or direc-

tive) style than men in relationship to the exercise of power. When compared to men, women leaders were more

transformational and used CR systems (Eagly & Carli, 2003). These behavioral differences were small but consistent.

Leader gender differences may vary based on the woman's racial identity (Sims & Carter, 2019).

Turning to servant leadership and gender, Barbuto and Gifford (2010) determined women and men exhibited

leadership behaviors that were communal and agentic. These findings contradicted prior research, which found

women and men displayed different levels of transformational and authentic leadership (Eagly & Carli, 2003; Sims,

Gong, & Hughes, 2017). Hogue (2016) suggested women benefit from the communal aspects of servant leadership

6 SIMS ET AL.

because there is more congruency between being a woman and a servant leader than a woman and other types of

non-communal leadership styles. Servant leadership may be unique among leadership styles because it enables

“leaders to step out of gender role norms and provide the most appropriate leadership for followers” (Barbuto &

Gifford, 2010, p. 16; Sims & Morris, 2018). Relative to gender and servant leadership, no support was found that

women and men display different levels of servant leadership, which affirms the notion servant leadership is a gen-

der-neutral set of leader behaviors (Barbuto & Gifford, 2010; Sims & Morris, 2018).

A meta-analysis on gender differences and leadership effectiveness had several transformational leadership

studies but none on servant leadership or mentoring (Paustian-Underdahl, Walker, & Woehr, 2014). The meta-analy-

sis suggested several factors moderate the relationship between gender and leadership on whether the rating was

once done by self or other raters, organization type, the level of the leader, and the study setting (Paustian-Under-

dahl et al., 2014). The study concluded when rated by others, women were considered more effective leaders in

business and education organizations and more effective in middle management and senior roles while men were

perceived as more effective in male-dominated organizations. As self-raters, men considered themselves more effec-

tive leaders than women in lower and senior managerial levels. In searching for literature that addressed gender,

mentoring, and leadership, no studies were found that addressed the interaction of these constructs.

Based on the literature, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 1. Transformational leadership style is positively and statistically associated with mentoring competency.

Hypothesis 2. Transactional leadership style is positively and statistically associated with mentoring competency.

Hypothesis 3. Passive avoidant leadership style is negatively and statistically associated with mentoring competency.

Hypothesis 4. Servant leadership style is positively and statistically associated with mentoring competency.

Hypothesis 5. Servant leadership style has a stronger positive association with mentoring competency than transforma-

tional leadership style.

Hypothesis 6. Mentoring competency levels and leadership styles will vary by gender.

3 | METHODS

This study used a quantitative cross-sectional design using survey methodology incorporating several measurement

instruments. Leadership development participants were the individual units of analysis. This study relies on partici-

pants' self-ratings, as it is difficult to collect rater feedback on emerging leaders and mentors when they do not have

individuals whom they lead or mentor. To reduce common method bias, this study used longer scales to reduce the

likelihood of one survey influencing another, intermixed different variables of mentoring and leadership in one sur-

vey, did not reveal that independent variables (leadership) were related to the outcome variable (mentoring), and col-

lected independent variables at separate times using different survey administration tools (Podsakoff, MacKenzie,

Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).

3.1 | Participant sample

There were two cohorts of participants. The 28 participants in the 2017 cohort were majority women (71%), White

(79%), more than half (57%) were between 40 to 49 years of age, almost half (43%) were associate professors, and

SIMS ET AL. 7

25% held the professor rank. At the time of the survey, participants reported having leadership (39%) and mentoring

(57%) experience. The 2018 cohort participants (n = 28) were also primarily female (71%), White (73%), with (23%)

Asian representation, and no self-identified Hispanics. In both cohorts, there was only one participant self-identified

as Black. In the 2018 cohort, about one-third (36%) were associate professors, and there were more tenure track

professors (32%) compared with the 2017 cohort (18%). They reported having leadership (45%) and mentoring (36%)

experience.

3.2 | Survey procedures

The research team informed program participants of the research study in the program invitation and during face-to-

face program sessions. An informed consent form, approved by the university's institutional review board introduced

the survey. Using participants' email addresses, cohort members received an email inviting them to complete the

survey.

The web survey tool Qualtrics was used to create a questionnaire that included demographic questions and two

instruments: mentoring competency assessment (MCA) and servant leadership. The vendor web survey tool Min-

dGarden was used to administer the transformational, transactional, and passive avoidant leadership instrument. In

year one, participants received links at the same time in the fall, September to November, to complete the Qualtrics

and MindGarden surveys. In year two, based on feedback from first-year participants, participants were invited to

complete the Qualtrics survey first, September through November, and then, 30 days later, the MindGarden survey,

October through November. Survey completion status was monitored, and reminders were sent to complete the sur-

veys. Despite assurances of anonymity, some participants expressed that as an “only” (e.g., women faculty in an all-

male department), they were reluctant to provide identifiable demographic information. Of the 56 participants, from

the 2017 and 2018 leadership development program cohorts, questionnaire completion rates were 80% for Qualtrics

(n = 48) and 100% for MindGarden (n = 56).

3.3 | Sample size, power, and precision

To conduct a multiple regression analysis with four independent variables—servant leadership, transformational lead-

ership, transactional leadership, and passive avoidant—and one dependent variable—mentorship—to obtain a medium

(0.15) to large (0.35) effect size requires a sample of 39 to 82 (Green, 1991; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Combined,

both cohorts were within the adequate sample size parameters, with 48 and 56 participants completing the Qualtrics

and MindGarden surveys, respectively.

3.4 | Measures and covariates

The mentoring instruments available assess mentoring at the individual, group, and organizational levels and cover a

variety of topics (Gilbreath, Rose, & Dietrich, 2007). There are mentoring scales that address career mentoring

(Gilbreath et al., 2007; Scandura & Williams, 2004), career and psychosocial functions (Godshalk & Sosik, 2000;

Noe, 1988; Sosik & Godshalk, 2000), mentoring in male-dominated occupations (Chun et al., 2012), mentoring rela-

tionship challenges (Ensher & Murphy, 2011), and mentoring of research scholars (Fleming et al., 2013). As this

study's subjects were tenured faculty at a Carnegie level one research university, Fleming et al.'s (2013) MCA were

selected for this study. The MCA was developed to improve the skills of research mentors. This scale is based on an

assessment of close to 300 mentor-protégé pairs across the United States in 16 universities. Protégés were asked to

“please rate how skilled your mentor is in the following areas” (p. 1003). Overall, mentors' self-ratings were

8 SIMS ET AL.

consistently lower than their protégés' ratings of the mentors' skills. This suggests that the perceptions of the men-

tors are a conservative reflection of their actual skills as confirmed by their mentees.

The Qualtrics survey collected demographic data (email address, title, age, gender, race/ethnicity, education,

organization, marital status, and dependents under age 18 in the home) to capture participants' leadership and men-

toring experience. Single item measures were used, including “to what extent have you led others to achieve a goal?”

and “to what extent have your mentored others?” Participants' responses were gathered by using a Likert scale with

zero as none and five as very extensive. The rationale for using single-item measures was based on the research that

indicated when a construct is clear, one-dimensional, seeks an overall impression, and used in leadership and men-

toring studies thus, a one-item measure is appropriate (Allen, Shockley, & Poteat, 2010; Arvey, Zhang, Avolio, &

Krueger, 2007; Wanous & Hudy, 2001, etc.).

In addition to the Qualtrics survey was Barbuto Jr. and Wheeler's (2006) servant leadership questionnaire

(self-rater) that contained 24 questions with the subscales of altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persua-

sive mapping, and organizational stewardship. The last item on the Qualtrics survey was the MCA (Fleming

et al., 2013) (self-rater), which had 26 items with these subscales: maintaining effective communication, aligning

expectations, assessing understanding, fostering independence, addressing diversity, and promoting professional

development.

The MindGarden survey contained the multi-factor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) (self-rater) had 45 descrip-

tive statements consist of three leadership styles: transformational, transactional, and passive avoidant. See Table 1,

for the five scales used in this study, the original reliability scores and those obtained in this study, the number of

items in the scale, and sample items.

3.5 | Data source and item completion

Survey data from the Qualtrics and MindGarden websites were downloaded as SPSS files. Cases were matched

based on the email address. For each year, 2017 and 2018, 28 cases were added to one SPSS file resulting in a file

with 56 cases; one for each survey respondent. Not all participants completed all the demographic and survey items.

The frequency of completions were: 100% MLQ (n = 56); 86%—servant leadership, the single item questions led

others and mentored others, age and gender (n = 48); and 82% mentoring (n = 46).

3.6 | Data analysis

IBM's Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences (SPSS 24) software was used to analyze the data.

4 | RESULTS

4.1 | Items/instruments reliability and means

Scale level reliability (all items) was satisfactory except for transactional leadership (0.59), where the reliability of the

subscales ranged from 0.66 to 0.73 (Table 1). At the subscale level, all five subscales for servant leadership (0.78 to

0.88), seven of ten subscales for the MLQ (0.53 to 0.81), and five of six subscales for mentoring competency had

acceptable reliability levels (0.59 to 0.85). For the MLQ, the initial transactional leadership subscale's coefficient

alpha was 0.54 and consisted of CR and management by exception active (MBEA) (Table 1). Removing item CR3

slightly improved reliability to 0.59 for the transactional scale. Subsequently, CR3 was removed and only seven items

were used in the analyses of the transactional scale; this is reported in Table 1. Although reliability was low for

SIMS ET AL. 9

MLQ's subscales individual consideration (IC, 0.55) and laissez-faire (LF, 0.53), the items for these two subscales

combined comprise the passive avoidant scale. Removing LF4 only marginally improved the Cronbach's alpha to

0.762 versus the all item value of 0.761. Thus, for passive avoidant, all items were retained. Relative to the men-

toring subscale's addressing diversity (0.59) the mentoring subscale had two items, no further changes could be made

to improve its reliability.

TABLE 1 Scale reliability, Cronbach's alphas

Scale/subscales Original StudyNumberof items Sample items

Servant leadership (Barbuto Jr. &

Wheeler, 2006); 23 items, divided in

five subscales

0.92 0.87 23 “I put others best interest ahead of my

own,” “I am one whom others would

turn to if others have a personal

trauma,” “I am alert to what's

happening,” “I offer compelling reasons

to get others to do things,” and “Ibelieve that the organization needs to

play a moral role in society.”

Altruistic calling 0.82 0.86 4

Emotional healing 0.91 0.88 4

Wisdom 0.92 0.88 5

Persuasive mapping 0.87 0.84 5

Organizational stewardship 0.89 0.78 5

The multi-factor questionnaire (Avolio

& Bass, 2000); 45 items, divided into

three major subscales from 1999

data set

“I provide others with assistance in

exchange for their efforts,” “I instillpride in others for being associated with

me,” “I demonstrate that problems must

become chronic before I take action,” “Iget others to look at problems from

many different angles,” and “I ameffective in representing others to

higher authority”

Transformational leadership NR 0.86 20

Idealized influence, idealized

behaviors, and charisma/

inspirational motivation

0.92 0.81 12

Intellectual stimulation 0.78 0.68 4

Individual consideration 0.78 0.55 4

Transactional leadership NR 0.59 8

Contingent reward 0.74 0.66 4/3a

Management by exception (active) 0.64 0.73 4

Passive avoidant leadership 0.86 0.76 8

Management by exception

(passive)

NR 0.78 4

Laissez-faire NR 0.53 4

The mentoring competency

assessment (Fleming et al., 2013); 26

items, divided into six subscales

0.91 0.92 26 “Active listening,” “employing strategies to

improve communication with mentees,”“working with mentees to set research

goals,” “motivating your mentees,”“taking into account the biases and

prejudices you bring to the mentor/

mentee relationship” and “helping your

mentees acquire resources (e.g., grants,

etc.)”

Maintaining effective

communication

0.62 0.71 6

Aligning expectations 0.76 0.83 5

Assessing understanding 0.72 0.74 3

Fostering independence 0.91 0.85 5

Addressing diversity 0.65 0.59 2

Promoting professional development 0.80 0.78 5

Abbreviation: NR, not reported.aFour items original study, three items this study; CR3 was removed to improve the reliability of transactional leadership.

10 SIMS ET AL.

Participants described themselves as “more than moderately skilled” (5.23 out of 7, 75%) for mentoring and for

the leadership scales they were close to “agree” for servant (3.78 out of 5, 76%), “fairly often” for transformational

(3.08 out of 4, 62%), “sometimes” (2.19 out of 4, 55%) for transactional, and “once in a while” (0.82 out of 4, 21%)

for passive avoidance (Table 2).

4.2 | Demographics

Personal demographics were collected from program participants, including gender, age, marital status, number of

dependents in the home under age 18 years of age, race and ethnicity, and education. Most participants were

women (70%) with several men (30%), and the largest group was 40 to 49 years of age (43%), married (73%), White

(70%), had children in the home (64%), and were Associate Professors (36%). All but three had doctoral degrees

(94%). Most indicated they had extensive to very extensive leadership (3.68 out of 5, 72%) as well as mentoring

experience (3.75 out of 5, 75%).

4.3 | Inferential analysis

A Pearson's one tail test of significance was conducted due to the directional hypotheses in this study. Table 2 pre-

sents the inter-correlations among all constructs incorporated into this study's multivariate analysis, both indepen-

dent and dependent variables, as well as gender (covariate). There were significant correlations among variables, and

all were at or lower than 0.7, indicating the absence of collinearity among this study's factors.

To address hypotheses one to five, regression analysis was conducted to explore the relationship between lead-

ership styles and mentoring (Table 3). Findings revealed that the linear combination of leadership styles was signifi-

cantly associated with mentoring competency (F [4,41] = 5.45, p < .01). The correlation between the independent

and the outcome variable was R = 0.59, R2 = 0.35, and the adjusted R2 = 0.28. The unstandardized regression coeffi-

cients provide added support that the two leadership scales were significant. Together, the four variables contrib-

uted 35% of shared variability. A subsequent stepwise analysis of variance revealed that servant leadership

accounted for 19% of the variability (F [1,44] = 10.95, p < .01), passive avoidant accounted for 13% of the variability

(F [1,43] = 8.07, p < .01), and combined, these accounted for 33% of the variability.

For Hypothesis 1, while the relationship between transformational leadership and mentoring competency

(unstandardized ß = 0.30 and a standardized ß = 0.16, p > .05) was in the expected direction, it was not significant;

this hypothesis was not supported. Regarding Hypothesis 2, the relationship between transactional leadership and

mentoring competency (unstandardized ß = −0.02 and a standardized ß = −0.02, p > .05) was not in the expected

direction, it was not significant. For Hypothesis 3, the association between passive avoidant leadership and men-

toring competency (unstandardized ß = −0.46 and a standardized ß = −0.32, p < .05) was in the expected direction

and significant; it was supported. Concerning Hypothesis 4, the relationship between servant leadership and men-

toring competency (unstandardized ß = 0.59 and a standardized ß = 0.34, p < .05) was in the expected direction and

significant; it was supported. For Hypothesis 5, servant leadership style has a stronger positive association with men-

toring competency than transformational leadership style as revealed by the standardized ß values of 0.34 for ser-

vant leadership and 0.16 for transformational leadership; it was thus supported. To further support the regression

analyses, confidence limits, which estimate population values, were generated for the variables. When the interval

does not include zero, the results are considered statistically significant. Servant leadership and passive avoidant con-

fidence intervals remained significant.

For additional insight, a multivariate analysis of variance was conducted by only including those leadership styles

(servant leadership and passive avoidant) that were significantly associated with the mentoring competency scale

and its six subscales. Using Pillai's trace, we found a significant effect of servant leadership on mentoring

SIMS ET AL. 11

TABLE2

Intercorrelations

ofvariab

leswithmea

nsan

dSD

s

Variables

12

34

56

78

9M

SD

1.G

ende

r—

2.R

ace/ethn

icity

0.17

—

3.L

edothers

−0.14

0.17

—3.68

0.85

4.M

entoredothers

−0.20

−0.02

0.73a

—3.75

0.86

5.M

entoring

compe

tenc

y−0.16

0.07

0.39a

0.35b

—5.23

0.68

6.S

ervant

lead

ership

−0.18

0.14

0.42a

0.34b

0.45a

—3.78

0.39

7.T

ransform

ationa

llea

dership

−0.09

0.19

0.40a

0.42a

0.39a

0.45a

—3.08

0.41

8.T

ransactiona

llea

dership

−0.02

−0.17

0.13

0.19

0.17

0.43a

0.26

—2.19

0.52

9.P

assive

avoidan

t0.19

0.28b

−0.26

−0.26

−0.42a

−0.19

−0.41a

−0.20

—0.82

0.53

aCorrelationissign

ifican

tat

the0.01leve

l(2-tailed).

bCorrelationissign

ifican

tat

the0.05leve

l(2-tailed).

12 SIMS ET AL.

competency as a whole, (V = 0.29, F [6,38] = 2.58, p < .05) and a non-significant effect of passive avoidant on men-

toring competency as a whole (V = 0.23, F [6,38] = 1.91, p > .05). Separate univariate analysis of variance on servant

leadership revealed significant effects for the mentoring subscales of communication (F [1,43] = 7.88, p < .01), pro-

fessional development (F [1,43] = 4.67, p < .05), and fostering independence (F [1,43] = 13.28, p < .01). Passive

avoidant leadership had significant effects on the mentoring subscales of professional development (F [1,43] = 8.65,

p < .01), fostering independence (F [1,43] = 5.20, p < .05), and diversity (F [1,43] = 5.09, p < .05).

To determine whether the servant leadership subscales were significantly associated with mentoring compe-

tency, a regression analysis was conducted and revealed that the model was significant (F [5,45] = 2.47, p < .05).

However, none of the correlations between the predictor servant leadership subscales (altruistic calling, emotional

healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping, and organizational stewardship) and the dependent variable, mentoring com-

petency, were significant.

On average, men's self-ratings were higher than women's were on mentoring competency, servant leadership,

transformational leadership, and transactional leadership (Table 4). Women's self-ratings were higher than men's

were on passive avoidant leadership. These gender differences and effect sizes were small and not significant

(Table 4). Because of the small number of men (15) compared to the women (35) in this sample, it could not be

assumed the sample was normally distributed. The non-parametric test Wilcoxon signed-rank was used to assess the

gender means for mentoring competency, servant leadership, transformational leadership, transactional leadership,

and management by exception (Marshall & Boggis, 2016). The results revealed the mean distributions between the

women and men did not differ significantly; no support was found for Hypothesis 6 (Table 4).

4.4 | Other analyses

Our model included the leadership styles of servant, transformational, transactional, and passive avoidant. To gain

insight on what explained the fact that transformational leadership was found not to be significantly and positively

associated with mentor competency, we conducted additional analysis of variance of combinations of transforma-

tional, transactional, and passive avoidant leadership. Transformational leadership did become positively and signifi-

cantly associated with mentoring competency when paired only with passive avoidant leadership (F [2,45] = 7.37,

p < .01, with R = 0.505, R2 = 0.255, adjusted R2 = 0.221). In this model, passive avoidant and transformational leader-

ship styles variability were, respectively, 17 and 8% and, combined, totaled 25%.

In preparation to assess common method bias, missing data from six to ten participants were imputed by cal-

culating estimated means. Then, factor analysis was conducted using dimension reduction where the factor

extracted was fixed to one. The total variance explained by all survey items from the extraction sums of squared

loadings was 16.38 (19.50%). As this variance amount did not exceed 50%, common method bias was not

supported.

TABLE 3 Regression coefficients: Leadership style predictors of mentoring competency

B SE B B 95% CI

Constant 2.48 1.01 [0.45, 4.52]

Servant leadership 0.59 0.26 0.34* [0.06, 1.12]

Transformational leadership 0.30 0.26 0.16 [−0.23, 0.83]

Transactional leadership −0.02 0.18 −0.02 [−0.39, 0.35]

Passive avoidant leadership −0.46 0.19 −0.32* [−0.84, −0.08]

Abbreviation: CI, confidence interval.*p < .05 level.

SIMS ET AL. 13

TABLE4

Inde

pend

entsamples

test

ofvariab

lesco

mpa

risonby

gend

er

Leve

ne'stest

foreq

uality

ofva

rian

cet-Testforeq

ualityofmea

ns

95%

confiden

ceinterval

ofthe

difference

Scale

FSig

tdf

Sig.

(2-tailed)

Effec

tsize

=r

Mea

ndifferen

ceSE

differen

ceLo

wer

Upper

Men

toring

compe

tenc

y0.10

0.76

1.09

26.85

0.29

0.04

0.23

0.21

−0.20

0.66

Lead

ership

scales

Servan

t1.11

0.30

1.36

32.88

0.18

0.05

0.15

0.11

−0.08

0.38

Transform

ationa

l0.39

0.54

0.60

23.76

0.55

0.02

0.08

0.13

−0.18

0.33

Transactiona

l2.57

0.12

0.12

19.90

0.90

0.02

0.02

0.16

−0.30

0.34

Passive

avoidan

t0.26

0.62

−1.33

25.40

0.20

0.07

−0.20

0.15

−0.51

0.11

Note:Becau

seno

Ftest

values

weresign

ifican

t,onlyeq

ualv

arianc

esno

tassumed

arerepo

rted

.

14 SIMS ET AL.

To assess whether there were differences between those who did and did not complete the MLQ transforma-

tional, transactional, and passive avoidant scales (n = 56), servant leadership (n = 48), and mentoring competency

(n = 46), a Wilcoxon signed rank analyses was conducted to compare mean scores. No significant differences were

revealed from the standardized test statistics: transformational (t = 1.15), transactional (t = −0.25), passive avoidant

(t = −0.52), servant leadership (t = −0.08), and mentoring competency (t = 1.54).

5 | DISCUSSION

This study sought to determine whether leadership style is positively or negatively, and significantly associated with

mentoring competencies. We begin by discussing our findings. No support was found for Hypothesis 1: transforma-

tional leadership style is positively and statistically associated with mentoring competency or Hypothesis 2: transac-

tional leadership style is positively and statistically associated with mentoring competency.

Each leadership style is theorized to meet a specific goal. In transformational leadership, the leader motivates

their followers to achieve organizational goals, and in transactional leadership, the leader exchanges items of value

with their followers when the leader's goals are met (Bass & Bass, 2008). The lack of significant association is likely

due to a mismatch between the type of narrow goals and constructs, which form the transformational and transac-

tional leadership styles and the broad and diverse developmental competencies expected of faculty research men-

tors. For example, three of the four transformational leadership constructs (idealized influence, inspirational

motivation, and intellectual stimulation) were conceptualized to help followers rise to the challenge to meet the

leader's goal; only the fourth construct, individualized consideration, was established to meet employee's unique

needs (Bass & Bass, 2008) whereas transactional leadership's CR construct emphasizes goal setting, the development

of competencies to meet goals, and rewarding goal achievement (Sosik & Godshalk, 2000). If the mentoring compe-

tencies focused exclusively on helping protégés attain goals and enhance performance, it is likely that transforma-

tional and transactional leadership would be more strongly associated with mentoring competencies. Additional

analyses found transformational leadership only became statistically significant with mentoring competency in this

study when it was paired exclusively with passive avoidant leadership and only then accounted for 8% of the vari-

ability whereas servant leadership accounted for 18% of the variability. Therefore, at best, transformational leader-

ship's strong emphasis on goal attainment makes it a weak predictor of mentoring competency and not at all when

competing against servant leadership.

We found support for Hypothesis 3, passive avoidant leadership was negatively and significantly related to men-

toring competency and its' subscales of professional development, fostering independence, and diversity. These find-

ings are likely due to passive avoidant leadership having a strong, negative, and significant antipathetical relationship

to both leadership and mentoring.

Support was found for Hypothesis 4 and servant leadership was positively and significantly associated with

these mentoring subscales: communication, professional development, and fostering independence. Although no ser-

vant leadership construct was significantly associated with mentoring competency, a discussion of this leadership

style's constructs informs this analysis. Unlike transformational and transactional leadership, only one of the five ser-

vant leadership constructs—persuasive mapping—addressed goal attainment; the other constructs addressed fol-

lower development (altruistic calling, emotional healing) and collective and shared leadership (wisdom and

organizational stewardship) (Hammond, Clapp-Smith, & Palanski, 2017). Servant leadership's almost exclusive focus

on employee development was associated with the broad set of developmental skills needed to mentor faculty.

When considering what leadership style is appropriate for leader and leadership development, choice of style pro-

vides a blueprint of leadership attitudes and behaviors but may also inform mentoring behavior. Thus, as a profes-

sional development tool, servant leadership's employee development focus makes it a synergistic choice as it

benefits leadership development and mentoring. Moreover, in comparing the findings and constructs of the servant

and transformational leadership, the difference in focus—goal attainment (transformational) and employee

SIMS ET AL. 15

development (servant leadership) are qualitatively different from one another in purpose and emphasis; thus support

was found for Hypothesis 5.

Regarding Hypothesis 6, the findings herein did not reveal gender differences associated with a relationship

between mentoring competency and leadership style. There are a variety of reasons why gender differences were

not found in this study, including the relatively low number of research participants (particularly the male subsample),

reliance on participants to self-identify their gender, which may not be sufficiently sensitive to differentiation, and

the nature of this convenience sample of subjects who self-nominated to participate in a gender equity program,

which may have predisposed participants to have values and beliefs that are more similar and may differ from those

who might be randomly sampled. Despite the findings, it remains important to collect data on gender differences

with the hope of 1 day having instruments that can address the tangible inequities associated with gender and career

attainment in higher education (Bierema & Callahan, 2014).

5.1 | Limitations

This study had some limitations, including a cross-sectional design with data collection at one point in time. Therefore,

the assessment of the temporal relationships among variables could not be examined. The researchers' reliance on

self-reports about participants' ratings using a common survey method was also a limitation. Other limitations were

that the effect size might be due to the small sample (46–56). In addition, the small number of men compared to the

women in the study may explain why mean scale differences by gender were small and non-significant, which limits

generalizability. The transactional leadership scale's low reliability (0.54) may be due to the small sample, the small

number of scale items (8), and/or the heterogeneity of the constructs of CR and MBEA. Alternatively, individual alphas

of the CR and MBEA were closer to an acceptable range (0.69 and 0.73), which provides support for keeping transac-

tional leadership despite its low reliability herein (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). Reliability was low for the construct LF,

which belongs to the MLQ's passive avoidant leadership's scale and for the transformational leadership's construct of

IC along with MCA's subscale diversity. Although steps were taken to mitigate common method bias and statistical

analysis did not support its presence, such bias remained a concern in this study (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

5.2 | Theoretical implications

To situate these findings, we return to the literature to answer the question: how does one develop as a mentor and a

leader? We contend that like other professional roles, one becomes a mentor as their mentor identity develops

(Chiles, 2007; Kwan & Lopez-Real, 2010; Nyanjom, 2020; E. R. Smith, 2011). Identity is a social construct, which indi-

viduals use to define themselves based on their beliefs and values (Rothbard & Edwards, 2003). Moreover, identity is

not fixed, but a “process of becoming rather than being,” as mentoring provides opportunities for learning and profes-

sional development (Hall, 1996, p. 4; Kwan & Lopez-Real, 2010). The role of a mentor contains both psychosocial and

career orientation elements (Banerjee-Batist et al., 2019). Individuals who adopt and perform the role of mentor bring

their beliefs, values, and attitudes to that relationship, and, we posit, based on our findings, their leadership style(s)

(Nyanjom, 2020). For example, one study determined that when the mentoring program was “very task-focused…

mentors built a very task focused relationship.” Conversely, when the mentoring sessions were more flexible, mentors

achieved “a broader, more holistic relationship” with their protégés (Chiles, 2007, p. 740). As leaders and as mentors,

individuals span both roles and work to integrate their leadership and mentoring identities (E. R. Smith, 2011).

Future research is needed to explore the intersection of leadership style and mentoring competency to deter-

mine whether the leadership style association is complementary (servant leadership), conflicting (passive avoidant),

or neutral (transformation and transactional). These findings should be confirmed in other populations, with longitu-

dinal study designs, and explored using different leadership styles and mentoring instruments.

16 SIMS ET AL.

5.3 | Practical implications

This study was conducted to provide HRD practitioners and scholars with insight on what leadership style

should be encouraged when designing and implementing a mentoring program. We advance that leadership

style matters, as only one style, servant leadership, was positively and strongly related (significant) to men-

toring competency. Because protégés try on the skills, competencies, and attitudes of their mentor, and we

advance, their leadership style, ultimately, protégés may internalize these characteristics as they emulate their

mentor (Mysyk, 2007; E. R. Smith, 2011). Those embarking on leadership development and the mentoring pro-

gram should help prospective mentors recognize their leadership styles and discuss how those styles may be

complementary (servant), neutral (transformational), or negative (passive avoidant) while providing them with

mentoring instruction.

Depending on the leadership style of the potential mentor, mentor competency development may differ in the

amount on a scale from less to somewhat more, more, and much more. For example, based on the findings herein,

less mentoring instruction may be needed for research faculty with a servant leadership style due to the positive (sig-

nificant) relationship to these mentoring competencies—communication, fostering independence, and professional

development—and, somewhat more instruction may be needed on the mentoring competencies where the positive

relationship was not significant—aligning expectations, assessing understanding, and diversity. Whereas, the passive

avoidant leadership style had a negative relationship with the mentoring competencies. Therefore, more instruction

is needed on the non-significant mentoring competencies of communication, aligning expectations, and assessing for

understanding while much training would be needed to counteract the significant negatively associated mentoring

competencies of fostering independence, diversity, and professional development.

In general, HRD professionals should ensure leaders know what characterizes good mentoring by provid-

ing potential mentors with formal training, protégé feedback, and coaching as well as self-reflection (Mysyk,

2007). Because mentoring competencies and identity develops over time, organizations should first place

mentor candidates in the role of protégés with purposeful and structured mentoring experiences and then

transition the protégés to mentors. Collectively, these interventions are likely to yield leaders with strong

mentoring skillset.

6 | CONCLUSIONS

Leadership development and mentoring are tools HRD professionals use to increase the number of women and men

in the higher education leadership pipeline and elsewhere. When designing these programs, the type of leadership

style enacted can reap not only the intended consequences for participants but can also bolster that leader's ability

to mentor others. Servant leadership's employee development focus may create more development synergies associ-

ated with mentoring than other leadership styles. We encourage HRD professionals as they design leadership devel-

opment programs to consider encouraging and supporting servant leadership, which yields increased socio-

emotional and career development mentoring dividends for program participants.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Partial support for this work was provided by the National Science Foundation's ADVANCE NSF project -1629934.

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and

do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

ORCID

Cynthia Sims https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7195-9943

SIMS ET AL. 17

REFERENCES

Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., & Lentz, E. (2006). The relationship between formal mentoring program characteristics and perceived

program effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 59, 125–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00747Allen, T. D., Shockley, K. M., & Poteat, L. (2010). Protégé anxiety attachment and feedback in mentoring relationships. Jour-

nal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.02.007Ardichvili, A., Natt och Dag, K., & Manderscheid, S. (2016). Leadership development: Current and emerging models and prac-

tices. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 18, 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422316645506Aremu, A. O., & Adeyoju, C. A. (2003). Job commitment, job satisfaction and gender as predictors of mentoring in the Nigeria

police. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 26, 377–385. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639510310489449

Arvey, R. D., Zhang, Z., Avolio, B. J., & Krueger, R. F. (2007). Developmental and genetic determinants of leadership role

occupancy among women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 693–706. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.693Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2000). Multifactor leadership questionnaire Manual and Sample Set (3rd ed.). Menlo Park, CA: Mind

Garden, Inc.

Banerjee-Batist, R., Reio, T. G., Jr., & Rocco, T. S. (2019). Mentoring functions and outcomes: An integrative literature review

of sociocultural factors and individual differences. Human Resource Development Review, 18(1), 114–162. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-02-2015-0015

Barbuto, J. E., & Gifford, G. T. (2010). Examining gender differences of servant leadership: An analysis of the agentic and

communal properties of the Servant Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Leadership Education, 9(2), 4–21.Barbuto, J. E., Jr., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group &

Organization Management, 31(3), 300–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601106287091Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership, theory, research and managerial applications (4th ed.). New

York, NY: Free Press.

Bierema, L., & Callahan, J. L. (2014). Transforming HRD: A framework for critical HRD practice. Advances in Developing

Human Resources, 16(4), 429–444.Bonebright, D. A., Cottledge, A. D., & Lonnquist, P. (2012). Developing women leaders on campus: A human resources–

women's center partnership at the University of Minnesota. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 14, 79–95.https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422311429733

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. In Leadership (Vol. 3). New York, NY: Harper & Row. https://doi.org/10.1177/

1742715005049347

Callahan, J. L., Whitener, J. K., & Sandlin, J. A. (2007). The art of creating leaders: Popular culture artifacts as pathways for

development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9, 146–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422306298856Chesler, N. C., & Chesler, M. A. (2002). Gender-informed mentoring strategies for women engineering scholars: On esta-

blishing a caring community. Journal of Engineering Education, 91, 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2002.tb00672

Chiles, T. (2007). The construction of an identity as ‘mentor’ in white collar and academic workplaces: A preliminary analysis.

Journal of Pragmatics, 39(4), 730–741.Chun, J. U., Sosik, J. J., & Yun, N. Y. (2012). A longitudinal study of mentor and protégé outcomes in formal mentoring rela-

tionships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 1071–1094. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1691.7607Collins, D. B., & Holton, III, E. F. (2004). The effectiveness of managerial leadership development programs: A meta-analysis

of studies from 1982 to 2001. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(2), 217–248.Cook, B. J. (2012). The American college president study: Key findings and takeaways. Retrieved from http://www.acenet.edu/

the-presidency/columns-andfeatures/Pages/The-American-College-President-Study.aspx

Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 581–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00061-8

Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & McKee, R. A. (2014). Advances in leader and leadership develop-

ment: A review of 25 years of research and theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.004

Day, D. V., Harrison, M. M., & Halpin, S. M. (2009). An integrative approach to leader development: Connecting adult develop-

ment, identity, and expertise. New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203809525

DeFrank-Cole, L., Latimer, M., Neidermeyer, P., & Wheatly, M. (2016). Understanding “why” one university's women's lead-

ership development strategies are so effective. Advancing Women in Leadership, 36, 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014093

Dickson, J., Kirkpatrick-Husk, K., Kendall, D., Longabaugh, J., Patel, A., & Scielzo, S. (2014). Untangling protégé self-reports

of mentoring functions: Further meta-analytic understanding. Journal of Career Development, 41, 263–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845313498302

18 SIMS ET AL.

Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. The Leadership Quarterly,

14, 807–834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.004Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth, the truth about how women become leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard

Business School Press.

Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leader-

ship styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569–591. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569

Eby, L. T., Durley, J. R., Evans, S. C., & Ragins, B. R. (2006). The relationship between short-term mentoring benefits and

long-term mentor outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(3), 424–444. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1997.1594Egan, T. M. (2005). The impact of learning goal orientation similarity on formal mentoring relationship outcomes. Advances

in Developing Human Resources, 7, 489–504. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422305279679Ensher, E. A., & Murphy, S. E. (2011). The mentoring relationship challenges scale: The impact of mentoring stage, type, and

gender. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.11.008Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant leadership: A systematic review and call

for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 111–132.Fleming, M., House, S., Hanson, V. S., Yu, L., Garbutt, J., McGee, R., … Rubio, D. M. (2013). The mentoring competency

assessment: Validation of a new instrument to evaluate skills of research mentors. Academic Medicine, 88, 1002–1008.https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e318295e298

Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). Can you see the real me? A self-based model

of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 343–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.003

Germain, M. L. (2011). Formal mentoring relationships and attachment theory: Implications for human resource develop-

ment. Human Resource Development Review, 10, 123–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484310397019Ghosh, R., & Reio, T. G. (2013). Career benefits associated with mentoring for mentors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Voca-

tional Behavior, 83, 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.03.011Gilbreath, B., Rose, G. L., & Dietrich, K. E. (2007). Assessing mentoring inorganizations: An evaluation of commercial men-

toring instruments. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 16, 379–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/

13611260802433767

Godshalk, V. M., & Sosik, J. J. (2000). Does Mentor-Protégé agreement on mentor leadership behavior influence the quality

of a mentoring relationship? Group & Organization Management, 25, 291–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/

1059601100253005

Green, S. B. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26,

499–510. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2603_7

Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Indianapolis, IN: The Robert K. Greenleaf Center.

Griffin, K. A., & Reddick, R. J. (2011). Surveillance and sacrifice: Gender differences in the mentoring patterns of black pro-

fessors at predominantly White research universities. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1032–1057. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211405025

Hall, S. (1996). Who needs ‘identity’? In S. Hall & P. Du Gay (Eds.), Questions of cultural identity (pp. 1–17). London, England:Sage.

Hammond, M., Clapp-Smith, R., & Palanski, M. (2017). Beyond (just) the workplace: A theory of leader development across

multiple domains. Academy of Management Review, 42(3), 481–498.Hezlett, S. A., & Gibson, S. K. (2005). Mentoring and human resource development: Where we are and where we need to

go. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7, 446–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60018-5_21Hogue, M. (2016). Gender bias in communal leadership: Examining servant leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31,

837–849. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-10-2014-0292

Jackson, D. (2009). Mentored residential writing retreats: A leadership strategy to develop skills and generate outcomes in

writing for publication. Nurse Education Today, 29(1), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2008.05.018Johnson, H. (2016). Pipelines, pathways, and institutional leadership: An update on the status of women in higher education.

Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Kark, R. (2004). The transformational leader: Who is (s) he? A feminist perspective. Journal of Organizational Change Manage-

ment, 17, 160–176. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810410530593Kim, S. (2007). Learning goal orientation, formal mentoring, and leadership competence in HRD: A conceptual model. Journal

of European Industrial Training, 31, 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090590710739269Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three

research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 616–642. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023557Kwan, T., & Lopez-Real, F. (2010). Identity formation of teacher-mentors: Ana analysis of contrasting experiences using a

Wengerian matrix framework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 722–731.

SIMS ET AL. 19

Laursen, S., & Rocque, B. (2009). Faculty development for institutional change: Lessons from an ADVANCE project. Change:

The Magazine of Higher Learning, 41(2), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.3200/CHNG.41.2

Levine, R. B., González-Fernández, M., Bodurtha, J., Skarupski, K. A., & Fivush, B. (2015). Implementation and evaluation of

the Johns Hopkins university school of medicine leadership program for women faculty. Journal of Women's Health, 24

(5), 360–366. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2014.5092

Madsen, S. R. (2011). Women and leadership in higher education: Current realities, challenges and future directions.

Advances in Developing Human Resources, 14, 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422311436299Margherio, C., Horner-Devine, M. C., Mizumori, S. J., & Yen, J. W. (2016). Learning to thrive: Building diverse scientists'

access to community and resources through the BRAINS program. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(3), ar491–ar411.https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0058

Marshall, E., & Boggis, E. (2016). In University of Sheffield (Ed.), The statistics tutor's quick guide to commonly used statistical

tests. Sheffield, England: University of Sheffield.

Mysyk, N. (2007). Woman, manager, mentor: The development of women mentors. The International Journal of the Humani-

ties, 5(1), 51–59.Noe, R. A. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. Personnel Psychology,

41, 457–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00638Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and practice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Nyanjom, J. (2020). Calling to mentor: The search for mentor identity through the development of mentor competency. Edu-

cational Action Research, 28(2), 242–257.O'Bannon, D. J., Garavalia, L., Renz, D. O., & McCarther, S. M. (2010). Successful leadership development for women STEM fac-

ulty. Leadership and Management in Engineering, 10, 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LM.1943-5630.0000080

O'brien, K. E., Biga, A., Kessler, S. R., & Allen, T. D. (2010). A meta-analytic investigation of gender differences in mentoring.

Journal of Management, 36, 537–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308318619Paul, W. K., & Fitzpatrick, C. (2015). Advising as servant leadership: Investigating student satisfaction. The Journal of the

National Academic Advising Association, 35(2), 28–35. https://doi.org/10.12930/NACADA-14-019

Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., Walker, L. S., & Woehr, D. J. (2014). Gender and perceptions of leadership effectiveness: A meta-

analysis of contextual moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 1129–1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036751fPodsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A

critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Poon, R. (2006). A model for servant leadership, self-efficacy and mentorship. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2006

Servant Leadership Research Roundtable, 1–13. Virginia Beach, VA: School of Leadership Studies, Regent University.

Ragins, B. R., Townsend, B., & Mattis, M. (1998). Gender gap in the executive suite: CEOs and female executives report on

breaking the glass ceiling. Academy of Management Perspectives, 12(1), 28–42. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1998.

254976

Richardson, A., & Loubier, C. (2008). Intersectionality and leadership. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(2),

142–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020618791006Richman, R. C., Morahan, P. S., Cohen, D. W., & McDade, S. A. (2001). Advancing women and closing the leadership gap:

The Executive Leadership in Academic Medicine (ELAM) program experience. Journal of Women's Health & Gender-Based

Medicine, 10, 271–277. https://doi.org/10.1089/152460901300140022Rothbard, N. P., & Edwards, J. R. (2003). Investment in work and family roles: A test of identity and utilitarian motives. Per-

sonnel Psychology, 56, 699–730.Rubin, B. D. (2004). Pursuing excellence in higher education: Eight fundamental challenges. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.

Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2007). The glass cliff: Exploring the dynamics surrounding the appointment of women to pre-

carious leadership positions. Academy of Management Review, 32, 549–572. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159315Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2004). Mentoring and transformational leadership: The role of supervisory career men-

toring. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 448–468.Sims, C., & Carter, A. (2019). Revisiting Parker & ogilvie's African American Women Executive Leadership Model. Journal of

Business Diversity, 19(2), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.33423/jbd.v19i2.2058Sims, C., Gong, T., & Hughes, C. (2017). Linking leader and gender identities to authentic leadership in small businesses. Gen-

der in Management: An International Journal, 32, 318–329. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-06-2016-0121

Sims, C., & Morris, L. (2018). Are women business owners' authentic servant leaders? Gender in Management: An International

Journal, 33, 405–427. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-01-2018-0003

Smith, E. R. (2011). Faculty mentors in teacher induction: Developing a cross-institutional identity. The Journal of Educational

Research, 10(5), 316–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2010.482948Smith, J. W., Smith, W. J., & Markham, S. E. (2000). Diversity issues in mentoring academic faculty. Journal of Career Develop-

ment, 26, 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/089484530002600402

20 SIMS ET AL.

Sosik, J. T., & Godshalk, V. M. (2000). Leadership styles, mentoring functions received, and job-related stress: A conceptual

model and preliminary study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(4), 365–390. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200006)21

Stallworth, L. H. (2003). Mentoring, organizational commitment and intentions to leave public accounting. Managerial

Auditing Journal, 18, 405–418. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900310476873Steinbeck, D. B. (2009). Mentoring and servant leadership in a K–12 public school system. (Doctoral dissertation).

ProQuestRegent University (Order No. 3351257).

Stone, A. G., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servant leadership – A difference in leader focus.

The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(4), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730410538671Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55.https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd

Thomas, K. M., Willis, L. A., & Davis, J. (2007). Mentoring minority graduate students: Issues and strategies for institutions,

faculty, and students. Equal Opportunities International, 26, 178–192. https://doi.org/10.1108/02610150710735471Thomas, N., Bystydzienski, J., & Desai, A. (2015). Changing institutional culture through peer mentoring of women STEM

faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 40, 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-014-9300-9U.S. National Science Foundation, ADVANCE. (2009). ADVANCE. Increasing the participation and advancement of women in

academic science and engineering careers (NSF Publication NO. 09041). Retrieved from www.nsf.gov/pubs/2009/

nsf0941/nsf0941.pdf

Walsh, A. M., Borkowski, S. C., & Reuben, E. B. (1999). Mentoring in health administration: The critical link in executive

development/practitioner application. Journal of Healthcare Management, 44, 269–280.Wanberg, C. R., Welsh, E. T., & Hezlett, S. A. (2003). Mentoring research: A review and dynamic process model. Research in

Personnel and Human Resources Management, 22, 39–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-7301(03)22002-8Wanous, J. P., & Hudy, M. J. (2001). Single-item reliability: A replication and extension. Organizational Research Methods, 4

(4), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810144003White, J. S. (2012). HERS institutes: Curriculum for advancing women leaders in higher education. Advances in Developing

Human Resources, 14, 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422311429732Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

How to cite this article: Sims C, Carter A, Moore De Peralta A. Do servant, transformational, transactional,

and passive avoidant leadership styles influence mentoring competencies for faculty? A study of a gender

equity leadership development program. Human Resource Development Quarterly. 2020;1–21. https://doi.

org/10.1002/hrdq.21408

SIMS ET AL. 21