Abstract

This study investigated how employee mentoring relates to career success and organizational success. This is because employee mentoring, employee career success and organizational success are indispensible in the life of every organization. To fill the existing gap in the current literature, this study intends to determine the presence of mentoring in Nigerian firms and the extent to which it has helped in both career success and organizational success. The study employed a survey method of data collection through questionnaires administered to 345 respondents, and descriptive statistics and t-tests were used for the analysis and hypothesis testing. This study proposes that there is a significant presence of mentoring in firms throughout Nigeria, that mentoring has a significant positive effect on career success, and that career success has a significant positive effect on organizational success. The study recommends that organizations should incorporate employee mentoring programmes in their plan, which will lead to employees’ career success and organizational success, and the study concludes that mentoring is invaluable to both career success and organizational success.

Keywords: Mentoring, Career success, Organizational success, Delegation, Job satisfaction, Corporate objective.

Received: 15 June 2020 / Revised: 18 September 2020 / Accepted: 23 October 2020/ Published: 11 November 2020

Contribution/ Originality

The study revealed that mentoring has a significant positive effect on career success, and that career success has a significant positive effect on organizational success. These findings will help organizations incorporate employee mentoring programmes in their plan, which will lead to employees’ career success and organizational success.

1. INTRODUCTION

Organizations, whether small or large, global or local, private or public, regardless of the service they provide or products they produce, exist for a purpose. To achieve their purposes and objectives depend on the performance, sustainability, and survival of the organization. However, to perform, sustain, and survive, organizations need qualified, capable, and committed human capital that has what it takes to lead the organization to success. The surest avenue of getting the best human capital is mentoring. Mentoring, according to Tyokumbur (2014), is a global issue and a challenge in both developed and developing nations. Various literature on mentoring focused on employees’ performance (see Cho & Huang, 2012; Haggard, Dougherty, Turban, & Wilbanks, 2011; Reid, Allen, Riemenschneider & Armstrong, 2008), yet not much has been said on the effect of mentoring on both career and organizational success, and this empirical work intends to fill the gap.

Mentorship is as old as human behavior and management has been in practice for a very long time. Mentoring helps to discover talented, intelligent young employees early in their career and enable organizations to train and develop them in preparation for immediate or eventual assignment. Mentorship prepares people to aspire to the heights of their mentors and, in some cases, perform better than them Agbionu, Emejuru, and Egolum (2015).

Mentoring enables organizations to discover “ripe corn” or “cash cows” very early in their careers and train them into excellence by exploring capabilities, skills, and other hidden potential (Nwosu, 2014). For example, organizations like UAC (United African Company) Plc and Nigeria Breweries Plc, have policies in place to discover young and talented minds within the organization. These young employees (mentees) are mentored into excellence and move through the ranks to take over the leadership of the organization in the future. Can organizations develop successful employees through mentoring, and can capable and successful employees bring success to organizations? These are the questions that this study aims to answer. Based on the main objective of this study, the specific objectives are:

(1) To investigate the extent to which Nigerian firms practice employee mentoring.
(2) To determine the extent employee mentoring effect employees’ career success.
(3) To assess the effect of career success on organizational success.

This paper has five sections: the introduction to the study is covered in section 1; a review of related literature is discussed in section 2; methodology is explained in section 3; section 4 contains the data presentation, analysis, hypotheses testing, results and discussion of findings; and section 5 contains the conclusion and recommendations.

Figure 1. Model of mentoring, career success and organizational success.

Note: The framework in Figure 1 implies that the success of organizations depend on employees’ career success, while employees’ career success depends on the extent to which they are mentored. However, mentoring is represented in this model by delegation, employee development, empowerment, and internal sourcing/placement. Career success depends on a combination of job satisfaction, employee commitment, staff turnover, reward and recognition, and work–life balance, while organizational success is a combination of effectiveness, efficiency, corporate vision and mission, and objectives.

2. LITERATURE

2.1. Mentoring

As Bozeman and Feeney (2008) explained, mentoring is a process of transmission of knowledge, social capital, and psychosocial support perceived by the recipient as relevant to work, career, or professional development. This is a process in which a mentor passes on knowledge of subjects, facilitates personal development, encourages wise choices, and helps the protégé to make transitions (Zachary, 2011). Mentoring helps the mentee prepare for professional advancement, the psychosocial support assists them to gain expertise and confidence (Cho & Huang, 2012; Haggard et al., 2011; Reid et al., 2008). A relationship between an older, more experienced mentor and a younger, less experienced protégé is established for the purpose of helping and developing the protégé’s career (Kram, 1985; Noe, Greenberger, & Wang, 2002).

Can mentoring assure employees’ career success and as well organizational success? The main object of mentoring is to allow employees to easily meet the goals and objectives of the organization, and being mentored gives employees the opportunity to gain and develop new knowledge, skills and abilities, which ensures growth and advancement within the organization (Tong & Kram, 2013; Zachary, 2011). Organizations that mentor their employees by delegating responsibilities to them, developing and empowering them, can use them to fill any important positions that may exist within the organization and this is likely to achieve two things: success for the organization, and career success for the employees. This paper postulates that a mentoring-oriented organization should adopt delegation, development, empowerment, and internal sourcing/placement as indispensable aspects of mentoring. This position is supported by the fact that these indicators perfect a mentee faster through the mentoring process.

2.1.1. Delegation

Delegation is defined as the assignment of tasks by a manager to their subordinates. It is almost impossible for any manager to perform all functions alone, hence the need to share the tasks among the employees. Mentoring entails delegation for better assessment of the mentee by the mentor. The saying that ‘’one learns by doing’’ supports the wisdom of a mentor delegating responsibility with associated authority to the mentee in the course of mentorship. Delegation enables the mentor to assess ability and capability, as well as any training needs of the mentee with a view to ascertaining when a mentee is ready to take on extra responsibility. Delegation is necessary for every organization and not just for mentoring purposes, but for general management (e.g. division of labor). Delegation improves the strength of the workforce, employees’ commitment, and increases employee effectiveness. Blau and Alba (1982) explain that delegation of tasks inspires subordinates to feel trusted and organizationally important, boosts their self-esteem and makes them believe their supervisors consider them to be capable. However, some scholars believe that delegation is very closely related to empowerment (Cotton, 1993; Locke & Schweiger, 1979), while some draw a clear distinction between them (Frazier & Fainshmidt, 2012; Maynard, Luciano, D'Innocenzo, Mathieu, & Dean, 2014; Sigler & Pearson, 2000).

2.1.2. Employee Empowerment and Development

Development and empowerment are factors of good mentoring. When employees are mentored, they feel empowered, hence organizational effectiveness. Mentoring helps employees’ development and empowerment (Nwosu, 2014), while employee empowerment is essential in organizational effectiveness (White-Hood, 1993). Being a successful employee requires balance between achieving one’s career needs and meeting the objectives of the organization. Regarding the relationship between mentoring and employee empowerment and development, Nwosu (2014) posits that mentoring assures mentees’ development and prepares them to fill key positions within the organization either presently or in the future.

2.1.3. Internal Sourcing/Placement

Internal sourcing or placement is the use of existing workforce in an organization to fill vacant positions. It is quicker, cost saving, requires less orientation compared with hiring someone from outside the organization (Nwosu, 2014). One of the benefits of mentoring is the availability of capable employees that can serve the organization in any capacity. When a mentee is found worthy, an organization will have the internal resources to fill any vacant positions that exist and not have to look externally to hire a capable hand. Another merit of internal sourcing or placement is that the candidate is already familiar with the organization’s human and material resources, its vision, mission, policies, culture, and strategies. Internal placement motivates other employees to work hard, for example, when a candidate is promoted within the organization, other members of staff would likely put in more effort that will lead to similar treatment and recognition for them. There has been debate between internal and external hiring, with each having valid points. For example, one school maintains that hiring externally is better and the premise of their position hinges on the fact that new staff will bring fresh ideas and visions thereby bringing positive change into the organization Santorin (2004), while the other school maintains that internal placement has a higher return on investment over time.
H1: There is no significant presence of effective employee mentoring in Nigerian firms.

2.2. Career Success

One of the challenges facing almost every employee working in an organization is how to achieve success in his or her career. Can a well mentored employee achieve career success or does this depend on having a good mentoring relationship? Mentors guide their mentees in developing and advancing their careers (Dawson, Bernstein, & Bekki, 2015; Harris-Worthington, 2009). Career mentorship is essential to career success; in other words, successful mentors are those whose mentees achieve success in their careers (see Allen, Shockley, and Poteat (2010)). Regarding the relationship between career and organizational success, Cohen & Galbraith, (1995) postulate that when mentors impart their knowledge, proficiency, and experience, mentees achieve career success and contribute to organizational success.

Career success is closely related to career development because career development leads to career success and career success is assured when there is career development. According to Byars-Winston, Branchaw, Pfund, Leverett, and Newton (2015), career development is an on-going, formalized effort by an organization that focuses on developing and enriching an organization’s human resources in light of both the employees’ and the organization’s needs. There are both positive and negative career success measurement indicators. Salary, hierarchical positions, promotions, and professional competencies are objective indicators, while work-life balance, evaluation of attainments, health and well-being associated with his or her career development are subjective indicators (see Arthur, Khapova, & Wilderom, 2005; Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999; Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005; Nicholson & De Waal‐Andrews, 2005; Zhou.., Sun, Guan, Li, & Pan, 2013). Many empirical studies by scholars confirm that employees with a mentor have more promotion opportunities, earn higher salaries, and develop high work satisfaction than employees without a mentor (see Ragins, 2012; Scandura & Schriesheim, 1994; Whitely & Coetsier, 1993). A number of studies established a positive effect of mentoring variables on career success (Allen & Lentz, 2006; Dougherty, Dreher, Arunachalam, & Wilbanks, 2013; Ensher, Thomas, & Murphy, 2001; Muchanje, Njuguna, Kalai, & Bironga, 2016). However, this study visualizes career success criteria to include employee commitment, job satisfaction, employee turnover, reward and recognition, and work-life balance.

2.2.1. Employee Commitment

Employee commitment is demonstrated by personal conviction, identification acceptance and involvement in an organization’s goal and objectives. Well mentored employee is more likely to be more successful in their career and more committed to the organization. There is a relationship between commitment and job satisfaction, workplace equality, trust in and loyalty to management, and perceptions of supervisor fairness (see Bateman & Crant, 1993; Bragg, 2002; Niehoff, Moorman, Blakely, & Fuller, 2001). However, employee commitment is generated by fairness, trust, and concern for employees, therefore employers can build employee commitment by creating environment of fairness, trust, care and concern by acting consistently in ways that employees perceive as fair, trusting and caring Kaiman (2013), and this can be assured when an employee is under mentorship.

Employee commitment can be further enhanced if organizations implement skill improvement programmes. When employees are treated fairly, their commitment in the workplace increases without being coerced (Nkpoyen, 2003), resulting in higher job satisfaction, better performance, higher levels of motivation, less absenteeism and tardiness, and less job-searching behavior.

2.2.2. Job Satisfaction

Successful and committed staff are likely to be satisfied with their jobs. Empirical evidence (for example, Boxall, Macky, & Rasmussen, 2003; Meyer & Smith, 2000) found a positive relationship between job satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover among employees. However, Pearce and Mawson (2009) explain that when organizations lack mentoring and career development plans for employees, there is a serious likelihood of job dissatisfaction, which will result in low performance and many employees leaving the organization. Job satisfaction is an indicator of career success (Chiaburu, Li, & Kirkman, 2017) and one of the predictors of turnover intentions (Simon & Kristian, 2007).

2.2.3. Employee Turnover

Every organization strives to reduce the rate at which employee leave. This translates into better performance and success in the short run, and in the long run assures survival of the organization. How does employee turnover relate to career success? Successful employees are less likely to leave an organization, and they help the organization to grow and they also advance with their organization over time. When employees are well mentored, it can lead to a strong desire to maintain employment within a company. Successful employees are less likely to leave and are more likely to show commitment to organizational goals. Empirical evidence from Zhao and Zhou (2008) suggests that both low job satisfaction levels and less organizational commitment are associated with a higher rate of turnover. Employee turnover has a negative effect on the organization in terms of expenditure and the ability to distribute the minimum required services.

2.2.4. Reward and Recognition

Reward and recognition are very important career success criteria. Employees who consistently perform well are recognized by the organization and rewarded for their performance. Rewards can come in intrinsic or extrinsic forms. Intrinsic rewards include things such as personal achievement, professional growth, or a sense of accomplishment. Extrinsic motivation is based on tangible rewards like salary increases, allowances, better offices, etc. Reward and recognition are indispensable in getting the best from organizational workforce; it increases productivity and job satisfaction and creates value for the organization. Do reward and recognition relate to career success? Compensation, reward, and recognition are a very good instruments in the achievement of career success. The more an employee is compensated, rewarded, and recognized the better the performance and the more successful the employee and the organization become.

2.2.5. Work-Life Balance

Work-life balance has been an important issue in human resource management. Does work-life balance suggest a successful career? According to Zhou (2003), employees tend to feel they have achieved career balance after they have succeeded in balancing their work life and personal life. Work-life balance-oriented organizations always strike a balance between the success of the organization and the welfare of their workforce. This means including within corporate objectives that the organization will help employees to achieve their career goals as well as maintain a personal life, which include, but is not limited to, health, leisure, family, and spiritual development. On the merits of balancing work and life, Schultz, Hoffman, Fredman, and Bainbridge (2012) maintain that when work is balanced with the life of a worker, they are able to manage their work and home lives effectively. Organizations are able to retain their employees who experience job satisfaction. When the factors associated with work-life balance are positive, an employee is able to relate positive work experiences to their career success (Shanafelt et al., 2015).
H2: Employee mentoring has no significant positive effect on career success.

2.3. Career Success and Organizational Success

When organizations pay little or no attention to the advancement of employees’ careers, they will perform poorly and the organizations will make little or no profit. Miller and Friesen (1978) explain that organizational success is very relevant because it is a determinant of the extent to which organizations achieve their set objectives despite the existence of some limitations. Chandler (1977) drew a close analogy and posits that success underscores the capacity of an organization to continue to survive despite the unpredictable nature of a dynamic business environment. Organizations seem to achieve success when they perform tasks that lead to the attainment of predetermined goals effectively and efficiently.

Committed and dedicated employees help their organizations to achieve their goals hoping that the organization will, in turn, treat them fairly in terms of their own needs, aspirations, and attainment of success in their career. Does career success affect an organization’s success? Every organization, irrespective of the type of business, is made up of people who perform certain roles to help organizations attain their goals. When organizations achieve these goals, they achieve success. However, such goals or success can be achieved by introducing a career development plan that will improve commitment and loyalty among workers, which could translate to increased job satisfaction, reduced employee turnover, and a reduction in the number of employee complaints (see Onukwufor, Umoh, and Amah (2018)).

Miller and Friesen (1978) define organizational success as the degree to which firms are able to achieve their objectives subject to the constraints of long-term viability. Daley (1986) submits that organizations are successful if they are effective, responsive to the public, and their employees are satisfied with their jobs. Regarding the connection between organizational success and career success, Tavakoli (2015) remarked that today’s most successful companies align strategic business objectives with the professional, personal, and social goals of their employees. They create an environment where employees feel valued and appreciated and are eager to help achieve the corporate vision and in addition achieve their own career success. Also, Purcell, Kinnie, Hutchinson, Rayton, and Swart (2003) posit that organizations perform at great pace when career growth opportunities are provided for employees through career planning. Further empirical studies by Avey, Luthans, & Youssef, 2010; Hedge, Borman, Bruskiewicz & Bourne, 2004, show that career development practices encourage employees to be more optimistic in the workplace, thus increasing their level of effectiveness. Such success in employees’ careers translates to organizational success.
H3: Career success has no significant positive effect on organizational success.

2.4. Theoretical Underpinnings

The study hinges on a social cognitive theory proposed by Holt & Brown in 1914. Social cognitive theory states that all animals want to fulfill their psychological needs and that an individual cannot learn to imitate if they are imitated first. The assumption of the theory is that individuals acquire and maintain certain behavior based on environmental and personal factors (see Bishop and Bieschke (2008)), and that the acquired behavior is further reinforced by intervention strategies as they occur in a mentoring relationship (Hackett & Byars, 1996). The theory strongly argues that individuals learn from observing a model demonstrate certain behavior (Siemens, 2004). These individuals are also able to observe the consequences of certain behaviors and afterwards remember the sequence of events that took place during the interactions. The relevance of social cognitive theory to the subject in this paper is that it allows the understanding of the process of knowledge acquisition by directly observing others in the context of social interaction, media, and other experiences. Mentees observe and learn behavior from their mentors and subsequently apply their learnings in their efforts to achieve career success and help the organization to achieve success.

3. METHOD

3.1. Participants

Since the aim of this work is to investigate how mentoring relates to career success and organizational success, participants were selected based on their experience in mentoring relationships, either as a mentor or a mentee, and also the functions they perform in their different establishments, e.g. senior management, middle management, and operational. The area of study focuses on companies from different sectors in the Nigerian stock exchange and the population is the total number of employees in the selected companies. The reason for choosing these companies was that they have qualified and experienced experts, and have acquired useful information regarding the issues related to the purpose of this study (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Companies used in this study have existed for a substantial length of time (at least 30 years), and have very good track records of mentorship and succession planning and as well the availability of a large number of mentors who are experienced in mentoring, career success, and organizational success issues, and a large number of people who are being mentored.

Table 1. The population of the study.

S/N	Company	Sector	Number of Staff	%
1.	Gt Bank Plc	Financial Services	3509	37
2.	Presco Plc	Agriculture	506	05
3.	Nigeria Breweries Plc	Beverages/Brewers	2983	31
4.	Vitafoam Plc	Household Durables	607	06
5.	Uac Plc	Food Products	1486	16
6.	Cutix Plc	Industrial Goods	249	03
7.	GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Plc	Health Care	131	02
	Total		9471	100

Source: Field survey, 2020.
Note: Table 1 is the population and sectors of organizations elicited for the study.

Yamane (1967) was used to determine:

Table 2. Sample Size Distribution.

S/N	Company	Number of Staff	Sample Size	%
1.	Gtb Plc	3509	142	37
2.	Presco Plc	506	19	05
3.	Nigeria Breweries Plc	2983	119	31
4.	Vitafoam Plc	607	23	06
5.	Uac Plc	1486	61	16
6.	Cutix Plc	249	11	03
7.	GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Plc	131	08	02
	Total	9471	383	100

Source: Field survey, 2020.
Note: Table 2 shows the sample distribution from the population of the study.

3.2. Design, Instrument and Validity

This study applied a survey research method. This method involved gathering data through an oral interview and questionnaire or a combination of both directly from the respondents. The questions were validated by seven hand-picked management experts who confirmed that they accurately measured the information they were designed to elicit. The experts recommended the use of the instruments and suggested minor modifications. A reliability test was also carried out with a view to ascertain the sustainability of the instruments when applied to the desired objectives. Akuezuilo and Agu (2002) opined that a test is reliable to the degree that it measures accurately and consistently, yielding comparable results when administered many times. The e-questionnaire with an invitation letter was sent to 383 participants who were given one month in which to complete and return it. A reminder was sent to participants after two weeks and a week later 345 valid questionnaires had been returned.

Table 3. Questionnaire distribution and return table.

S/N	Questionnaire Features	Respondents	%
1.	Returned and correctly filled	345	90
2.	Returned but not correctly filled	16	04
3.	Not returned	22	06
4.	Number distributed	383	100

The study adopted a 5-point Likert scale where respondents were required to read each item and assess their experiences. For the first objective to determine the presence of mentoring in the organizations under study, three items were assessed: delegation, employee development and empowerment, and internal sourcing and placement. To achieve the second objective of determining employee career success, employee commitment, job satisfaction, employee turnover, work-life balance, and reward and recognition were used. For the third objective to determine the effect of career success on organizational success, efficiency, corporate vision and mission, and objectives were used (see Tables 5a, 6a and 7a in the appendix).

4. PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS OF DATA, TEST OF HYPOTHESES AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

4.1. Presentation and Analysis

Different statistical tools were adopted in the presentation, analysis, and hypothesis with the aim of providing solutions to the research problems and to test research hypotheses. Descriptive statistics that enable a researcher to synthesize and summarize the quantitative data frequencies, mean and standard deviations were employed. (see Table 4 in the appendix).

4.2. Test of Hypotheses

The test statistic is calculated as:

where:
t is a student t-test.
x̅ is the sample mean.
µ is the specified population mean.
SV is the sample variance.
S² is the standard deviation.
n is the sample size.
n -1 is the degree of freedom.

The t-test critical (tcritical) value at 5% level of significance for one tail is 1.96.

Decision rule: Reject the null hypothesis if the calculated value is greater than the critical value, otherwise accept the null hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1: There is no significant presence of effective employee mentoring in Nigerian firms.

Table 5b. T-test tabulation table for Hypothesis 1.

Response	Score (X)	Frequency (F)	FX	X-µ	(X-µ)2	F(X-µ)2
SA	5	124	620	0.9855	0.9712	120.4288
A	4	143	572	-0.0145	0.0002	0.0286
UD	3	30	90	-1.0145	1.0292	30.876
D	2	25	50	-2.0145	4.0582	101.455
SD	1	23	23	-3.0145	9.0872	209.0056
TOTAL		235	1385			461.794

Note: Table 5b shows the test tabulation for hypothesis 1 with a total frequency of 235.

Since the critical value is less than the calculated value (17.0504 >1.96), we reject the null hypothesis that there is no significant presence of effective employee mentoring in Nigerian firms, and accept the alternative that there is a significant presence of effective employee mentoring in Nigerian firms.
Hypothesis 2: Employee mentoring has no significant effect on career success.

Table 6b. T-test tabulation for Hypothesis 2.

Response	Score (X)	Frequency (F)	FX	X-µ	(X-µ)2	F(X-µ)2
SA	5	121	605	1.2	1.44	174.24
A	4	135	540	0.2	0.04	5.4
UD	3	30	90	-0.8	0.64	19.2
D	2	29	58	-1.8	3.64	105.56
SD	1	30	30	-2.8	7.84	235.2
Total	15	345	1323			539.3

Note: Table 6b shows the t-text tabulation for hypothesis 2 with a total frequency of 345.

Since the critical value is less than the calculated value (4.9834 >1.96), we reject the null hypothesis that employee mentoring has no significant positive effect on career success, and we accept the alternative that employee mentoring has a significant positive effect on career success.
Hypothesis 3: Career success has no significant positive effect on organizational success.

Table 7b. T-test tabulation for Hypothesis 3

Response	Score (X)	Frequency (F)	FX	X-µ	(X-µ)2	F(X-µ)2
SA	5	130	650	1.09	1.1881	154.453
A	4	132	528	0.09	0.0081	1.0692
UD	3	29	87	-0.91	0.8281	24.0149
D	2	29	58	-1.91	3.6481	105.7949
SD	1	25	25	-2.91	8.4681	211.7025
TOTAL	15	345	1348			497.0345

Note: Table 7b shows the t-test tabulation of hypothesis 3 with total frequency of 345.

Since the critical value is less than the calculated value (15.4237 >1.96) , we reject the null hypothesis that career success has no significant positive effect on organizational success and accept the alternative that career success has a significant positive effect on organizational success.

4.3. Discussion of Results

The study was carried out to investigate whether mentoring relates to career success and organizational success. This study adopted descriptive statistics and t-tests for data analysis and hypotheses testing. Three hypotheses were tested and the results are as follows:

Table-8. Statistical summary.

Statistics	Hypothesis 1	Hypothesis 2	Hypothesis 3
x̅	3	3	3
µ	4.0145	3.385	3.91
S²	1.1586	1.5677	1.2020
Tcal	17.0595	4.9834	15.4237
Tcritical	1.96	1.96	1.96
Decision	Null rejected	Null rejected	Null rejected

The first objective was designed to confirm the presence of mentoring in the firms studied. The descriptive statistics on the presence of effective employee mentoring is shown in Table 5a (see appendix). The mean score for all measuring items showed that respondents agreed with and supported all facts raised. On the 5-point scale the mean score that ranged from 3.4 to 4.1 is significantly positive, while the standard deviation of 1.1586 for all ten measuring items in the first research question is very good. To confirm this, a t-test was conducted. The tcal of 17.0595 is greater than tcritical of 1.96, hence the null hypothesis was rejected and the alternative hypothesis was accepted. Therefore, we conclude that there is a significant presence of effective employee mentoring in Nigerian firms. The question for the second objective was designed to ascertain the effect of mentoring on employees’ career success. The descriptive statistics show the mean score for all measuring items, and respondents agreed with and supported all facts raised (see Table 6a in appendix). On the 5-point scale the mean score that ranged from 3.5 to 4.2 is significantly positive, while the standard deviation of 1.5677 for all the ten measuring items in question two is very good. To confirm the above, a t test was conducted. The tcal of 4.9834 is greater than tcritical of 1.96, hence the null hypothesis was rejected and the alternative hypothesis was accepted. The conclusion, therefore, is that mentoring has significant positive effect on employee career success. This finding is line with that of Cohen and Galbraith (1995); Harris-Worthington (2009); Allen. et al. (2010).

The question for the third objective was designed to determine the extent to which career success affects organizational success. The descriptive statistics show the mean score for all measuring items, and respondents agreed with and supported all facts raised (see Table 7a in appendix). On the 5-point scale the mean score that ranged from 3.7 to 4.15 is significantly positive, while the standard deviation of 1.2020 for all ten measuring items in research question three is very good. To confirm the above, a t test was conducted. The tcal of 15.4237 is greater than tcritical of 1.96, hence the null hypothesis was rejected and the alternative hypothesis was accepted. Therefore, the conclusion is that career success has a significant positive effect on organizational success. This finding is in line with that of Simon and Kristian (2007) and Tavakoli (2015).

5. CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATION AND ORIGINALITY

This study focused on investigating how mentoring relates to career success and organizational success and has offered an opportunity to add to the progression of knowledge in employee mentoring. In this study, previous empirical research conducted on mentoring was critically reviewed. The patterns of responses from respondents suggest that firms in Nigeria have mentoring and career success rooted in their staff development plans. The paper also discovered that successful companies align strategic business objectives with the professional, personal, and social goals of their employees. Such organizations create an environment in which employees feel valued, appreciated, and are eager to help achieve the corporate vision and, in addition, achieve their own career success. Based on the findings, it is the conclusion of this paper that a well mentored employee is more likely to have successful career and help an organization achieve its objectives and be successful. Therefore, this paper recommends that organizations should build mentoring and career success into their employee development programmes.

6. LIMITATIONS

The limitations include the inability to carry out the face-to-face interviews to complement the questionnaires as a result of the Covid-19 lockdown. Using both instruments could have made the data richer as a mixed method has been described by researchers as methodological pluralism, which helps to prevent some research challenges and provides rich data (Nwosu, 2014; Okpara & Wynn, 2008). We therefore suggest that future studies apply a mixed method to gather richer data. Despite these limitations, the study contributes to the frontiers of knowledge and offer opportunity in the ongoing research in the area of mentoring, career success and organizational success.

Funding: This study received no specific financial support.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Acknowledgement: All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study.

REFERENCES

Agbionu, C. U., Emejuru, G., & Egolum, P. O. (2015). Mentorship and business performance in Africa among Igbo entrepreneurs in Nigeria. Journal of multidisciplinary Research and Development, 1(5), 40-45.

Akuezuilo, E. O., & Agu, N. (2002). Research and statistics in education and social sciences. Awka: Nuelcenti Publishers.

Allen, T. D., & Lentz, R. (2006). career success outcomes associated with mentoring others: A comparison of mentors and non mentors. Journal of Career Development, 32(3), 272-285.

Allen., T. D., Shockley, K. M., & Poteat, L. (2010). Protégé anxiety attachment and feedback in mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(1), 73–80.

Arthur, M. B., Khapova, S. N., & Wilderom, C. P. (2005). Career success in a boundary less world. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 26(2), 177-202.

Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2010). The additive value of psychological capital in predicting workplace attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Management, 36(2), 430-452. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308329961.

Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103-118. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030140202.

Bishop, R. M., & Bieschke, K. J. (2008). Applying social cognitive theory. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 45(2), 182-188.

Blau, J. R., & Alba, R. D. (1982). Empowering nets of participation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(3), 363-379.

Boxall, P., Macky, K., & Rasmussen, E. (2003). Labour turnover and retention in New Zealand: The causes and consequences of leaving and staying with employers. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 41(2), 196-214. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/10384111030412006.

Bozeman, B., & Feeney, M. K. (2008). Mentor matching: A "goodness of fit" model. Administration & Society, 40(5), 465–482.

Bragg, T. (2002). Improve employee commitment. Industrial Management, 44(4), 18-18.

Byars-Winston, A. M., Branchaw, J., Pfund, C., Leverett, P., & Newton, J. (2015). Culturally diverse undergraduate researchers’ academic outcomes and perceptions of their research mentoring relationships. International Journal of Science Education, 37(15), 2533-2554.

Chandler, A. D. (1977). The visible hand. Cambridge, Mass: The I3etknap Press of Harvard College Press.

Chiaburu, D. S., Li, N., & Kirkman, B. L. (2017). Cross-level influences of empowering leadership on citizenship behavior: Organizational support climate as a double-edged sword. Journal of Management, 43(4), 1076-1102. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314546193.

Cho, V., & Huang, X. (2012). Professional commitment, organizational commitment, and the intention to leave for professional advancement: An empirical study on IT professionals. Information Technology and People, 25(1), 31-54.

Cohen, N. H., & Galbraith, M. W. (1995). Mentoring in the learning society. In M.W. Galbraith& N.H. Cohen (Eds.), Mentoring: New strategies and challenges (pp. 5_15). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cotton, J. L. (1993). Employee Involvement: Methods for improving performance and work attitudes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Daley, D. M. (1986). Humanistic management and organizational success: The effect of job and work environment characteristics on organizational effectiveness, public responsiveness, and job satisfaction. Public Personnel Management, 15(2), 131-142. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/009102608601500204.

Dawson, A., Bernstein, B., & Bekki, J. (2015). Providing the psychosocial benefits of mentoring to women in STEM: CareerWISE as an online solution: Providing the psychosocial benefits of mentoring to women in STEM. New Directions for Higher Education, 53.

Denzin, & Lincoln. (2005). In Okolie UC, Nwosu HE and Mlanga S (2019) Graduate employability: How the higher education institutions can meet the demand of the labour market. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning.

Dougherty, T. W., Dreher, G. F., Arunachalam, V., & Wilbanks, J. E. (2013). Mentor status, occupational context, and protégé career outcomes: Differential returns for males and females. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 514-527. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.08.001.

Ensher, E. A., Thomas, C., & Murphy, S. E. (2001). Comparison of traditional, step-ahead, and peer mentoring on protégés' support, satisfaction, and perceptions of career success: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(3), 419-438.

Frazier, M. L., & Fainshmidt, S. (2012). Voice climate, work outcomes, and the mediating role of psychological empowerment: A multilevel examination. Group & Organization Management, 37(6), 691-715.

Hackett, G., & Byars, A. M. (1996). Social cognitive theory and the career development of African American women. The Career Development Quarterly, 44(4), 322-340. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.1996.tb00449.x.

Haggard, D. L., Dougherty, T. W., Turban, D. B., & Wilbanks, J. E. (2011). Who is a mentor? A review of evolving definitions and implications for research. Journal of Management, 37(1), 280-304.

Harris-Worthington, P. (2009). Mentoring training resource. AKO: Aotearoa National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence.

Hedge, J. W., Borman, W. C., Bruskiewicz, K. T., & Bourne, M. J. (2004). The development of an integrated performance category system for supervisory jobs in the US Navy. Military Psychology, 16(4), 231-243. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327876mp1604_2.

Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 621-652. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00174.x.

Kaiman, H. (2013). Leadership behavior and commitment. the effect to employee job satisfaction and employee performance on department of population and civil registration Jakarta, Indonesia. International Journal of Business and Management Invention ISSN (Online), 2(9), 57-62.

Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

Locke, E. A., & Schweiger, D. M. (1979). Participation in decision-making: One more look. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1(10), 265-339.

Maynard, M. T., Luciano, M. M., D'Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J. E., & Dean, M. D. (2014). Modeling time-lagged reciprocal psychological empowerment–performance relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1244-1253.

Meyer, J. P., & Smith, C. A. (2000). HRM practices and organizational commitment: Test of a mediation model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue canadienne des sciences de l'administration, 17(4), 319-331. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-4490.2000.tb00231.x.

Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1978). Archetypes of strategy formulation. Management Science, 24(9), 921-933.

Muchanje, P. N., Njuguna, F. W., Kalai, J. M., & Bironga, S. M. (2016). An exploration of factors influencing career progression of tutors in public primary teachers' training colleges in Kenya. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(3), 582-588.

Ng, T. W., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 367-408. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00515.x.

Nicholson, N., & De Waal‐Andrews, W. (2005). Playing to win: Biological imperatives, self-regulation, and trade-offs in the game of career success. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 26(2), 137-154. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.295.

Niehoff, B. P., Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G., & Fuller, J. (2001). The influence of empowerment and job enrichment on employee loyalty in a downsizing environment. Group & Organization Management, 26(1), 93-113.

Nkpoyen, F. J. (2003). Career development and employee commitment: Astudy of selected higher institutionsin Abia State. Journal of Business and Management (IOSR-JBM), 19(2), 22-27.

Noe, R. A., Greenberger, D. B., & Wang, S. (2002). Mentoring: What we know and where we might go. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 21, 129-173. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0742-7301(02)21003-8.

Nwosu, H. (2014). Succession planning and corporate survival: A study of selected Nigeria firms. The International Journal Of Business & Management, 2(9), 74-92.

Okpara, J. O., & Wynn, P. (2008). Materials, management and firm's profitability. The International Journal Of Business & Management, 2(7), 80-93.

Onukwufor, O. V., Umoh, G. I., & Amah, E. (2018). Career development and organizational success of government Parastatals in Rivers State. International Journal of Advanced Academic Research | Social & Management Sciences, 4(4), 294-319.

Pearce, G., & Mawson, J. (2009). Work life balance. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 22(7), 623-642.

Purcell, J., Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., Rayton, B., & Swart, J. (2003). Understanding the people and performance link: Unlocking the black box. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

Ragins, B. R. (2012). Relational mentoring: A positive approach to mentoring at work. In Cameron, K. S., Spreitzer, G. M. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship. New York: Oxford University Press.

Reid, M. F., Allen, M. W., Riemenschneider, C. K., & Armstrong, D. J. (2008). The role of mentoring and supervisor support for state IT employees' affective organizational commitment. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 28(1), 60-78. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x07311703.

Santorin, J. (2004). Passing the baton. Academy of Management Executive, 18(4), 157-159.

Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1994). Leader-member exchange and supervisor career mentoring as complementary constructs in leadership research. Academy of management Journal, 37(6), 1588-1602.

Schultz, N. J., Hoffman, M. F., Fredman, A. J., & Bainbridge, A. L. (2012). The work and life of young professionals: Rationale and strategy for balance. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 13(1), 44-52. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/17459435.2012.719208.

Shanafelt, T. D., Hasan, O., Dyrbye, L. N., Sinsky, C., Satele, D., & Sloan, J. (2015). Changes in burnout and satisfaction with work-life balance in physicians and the general U.S. working population. Mayo Clin Proc, 90(12), 1600–1613.

Siemens, G. (2004). A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved from: https://jotamac.typepad.com/jotamacs_weblog/files/Connectivism.pdf. [Accessed 25/9/2020].

Sigler, T. H., & Pearson, C. M. (2000). Creating an empowering culture: Examining the relationship between organizational culture and perceptions of empowerment. Journal of Quality Management, 5(1), 27-52.

Simon, B., & Kristian, H. (2007). Labour turnover in the retail industry. The International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 35(4), 289-307.

Tavakoli, M. (2015). Creating a culture of inclusion to attain organizational success. Employment Relations Today, 42(2), 37-42.

Tong, C., & Kram, K. E. (2013). The efficacy of mentoring—The benefits for mentees, mentors, and organizations. In J. Passmore, D. B. Peterson, & T. Freire (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of the psychology of coaching and mentoring (pp. 217–242). West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons.

Tyokumbur, E. T. (2014). Review of mentoring in developing countries. American Association for Science and Technology AASCIT Communications, 1(3), 1-4.

White-Hood, M. (1993). Taking up the mentoring challenge. Educational Leadership, 51(3), 76-78.

Whitely, W. T., & Coetsier, P. (1993). The relationship of career outcome mentoring to the early outcomes. Organizational Studies, 14(3), 419-444.

Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics, an Iintroductory analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Harper and Row.

Zachary, L. J. (2011). Creating a mentoring culture: The organization's guide. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Zhao., W., & Zhou, X. (2008). Intraorganizational career advancement and voluntary turnover in a multinational bank in Taiwan. Career Development International, 13(5), 402-442.

Zhou, J. (2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 413-422.

Zhou.., W., Sun, J., Guan, Y., Li, Y., & Pan, J. (2013). Criteria of career success among Chinese employees: Developing a multidimensional scale with qualitative and quantitative approaches. Journal of Career Assessment, 21(2), 265-277.

APPENDIX

Table 4. Characteristics of respondents

S/N	Category	Frequency							Total	%
		Gtb	Presco	Nbl	Vitafoam	Uac	Cutix	GSK
1.	Gender: Male Female	85 42	12 06	71 35	14 07	37 18	07 04	05 02	231 114	67 33
	TOTAL	127	18	106	21	55	11	07	345	100
2.	Age: Above 18 - 30 31-40 41-50 51-60 Above 60	45 34 32 13 03	06 05 04 02 01	37 29 26 11 02	07 06 05 02 01	19 14 14 05 01	04 03 03 01 01	03 02 02 01 01	121 93 86 35 10	35 27 25 10 03
	TOTAL	127	18	105	21	53	12	09	345	100
3.	Marital Status: Married Single Divorced	83 37 04	11 05 01	69 31 03	13 06 05	36 16 01	07 03 03	05 02 04	224 100 21	65 29 06
	TOTAL	124	17	103	24	53	13	11	345	100
4.	Educational qualifications: Masters and above First Degree/HND OND/Others	19 67 33	04 12 04	15 49 27	07 14 06	12 27 11	07 09 05	05 08 04	69 186 90	20 54 26
	TOTAL	119	20	91	27	50	21	17	345	100
	Position/designation: Director Manager Supervisor Other	04 30 41 48	02 04 05 07	03 25 32 40	02 06 07 07	03 13 17 21	02 05 06 05	01 03 02 04	17 86 110 132	05 25 32 38
	TOTAL	123	18	100	22	54	18	10	345	100
	Years of Experience: 10 years and below 11–20 years 21-30 years Over 30 years	50 35 30 05	09 07 05 02	39 30 25 03	08 07 06 03	22 16 13 02	06 05 04 01	04 04 03 01	138 104 86 17	40 30 25 05
	Total	120	23	97	24	53	16	12	345	100

Source: Field Survey, 2020.

Table 5a. Presence of effective employee mentoring in Nigerian firms.

S/N	Investigative Statements	SA	A	UD	D	SD	Total	X
1	The purpose of mentoring is career development and success.	135 675	155 620	23 69	19 38	13 13	345 1415	4.1
2.	There are effective mentoring programmes in my organization.	137 685	131 524	27 81	35 70	15 15	345 1375	4
3.	Mentoring helps to transmit values, culture, goals, and visions of the organization to the mentee.	133 665	136 544	31 93	17 34	28 28	345 1364	4
4.	Mentoring helps the mentored to aspire to reach the level of his/her mentor or even higher.	101 505	176 704	23 69	22 44	23 23	345 1345	3.9
5.	Mentoring facilitates the discovery of intelligent employees very early in their career.	107 535	157 628	29 87	30 60	22 22	345 1332	3.9
6.	Internal placement/hiring is a well-established policy adopted by my organization.	88 440	159 636	47 141	41 82	10 10	345 1309	3.8
7.	We put measures in place to discover young and talented individual through mentoring.	125 625	129 516	28 84	31 62	32 32	345 1319	3.8
8.	We have more experienced mentors who are willing and ready to mentor younger employees.	120 600	113 452	49 147	25 50	38 38	345 1287	3.7
9.	There are fewer experienced mentees who are ready to be mentored and learn from their mentors in my company.	111 555	147 588	33 99	15 30	39 39	345 1311	3.8
10.	The presence of mentoring in my company is manifested in relationship and respect between the more experience and younger, less experience members of my organization.	188 940	124 496	10 30	11 22	12 12	345 1500	3.4
Total		1245 6225	1427 5708	300 900	246 492	232 232	3450 13557	3.9
Cumulative		124	143	30	25	23	345	3.9

Source: Field survey, 2020

Table 6a. Mentoring and career success.

S/N	Investigative Statements	SA	A	UD	D	SD	Total	X
11.	Mentoring prepares employees for leadership position in the organization.	87 435	161 644	43 129	14 28	40 40	345 1276	3.7
12.	Mentoring creates opportunities that allow mentees to be guided in developing and advancing their careers.	126 630	126 504	31 93	33 66	29 29	345 1322	3.8
13.	Mentoring gives psychosocial support and a feeling of expertise that will lead to career success.	166 830	132 528	11 33	20 40	16 16	345 1447	4.2
14.	Mentors contribute to mentees’ knowledge, proficiency, and experience that assist mentees in their careers.	134 670	153 612	34 102	14 28	10 10	345 1422	4.1
15.	Mentoring is positively related to career success.	79 395	121 484	48 144	49 98	48 48	345 1169	3.4
16.	Mentors in my organization delegate responsibilities to their mentees as a strategy to develop and empower them to achieve career success.	125 625	125 625	29 57	33 66	33 33	345 1406	4.1
17.	Mentors through delegation assess the abilities and capabilities of mentees periodically with a view to ascertain when a mentee is ready to take on extra responsibility.	131 655	122 488	25 75	37 74	30 30	345 1322	3.8
18.	Successful career entails reward and recognition by the organization as well as balance between work life and personal life.	203 1015	57 228	30 90	28 56	27 27	345 1416	4.1
19.	Mentored employees are more innovative, happier, and successful in their careers.	130 650	131 524	29 87	26 52	29 29	345 1342	3.9
20.	Employee mentoring leads to a desire for mentees to maintain employment within the organization and be more committed.	27 135	229 916	19 57	35 70	35 35	345 1213	3.5
	Total	1208 6040	1357 5428	299 897	289 578	297 297	3450 13240	3.8
	Cumulative	121	135	30	29	30	345	3.8

Source: Field survey, 2020.

Table 7a. Career success and organizational.

S/N	Investigative Statements	SA	A	UD	D	SD	Total	X
21.	There is efficiency in my company as a result of successful employees working in the company.	88 440	147 588	50 150	35 70	25 25	345 1273	3.7
22.	Successful employees help my company to be effective.	137 685	103 412	35 105	24 48	46 46	345 1296	3.8
23.	To assist mentees in their career success in addition to organizational success, mentors impart their knowledge, proficiency, and experience to their mentees.	140 700	95 380	33 99	44 88	33 33	345 1300	3.8
24.	Successful employees in their career are more innovative, happier, and more productive.	94 470	143 572	32 96	38 76	38 38	345 125	3.6
25.	Successful employees in their career are also more confident and competent and are likely to have a better impact on the success of their organization.	143 715	143 572	17 51	21 42	21 21	345 1401	4.1
26.	Our employees work towards our corporate vision and mission as well as their individual objectives.	254 1270	45 180	19 57	14 28	13 13	345 1548	4.5
27.	My company’s strategic business objectives are aligned with the professional, personal, and social goals. of employees	53 265	261 1044	11 33	10 20	10 10	345 1372	4
28.	My company creates an environment in which employees feel valued and appreciated	150 750	145 580	16 48	20 40	14 14	345 1432	4.15
29.	My company is successful because career growth opportunities are provided for employees	112 560	119 476	44 132	43 86	27 27	345 1281	3.7
30.	Career growth opportunities provided for employees in my company lead to organizational success.	127 635	117 468	35 105	45 90	21 21	345 1319	3.8
	Total	1298 6490	1318 5272	292 876	294 588	248 248	3450 13474	3.9
	Cumulative	130	132	29	29	25	345	3.9