Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2025 Jan 13;27(1):e70034. doi: 10.1111/nhs.70034

Exploring the Mediating Role of Social Exchange Orientation in the Relationship Between Mentoring Experiences and Mentoring Intentions: A Cross‐Sectional Study

Tracy Alexis Kakyo 1,2, Lily Dongxia Xiao 1,✉, Diane Chamberlain 1
PMCID: PMC11730639  PMID: 39805290

ABSTRACT

The study utilized a cross‐sectional design to determine the relationship between positive and negative mentoring experiences and intentions to engage in future formal mentoring and the mediating role of aspects of social exchange theory particularly Negotiated Exchange Orientation and Perceived Organization Support. The study was conducted among 303 nurses and midwives working in acute care hospitals in Uganda. The results showed that, in the negative mentoring model, Perceived Organization Support fully mediated the relationship between lack of mentor expertise and willingness to participate in formal mentoring programs (B = −0.201, 95% CI [−0.399, −0.056]). In the positive mentoring model, indirect effects were observed for the relationship between Individual Influence variable and willingness to participate in formal mentoring programs mediated by Perceived Organization Support (B = 0.131, 95% CI [0.011, 0.283]). Furthermore, indirect effects were observed between the Relational Quality variable and willingness to participate in formal mentoring programs mediated by Negotiated Exchange Orientation (B = 0.081, 95% CI [0.008, 0.183]). Therefore, the social exchange theory can explain the relationship between past mentoring experiences and future intentions to engage in mentoring activities.

Keywords: mediation analysis, mentor, nurse, perceived organizational support, social exchange theory

Summary.

  • Individual factors in mentoring experiences, such as the mentor's expertise and personalized guidance, can influence the mentee's willingness to participate in formal mentoring programs.

  • Mentoring experiences underscore the organization's commitment to the welfare of its nursing/midwifery staff.

  • The quality of the previous mentoring relationship can influence intentions to engage in formal mentoring programs by enhancing a clinician's belief in the benefits of mentoring.

1. Introduction

Traditionally, mentoring occurs between an experienced nurse or midwife and a novice professional. The intention is to assist the novice in adapting to practice, while also providing them with career and personal development through the mentoring process (Jakubik et al. 2017; Voss et al. 2022). The effectiveness of mentoring relies on the readiness of the senior nurse or midwife to mentor, which in turn hinges on specific competencies, notably the willingness to share their knowledge and expertise (Eller, Lev, and Feurer 2014). Similarly, the outcome of mentoring also depends on the novice clinician's willingness to accept and, consequently, value the guidance, which is often reflected in their behavioral changes in clinical practice (Voss et al. 2022). Previous studies in nursing and midwifery have explored the impact of mentoring education and the rapport within mentor‐mentee pairs on the willingness to engage in mentoring relationships (Davey, Jackson, and Henshall 2020; Pham et al. 2019; Sayani et al. 2017). This study adds to literature by examining how current mentoring experiences, largely derived from informal mentoring relationships, influence nurses' and midwives' willingness to engage in future formal mentoring programs.

Formal mentoring is based on a structured relationship where organization is responsible for matching the mentor‐mentee pairs, coordinating mentoring activities and allocating rewards for engaging in mentoring (Giacumo, Chen, and Seguinot‐Cruz 2020). Mentoring in settings with limited resources often relies on informal approaches (Mohtady, Könings, and van Merriënboer 2016). Informal mentoring relationships often develop spontaneously, with nurses/midwives engaging in mentoring activities simply based on shared interests and mutual respect (Bradford et al. 2022; James, Rayner, and Bruno 2015). However, the benefits of structured, formal mentoring programs, which receive organizational support and offer clear career advancement and tangible rewards, have been extensively studied (Davey, Jackson, and Henshall 2020; Zhang et al. 2016). Most research on the factors that enable formal mentoring in hospitals has been conducted in developed countries (Kakyo, Xiao, and Chamberlain 2022). The effectiveness of mentoring is significantly influenced by the specific socio‐cultural and organizational context, which challenges the direct application of findings from developed countries to the developing world (Alidina et al. 2022). Therefore, prior to implementing formal mentoring programs in low‐resource settings, it is necessary to conduct research on the factors that influence the willingness of nurses and midwives to engage in such programs.

Mentoring experiences can be both positive and negative and may occur within the same or different mentoring relationships. Positive experiences in contemporary mentoring relationships are characterized by mutuality and reciprocity, which are key elements of relational mentoring (Ragins and Verbos 2017; Wissemann et al. 2022). These experiences are based on individual influences derived from teaching, learning, coaching, inspiring, remodeling, and competence development (Kakyo, Xiao, and Chamberlain 2024; Ragins and Verbos 2017). Positive experiences also stem from the quality of the relationship, which is based on the nature and dynamics of the interaction between the mentor and the mentee (Ragins and Verbos 2017). These depend solely on the relational skills that both the mentor and mentee bring to the relationship. Factors such as interpersonal skills, the amount of time each party commits to the relationship, and the level of effort put into cultivating trust and developing mutual respect are crucial (Kow et al. 2020). Consequently, individuals who have positive mentoring experiences are more likely to participate in subsequent formal mentoring programs.

Like all interpersonal relationships, mentoring can have negative aspects with potential consequences and implications for the outcomes of mentoring. Negative mentoring experiences arise from frustration when the needs of either mentor or mentee are not met (Davey, Jackson, and Henshall 2020; Lin et al. 2018). Therefore, negative mentoring can be experienced by both the nurse/midwife in the mentor or mentee role. There are various sources of negative mentoring: unengaged mentor or mentee, mismatched personality, lack of basic knowledge as expected by either party in the mentoring relationship, and sabotage (Kow et al. 2020; Lee et al. 2019). Negative mentoring experiences reinforce the perception that engaging in mentoring can be a costly venture deterring individuals' motivation to participate in formal mentoring programs (Barker and Kelley 2020; Małota 2019).

1.1. Theoretical Background

The outcomes of mentoring depend on the feedback loop created by current mentoring experiences. Several assumptions have been proposed to explain how these experiences affect mentoring outcomes, such as the desire to remain employed at the same hospital and to improve the practice environment (Huang and Weng 2012; McBride, Campbell, and Deming 2019). In our study, we adapted the Social Exchange Theory by Blau (1964), to elucidate the relationship between current mentoring experiences and the intention to engage in future formal mentoring programs. The social exchange theory posits that individuals assess the benefits and costs of their interactions, recognizing that human interactions, including mentoring relationships, demand substantial investment in terms of time and energy. Individuals within the relationship subconsciously evaluate the positive and negative consequences against available alternatives (Blau 1964). In social exchange, decisions regarding commitment to an interaction are based on the principle that the perceived benefits should always outweigh the perceived costs. The hospital setting is marked by heavy workloads, requiring clinicians to balance a multitude of clinical duties along with mentoring activities (Dall'Ora et al. 2020). For nurses and midwives to dedicate their time and energy effectively to mentoring processes and relationships, these interactions need to offer a greater benefit than those derived from their routine clinical tasks (Wissemann et al. 2022). Consequently, positive mentoring experiences underscore the benefits of mentoring, while negative experiences highlight its potential costs. Thus, the social exchange theory offers a framework to understand how past mentoring experiences shape the willingness to engage in future formal mentoring programs (Eby et al. 2008; Małota 2019). Negotiated Exchange Orientation, representing a type of social exchange, highlights an individual's tendency to openly discuss and negotiate the terms of exchange in their workplace interactions with colleagues (Yoshikawa, Wu, and Lee 2020). In a mentoring relationship, individuals actively evaluate the benefits of participating in mentoring activities. Positive mentoring experiences reduce the need for negotiating the terms of the relationship before engaging, while negative experiences increase the need for such negotiation.

The organizational support theory, which is grounded in social exchange theory, helps in assessing the reciprocal relationship between the mentor/mentee and their workplace organization. Clinicians, while working in a hospital, develop their perception of organizational support based on the belief that the support offered is voluntary and intended to improve their well‐being (Eisenberger et al. 1986). This type of support extends beyond mere compensation for work done. It encompasses any assistance targeting the individual interests of nursing/midwifery mentors and mentees. Additionally, organizational support is perceived through the actions of high‐ranking members, such as executive management and mentors within the organization (Eisenberger and Stinglhamber 2011). Crucially, perceived organizational support reflects the resources that employees have at their disposal for effective performance of their routine clinical duties (Eisenberger and Stinglhamber 2011). Positive mentoring experiences, therefore, bolster the perception of support from the organization, while negative mentoring experiences highlight a perceived lack of support. In this study, we explored the relationship between mentoring experiences and intentions to engage in formal mentoring. We also examined the mediating role of negotiated exchange orientation and perceived organization support.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Design

We conducted a cross‐sectional survey to determine whether social exchange orientation mediates the relationship between mentoring experiences and mentoring intentions. Based on literature and theory we hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 1

Positive experiences acquired from informal mentoring influence willingness to participate in future formal mentoring programs.

Hypothesis 2

Negative experiences encountered in informal mentoring influence willingness to participate in future formal mentoring programs.

Hypothesis H3a

Negotiated Exchange Orientation mediates the relationship between positive mentoring experiences and willingness to participate in future formal mentoring programs.

Hypothesis H3b

Negotiated Exchange Orientation mediates the relationship between negative mentoring experiences and willingness to participate in future formal mentoring programs.

Hypothesis H4a

Perceived Organizational Support mediates the relationship between positive mentoring experiences and willingness to participate in future formal mentoring programs.

Hypothesis H4b

Perceived Organizational Support mediates the relationship between negative mentoring experiences and willingness to participate in future formal mentoring programs.

2.2. Setting and Sample

The participants were nurses and midwives working in acute care hospitals in Uganda. We aimed to include 218 participants, based on a: 10% proportion of nurses/midwives scoring high on the willingness to participate in future mentoring programs, 95% confidence interval (equivalent to a Z score of 1.96 in a two‐tailed study), predicted 50% non‐completion rate, and the need to account for 21 variables in the relational mentoring index (the longest of the scale used). Ultimately, 303 participants, who provided responses beyond the demographic section of the questionnaire, were included in the study.

2.3. Instruments

A structured self‐report questionnaire adapting four scales was utilized in this study. We included questions to determine the demographic characteristics of the participants such as gender, professional experience, qualification, type of professional registration, type of mentoring relationship and previous training in mentoring.

2.3.1. Mentoring Intentions

To determine mentoring intentions, we measured participants' willingness to engage in future formal mentoring programs by asking them to rate, on a scale from 0 to 10, their likelihood of participating in a formal mentoring program.

2.3.2. Positive Mentoring Experiences

The study measured positive mentoring using the 21‐item Relational Mentoring Index (RMI) originally designed by Ragin. This scale has been adapted for use among nurses and midwives in hospitals (Kakyo, Xiao, and Chamberlain 2024). In our study, we used a modified version of the RMI with 17 items, divided into two subscales: Relational Quality and Individual Influence. Each item was rated on a 7‐point Likert scale. The scale demonstrated high reliability with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.933 for the entire scale, 0.927 for the Individual Influence subscale, and 0.828 for the Relational Quality subscales.

2.3.3. Negative Mentoring Experiences

We adapted 16 items from the Negative Mentoring Experiences Scale, originally designed by Eby and Allen (2002), to assess negative mentoring experiences among nurses and midwives in hospitals (Kakyo, Xiao, and Chamberlain 2024). Each item measured on a 5‐point Likert scale. The scale demonstrated high reliability with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.841 for the entire scale, 0.788 for the lack of mentor expertise subscale, and 0.829 for the mismatch between the dyad subscale.

2.3.4. Negotiated Exchange Orientation

This was measured using four items from the Negotiated Exchange Orientation (NEO) scale (Yoshikawa, Wu, and Lee 2020). The items were measured on a 7‐point Likert scale and had a Cronbach's alpha 0.643 in this study.

2.3.5. Perceived Organizational Support

Perceived Organizational Support (POS) was measured using the shorter version of the POS instrument (Eisenberger et al. 1986). The eight items were measured on 7‐point Likert scale and had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.817 in this study.

2.4. Data Collection

Data collection were conducted online from June to October 2021 utilizing the Qualtrics platform. The survey link was disseminated through WhatsApp groups affiliated with nursing and midwifery associations and hospital groups in Uganda. Participants were also encouraged to share the survey link within their professional networks. Upon accessing the survey link, participants were initially directed to an information page detailing the study's objectives, potential benefits and risks, and procedures for withdrawal. Subsequent to this, a consent form was presented, requiring participants to affirm their willingness to partake in the study. Once the initial steps were fulfilled, participants gained access to the complete survey.

2.5. Ethical Considerations

Ethics approval for this study was obtained from the Flinders University Human Research Ethics Committee (Project number: 4525) and local approval obtained from The TASO Research Ethics Committee (Project number: TASOREC/056/2021‐UG‐REC‐009). The survey was made fully accessible to participants only after they had provided informed consent.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

The data collected via Qualtrics were systematically exported to SPSS version 27 for analysis. In conducting univariate analysis, we computed means, standard deviations, as well as frequencies and percentages. The bivariate analysis was conducted using Pearson's correlation coefficients. Prior to conducting multivariate analyses, the expectation maximization algorithm was utilized to impute missing data (Newman 2014). For the mediation analysis, the Hayes PROCESS macro with 5000 bootstrap samples was used and the confidence interval was set at 95% to determine the indirect effects (Hayes 2012). Figures 1 and 2 present two mediation models: the positive mentoring model and the negative mentoring model. These models were adjusted based on qualifications whether it was a certificate/diploma, or bachelor's degree (0 = no bachelor's degree, 1 = having a bachelor's degree) and whether the participants had received training on mentoring (0 = yes, 1 = no), as these variables showed statistically significant correlations with mentoring intentions. We analyzed both total and direct effects. In assessing the outcomes of the mediation analyses, we explored the models for different types of mediation, including indirect effects and whether the mediation was complete or partial (Kane and Ashbaugh 2017; Winer et al. 2016).

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

The results of mediation analysis for the positive mentoring model. NEO stands for Negotiated Exchange Orientation. POS stands for Perceived Organization Support. C path represents the total effects. C′ path represents direct effects. B represents the unstandardised coefficients.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

The mediation analysis results for the negative mentoring model. NEO stands for Negotiated Exchange Orientation. POS stands for Perceived Organization Support. C path represents the total effects. C′ path represents direct effects. B represents the unstandardised coefficients.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of the Respondents

Table 1 presents a summary of the demographic characteristics of the respondents. A total of 303 participants completed the survey, accounting for a 64.2% completion rate. The majority (69.7%) of the respondents were female, 60.8% were nurses, 56.8% had more than 5 years of clinical experience, 60.8% held a diploma or certificate as their highest level of qualification, and 78.9% worked for a public hospital. Regarding mentoring, the majority (57.6%) of respondents indicated that they had participated in both formal and informal mentoring, and 54.5% had never received any form of training on mentoring.

TABLE 1.

Showing demographic characteristics of the participants.

Category n Frequency Percentage
Gender 300
Male 91 30.3
Female 209 69.7
Experience 292
5 years and less 126 43.2
More than 5 years 166 56.8
Profession registration 301
Nurse 183 60.8
Midwife 70 23.3
Both 48 15.9
Qualification 301
No a bachelor's degree 183 60.8
Has bachelor's degree. 118 39.2
Type of facility 298
Public hospital 235 78.9
Private hospital 63 21.1
Received training on mentoring 301
Yes 137 45.5
No 164 54.5
Type of mentoring relationship 269
Informal mentoring 77 28.6
Formal mentoring 37 13.8
Both 155 57.6
Open in a new tab
a

Participants had either a certificate or diploma in nursing/midwifery as their highest qualification.

3.2. Degree of Positive Mentoring, Negative Mentoring, Negotiated Exchange Orientation, Perceived Organizational Support, and Mentoring Intentions

The respondents' mean scores for the main variables were as follows: positive mentoring (5.50 ± 1.01), negative mentoring (2.96 ± 0.616), Negotiated Exchange Orientation (3.27 ± 1.37), Perceived Organizational Support (4.64 ± 1.20), and willingness to participate in future formal mentoring programs (6.88 ± 2.86) as shown in Table 2.

TABLE 2.

Showing mean, standard deviation and correlations among the variables.

No. Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 Experience 1
2 Type of facility −0.219*** 1
3 Qualification −0.208*** −0.011 1
4 Training in Mentoring 0.077 −0.060 0.117* 1
5 Willingness to participate in future formal mentoring programs 0.050 0.069 0.130* 0.212*** 1
6 Mismatch between dyads. 0.117* −0.010 −0.118* −0.048 −0.084 1
7 Lack of mentor expertise 0.154** −0.164** −0.101 −0.093 −0.192*** 0.411*** 1
8 Individual Influence 0.001 −0.015 −0.045 0.090 0.209*** −0.129* −0.305*** 1
9 Relational Quality 0.074 −0.093 −0.073 0.098 0.202*** −0.071 −0.170** 0.674***
10 Negotiated Exchange Orientation 0.018 −0.004 0.043 0.056 −0.162** 0.056 0.069 −0.116* −0.158** 1
11 Perceived Organizational Support −0.045 0.107 0.031 0.100 0.222*** −0.169** −0.281*** 0.457*** 0.353*** −0.186*** 1
Mean, μ — — — — 6.88 3.68 2.25 5.49 5.53 3.27 4.64
Standard Deviation, σ 2.86 0.762 0.684 1.15 1.02 1.37 1.20
Open in a new tab

Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Gender (1 = male), Experience (1 = More than 5 years), qualification (1 = Has bachelor's degree), received training in mentoring (1 = No).

3.3. Correlations Among the Variables

Table 2 shows the correlations among the main variables. The positive mentoring components of Individual Influence (0.209, p < 0.001) and Relational Quality (0.202, p < 0.001) were each positively associated with willingness to participate in future formal mentoring programs. Negative mentoring components, including lack of mentor expertise (−0.192, p < 0.001) and mismatch between the dyad (−0.084, p = 0.152), were negatively associated with the willingness to participate in future formal mentoring programs. However, the association for mismatch between the dyad was not statistically significant.

3.4. Mediating Influences of Negotiated Exchange Orientation and Perceived Organizational Support

Figure 1 shows the unstandardised beta coefficients of the positive mentoring model. We adjusted for qualification and training in mentoring in the model. In the positive mentoring model, the indirect effects were statistically significant: Relational Quality on willingness to participate in future formal mentoring programs via Negotiated Exchange Orientation (B = 0.081, 95% CI [0.008, 0.183]), and Individual Influence via Perceived Organizational Support (B = 0.131, 95% CI [0.011, 0.283]).

Examining the negative mentoring model for indirect effects revealed an indirect relationship between lack of mentor expertise and willingness to participate in future formal mentoring programs via Perceived Organization Support (B = −0.201, 95% CI [−0.399, −0.056]), indicating complete mediation (see Figure 2).

4. Discussion

The study presents findings from a context where the majority of participants were female, held certificate or diploma qualifications, and worked in public hospitals, providing important context to the research. Overall, the participants experienced high levels of positive mentoring experiences, which were characterized by a moderately high Relational Quality, scoring 5.53, and Individual Influences, rating 5.49 out of a possible 7, from their mentoring relationships. The overall mean score on the RMI scale was three times higher than the level found among nurses experiencing formal mentoring in the USA hospital (Murphree 2022). This could be attributed to the spontaneous nature of informal mentoring in which clinicians choose the mentor from which they can be benefit the most (Mohtady, Könings, and van Merriënboer 2016) considering majority (57.6%) of the participants were in both formal and informal mentoring relationships. Relational aspects of a mentoring relationship such as building rapport, taking time to interact with each other, trust and respect are equally commonly reported in literature (Jefford et al. 2021). In fact, in this study, the mean score of Relational Quality was a margin higher than the Individual Influences reported indicating a greater appreciation of mentoring as a relationship rather than a process. This is reported in literature as relational attributes in mentoring—such as mutuality, trust, commitment, and perceived similarities between dyad being more desirable aspect of mentoring than the actual mentoring activities—such as coaching and teaching (Jefford et al. 2021; Ssemata et al. 2017).

Participants in the study experienced relatively low levels of negative mentoring, with an average rating of 2.96 out of possible 5. This was mainly attributed to a perceived mismatch between mentors and mentees, which scored slightly higher at 3.68. In contrast, a lack of mentor expertise was less of a concern, with a lower average rating of 2.25. Notably, existing literature on mentoring rarely quantifies such negative experiences. However, our findings indicate that the mentor's role can be a source of these negative experiences. This aligns with findings from a prior study in nursing, which identified that mentors can be a source of negative experiences in hospital settings (Huang et al. 2023).

In this study, the scores on the social exchange orientation scales ranged from low to moderate, indicating participants' perceptions about self and towards the organization. Specifically, a low mean score of 3.27 (out of possible 7) was reported on the Negotiated Exchange Orientation scale. In comparison, studies within the fields of nursing and midwifery have reported varying levels of exchange relationship among participant with reported scores of 23 out of a possible 35 for a study conducted in Korea (Lee and Ji 2018) whilst a study conducted in Japan showed scores of 22 out of a possible 35 (Kawaguchi et al. 2021). The observed differences in scores can be attributed to the types of scales used across studies, the geographical and cultural context (i.e., Korea and Japan), and the specific focus of previous research, which for the other studies is centered on the role of leadership and management compared to mentoring relationship in the current study. In our study, there was a moderate mean score of 4.64 on the Perceived Organizational Support (POS) scale, which has a maximum score of 7. Previous levels of Perceived Organizational Support have ranged from 2.82 to 3.98 (both out of a possible 5), indicating varying levels of perceived organizational support (Karadas, Dogu, and Oz 2022; Peng et al. 2022). Although the scales used in those studies differ from the one adopted in our study, the variation can be attributed to context, given that an organization's support is dependent on its structures, policies, and culture (Wissemann et al. 2022).

Overall, nurses and midwives were moderately willing to participate in future formal mentoring programs (M = 6.8, SD = 2.86). This value is lower than the range of 5.37–5.63 out of possible 7 reported among nurses in Taiwan by Pham et al. (2019) and 3.42 out of possible 5 among midwives in Pakistan for another study done (Sayani et al. 2017). These differences highlight the need to explicitly evaluate nurses and midwives' willingness and readiness to participate in mentoring. The readiness to both mentor and be mentored lays the foundation for starting, sustaining, and terminating the mentoring relationship (Barker and Kelley 2020). In the context of clinicians' willingness to engage in future mentoring programs, the variables in positive mentoring model explained 13.7% of the variance in willingness to engage in future mentoring programs. Conversely, the variables in the negative model explained 11.2%. Additionally, our findings reveal that the Relational Quality and Individual Influence were not directly associated with participants' mentoring intentions (hypothesis 1 not supported). Furthermore, in the negative mentoring model, a mismatch between the dyad showed non‐significant total effects, while a lack of mentor expertise was inversely related to the willingness to engage in future formal mentoring programs (B = −0.639, p = 0.014). This suggests partial support for hypothesis 2 that negative experiences encountered in informal mentoring predict willingness to participate in future formal mentoring programs. Contrary to the broader literature, which posits that past and current mentoring experiences significantly influence an individual's decision to participate in future mentoring programs (McBride, Campbell, and Deming 2019). Notably, our study identified that nurses and midwives place a considerable emphasis on evaluating a mentor's expertise before entering into a mentoring relationship. This competency assessment typically encompasses a range of criteria, including relevant qualifications, professional experience, clinical expertise, mentoring skills, as well as leadership and management abilities (Hishinuma, Horiuchi, and Yanai 2016; Tuomikoski et al. 2020). Furthermore, knowledge of mentoring practices is also deemed an essential attribute for mentors (Alidina et al. 2022). It is, therefore, deduced that mentees are likely to commit to mentoring relationships when they perceive a potential for learning and growth, as facilitated by the mentor's expertise.

In this study, there were statistically significant indirect effects of Relational Quality on willingness to participate in future mentoring programs via Negotiated Exchange Orientation (Hypothesis 3a partially supported). This suggests that positive mentoring experiences can potentially reduce the need to negotiate the terms of the relationship when deciding to engage in mentoring relationships with other nurses and midwives. This arises from the need to assess the costs and benefits of engaging in a mentoring relationship prior to committing to formal mentoring programs. Mentoring experiences shape nurses/midwives' perceptions of benefits and costs about the concept of mentoring (Rutti, Helms, and Rose 2013). Previous research emphasizes the role of past mentoring experiences as being important in shaping individual exchange beliefs (Dahlberg and Byars‐Winston 2019). High quality relationships generate the perception that mentoring is more beneficial and thus worth the effort (Cropanzano et al. 2017). These individuals are more likely to engage in future mentoring.

In this study, Perceived Organization Support mediated the relationship between Individual Influence and willingness to participate in future mentoring programs. There was a positive indirect effect noted for Individual Influence and negative indirect effects for lack of mentor expertise. Past mentoring experiences influenced nurses and midwives' perception of organization support which in turn increase the likelihood of engaging in structured mentoring programs. These findings are consistent with previous literature that mentoring relationship played a big role in building positive workplace relationships and activities (Drury et al. 2022; Park et al. 2016). Perceived organization support provides a mechanism by which past mentoring experiences influence future decisions to mentor or receive mentoring.

The findings of this study suggest that social exchange is the potential underlying mechanism that can explain the influence of past mentoring experiences on the dedication of nurses and midwives to future mentoring engagements. The study further emphasizes that mentors reflect the organization's support for their novice nurses and midwives (Eisenberger and Stinglhamber 2011; Rowen and Rowen 2023). Hospitals can facilitate this by supporting nurses and midwives in cultivating positive mentoring experiences, with an emphasis on developing high‐quality interactions, which in turn will enhance their future commitment to mentoring roles. Additionally, intentional efforts to mitigate potential challenges, such as providing training for both mentors and mentees and ensuring careful pairing of mentors with mentees, have the potential to diminish the perceived costs associated with mentoring. This, in turn, can contribute to the enhancement of positive experiences derived from mentoring processes.

5. Relevance to Clinical Practice

This study highlights that, hospitals in low‐resource settings, such as those in Uganda, are engaging in ongoing informal mentoring approaches. These are characterized by high‐quality relationships and moderate experiences with negative aspects of mentoring. It underscores the positive impact of mentoring for both novice and senior nurses/midwives. Recognizing that mentoring experiences can shape future engagements, hospitals should consistently support mentoring to cultivate meaningful and impactful relationships. This involves establishing clear mentoring standards and guidelines, tackling challenges that hinder mentoring, and promoting a culture that supports the professional development of clinicians.

6. Limitations

The study had certain limitations. Firstly, it employed a convenience sample of nurses and midwives, which may have introduced selection bias. Secondly, data collection was conducted exclusively online, limiting survey access to a specific demographic of technologically proficient clinicians.

7. Conclusions

Willingness to participate in mentoring reflects the nurses and midwives' readiness to engage in future mentoring programs and activities. Our study revealed a moderate willingness among nurses and midwives to engage in future formal mentoring programs. Interestingly, we found that some of their past informal mentoring experiences did not directly predict their mentoring intentions. Our study suggests that social exchange theory can elucidate the relationship between mentoring experiences and mentoring intentions. Specifically, the relationship between individuals' experiences and their mentoring intentions are mediated by perceived organizational support. Meanwhile, the quality of the mentoring interaction influences mentoring intentions through a negotiated exchange orientation. Therefore, mentoring activities enhance the perceived support from hospital organizations, while the quality of mentoring relationships emphasizes the benefits or drawbacks of mentoring. This, in turn, shapes nurses' and midwives' intentions to either mentor or receive mentoring. Consequently, our findings suggest that mentoring experiences create a feedback loop, influencing clinicians' willingness to engage in future mentoring programs. Future research should consider replicating this study in diverse contexts to gain a more profound understanding of the mechanisms through which mentoring yields its outcomes.

Author Contributions

Tracy Alexis Kakyo: conceptualization, investigation, funding acquisition, methodology, validation, visualization, formal analysis, project administration, writing – original draft. Lily Dongxia Xiao: methodology, funding acquisition, supervision, writing – review and editing, formal analysis. Diane Chamberlain: writing – review and editing, supervision, formal analysis, validation, methodology, funding acquisition.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Funding: This work was supported by Flinders University. The first author is under the Flinders International Postgraduate Research Scholarship.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

References

  1. Alidina, S. , Sydlowski M. M., Ahearn O., et al. 2022. “Implementing Surgical Mentorship in a Resource‐Constrained Context: A Mixed Methods Assessment of the Experiences of Mentees, Mentors, and Leaders, and Lessons Learned.” BMC Medical Education 22, no. 1: 653. 10.1186/s12909-022-03691-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barker, E. , and Kelley P. W.. 2020. “Mentoring: A Vital Link in Nurse Practitioner Development.” Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners 32, no. 9: 621–625. 10.1097/jxx.0000000000000417. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Blau, P. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bradford, H. , Hines H. F., Labko Y., Peasley A., Valentin‐Welch M., and Breedlove G.. 2022. “Midwives Mentoring Midwives: A Review of the Evidence and Best Practice Recommendations.” Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health 67, no. 1: 21–30. 10.1111/jmwh.13285. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cropanzano, R. , Anthony E. L., Daniels S. R., and Hall A. V.. 2017. “Social Exchange Theory: A Critical Review With Theoretical Remedies.” Academy of Management Annals 11, no. 1: 479–516. 10.5465/annals.2015.0099. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Dahlberg, M. L. , and Byars‐Winston A.. 2019. “The Science of Mentoring Relationships: What Is Mentorship?” In The Science of Effective Mentorship in Stemm, edited by Byars‐Winston A. D. and Lund M.. Washington: National Academies Press. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Dall'Ora, C. , Ball J., Reinius M., and Griffiths P.. 2020. “Burnout in Nursing: A Theoretical Review.” Human Resources for Health 18, no. 1: 41. 10.1186/s12960-020-00469-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Davey, Z. , Jackson D., and Henshall C.. 2020. “The Value of Nurse Mentoring Relationships: Lessons Learnt From a Work‐Based Resilience Enhancement Programme for Nurses Working in the Forensic Setting.” International Journal of Mental Health Nursing 29, no. 5: 992–1001. 10.1111/inm.12739. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Drury, Z. , Kotobalavu C., Hofmann L., and Austria M.‐J.. 2022. “Examining the Effects of a Structured Mentorship Program on the Nurse Mentor: A Pilot Study Engaging Oncology Nurses.” Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing 26, no. 1: 27–30. 10.1188/22.CJON.27-30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Eby, L. T. , and Allen T. D.. 2002. “Further Investigation of Protégés' Negative Mentoring Experiences: Patterns and Outcomes.” Group & Organization Management 27, no. 4: 456–479. 10.1177/10596011022383. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Eby, L. T. , Durley J. R., Evans S. C., and Ragins B. R.. 2008. “Mentors' Perceptions of Negative Mentoring Experiences: Scale Development and Nomological Validation.” Journal of Applied Psychology 93, no. 2: 358–373. 10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.358. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Eisenberger, R. , and Stinglhamber F.. 2011. Perceived Organizational Support: Fostering Enthusiastic and Productive Employees. Washington: American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar]
  13. Eisenberger, R. , Huntington R., Hutchison S., and Sowa D.. 1986. “Perceived Organizational Support.” Journal of Applied Psychology 71, no. 3: 500–507. 10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Eller, L. S. , Lev E. L., and Feurer A.. 2014. “Key Components of an Effective Mentoring Relationship: A Qualitative Study.” Nurse Education Today 34, no. 5: 815–820. 10.1016/j.nedt.2013.07.020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Giacumo, L. A. , Chen J., and Seguinot‐Cruz A.. 2020. “Evidence on the Use of Mentoring Programs and Practices to Support Workplace Learning: A Systematic Multiple‐Studies Review.” Performance Improvement Quarterly 33, no. 3: 259–303. 10.1002/piq.21324. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Hayes, A. F. 2012. Process: A Versatile Computational Tool for Observed Variable Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Modeling. Kansas: University of Kansas. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hishinuma, Y. , Horiuchi S., and Yanai H.. 2016. “Factors Defining the Mentoring Competencies of Clinical Midwives: An Exploratory Quantitative Research Study in Japan.” Nurse Education Today 36: 330–336. 10.1016/j.nedt.2015.08.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Huang, C. Y. , and Weng R. H.. 2012. “Exploring the Antecedents and Consequences of Mentoring Relationship Effectiveness in the Healthcare Environment.” Journal of Management & Organization 18, no. 5: 685–701. 10.1017/S1833367200000614. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Huang, C.‐Y. , Wu T.‐C., Weng R.‐H., Hsia Hung C., Lin T.‐E., and Tsai Y.‐C.. 2023. “Developing and Testing the Negative Mentoring Experience Questionnaire (Nmeq) for Nurses.” SAGE Open 13, no. 2: 1–8. 10.1177/21582440231178713. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Jakubik, L. D. , Weese M. M., Eliades A. B., and Huth J. J.. 2017. “Mentoring in the Career Continuum of a Nurse: Clarifying Purpose and Timing.” Pediatric Nursing 43, no. 3: 149. [Google Scholar]
  21. James, J. M. , Rayner A., and Bruno J.. 2015. “Are You My Mentor? New Perspectives and Research on Informal Mentorship.” Journal of Academic Librarianship 41, no. 5: 532–539. 10.1016/j.acalib.2015.07.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Jefford, E. , Nolan S., Munn J., and Ebert L.. 2021. “What Matters, What Is Valued and What Is Important in Mentorship Through the Appreciative Inquiry Process of Co‐Created Knowledge.” Nurse Education Today 99: 104791. 10.1016/j.nedt.2021.104791. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Kakyo, T. A. , Xiao L. D., and Chamberlain D.. 2022. “Benefits and Challenges for Hospital Nurses Engaged in Formal Mentoring Programs: A Systematic Integrated Review.” International Nursing Review 69, no. 2: 229–238. 10.1111/inr.12730. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Kakyo, T. A. , Xiao L. D., and Chamberlain D.. 2024. “Evaluating Psychometric Properties of Three Mentoring Scales Among Nurses and Midwives in Hospital Settings: A Methodological Study.” International Nursing Review 71, no. 3: 635–645. 10.1111/inr.12889. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kane, L. , and Ashbaugh A. R.. 2017. “Simple and Parallel Mediation: A Tutorial Exploring Anxiety Sensitivity, Sensation Seeking, and Gender.” Quantitative Methods for Psychology 13, no. 3: 148–165. 10.20982/tqmp.13.3.p148. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Karadas, A. , Dogu Ö., and Oz S. D.. 2022. “The Effect of Perceived Organizational Support of Nurses on Their Resilience: A Cross‐Sectional Study From Turkey.” Canadian Journal of Nursing Research 55, no. 2: 241–249. 10.1177/08445621221118800. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Kawaguchi, S. , Takemura Y., Takehara K., et al. 2021. “Relationship Between Teams' Leader‐Member Exchange Characteristics and Psychological Outcomes for Nurses and Nurse Managers: A Cross‐Sectional Study in Japan.” SAGE Open Nursing 7: 23779608211025981. 10.1177/23779608211025981. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Kow, C. S. , Teo Y. H., Teo Y. N., et al. 2020. “A Systematic Scoping Review of Ethical Issues in Mentoring in Medical Schools.” BMC Medical Education 20, no. 1: 1–10. 10.1186/s12909-020-02169-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Lee, E. K. , and Ji E. J.. 2018. “The Moderating Role of Leader Member Exchange in the Relationships Between Emotional Labor and Burnout in Clinical Nurses.” Asian Nursing Research 12, no. 1: 56–61. 10.1016/j.anr.2018.02.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Lee, F. Q. H. , Chua W. J., Cheong C. W. S., et al. 2019. “A Systematic Scoping Review of Ethical Issues in Mentoring in Surgery.” Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development 6: 1–13. 10.1177/2382120519888915. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Lin, J. , Chew Y. R., Toh Y. P., and Krishna L. K. R.. 2018. “Mentoring in Nursing: An Integrative Review of Commentaries, Editorials, and Perspectives Papers.” Nurse Educator 43, no. 1: E1–E5. 10.1097/NNE.0000000000000389. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Małota, W. 2019. “Why Managers Want to Be Mentors? The Role of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation and the Anticipated Costs of Mentoring for the Propensity to Mentor by Managers in Formal Mentoring in Organizations.” Journal of Management and Business Administration 27, no. 2: 64–82. 10.7206/jmba.ce.2450-7814.253. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. McBride, A. B. , Campbell J., and Deming K.. 2019. “Does Having Been Mentored Affect Subsequent Mentoring?” Journal of Professional Nursing 35, no. 3: 156–161. 10.1016/j.profnurs.2018.11.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Mohtady, H. A. , Könings K. D., and van Merriënboer J. J.. 2016. “What Makes Informal Mentorship in the Medical Realm Effective?” Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning 24, no. 4: 306–317. 10.1080/13611267.2016.1252111. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Murphree, M. L. 2022. Psychological Safety and Relational Mentoring Among Nurse Mentees: A Prediction Study. Phoenix, Arizona: Grand Canyon University. [Google Scholar]
  36. Newman, D. A. 2014. “Missing Data: Five Practical Guidelines.” Organizational Research Methods 17, no. 4: 372–411. 10.1177/1094428114548590. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Park, J. H. , Newman A., Zhang L., Wu C., and Hooke A.. 2016. “Mentoring Functions and Turnover Intention: The Mediating Role of Perceived Organizational Support.” International Journal of Human Resource Management 27, no. 11: 1173–1191. 10.1080/09585192.2015.1062038. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Peng, C. , Chen Y., Zeng T., Wu M., Yuan M., and Zhang K.. 2022. “Relationship Between Perceived Organizational Support and Professional Values of Nurses: Mediating Effect of Emotional Labor.” BMC Nursing 21, no. 1: 142. 10.1186/s12912-022-00927-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Pham, T. T. L. , Teng C. I., Friesner D., et al. 2019. “The Impact of Mentor–Mentee Rapport on Nurses' Professional Turnover Intention: Perspectives of Social Capital Theory and Social Cognitive Career Theory.” Journal of Clinical Nursing 28, no. 13–14: 2669–2680. 10.1111/jocn.14858. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Ragins, B. R. , and Verbos A. K.. 2017. “Positive Relationships in Action: Relational Mentoring and Mentoring Schemas in the Workplace.” In Exploring Positive Relationships at Work, edited by Dutton J. E. and Ragins B. R.. New York: Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
  41. Rowen, E. , and Rowen L.. 2023. “Born to Be in a Mentorship Dyad.” In Mentoring in Nursing Through Narrative Stories Across the World, edited by Rollins Gantz N. and Hafsteinsdóttir T. B.. Cham: Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  42. Rutti, R. M. , Helms M. M., and Rose L. C.. 2013. “Changing the Lens: Viewing the Mentoring Relationship as Relational Structures in a Social Exchange Framework.” Leadership and Organization Development Journal 34, no. 5: 446–468. 10.1108/LODJ-11-0097. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Sayani, A. H. , Jan R., Lennox S., Mohammad Y. J., and Awan S.. 2017. “Evaluating the Results of Mentorship Training fo Community Midwives in Sindh, Pakistan.” British Journal of Midwifery 25, no. 8: 511–518. 10.12968/bjom.2017.25.8.511. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Ssemata, A. S. , Gladding S., John C. C., and Kiguli S.. 2017. “Developing Mentorship in a Resource‐Limited Context: A Qualitative Research Study of the Experiences and Perceptions of the Makerere University Student and Faculty Mentorship Programme.” BMC Medical Education 17, no. 1: 1–9. 10.1186/s12909-017-0962-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Tuomikoski, A.‐M. , Ruotsalainen H., Mikkonen K., et al. 2020. “How Mentoring Education Affects Nurse Mentors' Competence in Mentoring Students During Clinical Practice – A Quasi‐Experimental Study.” Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences 34, no. 1: 230–238. 10.1111/scs.12728. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Voss, J. G. , Alfes C. M., Clark A., Lilly K. D., and Moore S.. 2022. “Why Mentoring Matters for New Graduates Transitioning to Practice: Implications for Nurse Leaders.” Nurse Leader 20, no. 4: 399–403. 10.1016/j.mnl.2022.01.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Winer, E. S. , Cervone D., Bryant J., McKinney C., Liu R. T., and Nadorff M. R.. 2016. “Distinguishing Mediational Models and Analyses in Clinical Psychology: Atemporal Associations Do Not Imply Causation.” Journal of Clinical Psychology 72, no. 9: 947–955. 10.1002/jclp.22298. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Wissemann, K. , Bloxsome D., De Leo A., and Bayes S.. 2022. “What Are the Benefits and Challenges of Mentoring in Midwifery? An Integrative Review.” Women's Health 18: 1–12. 10.1177/174550572211101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Yoshikawa, K. , Wu C.‐H., and Lee H.‐J.. 2020. “Generalized Exchange Orientation: Conceptualization and Scale Development.” Journal of Applied Psychology 105, no. 3: 294–311. 10.1037/apl0000438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Zhang, Y. , Qian Y., Wu J., Wen F., and Zhang Y.. 2016. “The Effectiveness and Implementation of Mentoring Program for Newly Graduated Nurses: A Systematic Review.” Nurse Education Today 37: 136–144. 10.1016/j.nedt.2015.11.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Articles from Nursing & Health Sciences are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES