Modesty and Mentoring: Notes on article by Blickle et  al.

(May 5, 2009)

By Ryan M. Niemiec, Psy.D.
Education Director, VIA Institute on Character
Follow Ryan on Twitter

Study: Blickle, G., Schneider, P. B., Perrewe, P. L., Blass, F. R., & Ferris, G. R. (2008). The roles of self-disclosure, modesty, and self-monitoring in the mentoring relationship: A longitudinal multi-source investigation. Career Development International, 13(3), 224-240.

This study: This two-year longitudinal study investigated the effect of humility/modesty, self-disclosure, and self-monitoring on the mentor-protégé (employer-employee) relationship. The study involved the use of ratings and questionnaires completed by early career employees, the employees’ peers, and the employees’ mentors at the time of the study and two years later. Not dissimilar to the VIA Survey questions on modesty/humility, this study used four items (each on a scale from 0-8): “I act very modesty,” “I blow my horn,” “I make no big fuss about my performance,” and “I refrain from self-praise.”

Background: Past studies have noted mentoring relationships predict creative achievements and mental health, success in organizations and career success and is related to a host of job-related outcomes such as satisfaction, promotion, compensation, and career commitment. Research has shown that self-promotion (the opposite of humility/modesty) lowers career success, but may be important when an individual’s competence is in question. The authors note that modesty decreases positive self-evaluation statements such as “I was just lucky” (for accomplishments), “It’s nothing special” (for positive characteristics), and “everybody would have done so” (for positive qualities).

Results: The results revealed that modesty and self-disclosure by employees predicted an increase in mentoring received and mentoring given at two years follow-up. Self-monitoring was a moderator in that those employees high in self-monitoring had the strongest positive relationship between modesty at the study onset and the amount of mentoring given at two years follow-up. Those high in modesty and self-monitoring were more likely to have more mentors than those low in self-monitoring.

Going forward: The authors suggest the following:

• If an employee has positive characteristics and accomplishments, the person should present him- or herself modestly in an organization. “This will lead to positive affect (i.e., liking) by senior managers, and will increase their benevolence and generosity toward the early employees” (p. 237).
• Self-disclose fears and ambivalence to one’s mentors, but do it gradually. The protégé’s behavior significantly influences the quality of the relationship with the mentor. This is a collaborative relationship – constant social exchange – that can benefit both the mentor and protégé.

Though not explicitly mentioned, what seem to also be important for the employee/protégé are the character strengths of social intelligence and integrity. For the former, the employee needs to read the situation and determine when to express humility and when to self-promote while at the same time, being honest, being true to oneself, and trusting in the process (integrity).